THE BATTLE OF THE VELOCITIES. 
427 
Summary. 
Of the five material advantages claimed for high velocity, only one 
has been established, viz., comparatively deep zone of bullet effect, 
permitting a considerable error in elevation and in fuze. The impor¬ 
tance of this is only fully apparent under service conditions. We 
cannot expect to fire at a row of white dummies at right angles to the 
line of fire. A service target will consist of a number of men irregu¬ 
larly disposed over a space of ground, and sure to be more or less on 
the move. We cannot rely upon a man standing to have his range 
taken like a dummy with a prop behind. Batteries will range them¬ 
selves, as they do now on field days, on the most conspicuous object 
apparently close to the enemy. This may be really hundreds of yards 
behind him, and the historic instance quoted by Captain White of the 
Tower of Chlum, shows how difficult it is to avoid this mistake. It is 
under these circumstances that we come to appreciate the value of a 
far-reaching shrapnel, which will still be effective if burst 350 yards 
short of the proper point. If we can succeed in finding the range and 
fuze within 25 yards, and if the enemy will stand still to be shot at, a 
low velocity shell will kill him as effectually as a high velocity one; 
but this is rather more than we have a right to expect on service. 
Of the seven points urged in favour of the lower velocity, one only 
has been fully established. A difference in weight of at least 5 cwt. 
has been shown to exist. The other points are objections rather to 
the equipment and ammunition than to the principle of high velocity, 
and if we accept the supposition of a good recoil carriage, a base 
burster, and a base fuze, these objections fall to the ground. 
Conclusion. 
I have no wish to put forward this conclusion as an authoritative 
one, or as the necessary deduction from the facts. The considerations 
discussed above will appeal with different force to different minds, and 
I can only speak for myself. 
I think, then, that for Field Artillery the advantage in shooting 
given by high velocity is too valuable to be thrown away, and I would 
spare no pains to improve the present indifferent ammunition up to 
the full power of the gun, 2000 f.s., or even more. 
For Horse Artillery, on the other hand, the weight of the high 
velocity equipment seems a fatal obstacle. Even with the old carriage 1 
the present B.H.A. weights are 41 cwt. for the gun and 55 cwt. for 
the wagon, and the new recoil carriage weighs even more. Moreover, 
Horse Artillery will probably have more to do with short ranges than 
Field Artillery, and up to 1500 yards the superiority of the H.V. gun 
is not very marked. I think, then, that for Horse Artillery the velocity 
should be reduced to 1500 f.s., bringing the weight behind the team 
down to 35 cwt., or with mounted limber gunners to 33 cwt. 
I have advocated the improvement of our ammunition for the sake 
of a high velocity gun. But it should be remembered that even a 
1 Field service marching order, two men on the gun and six on the wagon. These weights 
were obtained from a railway weighbridge, not out of a book. 
