EFFECTS OF MODERN RIFLE FIRE.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR.")
SIR,—In reference to the above subject, in the " Maga zine " article in the Spectator of March 10th you quote some figures which are erroneous from a paper in the Contemporary Review, by Colonel F. N. Maude. Space allows the exposure of one only of the fallacious calculations in his table of casualties. I take his figure as quoted by you (and correctly quoted) for the percentage of British killed per hour at the battle of Magersfontein. Colonel Mande gives this at the astonishing rate of .7 per cent.! To arrive at this he needed three factors,—i.e., the number of British engaged, the number killed, and the duration of the slaughter. Assuming the approximate accuracy of the first and second factors in his computations, there remains the third, and fortunately he has stated it; he states that he bases his average rate of destruction upon the ground that the struggle lasted ten hours. Now every correspondent has told us that the straggle was decided by the first fusillade of the Boers. Had this been less " withering " the British troops might have renewed the charge, or might have retired. But they dared do neither; and for the rest of the day—i.e., 98 per cent. of Colonel Mande's ten hours—the column was practically out of action, lying prone upon the veldt. "Not a hand could be raised without attracting a hail of bullets." That desultory firing continued so long, all day, was owing to the destruction of the first ten minutes. Our troops could not move away and could not charge. Had the rifle fire been much inferior in "withering power," the battle would have been shorter, and so Colonel Mande's average rate of slaughter would have been higher even with less killed. But the battle of Magersfontein was decided by the volleys that withered the attacking brigade; all that followed was manceavring for safety in the face of an enemy who had won, but could not follow up the victory. If the Boers had possessed cavalry and the courage to use it, who can doubt that the whole British column would have been destroyed, and within the first hour? Nevertheless, the fire of the first ten minutes made this possible. Had it been done Colonel Maude's rate would have had to be 100 per cent. But the whole of this serious possibility is put out of sight, and the whole system of averages is trifled with, if we spread out the slaughter of the first ten minutes which decided the day over the whole of the unimportant hours which followed. From these considerations it will be seen that Magerafontein shows that the withering effect of modern rifle fire upon "determined rushes" of troops led with "ruthless energy" may be about sixty times as great as the figure .7 per cent. per hour offered to us by Colonel F. N. Mande. In fact, no battle of modern times can show such rapid slaughter.—
Previous page
