Popular Science Monthly 



847 



Everest 



Chimborazo M c Kinley Mount Blanc 



Cotopaxi 



At a 70-mile range the gun's possible destructive area is 15,386 square miles; at 100-mile range, 

 3 1 ,400 square miles. We can imagine its projectile bounding over our highest mountains with ease 



chloride of nitrogen. The second shell 

 would be aimed at the same place and fired 

 as quickly as possible to get the same 

 atmospheric advantages, whereupon it 

 would begin after landing to vomit in- 

 numerable small shells containing osmium 

 and hydrocyanic acid, cyanogen, etc. 

 The silent death produced by osmium 

 would make an ordinary graveyard tame 

 and commonplace; for the osmium that 



can be piled on a ten cent silver piece will 

 kill 1,000 persons. I have devised a shell 

 which would contain enough of that 

 poisonous metal to kill 300,000 people and 

 700,000 persons, respectively, allowing the 

 usual 10% for failures, etc. The gas would 

 travel in waves from a central point. The 

 crest of each wave would be a terrible 

 compression, and the bottom of each wave 

 a fearful vacuum. 



What's Wrong with the Big Gun 



MR. BUNNELL, the author of the foregoing 

 article, is one of the few laymen who has 

 definitely attacked the problem of the big 

 gun. He is an artist with an imagination, as his 

 pictures and his article prove. We gave him space 

 in the Popular Science Monthly to set forth his 

 ideas. And now the Editor shall proceed to give 

 his view of them. 



The size of a gun cannot be increased without 

 paying the price. The weight of a heavy gun, the 

 projectile and the powder charge vary almost 

 directly with the cube of the diameter of the bore. 

 Hence a small increase in diameter means a very 

 large increase in power. For example, a twelve- 

 inch gun fires a shell which is about seventy-five 

 per cent, heavier than that fired from a ten-inch 

 gun; a fourteen-inch gun fires a shell about sixty 

 per cent, heavier than that fired from a twelve-inch 

 gun; and a sixteen-inch gun fires a shell half again 

 as heavy as that fired by a fourteen-inch gun. 

 A sixty-inch gun would be at least two hundred and 

 fifty feet long; its shell would weigh about sixty 

 tons; and the charge would be about twenty tons 

 of powder. The weight of the gun itself would 

 approximate that of the old battleship Oregon ; the 

 carriage would weigh twice as much. 



Now it must be admitted that such a gun could 

 be built. But are the existing facilities adequate 

 for handling such an enormous mass in a single 

 unit? We doubt it. 



Consider the mere matter of machining the cast- 

 ing. The lathe to bore and rifle the gun would be 

 not less than five hundred feet long — twenty times 

 the length of any lathe ordinarily seen in a machine 

 shop, except lathes built for very special purposes. 



How would the completed gun be transported? 

 Transportation by rail would be impossible in many 

 places. 



No doubt bigger guns than those we have now 

 can be built. But the ordnance expert and the 



military strategist asks himself: Is it worth while 

 spending the necessary time, energy and money?' 

 To justify its existence a huge gun such as that 

 which Mr. Bunnell proposes would have to ac- 

 complish amazing results. In judging these results 

 such factors as probable life, range, accuracy, 

 rapidity of fire, character of the target and de- 

 structive effect of the projectile would have to be 

 considered. 



As the destructive effect of the projectile is ap- 

 proximately proportional to the weight, this is 

 usually not a determining consideration, provided 

 the projectile can destroy its probable target, which 

 for heavy guns is usually considered as the most 

 powerful battleship afloat or contemplated. 



The range does not increase greatly with the 

 caliber. At the usual maximum elevation the range 

 of a sixteen-inch gun is only about a mile more than 

 that of a similar ten-inch gun. A sixty-inch gun 

 would have an appreciably greater range than a 

 sixteen-inch gun, but not great enough to be a de- 

 termining factor. The accuracy of fire would also 

 not be appreciably greater. As a projectile not much 

 heavier than the heaviest now in use could destroy 

 anything now known or contemplated, the factors 

 which would determine whether or not a sixty-inch 

 gun should be built would be probable life, rapidity 

 of fire and difficulty of construction. 



The life of a gun decreases rapidly with the caliber; 

 probably a dozen rounds fired from the Bunnell gun 

 would mark the duration of its accuracy life — not 

 enough to insure the destruction of a single target. 

 With the best gunners the hits made are limited by 

 accurate observation of fire, by the natural disper- 

 sion of shots, and in the case of ships, by unexpected 

 changes of course. 



The increase in size of guns has been a slow evolu- 

 tion. It is not likely that we shall suddenly leap 

 to a titanic weapon. — Editor Popular Science 

 Monthly. 



