LAND AND WATER 
July 17, 1915. 
by the payirent of damages. The issues between 
IJorlin and Washington arise out of the funda- 
mental principles which safeguard human life. 
These cannot be compromised on any terms at all. 
No screanung by the American exporters can 
now or in the future confuse the controversies. 
SOME QUESTIONS IN 
GUNNERY. 
NAVAL 
An eminent admiral suggests the discussion 
in these pages of two subjects which seem to be 
but indifferently understood. As he is hardljr less 
distinguished as a writer than for his professional 
record, it will be a matter of regret, no less to _me 
than to my readers, that he insists upon my doing 
what he could do so much better himself. His 
first is a gunnery question pure and simple. He 
is struck with the frequency with which the de- 
feated side in a gunnery engagement has been 
described as having been " outranged " by the 
victor. He reminds us that this expression was 
used in the case of Admiral Cradock's engagement 
with von Spee off Coronel, of both of Sir David 
Beatty's actions, and of Admiral Sturdee's action 
off the Falkland Islands. He suggests that the 
word has come to be used as a euphemism for the 
victory of gunnery that is better, or at least 
more effective, over the gunnery that is worse. 
iWith certain reservations, I agree entirely. 
At long range the heavier projectile has a 
flatter trajectory, and consequently will hit with 
errors in range upon the sights thJat would make 
ft lighter gun miss. Secondly, heavier guns shoot 
with greater uniformity, so that when a broadside 
of their projectiles falls into the water it is easier 
to correct the range for the succeeding rounds. 
The target is thus brought more quickly under 
fire, and can more easily be kept in range. At 
long range, then, heavier guns, if the metnods of 
fij-e control are equal, will always give better re- 
sults — ^that is, more hits — than lighter guns. But 
ES all guns from 8-inch upwards can actually 
reach to the practical limits of visibility at sea, 
it is misleading to describe this advantage as 
* outranging." 
Of the engagements that have hitherto been 
fought onlv the slenderest details have been pub- 
lished, and in the absence of exact details it is 
quit« impossible to institute a close comparison 
between the shooting of the two sides. The Ger- 
mans have only had two conclusive successes with 
gunfire. The destruction of the Pegasus was not 
effected in anengagement,but was a surprise attack, 
jmd theKoemgsberg,tha.t had this solitary warlike 
Soceeding to its credit, has just succumbed to 
•M.S. Mersey. In the engagement between von 
Spee and Admiral Cradock the English squadron 
had all the worst both of the light and in flie high 
sea that was running. The mam deck 6-inch guns 
both of Good Ilo'i^e and Monmouth were certainly 
out of action, being carried too low for efficient 
firing m reaUy heavy weather. The action, there- 
fore, resolved itself into a contest between the two 
9.2-inch— and possibly four 6-inch— guns of the 
Qood Hope and the four turret 6-i2ich and possibly 
Sl° a'^^^^.-^^P^ ^™^ o' t^ Monmouti 
il he difficulties in controlling two single guns 
nearly one hundred yards apart are ahnost, if 
Jot quite, insuperable; and to control 9.2's with 
tour 6-inch would be more difficult stilL If as I 
am inclined to suppose, not even the upper'caso- 
ment 6-inch guns of the Good Ilo-pe were of much 
use, and that only the turret guns of the Moiv- 
mouth were brought into action, then the dispro- 
portion in force was even more marked than the 
disadvantage of conditions. 
Von Spec's ships had the British vessels 
sharply outlined against the still luminous 
western skj', and employed a homogeneous broad- 
side of six 8-inch guns' mounted high above the 
water. Their task was at once much easier for 
the control parties and for the gun-layers, even if 
we suppose that the Schamhorst and the Gneise- 
nau were fired independently. It seems much more 
likely, however, that both these ships were fitted 
with a director. All accounts agree that Good 
Hope was hit, one 9.2 turret disabled, and the ship 
set on fire by the third salvo landing entire on the 
ship. In a rough sea this performance would be 
almost miraculous at 10,000 yards if the guns 
were fired independently. If they had directors, 
the German superiority was overwhelming. Had 
the actual weight of armament been equal, the 
result might quite possibly have been the same, 
when the conditions for its use were so greatly in 
the enemy's favour. But even if the Monmouth 
could bring six 6-inch guns into action, and the 
Good Hope only two 9.2's and four 6-uich, we 
were employing a broadside of only 1,600 pounds 
against von Spec's 3,000. But the Good Hope and 
Monmouth were not outranged, for, as von Spee 
admits, his two ships were hit at least six times. 
The affair of the Heligoland Bight was 
fought in misty weather, and 6,000 yards was the 
limit of sight. In Fearless and A rethusa's succes-^ 
sion of cruiser actions, the armament — except for 
A rethusa's couple of 6-inch guns — was of the 
same calibre. Every enemy ship in the first action 
was so badly wounded as to be compelled to retire, 
and in the last Mainz was so badly wounded as 
not to be able to retire at alL When, therefore. 
Commander Goodenough's squadron came into 
action with their broadsides of 6-uich guns the 
Mainz was sunk immediately. The battle cruisers 
crushed the little Koln and Ariadne, but there 
was no question of range involved. 
We do not know how many 12-inch gun hits 
were made on the Schamhorst and Gneisenau at' 
the Falkland Islands fight. But from quite early, 
on in the engagement the Germans made a fair 
number of hits on our battle cruisers. Here again 
there was no question of their being " out- 
ranged," and it is indeed quite possible that by^ 
the time each was brought to the condition when 
they could fight no longer the Germans may have 
scored as many hits as we had. But, naturallyj 
enough, twenty 8-inch shells hitting Invinciblei 
and iTifleccible would not do a fiftieth part of the 
damage that the twenty 12-inch shells hitting the 
Schamhorst and Gneisenau would do. 
The engagements between the Nuremberg and 
Glasgo^v, and the Leipzig and Kent were fought' 
in each case vnth a superiority in armament, 
Glasgow having two 6-inch and five 4-inch against 
the Nurembera's five 4-inch guns — a winning 
advantage with such small ships, and Kent being 
vastly more powerful than the Leipzig. But' 
in neither case would there be an appreciable 
difference in the range power of the guns. In the! 
fights between the Carmania and the Cap Trat 
falgar and the Sydney and the Emden, the heavier 
battery won in each case. But there, again, there' 
is no evidence that the winner kept, or tried ta. 
keep, out of range of the loser. 
ir 
