41. _Heavy Field Artillery_, alternatively called _Artillery of

Position_, as has been said, includes all guns of 4-in. calibre and upwards, mounted on travelling carriages. In South Africa, where firm soil was usually to be found, 6-in. guns were employed as heavy field guns, but in Europe even the 5-in. (British Service) is liable to sink into the ground. In Great Britain, guns only are used by this branch; abroad, the "heavy artillery of the field army," the "light siege train," &c., as it is variously called, is as a rule composed of howitzers of a heavier calibre than the field howitzer, the 15-cm. (6-in.) howitzer being most commonly met with. This artillery has, however, a different tactical role from the heavy field artillery of the British service; and it is always with a view to the attack of permanent or semi-permanent fortifications that the _materiel_ is organized. In Great Britain, heavy batteries armed with the 5-in. gun are considered as "an auxiliary to the horse and field artillery" (_Heavy Artillery Training_). Ranging is conducted with greater deliberation than ranging with the lighter guns, though upon the same general lines. Parts of the process may, however, be omitted in certain circumstances. Heavy guns use high-explosive (lyddite) shells and time shrapnel, the former for ranging and for demolishing cover, the latter against _personnel_. Laying is usually indirect. The tactical principles upon which heavy artillery does its work are based, in the main, on the long range (up to 10,000 yds.) and great shell-power of the guns. This power enables the artillery to reach with effect targets which are beyond the range of lighter ordnance, and it is, therefore, considered possible to disperse the guns in batteries, and even in sections of two guns, along the front of the army, without forfeiting the power of concentrating their fire on any point--a power which otherwise they would not possess owing to their want of mobility. At the same time it is not forbidden to bring them into line with the rest of the artillery, in order to achieve a decisive result. In the _attack_, beside the general task of supplementing the effect of other natures of ordnance, heavy artillery may demolish cover, buildings, &c., held by the enemy, and during the infantry assault they may do excellent service in sweeping a great depth of ground, their smaller angle of descent, and the greater remaining velocity and heavier driving charge of their shrapnel, as compared with field guns, enabling them to do this effectively. In the _defence_, long-range fire has great value, especially in sweeping approaches which the enemy must use. In _pursuit_, the heavy artillery may be able to shell the main body of the enemy during its retreat, even if it has left a rearguard. In _retreat_, the want of mobility of these guns militates against their employment in exposed positions, such as rearguards usually have to take up. BIBLIOGRAPHY.[6]--Amongst general historical works may be mentioned Napoleon III. and Col. Fave, _Etudes sur le passe et l'avenir de l'artillerie_ (Paris. 1846-1871); C. von Decker, _Geschichte des Geschutzwesens_ (Berlin, 1822); H.W.L. Hime, _Stray Military Papers_ (London, 1901); _Die Beziehung Friedrichs des Grossen zu seiner Artillerie_ (Berlin, 1865); H. von Muller, _Die Entwickelung der Feldartillerie, 1815-1892_ (Berlin, 1893-1894); J. Campana, _L'Artillerie de campagne, 1792-1901_ (Paris, 1901); v. Reitzenstein, _Das Geschutzwesen, &c. in Hannover und Braunschweig 1365 bis zur Gegenwart_ (Leipzig, 1900); Kretschmar, _Gesch. d. sachsischen Feldart. 1620-1878_ (1879); Schoning, _Gesch. des brandenbg.-preuss. Art._ (1844-1845); Schneller, _Litteratur d. Artillerie_ (1768); v. Tempelhof, _Gesch. d. Artillerie_ (1797); Duncan, _Hist. of the Royal Artillery_. A complete bibliography and criticism of the artillery works of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries will be found in Max Jahns, _Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften_, pp. 221-236, 382-424, 621, 658 and 747-752. For the early 17th century, Diego Ufano, _Tratado de la Artilleria_ (1613) is a standard treatise of the time, but the mystery preserved by artillerists in regard to their arm is responsible for an astonishing dearth of artillery literature even in the time of the Thirty Years' War. In 1650 appeared Casimir Simienowicz' _Ars magnae artilleriae_, an English translation of which was published in London in 1729, and in 1683 Michael Mieth published _Artilleriae Recentior Praxis_. The first edition of Surirey de S. Remy, _Memoires d'Artillerie_, appeared in Paris in 1697. With the reorganization of the arm in the early 18th century came many manuals and other works (see Jahns, _op. cit._ pp. 1607-1621 and 1692-1698), amongst which may be mentioned the marquis de Quincy's _Art de la guerre_ (1726). From 1740 onwards numerous manuals appeared, mostly official _reglements_--see French General Staff, _L'Artillerie francaise au XVIII^e siecle_ (1908); and the tactical handling of the arm is treated in general works, such as Guibert's, on war. See also de Morla, _Tratado de la Artilleria_ (1784), translated into German by Hoyer (_Lehrbuch der Art.-Wissenschaft_, Leipzig, 1821-1826); _Du Service de l'artillerie a la guerre_ (Paris, 1780, German translation, Dresden, 1782, and English, by Capt. Thomson, R.A., London, 1789), Bardet de Villeneuve's _Traite de l'artillerie_ (Hague, 1741), and Hennebert, _Gribeauval, Lieut.-General des armees du Roy_ (Paris, 1896). Important works of the period 1800-1850 are Scharnhorst, _Handbuch der Artillerie_ (Hanover, 1804-1806, French translation by Fourcy, _Traite sur l'artillerie_, Paris, 1840-1841); Rouvroy, _Vorlesungen uber die Artillerie_ (Dresden, 1821-1825); Timmerhans, _Essai d'un traite d'artillerie_ (Brussels, 1839-1846); C. v. Decker, _Die Artillerie fur alle Waffen_ (1826); Griffiths, _The Artillerist's Manual_ (Woolwich, 1840); Piobert, _Traite d'artillerie_ (Paris, 1845-1847); Taubert (translated by Maxwell), _Use of Field Artillery on Service_ (London, 1856); Capt. Simmonds, R.A., _Application of Artillery in the Field_ (London, 1819); Gassendi, _Aide-memoire a l'usage des officiers d'artillerie_ (Paris, 1819). See also Girod de l'Ain, _Grands artilleurs, Drouot, Senarmont, Eble_ (Paris, 1894). Among the numerous works on modern field artillery may be mentioned Prince Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen, _Briefe uber Artillerie_ (Berlin, 1887, 2nd ed., English translation by Col. Walford, _Letters on Artillery_, Woolwich, 1887); Hoffbauer, _Taktik der Feldartillerie, 1866 und 1870-1871_ (Berlin, 1876), and _Applikatorische Studie uber Verwendung der Artillerie_ (Berlin, 1884); Erb, _L'Artillerie dans les batailles de Metz_ (Paris, 1906); Leurs, _L'Art. de campagne prussienne 1864-1870_ (Brussels, 1874); v. Schell, _Studie uber Taktik der Feldartillerie_ (quoted above); Hennebert, _Artillerie moderne_ (Paris, 1889); and for quick-firing artillery, Langlois, _Artillerie de campagne en liaison avec les autres armes_ (Paris, 1892 and 1907); Wille, _Feldgeschutz der Zukunft_ (Berlin, 1891); _Waffenlehre_ (2nd ed., 1901); and _Zur Feldgeschutzfrage_ (Berlin, 1896); Rohne, _Die Taktik der Feldartillerie_ (Berlin, 1900), _Studie uber d. Schnellfeuergeschutze in Rohrrucklauflafette_ (Berlin, 1901), _Die franzosische Feldartillerie_ (Berlin, 1902); _Entwicklung des Massengebrauchs der Feldartillerie_ (Berlin, 1900); and articles in _Jahrbucher f. d. Deutsche Armee und Marine_ (October 1901 and January 1905); Hoffbauer, _Die Frage des Schnellfeuerfeldgeschutzes_ (Berlin, 1902), and _Verwendung der Feldhaubitzen_ (Berlin, 1901); Wangemann, _Fur die leichte Feldhaubitze_ (Berlin, 1904); von Reichenau, _Studie uber ... Ausbildung der Feldart_. (Berlin, 1896), _Einfluss der Schilde auf die Entwicklung des F.-A. Materials_, and _Neue Studien uber die Entwicklung der Feldart._ (Berlin, 1902 and 1903); Smekal, _Fuhrung und Verwendung der Divisions-Artillerie_ (Vienna, 1901); Korzen and Kuhn, _Waffenlehre_ (Vienna, 1906); G. Rouquerol, _Emploi de l'artillerie de campagne a tir rapide_ (Paris, 1901), and _Organisation de l'artillerie de campagne_ (Paris, 1903); Girardon-Lagabbe, _Organisation du materiel de l'artillerie de campagne_ (Paris, 1903); and in English, Capt. P. de B. Radcliffe's translation of Rouquerol's work (_The Tactical Employment of Quick-firing Field Artillery_, London, 1903), and especially Lt.-Col. H.A. Bethell, _Modern Guns and Gunnery_ (Woolwich, 1907). See also the current drill manuals of the British, French and German artillery. (C. F. A.) FOOTNOTES: [1] Napoleon's maxim, quoted above, reappears in spirit in the British F.A. Training of 1906 (p. 225). [2] The old smooth-bore mortar for high-angle fire has of course disappeared, but the name "mortar" is still applied in some countries to short rifled howitzers. [3] Though not of course against the direct impact of shrapnel or H.E. shells. [4] Finding the line is also an integral part of ranging. When an aiming point is used, the angle at which the guns must be laid with reference to it is calculated and given out by the battery commander. The modern goniometric sight permits of a wide angle (in England 180 deg. right or left) being given. "Deflection" is a small angular correction applied to individual guns. [5] The "corrector" is an adjustment on the sights of the gun used to determine the correct fuze. In the British Q.F. equipment, a graduated dial or drum shows the elevation of the gun above the line of sight. The fuze lengths are marked on a movable scale opposite the range graduations to which they apply, and the "corrector" moves this fuze scale so as to bring different fuze lengths opposite the range graduation. For example, a certain corrector setting gives 11-1/2 on the fuze scale opposite 4000 yds. on the range scale, and if the shells set to 11-1/2 burst too high, a new corrector setting is taken, the fuze length 12 is now opposite to the 4000 range graduation, and this length gives bursts closer up and lower. In the German service a corrector (_Aufsatzschieber_) alters the real elevation given to the gun, so that while throughout the battery all guns have the same (nominal or ordered) elevation shown on the sights, the real elevations of individual guns vary according to the different corrector settings. Thus bursts at different heights and distances from the target are obtained by shifting the trajectory of the shell. The fuze, being set for the nominal elevation common to all the guns, burns for the same time in each case, and thus the burst will be lower and closer to the target with a less (real) elevation, and higher and farther from it with a greater. [6] Most of the works named deal with technical questions of equipment, ammunition, ballistics, &c. ARTIODACTYLA (from Gr. [Greek: artios], even, and [Greek: daktylos], a finger or toe, "even-toed"), the suborder of ungulate mammals in which the central (and in some cases the only) pair of toes in each foot are arranged symmetrically on each side of a vertical line running through the axes of the limbs. As contrasted with the Perissodactyla living, and in a great degree extinct, Artiodactyla are characterized by the following structural features. The upper premolar and molar teeth are not alike, the former being single and the latter two-lobed; and the last lower molar of both first and second dentition is almost invariably three-lobed. Nasal bones not expanded posteriorly. No alisphenoid canal. Dorsal and lumbar vertebrae together always nineteen, though the former may vary from twelve to fifteen. Femur without third trochanter. Third and fourth digits of both feet almost equally developed, and their terminal phalanges flattened on their inner or contiguous surfaces, so that each is not symmetrical in itself, but when the two are placed together they form a figure symmetrically disposed to a line drawn between them. Or, in other words, the axis or median line of the whole foot is a line drawn between the third and fourth digits (fig. 1). Lower articular surface of the astragalus divided into two nearly equal facets, one for the navicular and a second for the cuboid bone. The calcaneum with an articular facet for the lower end of the fibula. Stomach almost always more or less complex. Colon convoluted. Caecum small. Placenta diffused or cotyledonary. Teats either few and inguinal, or numerous and abdominal. Artiodactyla date from the Eocene period, when they appear to have been less numerous than the Perissodactyla, although at the present day they are immeasurably ahead of that group, and form indeed the dominant ungulates. As regards the gradual specialization and development of the modern types, the following features are noteworthy.