Designed by Charles Sargeant Jagger, with architectural work by Lionel Pearson, and unveiled in 1925, the memorial commemorates the 49,076 soldiers from the Royal Artillery killed in the First World War.

Technical advances, combined with the relatively static nature of trench warfare, made these guns a key element of the conflict: over half the casualties in the war were caused by artillery.

[4] Visual reminders of the conflict were often avoided: mutilated servicemen, for example, were banned in the 1920s from joining in veterans' marches, and those with facial injuries often hid them in public.

As a result of these problems, the prominent artist Sir Edward Poynter put forward recommendations that far more care, time and funding be given to the construction of future war memorials, which were taken on board by the RAWCF.

[8] The RAWCF first explored the option of joining some form of national commemoration which was under consideration in the aftermath of the First World War, initially wishing to spend only a small proportion of the fund on a physical monument.

Another option mooted was a memorial cloister attached to Westminster Abbey, with contributions from the Royal Artillery and other regiments, though this was quickly discarded as unlikely to gain approval from the relevant authorities.

Lutyens sent in three designs, each costed at less than £15,000 (approximately equivalent to £853,000 in 2023), but several committee members felt them to be too similar to the Cenotaph and to give insufficient prominence to artillery.

Baker disagreed with the concept of single service monuments, but submitted a proposal costed at over £25,000 (approximately equivalent to £1,421,000 in 2023), which was declined and he withdrew from the project.

[21][22][23][24] Jagger engaged the architect Lionel Pearson to design the stone structure of the memorial, and through June and July 1921 the RAWCF and the authorities considered the proposal.

He gladly accepted their advice on technical matters related to artillery procedures and the appearance of the howitzer, but was protective of his artistic independence and would not brook suggestions which he felt would impinge on the quality of the work.

After much discussion—including advice from Lutyens and Sir Reginald Blomfield representing the Royal Fine Arts Commission—Jagger agreed that the howitzer would point south to produce a pleasing silhouette from the park.

The change also resolved an objection raised by the King about the "gloomy" figure on the front of the memorial staring down Constitution Hill towards Buckingham Palace.

[32] The names of his models for three of the statues are known—William Fosten for the driver, another ex-gunner called Metcalfe for the ammunition carrier, and Lieutenant Eugene Paul Bennett, VC, who fought in the same regiment as Jagger, for the commander.

[30][33][34] The Royal Artillery Memorial is located in what Malcolm Miles has termed the "leafy traffic island" of Hyde Park Corner in central London.

B. Burton foundry, bronze figures are placed at the ends of each arm—an artillery captain holding a greatcoat at the front (facing south, below the barrel of the howitzer); a shell carrier on the east side; a driver wearing a heavy cape to the west; and to the north, a dead soldier on the north, his greatcoat thrown over him and his helmet resting on his chest.

[38][39][40][41] Carved stone reliefs show various detailed military scenes from the First World War—two on each side, one larger than the other—and the Royal Arms with the Artillery's cannon badge.

[41][42] The memorial's main inscription on the west and east faces reads "In proud remembrance of the forty-nine thousand and seventy-six of all ranks of the Royal Regiment of Artillery who gave their lives for King and country in the Great War 1914—1919".

Classical symbolism was often used to distance the event of death from the observer, as typified in William Colton's work for the Worcester Boer War Memorial.

[4][46] Where dead soldiers were shown, they were depicted in an image of serenity and peace, often physically distanced from the viewer on a high platform, the entire effect enhanced by the silence that traditionally surrounds ceremonies at the Cenotaph.

[47] The art historian Reginald Wilenski likens the memorial to the work of Frank Brangwyn, who focused on depicting the physical labour of soldiers and workers during the war.

[48] The memorial shows the three upright bronze figures stood at ease, rather than to attention; the driver leans back against the parapet, his cape hanging over his outstretched arms, suggesting an attitude of exhaustion or contemplation.

Its sheer size and the bulk of the howitzer serve to distance the observer, which—according to art historian John Glaves-Smith—depersonalises the soldiers in a similar way to the Cubist war paintings of Wyndham Lewis and Richard Nevinson.

[18] According to historian John Glaves-Smith, the memorial uses themes of "endurance and sacrifice, not dynamism and conflict", and thus speaks to its audience about the experience of war in a way that the Cenotaph, for example, does not.

Charles ffoulkes, the inaugural curator of the Imperial War Museum, was more impressed, and described the corpse as "a poignant and tremendous statement of fact which unconsciously makes the onlooker raise his hat".

The Times was critical, comparing it unfavourably to the Cenotaph, while The Daily Mail highlighted the cost of the monument, and argued that the money could have been better spent on directly caring for injured veterans.

The Builder was sharply critical of the close relationship between the sculptor and the client, which it viewed as the root cause, believing that Jagger had given the artillerymen far too much influence over artistic matters.

The Manchester Guardian noted that the frankness of the portrayal was a "terrible revelation long overdue", and hoped that veterans would be able to show the monument to their wives and children as a way of explaining the events of the war.

[61] Ex-servicemen were quoted by the newspaper as reminiscing about the war as they examined the statue, and remarking on how the bronze figures had captured the reality of their time in the artillery.

[61] These voices eventually held sway, and the memorial came to be popularly termed "the special Cenotaph of the Gunners", Lord Edward Gleichen praising it in 1928 as "a strikingly imaginative and most worthy representation".