THE EOYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
69 
its use, as in the endurance of the increased strain which this powder 
imposes, and in the less uniformity of the granulated powder. 1 To avoid, 
however, breaking the narrative of the Tegel trials, we reserve the full dis¬ 
cussion of this important subject; contenting ourselves with recording, in 
passing, an emphatic contradiction of the correctness of the statement quoted 
above, which seeks to establish the existence of a necessary and indissoluble 
connection between English guns and a violently destructive powder. 
Eurther, we must object incidentally to Captain von Doppelmair’s con¬ 
venient desire to disregard the trials which were made at this time for 
accuracy with the “ Woolwich*” gun, and which he admits were “perfectly 
satisfactory,” 2 on the grounds that, “ as only four rounds were fired, we 
cannot draw from them a conclusion as to the accuracy of the Woolwich 
system.” 3 
We now come to the account of the trials of June 2, 1868. Eour rounds 
were fired from the Woolwich gun—one at the 6-inch plates, two at the 
7-inch plates, and one at the 8-inch plates. “These projectiles struck the 
targets at undamaged places, and went right through them.” 4 
Two rounds were fired from the Krupp—both with Gruson's projectiles, 
and 46-30 lb. charges. One of these projectiles struck and penetrated the 
5-inch target, though why it was fired at this target at all is not very clear. 
The other struck the 8-inch plate, pierced the plate, and went 190 milli¬ 
metres (Krupp says 229 millimetres) into the wood backing, 5 and remained 
sticking in the target. “The result of this trial, as well as that of March 31, 
was, therefore, that the English 9-inch Woolwich rifled muzzle-loader gun 
was considerably superior to the Prussian 9j-inch 6 rifled breech-loader gun 
as regards execution done to armour-plated shields. Krupp's and Gruson's 
9i-inch 7 rifled breech-loader projectiles only just pierced the 6-inch target, 
and were entirely powerless against shields with 7-inch and 8-inch plates. 
The Palliser shells pierced all the shields completely.” 8 
Considering that the Prussian gun was now firing charges 3^ lbs. heavier 
than those originally assigned to it, 9 with a resulting increase of initial 
velocity from 1115 to 1130ft. per second, and that the gun was now 
therefore decidedly more powerful than it would have been if the Prussian 
navy had blindly accepted it, as first proposed, without trial; considering 
also, that, after some months' manipulation, the Prussians had been only able 
to get the gun up to the point of exhibiting a lamentable inferiority to a 
1 Captain yon Doppelmair’s description of the English powder is also incorrect. He asserts that 
resin is used in glazing it ; and elsewhere he tells us that this powder burns more rapidly and is 
more violent in its action in warm weathei*, because the resin becomes detached (pp. 14, 26). As a 
matter of fact no resin is employed. 
2 Doppelmair, p. 15. 3 Ibid. p. 15. 
4 Ibid. p. 16. We notice, in passing, that Captain von Doppelmair’s record of this experiment 
enables us to correct an error in one of the tables in Mr. Krupp’s pamphlet, in which the perform¬ 
ance of the English gun is erroneously credited to the Krupp gun.—Krupp, Table II. Round 2, 
column of effects. 
5 Krupp, Table II. Round 2, column of effects. 
6 In Captain von Doppelmair’s pamphlet, this gun is spoken of as a “ 96-pr.but this nomen¬ 
clature (which is that commonly used in Prussia, and which refers to the size of the bore in 
relation to the weight of spherical shot which it would fire), being liable to confuse, the calibre 
of the gun has been substituted. 
7 See note next above. 
8 Doppelmair, p. 16. 
9 Ibid. p. 11. 
