[Mike Cecil]

These comments were posted to the HMVF forum by Damien Allan, a long time Australian collector and restorer of artillery. I don't think he'll mind me re-posting them here:

"1. An excellent technical description of the gun and its production variants. Well laid out and well illustrated.
2. A detailed description of the production history of the gun, trailer and ammo, including the contractors and sub contractors. I found this especially interesting, as I am keen on industrial history amongst other things. My own research has not drilled down to the same levels, so I was pleased to see references to the subcontractors' trades and products. It certainly filled in a few gaps in my knowledge
3. Good summary of operational history and salient examples without trying to be a full regimental history. Generally tells us what the regimental issues were where the guns were used.
4. Great narrative stringing all of the production, design, trials and operational info together , as well as the personalities involved. Makes a potentially dry list of facts come alive into an interesting read. (BAMs interaction with Kirby a case in point. Kirby was rather preoccupied with aircraft engine production, so he was drinking through the proverbial fire hose for other war effort projects. Still, his taking on the 25 Pr recuperator was something he should have avoided with hindsight).
5. In 239 pages, info is densely packed and covers every conceivable angle of 25Pr from artillery to tank use. Good value for money IMHO.
6. Comprehensive referencing and end notes. A readable book for anyone interested in the subject, with academic rigor. I like the publications list ��
7. On arcane points, I was uncertain as to why Ruwolts marked the saddle data plate No.11 Mark. 1, for what should have been marked No.2 Mk.I, (was there a No.11 saddle I didn't know about?) but I was pleasantly surprised that you covered that point. As you say, the standard way of marking is to have model Number (No.) in Hindu-Arabic, and Mark (Mk.) number in Roman numerals. This was done by GMH and everyone else in the British arsenal system. I agree that Ruwolts have intended to use Roman numerals (II) where they should have used a '2', but on short 25 Reg. A8, Ruwolts they have been cheeky and used a '1' instead of a 'I' stamp. Maybe it allowed Charles Ruwolt to economise on stamps! Glad I've cleared that up now....

Overall Mike, thanks for writing this book for us artillery aficionados, it is a cracker. I cannot see anyone being bothered to write another book on the subject, as there would be little extra to write about unless they went to the same level of detail on UK and Canadian production. That said, I think your book would cover off on that to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the readership."