The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1905. ARMING THE ARMY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 31, 6 February 1905, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1905. ARMING THE ARMY.

For the cause thet lock* suMlmm, for the wrong that needs remittance, For the future in the dittamx, At* the gooi that we oa» 4a.

We have heard of late a great deal about the efforts made by the new Defence Committee to arm and equip the British military forces in something like an efficient way. The lessons taught by the War Commission's report, it was said, were to be seriously taken to heart; and while the whole army was to be reorganised and strengthened, immense improvements were to be effected in the rifle and the field gun used by our soldiers. The result of these generous promises have so far not proved to be eminently satisfactory. The artillery equipment of the British Army is still a matter of future development; and our cables to-day disclose the fact that the new service rifle has stirred up nearly as much adverse criticism as the ill-fated Brodrick cap or the abortive Brodrick army corps. The new "short rifle" to which our cables refer is one of the few tangible military results of the Boer War. Lord .Roberts came back from South. Africa much impressed with the importance of "snap-shooting" at close ranges, for which purpose a comparatively small, light weapon is distinctly the best. The new rifle is over a pound lighter and more than five inches shorter than its predecessor. It is eased with wood up to a point only an inch from the muzzle, and may thus be handled with comfort, however hot the barrel may become. It is said to shoot straighter than the Lee-Metford at every range but 200 yds; and a further advantage is that cavalry and infantry will now use the same weapon. It is issued with three sizes of butt, so that every soldier will be

fitted, and it takes ten cartridges at a time. On the other hand, the detractors of the new rifle make out a very strong case against it. They object to the shortening, because it reduces the reach of the bayonet. The increased recoil — about ljlb—is a serious weakness; and the intense radiation of heat from the inch of iuicased muzzle is said to interfere frequently with the sighting. Moreover, the shortening of- the barrel has brought the backsight and foresight so close together that the possible angle of error is increased, and long rangeshooting is liable to be inaccurate. But the most general complaint is that "Magazine Lee-Enfield short rifle Mark I," to give its oflicial title, has been

adopted hurriedly and without sufficient experimental tests; and though a large number of these rifles have been manufactured, and are now ready for issue, it is very likely that the outcry against them will compel 'the Defence Committee to delay operations, if not to revise their scheme of army equipment altogether.

Our infantry therefore remains, for the time, armed with the old LeeMetford, which is iv many respects confessedly inferior to the French, German and American service weapons. In the other important particular of artillery equipment, the British army is at present even more hopelessly behind its rivals. Incredible as it sounds, the only first-class modern field artillery that the British army possesses consists of 18 batteries, bought in Germany during the Boer war. The rest of the artillery, both horse and field, consists of the 12 and 15 pounders with which the army was equipped at the outbreak of the Boer war, five yeare ago. Even then these guns were obsolete, as they belonged to the age of the RussoTurkish war, since which epoch every other European army has been provided with modern quick-firers. France, says one competent authority, has provided herself with a gun that has no superior in the world save one, and the German field gun is believed to be hardly inferior to that of France. '"'Compared with either, the British field gun is a mere pop-gun. It would be quite incapable of competing with Russian artillery." But the most extraordinary feature of the situation is that the one gun in the world which is undeniably superior to both French and German artillery is a British invention, and it might have been introduced into the Brtish army three years ago if it had not been for the procrastination that seems to be a permanent characteristic , of our methods of national defence.

When the Boer war had driven home in the public mind the fact that our artillery was far below any reasonable standard of efficiency a committee with General Marshall as chairman was appointed to consider the whole question. It took this committee two and a half years to make up its mind; and it then reported in favour of the new 184 pounder for the field artillery and a new 12 pounder for the horse artillery. These are said to be splendid weapons, firing 20 rounds to the minute with a range of 7000 yards; and the specimen guns as improved by the Vickers-Maxim Company are probably at least equal to any field artillery in the world. But, as usual, political considerations interfered, and the Defence Committee was baulked by the Treasury, -which refused to supply the necessary funds. Then came the "clean sweep" at the War Office, and when the new Army Council came into being the -whole question was referred to it again. Eventually the report of General Marshall's committee-.

was endorsed by the Army Council, but the Treasury still refused to stir. It was only when the Dogger Bank outrage brought England to the verge of war that the decisive step was taken, and now we are informed that the artillery is to be completely re-armed at a cost of some two and a half millions —by the end of next year. In the interval — even assuming that our rivals are polite enough to leave us unmolested till the beginning of 1907 —we are from the point of view of artillery simply unfit to take the field against them. With the exception of the 18 batteries of German guns already noted, "the British Army," says the "Times," "has no guns that would seriously count in modern war." Our field artillery would be hopelessly outclassed alike in range, accuracy, and rapidity of fire; which means simply that our batteries would be knocked to pieces before they could inflict any serious damage on the enemy. By 1907 it j seems we may hope for some improvement in our position; but the recent history of our field guns and service rifles provides scope for some highly disquieting reflections upon the efficiency and fighting power of the British Army.