OUR VOLUNTEERS.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2611, 19 August 1882, Page 3

OUR VOLUNTEERS.

To the Editor of the Olehg.

Sir, —With reference t) a letter which appeared in your Issue of 16th inst., signed “ Salute ” the writer attempts to criticise a paper which I wrote on musketry instruction, published in the Globe on the sth inst. It will be no doubt gratifying to " Salute ” to learn that one person at least cordially endorses his estimate of himself (judged by his letter) "as being in his own proper person one of the very * stupidest.’ ’’ It will be alio pleasing to him to know that hla statement that the “ Volunteers out here are lamentably ignorant ’’ is quite in acoord with what Colonel Scratohley, C.M.G Royal Engineers, says in his memorandum on the Defence Organisation of New Zealand, page 23, “ The incapacity and inefficiency of a large number of officers in the Volunteer forces of these colonies is too patent to require demonstration.” I will, however, try and explain to your intelligent correspondent the statements that appear to have given him so much disquiet. The trained infantry soldier in the regular army at the annual musketry course, under the head of “ Practice,” fired 10 rounds at 200 yards at a target, 10 rounds at 300 yards (at a target understood I hope), 10 rounds at 500 yards, 10 rounds at 600 yards, 10 rounds at 700 yards, and IS rounds at 800 yards—under the head of “ Individual Firing.” Afterwards, on the eleventh day of the course (the seventh of practice) he fired 5 rounds volley firing at 400 yards, and 5 rounds more at independent firing at 400 yards. On the twelfth day of the course (eighth of practice) he fired 20 rounds at distances between 600 yards and 200 yards, skirmishing, or field firing. If “ Salute” will carefully reckon the number of rounds on bis fingers, or by means of counters, I think he will find that the total number of rounds amounts to 90. Your compositor, having put “ viz.” in the wrong place in my “ Notes,” mutt have occasioned a good deal of trouble to “ Salute.”

Your anonymous correspondent takes exception to my statement that the axiom, re

“a soldier who could not shoot,” contained in the old “ Musketry Handbooks,” is not to be found in the more recent publications, and quotes page 134, par, iv., “ Musketry Instruction," 1870 and 1874, as a proof of my incorrectness, This goes to show that your correspondent is far behind the age in matters military, and that he at least has not got even a moderately late edition of this “ Military Book” from England. If he will favor me with his name and address 1 will lend him a late edition, for his information and amuse, ment, and he will find that lam perfectly correct in my statement. He next proceeds to sneer at my remarks on theoretical instruction, &0., and states that he agrees with tho savants at Hythe, that "the theory and preliminary drill are highly important if properly taughtbut in if the matter lies. Can the ordinary run of rank and file of the army, in four days out of a year, master tho preliminary drill, which comprises theoretical principles, cleaning arms, aiming drill, position drill, and judging-distance drill f That a little Anew. ledge is a dangerous thing, is clearly shown in the case of “ Salute,” but bis admiration of the Hythe system is natural; men of bis stamp generally admire what they Cahaot understand. If “ Salute” were anything but a mere amateur soldier he surely would be aware that the Hythe system has been, up to the present time, one of the greatest failures of modern times, and he would know that I am only repeating a fact known to most military men who take any interest in musketry. I will here insert part of a leading article which appeared recently in a military paper : —“ We have no hesitation in pronouncing our system of musketry instruction lamentably bad, and in asserting that as a rule musketry practice is looked upon by all ranks as a necessary nuisance. We believe that the chief causes of its unpopularity are the exaggerated pretensions and thoroughly theoretical ideas of those who have presided at Hythe. General Hay may have been a good shot and a clever man, but be was not practical. The school of officers which he founded instead of appealing to the common sense of the army, and showing that musketry was essentially a practical matter, poohpoohed tho bayonet altogether, claimed a quasi-soientifio status, ignored everything in a soldier’s training which was not part of musketry instruction, and excited the contemptuous laughter of well-educated officers by bastard scientific definitions.”

I am quite unaware that moveable targets are now nsed In the old country by the army generally at practice, nor do I believe It. For many years ra t the running deer target has been In nee at Wimbledon, bat it has not, to my knowledge, been used in onr army musketry course, and no mention of it is made In “Musketry Handbook,” latest edition. I have not read Mr Childers’ late speech (mentioned by yonr correspondent) on the re-organisation of the British army—some call it dis-organisation —but from what “Salute” says, it appears that the War Secretary a’so considers that 90 rounds sre insufficient for practfce. (By last mail, Brindisi, I read that in fntnrs 150 rounds are to bo allowed per man for practice.) Your correspondent, with reference to my remarks on infantry fire, talks about my presumptl n in attempting to Instruct the volunteers of New Zealand. It w„uld indeed be a hopeless task for any one to undertake were the rest like “ Salute.” I will mention an Instance related by a British officer who served with the Prussians in the war of 1870-71, that goes to show that my idea of musketry fire is a correct one : —“ Let me cite the 36th Regiment storming the French position between Dreux and Chartres. The French were driven through the forest, and made a stand at the edge ; three battalions of Mobiles had fled, firing only a few shots. In the ditch were two battalions of Frenoh regulars acting as reserve, who received tbe Prussians with a rapid fire (independent) at a range under 200 yards, hut only placed seven Prussians hors de comtat. The Prussians halted and delivered one volley, the ordsr being to aim low. They then charged, and the French retired.” The writer I have quoted found that this one volley had laid low 139 Frenchman.

I will not uotica “ Salute’s ” remarks about me individually beyond saying that, from their tone, I should say they came from a jealous amateur soldier—of Canterbury experience only, whose gross ignorance is backed up by an immense amount of self conceit; but I must, in conclusion, inform “ Salnte ” that am quite aware of the duties of captains and section leaders in “skirmishing ” and the “ attack.” My words were to this effect, that infantry fire should always be under the control of the officers, who should give the distance, except in skirmishing and the attack formation. Will “Salnte ’’ explain how he thinks that officers could give the distance to every individual man in extended line advancing or retiring, where men have to take advantage of everything in the shape of cover that they come across, and in the din of an action. “ Salute’s ’’experience must be confined to the Drill Shed, Hagloy Park, aad the Racecourse. I have already taken up too much of your space, Mr Editor, and must ask ptrdon for so doing. Yours, &c , URBAN V. RICHARD* Capt N.Z. Volunteer Force, and late Lieut. H.M. 87th Fusiliers. P.S. —I forgot to meutloo that “ Salute ” again exposes his ignorance in stating that 1 must have instructed my company iu giving r.nch ingenious answers wbeu exam'ncd 'ompany officers never were supposed to give instruction in mnsketryj; this was the exclusive business of the battalion officer In strnctors and sergeant instructors until Msj last, when the system wen altered in this particular.