DEDUCTIONS FROM SOME FIELD ARTILLERY PRACTICE. 5 13 
axe a thousand circumstances, that the formula takes no account of, 
that may tend to modify the degree of verification desirable. It seems 
that more verification is required when the score is counted by “ hits ” 
than by “ men hit ” when the shooting takes place under average 
conditions, but the whole subject of verification is very obscure and 
the statistics at my disposal are insufficient to clear it up. 
suggested rule The P ract i ce analysed tends to show that “ hits ” 
tor score. are a better measure of a battery’s all round ac¬ 
curacy than “ men hit,” unless the targets and con¬ 
ditions are such that the best battery can only hit about half the men. 
It seems that a good rule would be— 
hits x men hit x front of target 
rounds x minutes x area of target. 
" Men hit ” must be taken into account, for counting hits alone would 
hot encourage good distribution. “ Rounds ” being in the denomina¬ 
tor would prevent waste of ammunition. There need be no fear that 
counting them in would produce too deliberate a rate of fire, provided 
the time allowed was on the average short. Such a formula as the 
above might possibly work fairly well for appliances such as are used 
at Okehampton for moving targets, magazine fire and case. 
Almost any method of counting hits is to be preferred to the esti¬ 
mating of so-called “ effective ” shell. 
In the formula “ hits ” are included in the numerator. If it is 
desired to limit the number of hits to be counted on any single dummy, 
I would suggest the limit being fixed by the total number of rounds 
fired and not by any arbitrary number. The analyses do not however 
show that there need be any such limit. It is unnecessary to add it is 
impossible to conceive any formula that will eliminate luck. The front 
and area of the target have been included m the formula in order to 
make some allowance for the nature of the target. 
Some of the practice analysed will now be given. 
Each of the curves has been drawn independently 
and no attempt has been made to reconcile one with 
another or any of them with theory. Apparent dis¬ 
crepancies may be accounted for by faulty analysis. 
I hope however they are due to the number of rounds analysed being 
too few to bring about exact concordance and to its being extremely 
difficult to realise the combined effect of shooting errors by any theore¬ 
tical methods. The curves have been modified from time to time as 
fresh data have come to hand and fresh experience has been gained. 
If, as is most probable, they are all still very far from representing the 
truth, yet they probably approach it more nearly than any deductions 
that can be made from the practice records of any single battery. 
Figs. (1) to (XL) inclusive have been deduced from 42 series each of 
24 rounds fired at various stations. Target, 3 groups each of 15 stand¬ 
ing dummies spaced at 2 yards, the groups being spaced at 25 yards. 
Total front therefore 140 yards. Range about 2000 yards and known 
35 . 
The method of 
analysis explained 
with examples 
