538 
MOUNTINGS EOR COAST ARTILLERY. 
and apparently massive sides of tlie vessel would in great measure dis¬ 
appear and, except in the case of turrets and barbettes, a large number of 
men would appear to be nakedly exposed. Their real position is of 
course even less favourable than that disclosed by the Xrays; because 
an ideal bursting screen is placed in front of them. The tendency in later 
war ships, including cruisers, is to give shield protection to the numbers 
actually working at the gun; but such protection does not extend to a 
large number of men employed in serving ammunition and essential to 
a high speed of fire. The designer of a coast mounting dare not 
contemplate such a measure of exposure as occurs on ships of war. 
Otherwise an advantage important to the garrison gunner would be 
abandoned. While I strongly hold that well-directed fire is the best 
protection, I think that cover which does not interfere with the effective 
handling of the gun ought not to be abandoned. In this connection, it 
is desirable to remember that the size of the targets for naval prize 
firing is 
Turret and barbette guns .. 636 sq. feet. 
Q.F. guns . 335 „ „ 
The ranges being respectively 1400-1950 and 1400-1620 yards. On 
the other hand, the targets presented by the latest 9‘2-in. and 6-in. 
L.S. barbette mountings and guns are :— 
9‘2-in. 6-in. 
Broadside.115 ... 38 ... sq. feet. 
End on . 49 ... 18 ... ,, „ 
The above figures tell their tale; but I doubt whether the extremely 
small size of the target offered by a well mounted gun is sufficiently 
realized. O’Hara's tower at Gibraltar, which was hit at the third 
round by a 5-inch shell fired from H.M.S. Wasp at anchor in smooth 
water, was relatively monstrous. 
Setting aside turrets, which I consider neither necessary nor 
desirable on land, two general forms—barbette and H.P., to which 
General Richardson alludes—present themselves. In designing the 
first, it becomes an object to provide reasonable protection for the 
numbers at the guns, and complete protection, against direct fire, for 
all other men employed in the service of ammunition. The last con¬ 
dition entails a parapet not less than six feet high. It follows that the 
mounting must be raised above the level at which ammunition is 
handled and thus something of the nature of a drum, “ partially 
filling " up the emplacement, is arrived at. It further results that 
men have to climb up to their work at the gun from the lower level. 
I am not here defending the very inconvenient mountings which are 
sometimes met with; but only seeking to point out the rational process 
by which a particular arrangement was reached. “ All loading, 
traversing and elevating arrangements are simplified by low mount¬ 
ings," as General Richardson states; but, in practice, a variety of 
qualifying conditions arise, and it is generally quite impossible to take 
the emplacement floor as representing a ship's deck and to install a 
naval mounting upon it. 
