DEFENCE NOTES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 888, 6 August 1910, Page 6

DEFENCE NOTES.

[By Echelon*.] THE BULL'S-EYE CONTROVERSY. "EOBIN HOdD" AGAIN OPENS FIKE. In last week's issue, "Jfaniilichor-Car-eano," writing in support of colkctivo musketry training and servicc target shooting, critically reviewed the article defending bull's-eye shooting, which was contributed the previous week by "Robin Hood," who opened the current controversy. Having satisfied himself that he had effectively swept the ground with his "collective fire." Mnnnlicher-Car- ' cano" retired to cover. Enter "Robin Hood," Sniping at tho loug range:— "Red Book" Ammunition'. "Your correspondent ' Mamilieher-Car-cauo' appears to be trying to overwhelm mo with words and quotations from that good old standby of the professional Kioliher—the 'Hed Book.' But he is firing i •blank,' and there's more row. than damage. In the first place, he objects to my not •touching .011 'colkctivo efficiency,' .and I his is his .theme right throughout • tile piece. Now, I am not so much concerned about collective efficiency as t'hs training .of the individual. Eight through the Beer war the critics were almost unanimous in saying that the weakness of the British Army lay in the fact that the individuality was trained out of the soldier. 1/it mo quote from R. B. Mjrstoh, the well-known military .writer, and author of 'War Famine and Our Food Supply,' and many otlier books and articles of a like nature: 'If the Houth' African war has dono nothing else it has for ever exploded the . idea that' a man cannot be a soldier, and the best of soldier, too, unless he is part of a machine-drilled army. 'Someone after the first Boer success said that if they were given twelve months' drill under' British officers and army regulations, they . would he the finest soldiers in the world.' Ask the. celebrated Amcri-. can Sergt.-llajor Burnham whether- tho Boers would !>e made or marred by such treatment; he was with Baden-Powell .in the Jlatalxde campaign and through most of the late war.. When asked what he thought df Tommy Atkins, he replied that what he wanted was three, times [ lass drill and three times more shooting | than he got now. Barrock-room Ideals. • This was the opinion whilo the wai lasted, but as soon as t.lic. influence of the barracks and parade-ground made itself felt, back they went to the old cry. of . ''collective efficiencyTho cultivation of individual efficiency makes for a certain amount of independence on the part of the soldier, and, of course, the official does not like this. 'No doubt much of the native intelligence of tho regular soldier has been stamped out of him by too_ much of what is sup-, posed to be discipline, and too little freedom to use his wits,' was the remark of .another well-known writer with regard to this.- The same critic mates bold to say-that''a good shot physically fit could"soon leam to"be a good' soldier.' As an'illustration of this, let me give the experience of the rifle club men at the Easter Camp at-Palmerston in 1909. About Seventy, .men ■ attended,. a largo proportion' of. whom had never ■ been drilled before. They arrived on .Thursday night, started drill on Friday morning, . with rbcrnit exercises, and on Saturday afternoon concluded with an attack with ball cartridge on. a field position, making, such'good practice on the sugar bags used as targets that the sergeantmajor in charge fclt : called upon tfl say that it was some of the finest shooting ho had. ever ,seen. . He. also complimented tho men on their use of cover, and stated that, their lire control and discipline.was good. Now, I do not claim that, they wore by any means perfect, but I do say that the result, after ono and a half day's' drill, goes a long way towards proving- imy contention that' a good shot could soon learn to be it good soldier. .• ■ ■ , ; ;i : .... ■ ■■■■, What of the Contlngenter. "How much drill and 'collectivo train, ing! did tho New Zealand contingents have before they :went to . South Africa? Did they not take cover and show dla-. eiplino under lire with tho best of them? flow much better would they have been had each man been a crack shot, trained under my system of' thorough bull's-eye training at, all ranges, especially tiio long range, with. practice in snap-shoot-illg at short ranges as a stand-by in case of hot work at close quarters? I cannot believe, as 'Jfaiinlicher-Carcano' says, that |a picked bull's-eye shot is not' the, superior of the .'average shot .in battle. Surely, : where the object is to' kill, the better shot is tho. better -man. Again, •he says: 'Those armies have been victorious whose musketry training has been carried out on sound lines, and whose aim has been to attain . a high standard of efficiency in. field . practices rather than individual skill at bull's-eye shooting.' What, proof ..has ho that this is so, considering' that training' on tho 'sonnd lines' he talks about, and field practice with'.'bali; is'a thing of comparatively recent growth. He contradicts _ himself . later by eulogising . the training of tho Boers, arid decrying that of the British Army. Yet-the Boers did not win. But, after all, were the Boers the shots people expected them to be? They were not. The old Boer , was a magnificent • shot at' short distances, but tho modern Boer is a poor shot. This is the evidence .of - those who have .come in contact with him.. 'Mannlicher' talks of _ the bull's-eye-trained British soldier. Will 'Mannlicher,' who'l suspect is an Imperial-Army man,-tell nie just how much 'bull's-eye'- ■ training the • • British infantry man was allowed to do? Is it not a fact that outside the annual course, somewhat similar to the class-firing, of our volunteers,. tho Army! man did no shooting to speak of? In fact, keeiinc6S at the butts was .rather discouraged. Of course, there were exceptions, but ■ does he call that 'bull's-eye' training. If there had been more money spent on improving tho rifle, and llamaging the liull's-cye, and less oil ceremonial parades, tho Boer War-would not havo lasted the time it did.

"'Mannlichor' is ratlicr mixed over my version of Major Richardson's challenge. But I won't waste space in correcting him. He can read it again. "With reference to the incorrect sighting of the rifle as issued, 'Mannlicher' characterises my statements. as gross exaggeration, and yet he says he is a prac-. tical rifle shot. Let me tell him that it is 110 exaggeration whatever, and as an instance.l will quote the case of the prosent holder of New Zealand two hunched yards record. He took a new rifle from the store, and on his favourite range and in" the • height of his form could not find the target with the rifle as sighted. Nor could another crack shot to whom the rifle was. handed.. Tile error was eventually found to lie some ten feet left at two hundred yards. I am quite aware of the tests each barrel goes through and I know that the sighting of each is not tested. As to AlannlicherCarcano's statistics: Is it not strange that my opponent should have to go back to the American Civil War to-disprove my.statements. In that war the .fighting was mostly at close quarters, and it is a well-known fact that as the weapon is improved and the range increased the slaughter is decreased, until at - the end of the Boer war it was estimated that it took a million bullets to kill a .man. I have read this more than once, and in the absence of official 'statistics I> adhere to my statement. With regard to the German Army: What proof has''Jlannlielier' that the German. Army is the finest in the world? It may bo'iin point of numbers, equipment and so forth, but -what modem fight has it carried out successfully? .1 have always understood that the Herrcro war was a sadly bungled, affair. Then, again. 1 have ■ never heard that the Germans .were particularly destructive with the rifle. In fact, I should say that with all tho individuality trained out of the German infantryman lie , would be a very poor shot.' i'l: is in sirategy that the German Army • has made its- name, and many critics hold that if ever it goe<s to war there is a danger of that good name being lost., as its methods of training arc antiquated. On Common Ground. " 'Mannlicher-Careano' says that bull'seye training should be' relegalecl to the training of individuals. That is just my contention. Collective training that ho

talks so much. about. can to. a. large extent be carried out just us eHiciently with blank", and thus save a vast quantity of ammunition at present utterly wasted. Ho also says that bull's-eye shooting makes a man 'careful and conscientious when firing a round.' Does lie Hi ink that if the bull's-eye shooting is dropped that the man will not become careless iu firing his round. Any rifleman knows, that constant practice is neocssax-y to keep a man up to the mark in this respect, and, further, if he is not shown the error of his shot in order that he may correct it he will lose all interest in his work, as the incentive to careful shooting is taken away. Did the shooting reformers ever take the trouble to find out what it is that, makes a man cling to rifle-shooting as long as his eyesight lasts? It is that the element of skill outweighs that of luck. Let luck predominate and then goodbye to shooting as a sport. Kill shooting as a sport and the men will have to l>e driven to it, and driven men cannot make good shots. Xow 1 contend that-it is only with the bull's-eye or a similar target that''the element of skill can remain" pre-eminent. A rifle is not a shotgun, and cannot be used as such. The rifle throws a small piece of lead and nickel, which reaches its objective unaltered in size. The shotgun's charge becomes wider the farther it goes, and' may reach its objective yards wide. A certain amount of error in the 'let-off' is allowable here. Not so with the rifle. It must be let-off perfectly, or the shot is useless. After all, 'Slannlicher' and I. meet on common ground. We both agree that bull's-eye training is best for the individual, ill that it teaches him to be careful and. conscientious and fo get his shot home. We differ as to the alriount of it.' Speaking from practical experience, I don't think a man can liavb enough of it. Of course, what I say in regard to these matters is rank heresy to the military man, but he sticks to the religion he is brought up ill, and, as with, religion,, a-little plain speaking from the other side docs no harm." :