COAST DEFENCE. 
191 
learn tlie same lesson by preparations in peace. At Batoum the old 
Turkish low-site forts have been strengthened and re-armed by the 
Russians. But the strength of the place consists in two new forts, 
300 feet above sea-level, overlooking the harbour and skilfully concealed. 
To obtain this height about 700 yards of range was necessarily sacrificed, 
but the manifest advantages* more than counterbalance the minor 
drawback. 
A slight sacrifice of range on a high site is inseparable from the 
conditions. In the case of quick-firing guns intended for use at night 
or in thick weather, every yard is of advantage to bring the gun as 
near as possible to its target for the purpose of being able to see it. I 
would, in selecting a site for a gun to be used under these conditions, 
choose a position as near to the channel to be defended as possible, 
consistent with sufficient height to enable the use of an automatic sight 
possible at all probable ranges. You have to balance two considerations: 
It is of no use mounting a gun where you cannot see your target, nor 
is it of use mounting it in such a position that you can see but cannot 
hit your target with certainty. Let me warn you against the erroneous 
but common idea that the trajectory of our B.L. guns may be taken as 
flat for 2000 yards, and that quick-firing guns should be mounted but 
little above sea-level for this reason; and that fire should be directed 
from them from 3 to 7 feet above the water-level for the purpose 
of repelling torpedo boats. Take the 12-pounder quick-firing gun for 
instance. At 2000 yards the maximum height of its trajectory may be 
taken roughly as 64 feet. The gun must be some feet above high-water 
mark to start with, so that at mean tide, at somewhere about 1000 yards, 
projectiles would be at least 70 feet above the water. Therefore the 
prospect of sweeping the area commanded by guns so mounted at the 
elevation for 2000 yards is not promising. 
I know that low sites for quick-firing guns have been recommended 
by officers of great weight and authority; the importance of the 
question must be my excuse for respectfully opposing my opinion 
against theirs. Perhaps the term “ flat trajectory ” is partly responsible 
for the ideas that exist with regard to low sites. The term is misleading, 
and must be regarded as comparative. The French consider the point 
so important that their range tables contain a column giving maximum 
heights of trajectory for each range—a most useful aid, from a gunnery 
point of view, in arriving at an estimate of a gun’s capabilities. 
It is not, therefore, surprising to find in the Report of the School of 
Gunnery for 1895 that when the courses under instruction practised 
from a high site, accuracy in firing improved. The value of a high 
site, to be truly appreciated, must be experienced, and it is to me 
a matter of regret that the N.A.A. should invariably carry out their 
practice from the lowest site in England. For this reason, and for 
others that do not come within the scope of my lecture, I, for one, 
should like to see the N.A.A. changing rounds and practising at 
a different fortress each year, and from those guns that in time of war 
the volunteers would have to man. 
The opportunity of visiting the dockyards, and there seeing what 
