114 
LIMBER SYSTEM FOR FIELD ARTILLERY. 
Further, there would appear to be some very important advantages 
connected with a limber system over and above those that have been 
Comparison already enumerated. A gun and limber of the 9 -pr. service equipment 
of guns of field artillery have 6 horses, and an ammunition wagon would also 
anTrounds re( l u i r o 6 horses in the field, making 12 in all. There would be with 
&ed on this gun and wagon a total of 148 rounds of ammunition. After 
andpresent modifying the limber system as proposed, we should require 6 horses 
systems, f or £p e g Un an q anc i 4 m0 re horses in the field for the first 
line of limbers closely accompanying the gun, or 10 horses for the 
2 carriages. These would convey a total of 100 rounds per gun. Now, 
400 guns on such a limber system would thus take up 4000 horses, 
whereas only 333 guns on the wagon system could be turned out with 
the same number of horses. If we then imagine 400 guns on the above 
plan to be pitted against 333 guns on the wagon system for 50 minutes 
in action, and each set of guns to fire at the rate of 2 rounds per 
minute with equal accuracy, the result would be that the force pos¬ 
sessing the 400 guns would have fired 40,000 rounds, while that with 
only 333 guns will have fired only 33,300 rounds, showing a difference 
of 6700 more shells discharged by the 400 guns on a limber system in 
the 50 minutes; or even were this cannonade to occupy a whole hour, 
the comparison would remain the same. It is true that the 333 guns 
would at the end of that time still have 48 rounds per gun remaining, 
if their ammunition wagons were intact, whereas the 400 guns would 
have fired their last round, should no call have been made on the 
reserves; but may it not be assumed that the very great preponderance 
of fire (namely, 6 shots to every 5) kept up by the 400 guns should 
have so materially damaged the more exposed wagon system, both in 
men and horses, as well as in equipment, as to have virtually settled 
the affair in favour of the guns on the limber system ? And further, 
may not 100 rounds per gun be considered sufficient for a body of field 
artillery to have at its immediate disposal during an engagement, 
when this complement could be constantly kept up and replenished 
from the reserve ammunition columns of a force in the field ? If we 
pursue the above comparison, but take on the one hand the number of 
horses necessary on a limber system for a gun and limber with another 
limber following, and for the 3 mounted men proposed for each 
piece, and on the other hand the number of horses required by a gun 
and limber and an ammunition wagon, together with a mounted 
detachment of 8 men of horse artillery; we could have 400 guns on 
the limber plan, with 5200 horses, but these could only horse 260 guns 
of horse artillery. A duel of 1 hour between 400 guns and 260 guns 
would enable the side with the 400 to fire 14,000 more shells than the 
other, or 4 shots to every 3, and the result would be obvious. 
Proposed It will be evident, also, to those acquainted with the subject that the 
equallyap- principles of a limber system could be applied tp any calibre of field 
heavier to 8 ‘ un > ^ ^e heavier the ammunition becomes., the more advan- 
fieid guns, tageous would it appear to be to replace the lumbering and cumbrous 
Trials wagons by a system of light and interchangeable limbers; and in 
nothing. ° st fF ese days of large outlays of public money on experiments in heavy 
ordnance, it may be that it would not be amiss thoroughly tp test the 
