§ 23. Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing the experience of the present War has shown that the number of field guns and howitzers of each division of the original Expeditionary Force was insufficient, he will say why the number of field guns and howitzers have been reduced in every division of the New Armies raised by the Secretary of State for War; whether the reason is due to the lack of ammunition and not of guns; and whether the Secretary of State for War will defer sending the new divisions to the Front until the number of guns in each brigade is brought up to at least the number provided for the original Expeditionary Force?
§ Mr. TENNANTAny alteration which has taken place in the organisation of the Artillery has not been due either to lack of ammunition or of guns, but has been adopted with a view to improving the fire control of the battery commander. It is highly inexpedient to discuss the details of the armament or organisation of our forces in the field, and still more inexpedient to say anything which would disclose the dates upon which new divisions are likely to be sent to the front.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have not stated in the question how many guns have been reduced in each division? Is it not a fact that the reduced number of guns, provided that ammunition is available, will not be able to fire the same amount as the increased number?
§ Mr. TENNANTStated in the manner in which my hon. Friend has stated it, the proposition is incontestable. But I would remind the House that this question as regards-four-gun or six-gun batteries is a very old one and has been a controversy raging between military authorities long 373 before the outbreak of this War. It is not true to suppose if you reduce the batteries from six guns to four guns that to that extent you reduce the number of shots fired or the efficiency of the batteries.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMThe right hon. Gentleman has himself given the information to the enemy now.