234 
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EIRE. 
Angle of 
sight 
Objections 
to fire from 
behind cover 
the following reasons great accuracy of direction is not considered 
necessary. The modern targets for artillery are (1) Artillery in action, 
(2) Infantry in long thin lines. In the former case, long distance, or 
artificial concealment, will very frequently preclude fire upon single 
guns. In the latter a slight lateral deviation is of small importance, 
elevation being the chief desideratum. Cavalry will be dealt with 
under the head of moving targets later on. 
(2.) As a rule this would be small and the actual range would be 
given by the range-finders. Thus suppose the range by clinometer 
elevation was found to be 4° 30' and the range-finders gave 2,500 yards, 
(3° 5'), as the range. The trial fuze would be bored at 12J (Mark II 
carriage). The angle of sight in this case being + 40' or 4° 30'—3° 50'. 
Supposing no range-finders available, the angle of sight must be 
judged, or taken by a pocket level. Practice, however, would soon 
remove this difficulty. 
It is now proposed to deal with the main objections which have been 
made to an extensive use of fire from behind cover. They are as fol¬ 
lows :— 
(1.) It is very rare to find ground where you can carry on 
practice with more than a single battery. 
(2.) That you cannot change your target without making 
elaborate preparations. 
(3.) That you cannot concentrate your fire. 
(4.) That you cannot fire on moving targets at all. 
(5.) The ground of moral effect, viz., that an extensive use of 
cover will make our artillery slow in advancing to the 
support of the infantry attack. 
Objection i That it is rare to find ground where you can carry on practice from 
—ground bghind CO ver with more than a single battery in the parts of England, 
in which military operations are allowed to take place, is admitted. 
But the great battle-fields of 1870, which may be taken as an average 
sample of continental country, show ground where large numbers of 
guns could be fought from behind cover and were our own manoeuvres 
not confined to certain localities, such ground is common enough at 
home. It may also be taken for granted that the sites of battles are 
but rarely to be found on level plains where cover for one or both sides 
is not plentiful. Considering then the enormous extent of modern 
battle-fields, with their great variety of choice of artillery positions, this 
objection can hardly be upheld; although it may sometimes become a 
question whether it will not be advantageous to decrease the interval 
between guns, in order to obtain concealment for a greater number. 
Objection 2 This is, no doubt, a serious disadvantage on the practice ground, 
' _c tSg g et s ° f where changes of target are of necessity frequent and no enemy has to 
be considered; but on the battle-field where your action is to a great 
extent dependent on the adversary with whom you are engaged it 
would, even if the case, be much less felt. Are elaborate arrangements 
however necessary ? 
Let us first consider broadly when changes of target would probably 
be found necessary. 
