ARTILLERY AND MUSKETRY FIRE. 195 
the matter of range: the great increase in effect for equal weights of 
ammunition is very noticeable. 
There are no data available of artillery fire at similar ranges for 
comparison, but it is probable that the effect of musketry fire increases 
more rapidly than that of artillery with a decrease of range, not only 
in effect for equal weights of ammunition, but also in effect produced 
in a given time by firing parties of either arm occupying an equal 
frontage. The column in the table of statistics, “per centage of target 
destroyed per 6 guns or 100 rifles firing for on2 minute,” tends to show 
that at a range of 2100 yds. artillery fire is about 11 times as intense 
as that of infantry. At 1375 yds. musketry fire is more than 3 times 
as effective, while at 660 yds. it is more than 20 times as effective as 
at 2100 yds. 
It is reassuring to the gunner to find from the same column that 
artillery fire at 2097 yds. mean range appears to be as effective as that 
of musketry at 660 yds., so that the critical range, when musketry 
is equal to artillery fire, ought to liesomewhere between 660 yds. and 
the muzzles of the guns if ib exists at all. 
Up to the present gans have been able to defend their own fronts, 
at least against an attack by infantry, and there is certainly nothing 
to make one suppose that they will be unable to doit in future. The per 
centage column in series 11 and 12, which were fired by infantry 
advancing in attack formation, shows how movement reduces their 
fire effect. Guns should have nothing to fear from a mere frontal 
attack of infantry. 
But the improvement in small-arms affects them more seriously when 
guns are supposed to advance to close range to support an attack, or 
for other reasons, or if they were caught on the move in a close 
formation. 
Series 5, 6, 7 and 8 were fired to try and throw some light on this 
subject. 
The targets consisted of 4 guns with detachments and horses com- 
plete. ‘The men represented by dummies and the horses by screens. 
Three screens represented 6 horses; each screen being considered 
equivalent to a pair of horses. One hit on one screen was counted 1 
horse disabled, two or more hits being counted as 2 horses disabled. 
These screens were pivoted on the centre and arranged so that they 
could be exposed vertically or horizontally by means of hauling ropes 
worked from a splinter-proof. 
When exposed vertically the screen was in full view of the firing 
party, when horizontally or edgeways it was practically invisible from 
the range fired at—at any rate it offered no target. 
The screens were placed between the guns so that the horses were 
represented as in the most exposed position which they could find 
themselves in when unlimbering on coming into action or when 
limbering up to retire. 
The arrangements were made to allow of practice taking place 
under the most favourable possible conditions of peace practice. ‘he 
ranges were carefully found previously. The firing parties were 
placed in position and the guns and dummies were pointed out 
