THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
65 
is there ; l and the phenomenon is sufficiently curious to invite investigation. 
On approaching the object of our investigation, a great part of the 
difficulty disappears; we discover that the effect produced is, in a great 
measure, an optical illusion, which is obtained on the principle which has 
been ingeniously applied to the production of a popular toy, known as the 
“ wheel of life,” where a number of fixed figures in various postures, or 
gradations of the same posture, become blended by rapid revolution, when 
seen through openings prepared for the purpose, into an appearance of a 
single figure, accomplishing a definite result. And those who would have 
us believe, on the evidence of the Tegel trials, that the English system of 
heavy rifled ordnance is inferior to the Prussian, are aware that their only 
hope lies in skilfully mixing up things which have no necessary connection 
with one another—in confusedly blending together metal and breech 
mechanisms, long bores and prismatic powder, steel projectiles and steel 
guns, and thus producing an appearance of certain results accomplished by 
a definite system of ordnance, which has been elaborated into a symmetrical 
whole by Krupp of Essen; a system so homogeneous that no separation of its 
component parts is possible. When all the points which tell in favour of 
the English guns—such as the destructive character of the powder which 
they fire, their less weight, as well as that of their charges and projectiles, 
to say nothing of the less cost of the system—are artfully kept in the 
background, or shown, if at all, only in shadow, it is not difficult to 
understand how, even from the Tegel trials, it may be possible to deduce 
conclusions apparently destructive of the English system of ordnance. 
It follows from the above, that if we would assess the true value of this 
foreign criticism of our English guns, we must examine it in close and 
critical detail. The very circumstance that, unless so examined, it is liable 
to produce an erroneous impression and to lead to conclusions opposed to 
the fact, renders it desirable that some one should undertake the task. 
Pamphlets such as those of Captain von Doppelmair, and Lt.-Col. Wilhelmi 
—officers of the Russian and Austrian services—-and published with a certain 
parade of professional, if not official sanction, carry weight with those who 
only read them superficially, or who are not familiar with the facts which 
furnish an effective answer to the various conclusions which the writers 
have endeavoured to establish. Without inquiring how many of those who 
read these pamphlets belong to this class, we may reasonably assume that a 
large proportion of professional readers will want the time necessary to read 
these pamphlets critically, while non-professional and foreign readers can 
hardly be expected to have that intimate acquaintance with the details of 
the question without which an intelligent examination of those criticisms is 
impossible. The pamphlet of Captain von Doppelmair appears on several 
accounts to be the one which it is most important to consider. In the first 
place, the paper is a more recent, a more comprehensive, and a far more 
able pamphlet than that of Lt.-Col. Wilhelmi; in the second place, Lt.-Col. 
Wilhelmfis pamphlet has been very effectively and completely answered by 
a writer in the (( Neue Militar Zeitung;” lastly, Captain von DoppelmaiEs 
1 The extent and variety of this criticism are in some degree indicated by the names of the 
pamphlets and articles of which it is in part composed, which are printed at the beginning of this 
paper. 
9 
