The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1900-04-23
ARTILLERY IN ACTION.


vaal War.
The public appear to have rushed into
a sweeping condemnation of the fifteen
FOUNDER breech-loading gun with which
our field artillery Is now equipped. 1t
is not within my province to defend
this gun, for / do INTO believe 1t to be
the best weapon Of its kind upon the
market, though 1t must be borne in
mind that at the present moment 1t Is
undergoing sundry Improvements In it's
breech action and its timber and wagon
equipment But from the few papers OF
lateadate which have found their way to
| us here in Ladysmth 1t appears that,
| in the general condemnation of the
| weapon, the main and most serious
| point touching the efficiency of modern
| field artillery has escaped notice. = In
the present struggle 1t Is not so much
a QUESTION between the ranging of the
rival field pieces which constitutes the
gravity of the question, of efficiency, but
1t Is rather the small margin which the
recent hostilities have proved to exist
between the effective range of time
shrapnel and infantry small-arm fire.
Our field guns, as the majority of gum
ners Will maintain, are excellent weap-
ons at such ranges up to which shrap-
mel Is effective. The gun itself Is sight
ed UP to $500 yards, but the time-shrap-
mel with which it is served is only fused
UP to 4,100Q yards. AT 400 yards most
gunners allow that the effect of their
-shrapnel, if accurate, is not Sc
we're, as the remaining velocity Of the
r,rc Ia tr f,- artA IT,,
pair the efficiency OF the burst. The |
range which the gunners consider ideal |
for shrapnel fire is 1000 to $500 yards. |
Beyond this they become less sure of |
good and accurate practice as the range |
increases. But at the shorter ranges |
the effect is simply deadly; that is |
when a suitable target Is found in the |
oper.
But we have now realized that the
Boer marksman, with q modern rife in
his hands, is also effective at similar |
range; and, further, 1t is a moot ques-
ton whether shrapnel is In reality as
searching and deadly as we suppose
when employed against infantry in
trenches or taking advantage of the
cover afforded by the surface of broken
and. Besides, as the range increases it
becomes more difficult to ascertain the
effect of the fire, and even in greater
1egree OF discover where the enemy are
firing from Protected as the infantry
nan is by the use of smokeless pow
Ter, the difficulties and the dangers of
he battery commander have been null
.iplied. We, that Is, the force shut up
n Ladysmith have had but little OPP
oortunity Of studying the effect of the
'nemy's field guns at short ranges. We
lave rarely had shrapnel fired into US
rom within 5000 yards. But early in
he campaign we fully realized what
practice their infantry were capable Of
vt 1000 yards. So much so that, given
90 Beers in the possession ola bouldered
Hilltop opposing a battery of our field
'uns coming into action, as / have al
Ways seen them, in the open, am in
lined to believe that at 1000 yards the
dvantage would remain with the in
antry AT shorter ranges under the |
anne conditions, the riflemen would put
he battery out of action. The loss of .
he guns at Colenso was practical y
emonStration of the power of infantry ,
t short range, How truly effective
hrapnel fire can be when 1t has fair
arget was proved on the attack on
aesar's camp on January 6. The Fiji
y-third battery, r. F. A.. succeeded in
angling the enemy at 1900 yards, and
nfiladed the men as they crept up the
Inside. The carnage in this instance /
as hideous But as far as has come {
nder my personal observation, we have
ad no marked instance in the fighting +
'und Ladysmith in which artillery UNI +
has been allowed to come
to action against the enemy intrench-
at range less than $500 yards. But n
zen at greater ranges than This bat
ries in action have been severely hans t
ed by infantry fire. thereby clearly \
owing how vulnerable an arm field ar
llery has become in country where
lie field of fire and the power of vision
e SO great as In the kopje veldt of
)uth Africa
AS to the question whether the field
'tillery in the possession of the enc
y is superior to that of our own, the
NY conclusive evidence that we have I
Ladysmith lies in the fact that we =
I'VE for four long months been the tar J
It for long-ranged fire, We have the
70 Maxim Nordenfelt field guns which Y
ere captured at Elandslaagte.t But
ey certainly tend to disprove the al G
ged superiority rather than otherwise.