SHRAPNEL FUZES AT OKEHAMPTON. 
527 
The comparative trials with the 9-pr. of 6 cwt. are shown below :— 
9 -pr. M.L. of 6 cwt. 
Time shrapnel. 
Perc n . shrapnel. 
Water shell. 
Target 
No. 
Range, 
yds. 
Date. 
No. of 
rounds. 
Effects. 
No. of 
rounds. 
Effects. 
No. of 
rounds. 
Effects. 
10 
1500 
9 8 
18 
38 
18 
13 
18 
44 
(55) 
(55) 
(55) 
10 
2100 
11 8 
18 
33 
18 
21 1 
18 
16 
(58) 
(58) 
(58) 
3 
3000 
13 8 
18 
72 
18 
22 
I 18 
47 | 
( 
30 81 
28 8) 
(59) 
(59) 
(59) 
4 
3540 < 
6 
60 
6 
13 
! 6* 
0 
t 
(74) 
(73) 
(7») 
Total . 
| 60 
| 203 
60 
69 
60 
107 
Effects per round. 
j 3-38 
— 
1*15 
j — 1 1-78 
* The shell fell ” over.” 
The ranges were known, and the firing deliberate. 
48 rounds (see pp. 15 and 53) were fired on 18th August with time 
shrapnel ; but the ground was unfavourable to percussion fuzes, and 
thus no comparison can be made. 
On 25th August (see pp. 65 and 11) 48 rounds were fired with per¬ 
cussion shrapnel and water shell, but there were no time shrapnel for 
comparison. 
A trial of time shrapnel against percussion shrapnel is described on 
pp. 17 and 18. The ground on which the target was placed was 
favourable to the action of percussion fuzes. In this instance, the 
number of “ hits on the target (No. 8, p. 45, representing infantry 
in close order) were counted. There were no dummy figures. 
The ranges were unknown, and were changed four times; 7 minutes 
being allowed for firing at each range. 
In this experiment (vide the following table) the percussion shells 
were fired much more rapidly than the time shells—a different result 
from that recorded when the ranges were known. (See previous 
tables.) 
9-pr. M.L. of 6 cwt. 
Target; 
1 
Range, 
yds. 
Time shrapnel. 
Perc n . shrapnel; I 
No. of 
rounds. 
Hits. 
No. of 
rounds. 
Hits. 
f 
1 ' 
2300 
1 
— 
| 
2200 
74 
497 
ioi ! 
796 
No. 8.<! 
| 
(47*6$) j 
{47*6 8)\ 
| 
1600 
. — n 
—• 
~ i 
— ; 
1 
L 
1200 
— 
— 
__J 
Hits per round. 
6-71 
~ 1 
7-88 ! 
I 
