564 
SILVER MEDAL PRIZE ESSAY, 1879 . 
B. —That, owing to the increasing use of entrenchments, 
1. The advantage of a breech-loading gun is unquestionable. 
2. That every battery should have a supply of entrenching tools, 
sufficient for throwing up cover for the whole battery in 
the shortest practicable time. 
3. That a considerable portion of field artillery must be of 
larger calibre than heretofore, for the purpose of des¬ 
troying material defences. 
C. —That the increased range and precision of the infantry weapon, 
and the introduction of long-range fire, render it necessary, 
if possible, to supply guns with self-contained protective 
power. 
B. —That, owing to the opinion gaining ground that infantry will 
now more that ever require the close support of artillery, it 
would be advisable to introduce a light R.B.L. howitzer for 
field service, throwing heavy shells, to act as ^supporting guns 
to infantry in the attack of a position. 
A . —This question has been briefly treated of above. The main 
feature is that longer and severer preparation by artillery fire is required 
before the infantry will be able to ad.vance to the attack of an entrenched 
position with any hope of success. The enormous losses sustained by 
the Russians in their unsuccessful attacks at Plevna, on the 20th and 
30th July, show the folly of attempting such attacks without systematic 
and prolonged preparation by artillery. 
B. —In 1867 England possessed a large number of Armstrong 
B.L. field guns, but because the Armstrong gun was considered too 
complicated and delicate for field service, B.L. guns generally were 
condemned, and all our attention has since been devoted to R.M.L. 
guns. In the meantime all the powers of Europe* have armed their 
artillery with B.L. guns. Are we to suppose, then, that we are right in 
our persistency, and that every one else is wrong ? Many countries 
have had the experience of large campaigns to guide them— as Austria 
and Prussia (1866); France and Germany (1870-1); Russia and 
Turkey (1877). 
What advantage have we gained by retaining M.L. guns, and by our 
improvements in them ? 
It is an undeniable fact that our guns are not more accurate in their 
shooting than those of several other powers; they have also lower 
initial velocities than the corresponding guns of foreign powers, as the 
following table will showf :— 
* Except Sweden and Norway. America lias also M.L. field guns, 
f “ Handbook for Field Service,” 1878. 
