ARTILLERY FROM AN INFANTRY OFFICER'S POINT OF VIEW. 203 
when a small body of troops is concerned, attach artillery to the advanced guard ? 
By a small body I mean a force of a division or thereabouts. There is nothing 
laid down in our official manuals upon that point; but I have noted that some books 
on tactics in this country say {hat it is right to attach two guns to the advanced 
guard ofa division. ‘Che idea of breaking up a battery will hardly commend it- 
self to any of us; and I understand the French do not allot any artillery at all to 
an advanced guard if it be smaller than an infantry division. It would be interesting 
to hear what the German practice is. 
Finally, perhaps, I may be allowed to mention a question connected with infantry 
and artillery tactics which rather interests me. The other night I was lecturing 
myself to an Infantry Tactical Society and I was asked during the discussion 
which followed by an infantry volunteer colonel, ‘‘ How do you recommend 
infantry to attack artillery 2’? Now I do not think it would be of the slightest interest 
to anybody here to know what answer I gave; but I dare say many “would like to 
hear what Captain Pilcher has to say upon that subject and so I will pass the 
question on to him, if he will let me. I may, however, say this that I cannot 
think the cut and dried procedure we sometimes see at manoeuvres is a judicious 
one. . An infantry attack is broken up into five lines altogether, and it can hardly 
ever be right for them to advance straight on the guns as we sometimes see them 
do. There is a first line, a second line and a third line in the orthodox formation, 
and the first line is further to be sub-divided into three parts, firing-line, supports 
and reserves. I think when those five lines come rolling on that, if we do not hit 
the first we may expect to hit the second, and if we do not hit the second we 
ought at any rate to hit the third, if we did not, the fourth at least should 
receive the benefit of our shells, but, if it did not, and the fifth escaped also, then 
indeed we should have cause to blame our ammunition. 
Capratn J. Heaptam.—Sir Redvers Buller and gentlemen, there is so much 
that is interesting in Captain Pilcher’s lecture and I agree so fully with the greater 
part of what he ‘has said, especially as to the necessity for the most cordial co- 
operation between the artillery and the other arms that.I feel as if it would be 
rather ungracious to criticise. At the same time there are some points in the 
lecture in “regard to the training and equipment of German Field Artillery which, 
if they were left without remark in such a meeting as this, might naturally give 
the impression that iz those respects the Germans were ahead of us. I believe 
the contrary to be the case. The first point is the equipment itself, the general 
question of the weights and the amount of ammunition carried, Captain Pilcher 
said that the weight of the German shell was about 18 lbs., the weight I have 
always heard of is 154 lbs., which ever is right, it is of course, a heavier shell than 
that of our 15-pr. The number of rounds per gun carried in a German battery 
is147,in our 15-pr. equipment it is 144. But to carry their extra three rounds a gun 
they have nine waggons instead of six. You must remember that these nine wagegons 
are not with the battery, or even with the brigade division, four only are with their 
batteries, the remainder are behind the whole artillery unit; that is to say, behind 
all the divisional, or all the corps artillery you have this oreat mass of waggons, in 
the case of corps artillery amounting to 40 waggons. That is not quite the same 
thing as being ‘actual ly with the batteries. It cer tainly seems to me that we are - 
better off with 14d rounds and six w aggons, than the Germans with 147 rounds and’ 
nine waggons. In the Horse Artillery “they have indeed got a considerably heavier 
shell, fi they have also got 6 or 7 cwt. more than we hare behind their teams 
and only 32 rounds with gun and limber while we have 50. I am sure that all horse 
artillerymen will agree with me that for Horse Ar tillery requirements our equipment 
is far superior. 
The other point I wished to touch upon was the training as regards fire from 
