810 
AMMUNITION OF ARTILLERY IN THE EIELD. 
A. Case is “ for close quarters,” and as guns may have “ to defend 
their immediate front,” an increase from the present four rounds to 
eight is recommended. 
B. Common shell is for “rough and heavy work,” and, as a 
“ rough and ready ammunition is always more reliable in battle,” an 
increase from 32 to 108 rounds is suggested. 
C. Shrapnel appears only “to be useful against an enemy in the 
open, or comparatively in the open, when time fuzes can be adapted to 
the range;” “it is useless against heavy cover;” “time fuzes are 
dangerous when firing over the heads * * * or across 
the front of our own people;” “the adaptation of time fuzes is 
unfavourable when fire is passing through or over a battery;” they 
cannot be judged from * * * anywhere near the guns,” 
and “ officers cannot be out in the position of range parties;” shrapnel 
is, in fine, a “ delicate ammunition.” 
The only conclusion drawn in its favour is that its “fire when 
effective is more powerful than the effective fire of common shell.” 
From these premisses it is argued that the proportion should be 
reduced from 112 to 32 rounds, and it is suggested that the only 
question which would then be left for solution would be whether it 
might not be judicious to reduce it still further. 
It may be as well to consider a little more closely the nature and 
performances of the various projectiles, in order to see to what extent 
it is possible to agree with these statements and deductions. 
(a) Case is a despised projectile because an opportunity or 
necessity for its use but seldom occurs; if its great value, however, in 
grave emergencies were remembered it would hardly be so. Little or 
nothing has been done of late years to increase its efficiency, and in 
consequence many a brilliant chance may be lost, and many a reverse 
experienced, from the fact of its present very limited effective range. 
If steps were taken to increase this limit, such a proportion as that 
suggested in the Notes might be advisable; in default of this being 
done, the expediency of doubling the number must remain an open 
question. 
(b) With respect to Common Shell, it may be as well to describe what 
its actual nature is, and from this to deduce what may be expected of it. 
The shells, from the fact that their structure is very variable in strength 
and tenacity, and that the action of their bursting charge varies greatly 
in intensity, break up into a few irregularly-shaped pieces, differing in 
number, form, and power in almost every instance. The path of the 
splinters, after the bursting of the shell, is compounded of the velocity 
of the shell at the instant of opening; of the radial force of the bursting 
charge; and of the centrifugal force due to the rotation of the shell* 
The two latter being very large compared to the first, and the force 
of the bursting charge being very uncertain, a wide and very irregular 
dispersion is the consequence; in addition to this, both the form and 
the motion of the splinters being most unsuitable for the retention of 
velocity, they soon lose their power* 
