6 
of 17 yards and 21 yards, at 2000 23 and 26, at 8000 37 and 32, and at 4000 58 
and 40 yards long respectively. 
Several other writers concur with General Wille that a flat trajectory facilitates 
ranging, 
(5.) Follows a long theoretical argument with Captain Moch and other writers 
as to whether the ballistic co-efficient is a function of the calibre or of the 
velocity. 
Captain Moch compares the French 80 ™ gun with the English 12-pr., and 
points out that the former with nearly the same weight of shell per square inch, 
keeps up its velocity much better than the English gun. 
‘This, replies General Wille, is because density is a function of velocity, and the 
density which suftices for the French muzzle velocity of 1525 f.s. is unsuited to 
the English muzzle velocity of 1720 f.s. 
(6.) One writer objects on principle to field guns and goes in fora heavy field 
howitzer, which can also be fired at low elevations as a gun. 
General Wille fights out the old gun v. howitzer controversy, and ridicules the 
idea of vertical fire at a moving target. 
(7.) Captain Moch finds fault with the assertion that the proposed gun will 
stand the premature burst of a high explosive shell—which he considers absurd. 
General Wille admits this, and says he only meant he could make his gun tough 
enough not to burst explosively. 
(8.) Various French and Belgian critics condemn Krupp’s steel. 
General Wille is content to leave Krupp’s steel to answer for itself. 
(9.) Captain Moch prefers the interrupted screw (which he considers perfect) 
to the falling block. General Wille refers to an article in the “ Revue Militaire ” 
enlarging on the defects of the screw, and describing Schneider’s new “ obiurateur 
composite”? which is designed to correct them. 
(10.) While several critics approve of the proposed Maitland B.L. rifling, others 
consider that at high velocities this form of groove will shear the driving band 
sideways. 
Should this prove true, says General Wille, the objection is easily got over by 
the use of shallower grooves and harder metal in the driving band. 
(11.) Follows a mathematical argument about the curve of increase of twist. 
General Wille prefers a circular to a parabolic curve. 
(12.) The critics are far from unanimous about fixed ammunition. Some 
approve, others object on the score of weight and expense, others prefer a metallic 
cartridge separate from the shell, and others again think that it will not stand 
transport in the limbers. 
General Wille replies that this question can only be settled by experience. He 
foresees no more difficulty with field guns than with Q.F. guns in this respect. 
He looks to improved manufacture to reduce the weight of his cartridge to 
1b. Breaking up in the limbers is to be avoided by packing the ammunition 
horizontally so that it is supported by the body of the shell and the base of the 
cartridge leaving a clear space round the body of the cartridge. 
(13.) Captain K. points out that the application of the small-bore principle to 
artillery is limited by the rapidly decreasing cubic contents of the shrapnel—since 
the walls cannot be reduced in thickness without collapsing. 
General Wille concurs, but maintains that the limit has not been reached in his 
gtn—especially as his shrapnel are to be of stronger metal, rolled from a solid 
block in one piece (except the head) by the Mannesmann process. 
