MOUNTINGS FOR COAST ARTILLERY. 
539 
As regards high, sites, I entirely agree with General Bichardson 
and have for many years advocated their adoption 1 2 wherever the 
ground permits, even if some small sacrifice of range is entailed. 
The disappearing principle offers certain attractions. In ordinary 
circumstances, it affords almost absolute protection to men and 
materiel against such fire as ships are able to deliver. Provided that 
the ship remains within range, a gun so mounted ought to be able to 
go on steadily hitting without let or hindrance. The technical draw¬ 
backs of the existing H.P. mounting are well known. As General 
Bichardson points out, it “is apt to get out of order, is expensive and 
needs much care and training.^ On this account and also because it 
has, in some cases, been adopted for unsuitable sites and mounted with¬ 
out any regard to its special characteristics, 3 it has naturally fallen 
into disfavour. The all-round pit with the unnecessary cramping of 
space involved is distinctly objectionable. The present sighting ar¬ 
rangements—all important to effective and rapid fire—can only be 
described as rudimentary. I hope to show, however, that these and 
other defects are capable of remedy, and that a relatively high speed 
of fire is attainable by an improved application of the disappearing 
principle. 
Having seen the working of coast mountings at many stations, and 
having had the advantage of hearing the criticisms of officers of the 
Garrison Artillery, I derived the general impressions that:— 
(a.) Mountings were too cumbrous, this arising partly from the 
fact that— 
(b.) Becoils were unnecessarily long. 
(c.) The arrangements for loading and handling projectiles were 
inconvenient. 
(i d .) Sighting and its relations to training and elevating were 
unsatisfactory. 
Here were definite lines on which to attempt improvement as oppor¬ 
tunity offered, and I will attempt to describe briefly some of the results 
attained. This is desirable, because the present demand for coast 
mountings is not large and many years must elapse before the Begi- 
ment, as a whole, becomes familiar with new types. It may seem, 
therefore, that as General Bichardson implies, little progresses being 
made in the direction of meeting his requirements. The following 
mountings, which I have designed during the past three years, have 
been made or are under manufacture :— 
I.— 6-in. barbette , Mark II. (Plate I.). 
In order to avoid filling up the emplacement, the gun is placed on a 
cast-iron pedestal which carries the steel racer path and a live-roller ring 
6 ft. 6 in. in diameter. The recoiling carriage consists only of buffers 
1 See “ The protection of heavy guns for coast defence <( Proceeedinga ” R.A. Institution 
1886. Most of this paper was written in 1883. 
2 See (( Fortification,” 1890. 
