The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-26 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,—The recent notices in the Imes have in-
duced the publication of an article in the French
Revue Europeenne on " Le Canon en 1860," which
is of sufficient importance to be transferred in sub-
stance to your columns. The value of the appre-
ciation of cannon having an exceptionally long
range must be left to competent military authori-
ties; but its views on the subject generally are well
worthy the attention of your readers. It says :
In the spring of 1859 the French army marched
to Italy, having with them the small rifled cannon,
the renown of which became in a few weeks so great
in Europe. The result of long and mysterious study
and experiment, the new arm, until then unknown
to our artillery, was welcomed by them as an instru-
ment of victory, and did not fail to justify all the
hopes that had been conceived of it ; bit all had not
yet been attained. Since the great battle of Solfe-
rino, where the French cannon played so conspicu-
ous a part, inventions have been pouring in on every
hand, which 'professedly leave in the background
our remarkable arm:

But do they, in fact, do so ? An arm of this kind
is not produced by chance. They who know that
our cannon was the result of investigations the most
searching and scientific, of experiments the most
persevering, followed up day by day for nearly ten
years, will hesitate before they give full credence to
the advantages asserted to have been so rapidly
obtained in other countries. Then, perchance, may
be disposed to think that more than one of the mili-
tary nations of the Continent who now loudly pro-
claim the superiority of their rifled cannon may one
day regret having too hastily transformed their
guns. It is during actual warfare that mistakes are
dangerous.
These so vaunted cannon, so easily invented,
which are made feom one end of Europe to the
other, are yet to be put to the proof. They are
mostly yet enveloped in mystery, and we cannot,
therefore, examine them in detail ; but we may be
allowed to observe in general terms that their
greater or less excellence in the practice-ground,
even admitting that it be established, is but of se-
condary importance as compared with efficiency,
handiness, and durability on actual service.
Free England, less reserved in her revelations,
affords us a little more information. The 7inzes
undertakes to declare that success is complete and
definitive on the other side of the Channel. The
word " definitive" is, perchance, a little hazardous
in artillery affairs.
We certainly have seen improvements in arms
deemed heretofore incapable of improvement:
It is not sufficient that an artillery arm be made
in accordance only with theoretic notions, however
apparently incontestable ; other conditions must be
fulfilled to avoid practical failure.
The communications of the Times, how discreet
soever—perhaps designedly so—have been wel-
comed by the public with much interest. Many
of its readers, unskilled in technical information,
have read with wonder the accounts of the enor-
mous distances at which the Armstrong and Whit-
worth cannon have struck an object of compara-
tively.small dimensions. Had they been less un-
acquainted with the experiments made in France
during several years, they would, no doubt, have
been less disposed to wonder.
We certainly must not treat lightly the results
obtained by our neighbours—results certainly re-
markable, and which do honour to their invention ;
but we must not, at the same time, forget to appre-
ciate their worth.
We admit as perfectly correct all the figures
given by the Times. We will go further, and ad-
mit them as definitive bases, although only ob-
tained from a limited number of experiments with
new guns; but, admitting all this, we see no rea-
son for apprehension. Let us endeavour to explain
why; it is a simple matter of comparison.
The new English cannon are not of bronze, as
are most of ours, but of wrought iron. This is per-
haps an advantage, since the chances of injury to
the interior due to the ball are thus sensibly dimi-
nished; but we must also remember that in the
French rifled cannon the ball does not touch the
gun, being protected by the zinc covering, a soft
metal, which alone comes in contact with the
rifling, and thus doing away with the principal
objection to the use of bronze.
Our neighbours have, it would appear, solved
the difficult problem of breech-loading, but it still
remains to be seen whether it may not in practice
be open to serious objections, not only as regards
the mechanism, but also as to other points.
The Armstrong and Whitworth cannon are but
recent inventions. The late experiments have cer-
tainly furnished remarkable results, but we have
yet to learn what may occur after some service in
the field. If certain rumours are to be credited,
some doubts may exist as to their efficacy. What is
said with regard to the results, cited by the Times,
of Whitworth's six-pounders having lost at each
shot about 120 feet in length of range ?
If this were to happen continually, what would
become of the gun ?
Judging from the discussion in the House of
Commons on the sth of March last, it would seem
that the Armstrong and Whitworth guns are not
very simple or handy on service. The Minister of
War, although he stated that the, Armstrong guns
were superior both as to precision and destructive
power, added that it would be necessary to send
with them to China special workmen of Sir Wm.
Armstrong.
The practical value of the English cannon ap-
pears to us, as yet, open to question, while ours
have been tested by service.
Let us now consider the probable part which the
new cannon may be called on to play, and in doing
this we will confine ourselYes to its consideragon in
siege service and in field service.
As regards the first, the largest limit is open to
conjecture. It appears without doubt that when
besiegers and besieged are supplied with artillery
having great precision and very long range, which
is a problem now solved, the old system of attack
and defence must be abandoned.
Although skill and science may do much, yet it
is probable that sieges will for the most part cease
to be undertaken in warfare, and that either forti-
fie.4 places will be bombarded at great distances, or
that the stake will be played out on the field of
leaving besieged places to be reduced by
ba
invest.,)tle-
•
As to field service, the importance of the new
artillery is more Moly to determine, and as for this
purpose it is necess.lry to enter into some technical
details, we will endeavour to do so as simply and
intelligibly as possible.
We must first establish two points :-
1. What special properties field artillery should
possess.
2. What conditions of firing should be satisfied.
The most essential of all qualities to attain is, we
may venture to affirm, a lightness and easiness of
transport, which will enable the artillery to follow,
so to speak, all the movements of the troops. This
property, so conspicuously attached to our rifled
cannon, largely contributed, as is well known, to
the success of the campaign in Italy in 1859.
The adoption of the 241 b. howitzer cannon of the
Emperor realized in France some years since a pro-
gress of the value of which our campaign in the
Crimea enabled us to form a correct judgment—
. that is, a unity of calibre. This is of much import-
ance, since the projectiles are all alike capable of
being used in all the guns.
Another point is the facility of transport of am-
munition. It is indispensable to have a provision
of powder and projectiles necessary for all eventu-
alities closely following the guns. The best solu-
tion of this problem is that which allows the
great est quantity to be taken with the least num-
ber 'of horses and ammunition waggons.
%,,,acility of transport and simplicity are, as it ap-