THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
78 
penetrative superiority of the Krupp gun, a superiority due solely to its 
greater weight and length and higher charge—in fact, to its being a bigger 
gun—it is clear that that superiority was considerable. Under the stress of 
defeat, the Prussians had developed the power of their gun, although, we 
observe in passing, without having satisfied themselves that the gun was 
capable of doing this increased work for any considerable number of rounds 
—without, in fact, subjecting it to any trial of endurance with the increased 
charges. Por the matter of that, it could hardly be worse to burst the gun 
than to accept without further effort the defeat which had been endured in 
the trials of March 31 and June 2. And there was always the hope, as the 
prismatic powder was mild, that the gun might not burst; wdiile, as the 
English gun might fail in some way or another—might fall somewhat short 
in some particular of the Prussian gun—there remained the hope of snatching 
a victory if the contest were continued; on the other hand, if it were now 
abandoned, the victory belonged too obviously to the English gun to be 
disputed. 
When the trial recommenced, on July 7, the position was thisThe 
English gun, having proved its superiority, had been heavily handicapped—- 
to an extent which is estimated at from about 18 to 30 per cent. As that 
superiority was obviously not inherent in the Prussian system, but had been 
obtained only by repeated alterations in that system, carried out during the 
trials, it was necessary for Captain von Doppelmair to explain why no 
alterations—of weight of charge and nature of powder—and no attempted 
improvements were permitted to the English gun; and this he does by 
quietly begging the whole question in a passage to which we have before 
referred, but which it will be as well here to quote :—“ If we consider the 
English system of guns of large calibre, we must admit that its arrangement 
is perfectly rational—that the proportion of charge, the construction of bore, 
the description of powder, are so combined with the material of the guns 
and the mode of manufacture, that, as a result of the whole, the greatest 
possible effect of the projectile is obtained as a combination of its accuracy 
and momentum* The whole arrangement of the English system follows, as 
a matter of necessity, from the material selected and the mode of manu¬ 
facture.” 1 We do not quote this passage for the purpose of calling attention 
to the curious contradiction involved in the statement that the “ description 
of powder”—which is admitted by Captain von Doppelmair, in common 
with the rest of the world, to be of an exceedingly destructive character, 
and which, on account of the violent strain which it imposes upon the guns, 
has earned the designation of poudre brutale —is a powder which it is 
“ perfectly rational ” to employ with guns made of a material which Captain 
von Doppelmair is anxious above all things to show to be inferior to steel. 
but we do not know the diameter of the iron part irrespective of its lead jacket. We must, there- 
fore, in any comparison, assume that the diameter of all the projectiles are identical with that of 
the gun from which they are fired.The English 9-inch gun, 43 lbs. charge, initial 
velocity 1324ft., reduced to 1237ft. on striking” (at 514 yds.), “weight of shot 260 lbs.; total 
striking energy 2652 foot-tons, or 94 foot-tons per inch of circumference of calibre. The Prussian 
96-pr., 53 lbs. charge, weight of shot 336 lbs., velocity (at 51 yds. from muzzle) reduced to 1217 ft. on 
striking at 614 yds.; total striking energy 3390 foot-tons, or 116 foot-tons per inch of circumference 
of calibre.” 
1 Doppelmair, p. 24. 
10 
