546 
MOUNTINGS FOR COAST ARTILLERY. 
hot’ climates, is omitted. A ratchet-lever arrangement, actuating the 
holding down gear, enables the gun to be worked down at drill. 
The 6-in. Q.F. gun on board ship can fire five to six aimed rounds 
per minute. So far as loading is concerned, the conditions are pre¬ 
cisely the same in this mounting. There is, however, the loss of time 
(about eight seconds) due to the raising of the gun, and the traversing, 
though extremely easy, will not be quite so rapid as in a naval mounting. 
Tw.o rounds per minute does not appear to be too sanguine an estimate 
of the possible speed of fire, provided that the garrison gunner is not 
handicapped by an all-round pit, which can rarely if ever be necessary, 
or by complicated tactical arrangements from which the sailor is happily 
free. The only difficulty to be anticipated arises from the low energy 
of recoil due to cordite, which complicates the problem of an H.P. 
design. With the B.L. gun firing powder, it would be easy to ensure 
full recoil. 
* * * * # 
It will, I think, be clear from the above that the question of 
mounting guns for coast defence is not standing still, and that effort, 
in the exact direction demanded by General Richardson, is in full pro¬ 
gress. Perfection is not easily attained, and the R.C.D. can but strive, 
according to its lights, to meet the complex requirements of coast 
artillery. To bring into full harmony the many conditions essential to 
rapid fire, is no easy task, since they involve many individuals who 
have different ideas and who are not, and perhaps cannot be, in close 
touch. Compromise is necessary and the compromise arrived at is not 
always the best possible. 
One of the most important points is tactical simplicity, which in late 
years seems to have been too much neglected. The promiscuous 
application of the admirable system of position-finding, in circum¬ 
stances to which it is not the least suited, has tended to lower the speed 
of fire and to introduce complications and possibilities of confusion 
which, in action, would have serious results. I have elsewhere 1 sought 
to define the legitimate sphere of the P.F. system and to plead for its 
restriction within due limits. To a single fort no less than 23 instru¬ 
ments have been allotted and if it were attempted to fight the guns 
by their means, mistakes and inordinate delays would certainly occur. 
We cannot fairly compare the rate of fire on board ship and in a 
coast battery, unless the conditions are the same, and if the seaman 
gunner were as heavily handicapped as his rival on shore, the figures 
which General Richardson gives would require much modification. 
In artillery fire, as in all other human affairs, centralisation is fatal 
to effective procedure, and the best results will be attained where 
the individual gun or the group works independently, subject only 
to general directions. For all practical purposes, good gun-layers 
are infinitely more valuable than expert P.F. manipulators. 
Frobi the point of view of decentralisation, it is clear that the pro- 
1 “Adjuncts of defence” (e Proceedings,” R.A, Institution. 
