FIELD ARTILLERY POSITIONS. 
393 
seriously advanced as a proof of the unimportance of firing at moving 
targets that this fire is rarely or never employed by single batteries 
at “ manoeuvres/ 5 How can it be so employed when the rules for the 
conduct of field manoeuvres distinctly ordered that “ except when infantry 
ranging, no other nature of fire (than sound signals) will be employed Drill > p- 253 - 
with blank cartridge. 55 This is scarcely an argument against the 
necessity for beiug able to fire at moving targets on service, any more 
than the fact that “ it is never practised by units larger than batteries 
at all. 55 Surely everyone knows that this latter is simply a question 
of there not beiug enough targets or horses to pull them. This year 
brigade divisions at Okehampton will practice at moving targets. 
If there was one subject above all on which I thought opinion was 
unanimous, it was that in war we should have to shoot at moving tar¬ 
gets and that the great defect of our practice camps was the want of a 
sufficient number of such targets. I have had exceptional oppor¬ 
tunities of watching and discussing artillery practice with officers of 
the other arms, and their cry has certainly always been—“ We should 
not stand still to be shot at. 55 
Take cavalry drill, field artillery drill, or infantry drill—all inculcate 
the same lesson. In attack or in defence it is the enemy 5 s cavalry or 
infantry that are the paramount target. And yet Major Keir sums 
up that firing at moving targets, “ beyond a useful exercise at practice 
camps, is of little real value ! 55 If it is of little real value } it certainly 
is not a useful exercise at practice camps, where training for service 
should be the sole end kept in view. 
Into the question of Major Keir’s proposed method of firing at a 
moving target from under cover it is not necessary to enter, because 
he proclaims its utter uselessness when he says “ we are treating an 
advance over a level plain. A page or two further back he has stated 
very truly—“It may also be taken for granted that the sites of battles 
are but rarely to be found on level plains, 55 and yet, in order to make 
a possible system for firing from behind cover at a moving target, he 
is obliged to fall back on the level plain. Of course the truth is that, 
when using clinometer elevation, the angle of sight must be taken into 
consideration. When this has once been allowed for, as at a standing 
target, it does not interfere with the fire. With a moving target the 
angle of sight is constantly altering, and altering irregularly; it can¬ 
not therefore be allowed for; and practice at a moving target on 
ordinary ground becomes impossible with indirect laying. Even on 
the level plain it is obvious that unless the advance is absolutely 
straight towards the battery the direction will be constantly altering— 
and the aiming posts will be useless. 
V.—Moral Effect, 
Major Keir 5 s criticism of my remarks on this head show that I did 
not express myself clearly. My actual words were—“ If you train Field 
Artillery to consider firing from behind cover as 'practically the rule you 
will destroy the whole spirit of the arm. 55 By that I did not mean that 
batteries would actually refuse to advance from behind cover, or that 
