FIELD ARTILLERY POSITIONS. 
395 
the true initiative, of the battery commander that I admire, by which 
not only were the enemy's battalions severely shaken but the confidence 
of our infantry was raised to the highest 'pitch of enthusiasm. 
This is a very different view to that put forward by Capt. Pilcher, 
that “ it benefits the infantry but little to have moving targets composed 
of their comrades of the artillery galloping about behind them." 
The advocates of this German method do however provide a sub¬ 
stitute for this close support. Captain Pilcher describes it as follows:— 
“ What the artillery does do previous to and during an assault is to 
redouble its fire, giving 200 or 300 yards more elevation and length 
of fuze in order to catch the hostile reserves moving up, and preclude 
the possibility of hitting its own assaulting troops." 
Such an expenditure of ammunition may be magnificent at man¬ 
oeuvres, but it is not war. The only people it is likely to do any 
harm to are the assaulting infantry, if, unaided, they succeed in their 
attack, and are foolish enough to attempt to push on in pursuit. I 
only trust that the English Field Artillery will never consider their 
role is to sit behind a hill a mile and a half in rear while the assault 
is taking place, blazing into space, on the chance of hitting the enemy, 
and in the hope of missing their own infantry. 
The criticism of the anonymous German officer cannot be seriously 
answered, because it is evident that he either did not take the trouble 
to read my remarks before criticising them, or that he read them in a 
very bad translation. The following is sufficient to show this :— 
German Criticism. 
“ With regard to the remarks 
on p. 274 . . . to say that 
to make use of ground in anyway 
destroys the spirit of the arm is 
nonsense." 
My Remarks on p. 274. 
“If you train Field Artillery 
to consider firing from behind 
cover as practically the rule I be¬ 
lieve you will destroy the whole 
spirit of the arm." 
He states that Jena and Austerlitz were the result of the refusal of 
German officers to practice the “ use of ground " which, I presume, 
we may take to mean in this connection firing from behind cover. 
Speaking of the mistakes made by the French artillery in 1870, 
Colonel Turner says: “‘Fas est ab hoste doceri ,' and it was from such 
incidents as these that the Germans learnt how not to come into action 
against superior or anything like equally well armed and trained 
artillery." 
But, if the lesson of Jena was that, “ under cover" was the place for 
Field Artillery, it seems to have been sadly lost on the victors there— 
anything more opposed to creeping that the action of the French 
artillery at Friedland and Wagram could scarcely be imagined. 
Finally, before leaving the subject of firing from behind cover, I 
should like to ask Major Keir where he finds that there is any idea of 
arbitrarily “deciding that direct fire and no other is to be used." I have 
searched the text books and can find no trace of it. On the contrary, 
I find in Field Artillery Drill general instructions as to the methodof using 
indirect fire, and, in the Handbook of the gun with which Major Heir's 
Field Artil¬ 
lery Drill, 
p. 93, 94, 95. 
Handbook of 
thel2P r B.L. 
Gun, Mark I, 
1895, 
