Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 11.djvu/333

Rh G U N N E K Y 313 TABLE VI. Gun. Nation. Weight. Muzzle Velocity. Energy. E w Remarks. pr. cwt. f.s. f.t. 9 English. 6 1380 119 397 Service 16 12 J 1365 213 348 guns. 13 ,, 8 1560 220 550 | Under manufacture. 11 German. 73 4 1525 181 467 I Service 15 &quot; 9 1460 222 493 guns. field The English 9 and 16-pounders at the time of their introduction were the most powerful field guns known, but were after a time beaten by the new German guns, which will in their turn be beaten by the new English piece, the first supply of which was lately issued. Recently a trial was carried out of two field guns made by Sir W. Armstrong & Co. They were precisely similar in all respects, except that one was a breech-, the other a muzzle-loader. No dif ference in their excellence could be detected. Thus it may be considered as certain that the power of a gun is in no way affected by ths mere fact of its being a muzzle-loader or a breech-loader. Should, however, the adoption of one system favour an improved construction, or lend itself more readily than the other to the use of improved ammuni tion, this equality would disappear, and whichever system should gain a decided advantage in power, which cannot bs obtained by its rival, must certainly prevail. It is almost impossible to overrate the importance of high velocity, combined, of course, with efficiency of projectile. In the field it enables the gunner to place the enemy under fire at long ranges, and so to force him to change his formations, and show his hand. It intensifies both the moral and physical effect of shell upon troops. It permits the guns to occupy good positions without ihe necessity of constant moving to get within range. In entrenchment firing it is, if possible, of still greater importance. Low velocity pro jectiles fired from field guns are almost harmless against earthworks. They have not sufficient bursting charge to do damage to the work by mere explosion, nor impetus enough to cut clown the parapets; while the defenders hear the gun and crouch under cover as the shell comes. Thus it is not surprising that all our recent advances have been towards high velocities. Nothing has tended more to this end than the enlargement of the diameter of the powder chamber, which facilitates the profitable consumption of increased charges. This improvement is found to act dif ferently on the two systems of loading. A chambered muzzle-loader requires an expanding cartridge (in field guns) ; a ch imbered breech-loader requires a breech-closing apparatus of increased size and weight. Supposing a satisfactory expanding cartridge to be devised, the muzzle- loader gains in ratio of power to weight. If this be found impracticable, the breech-loader secures an important advantage in this respect. Experiments are still in pro gress, and it would be premature to pronounce definitely in favour of either at present, especially as some fresh discovery or new explosive may at any moment confer preponderance on either system, (b.) In the Franco- German War of 1 870, a large number of old pattern double- wedge breech-loaders became unserviceable by their own fire. This difficulty appears to have been quite overcome in the newer patterns of Krupp field guns by the adoption of the cylindro-prismatic wedge, with Broadwell ring and steel facing-plate. It would probably be incorrect to affirm that a breech-loader has quite as great immunity from injury by its own fire as a muzzle-loader, since no joint, however well contrived, can be as strong as the solid-ended steel tube forming the breech of the latter. But, putting mathe matical certainty of security out of the question, it may now be accepted that practically field guns can be made as safe and enduring on one system as on the other, (c.) As regards immunity from injury by the enemy s fire, the muzzle-loader has a decided advantage. It is difficult to estimate the real value of this advantage, depending as it does partly on the manner in which artillery is employed, and partly on the doctrine of chances. During the Russo- Turkish War of 1877-78 but few guns were placed hors de combat by the enemy s fire. In such cases as did occur, the injuries were nearly always such as would not have effected muzzle-loaders. The wedge handles were usually bent up by the action of percussion fuze shell jamming the wedges. The Russian field guns were generally of a feeble class ; the proportion of entrenchment fighting was un usually large ; and in the field the Turkish artillery habit ually fired at long r.inges. It may therefore be fairly concluded that the number of guns injured by the enemy s fire was not so great as to render the superior invulnerability of muzzle-loaders of much importance. These conditions will probably be reversed in any great war in which England may take part; and hence the advantage gained by muzzle- loaders in immunity from damage by hostile fire must be carefully borne in mind in comparing the two systems of loading. (&amp;lt;/.) In capability of supporting the accidents of service, there is not much to choose between the two rivals. The breech-loader is more liable to injury from being upset, and exposes more parts and finer fittings to the action of the weather. On the other hand, it is easier to clean, and the officer can better see that it is clean. The jamming of projectiles in the bore when ramming home, which some times occurs with muzzle-loaders, is impossible with breech loaders. This defect, it is hoped, has been overcome in the new English field gun. The preservation of breech loaders, especially in mountainous countries, necessitates a profuse expenditure of oil and grease, (e.) In comparing the rapidity and facility of manipulation of the two methods of loading, it is necessary to consider the circumstances under which the guns are employed. Suppose a horsed battery of guns to gallop to an open spot whence they com mand a body of hostile troops in motion. Coming into action, the gunners load and fire as rapidly as accuracy will permit, unhampered by parapets. It is evidently of great importance to throw as many projectiles as possible among&quot; the enemy. Here the muzzle-loader will have some advan tage. With full detachments in the open it takes rather less time to load, aim, and fire a muzzle-loading field gun than a breech-loading one. The reason of this is that with the former the man laying the piece can manipulate the .sight and usually take aim while the loading is being per formed, while, when the projectile and cartridge are thrust in from behind, he has to wait till the loading is done before he can get to the sight. There is no practical difference in the time occupied by the actual loading. In one case, the cartridge and shell are rammed down a long distance together ; in the other, first the shell is put in a short distance, and afterwards the cartridge, and the wedge has also to be withdrawn and replaced. Next, suppose a commanding position to have been selected for a batter} 7 , and a light entrenchment to have been thrown up, over which the guns fire. Here the muzzle-loader will lose the advantage gained when firing in the open, as it must be loaded before being run up to the parapet, and aimed after wards. Both natures of gun recoil, and it makes no differ ence in time whether the ammunition be thrust home when the gun is back at the recoil position, or after it is run up. Here the breech-loader and the muzzle-loader stand upon equal terms. Thirdly, suppose a rare case with field guns that firing with reduced charges is required, that shell are being lobbed from behind a parapet at high angles into a work. Here we shall have little recoil, probably not enough to permit loading at the muzzle without the gun XI. 40