204 
ARTILLERY AMMUNITION SUPPLY. 
fired no more than 122%, t"he Horse Artillery 134%, and the nine 
c.m. batteries 153% of the ammunition carried with them. 
The greatest amounts fired on any single day were:—• 
A Horse Artillery battery at Vionville fired 194 rounds per gun, or 
124% of its ammunition. 
A light Field battery at Vionville fired 173*6 rounds per gun, or 
111% of its ammunition. 
A nine c.m. Field battery at Vionville fired 154*2 rounds per gun, 
or 116% of its ammunition. 
More than the amount of ammunition carried was fired by 22% of 
the batteries at Vionville, by only 3% of the batteries at Gravelotte, 
and by no battery at Sedan. Moreover, in the two first mentioned 
battles the necessary ammunition could have been obtained from the 
neighbouring batteries without falling back on the columns. 
In considering these figures we must also bear in mind the following 
facts. That any unusually large expediture of ammunition invariably 
occurs in the more important engagements. In fact, generally speaking, 
the number of rounds fired per gun may be said to vary directly with the 
strength of .the forces engaged. That the larger the battle, the slower 
is its development, and now that smokeless powder has been universally 
adopted, this condition of things will be even more prevalent in future. 
On these grounds we may take it for granted that the ammunition 
columns will generally be close at hand when required, and further¬ 
more these columns would have more than met any demand made on 
them up to the present time. Again, the system of ranging was 
vastly inferior to that of the present day and therefore more rounds 
were necessary to produce decisive results. Lastly (and this is per¬ 
haps the most important of all), we must remember that, as Major 
Barlow tells us in his very able essay,* the only projectile successfully 
used was the common shell employed by the Germans. 
Now unless we have greatly over-estimated the power of our modern 
ammunition, less than half the foregoing numbers of shrapnel would 
have sufficed to bring about the same results. Should this moderate 
estimate be wide of the mark, then, as Major Barlow recommends, 
it is high time that we should seriously consider the desirability of 
reverting to some form of common or segment shell. In conclusion 
it is bard to refrain from quoting once again the Okehampton Com¬ 
mandants remark, “ nor need rapidity of fire mean expediture of 
ammunition, . . . ”. 
Could we but rely on the foregoing figures, any important increase 
of ammunition would appear superfluous. But alas ! so swiftly do the 
times move that campaigns dating not further than twenty years back 
may be regarded as ancient history. It therefore behoves us to en¬ 
deavour to solve the second portion of the problem, namely—to what 
extent and in what manner are we to increase our supply of ammu¬ 
nition ? Of the successful essayists, Lieut.-Colonel Elmslie alone 
suggests a method.f After a preamble over the war of 1870, he admits 
* “ Advantages and Disadvantages of Q.E guns for Artillery in the field,” by Captain H. W. 
Barlow, R.A. R.A.I. “Proceedings”, Yol. XXV., No. 7, 1898. 
f Idem., by Major E. B. Elmalie, R.A. Ibid. 
