CORRESPONDENCE OUR VOLUNTEERS.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2608, 16 August 1882, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

OUR VOLUNTEERS.

To the Editor of the Globe.

Sib, — I notice in the issue of your valuable paper of the sth instant some very valuable notes on musketry instruction by the captain of the College Cadet Corps, who, it appears, has held several commissions in Her Majesty’s Army, and has attained to the high position which he now occupies in the Volunteer force of New Zealand. These notes will make a very valuable addition to our military library, and I should therefore advise both the oiHoar# and moa of our V olauteer force to peruse and study them diligently, as they will derive great benefit thereby, especially as none of the military books obtainable from England and elsewhere contain information which can be obtained from these notes alone. We Volunteers out here, both officers aod men, ought to feel grateful to the writer for instructing us in our duties as soldiers, for we are all lamentably ignorant, and could not understand a drill book

if we perused it; but these notes clear away all difficulties, and make drill and musketry instruction intelligible to the most weak-minded amongst üb. Bat I myself, in my own proper person, being one of the very “stupedest,” cannot make out what the gallant captain means when he states that “The trained soldier has to fire at a fixed mark, and at known distances, namely, 200, 300, 500, 600, 700 and 800 yards. He fires ten rounds at each distance, namely, fire at volley firing, five at independent firing at. 400, and twenty rounds skirmishing between 600 and 200 yards. That is to say, he only actually practices for eight days in the year, and in that time he fires off the ninety! rounds allowed him for the year’s practice.” He also states, “In the 1 Musketry Handbook ’ used about the time I went through a course of instruction at the School of Musketry, it was laid down, as an axiom, • that a soldier who could not shoot was an encumbrance to the battalion.’ This has been omitted in more recent publications.” If the writer will turn to page 134, part 11., paragraph 4, of the “ Musketry Instruction" for 1870 and 1874 (1879 I have not seen), he will find the following:—"A soldier who cannot shoot is useless, and an encumbrance to the battalion.” Of course not being aware of the time the gallant captain was at Hytho, I cannot judge as to what may amount to a “ more recent publication. ” The notes go on to say—“ Colonial volunteers, I fancy, as a rule, know little or nothing about the theory of musketry or preliminary drills. I think this matters little.” Now, being very stupid, as I said before, I may perhaps be excused if I differ from a man who has been at the “ School of Musketry,” and agree with the “ savants at Hythe" that the theory and preliminary drills, it properly taught, are highly important ; and I am sure the “ savants at Hythe ” would bo highly delighted with the company the gallant captain belonged to (for I presume, having been at the “ School of Musketry,” he must have instructed them himself), the members of which could have given ouch incenious answers. The writer is perhaps ignorant of the fact that movable targets are being used in the old country. From Mr Childers’ late speech on the re-organisation of the British army, the British military authorities, including, I presume, the “savan'a at Hythe,” seem to bo perfectly, well aware of the defects in the military education of the British soldier, so far as the mere target practice, and the number of ball cartridge allowed to each man per year are concerned, for he distinctly stated that the allowance was a more farce, but said that it was impossible to remedy it unless the public would go to the expense of making their defenders crack shots, which the Government would only be too happy should be the case. Near the conclusion of the notes on musketry instruction, the writer further remarks —“ Infantry fire should always bo under the control of the officers, who should give the distance, except in skirmishing, or in the comparatively new attack formation in extended order.” Does the writer make such a remark as this, and at the same time presume to instruct the volunteers of New Zealand ? Is he not aware that infantry fire is under the control of the officers, more especially in skirmishing and the “ comparatively new attack formation in extended order,” and that it is distinctly laid down that in skirmishing and “the attack,” even each section is to be under the particular control and command of its own section leader, under the general superintendence of the oapti iu, which section leaders may order particular men or files in that section to fire, with the object of keeping the firing under strict control and preventing the waste of ammunition ? Whether certain officers can keep their men and their firing under control or not is quite another matter. Yours, &3,, SALUTE. Christchurch, August 15th, 1882.