THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
75 
projectile was a Gruson of the same construction as had done well in 
Bound 3. Either this round was a failure or a success. If a failure, 
Mr. Krupp ought not to have recorded it as “ through /* whether a failure 
or a success. Captain von Doppelmair should have included it in his account 
of the experiments. 
Bound 6 1 was a Krupp steel shell, against the 9-inch plate. It went 
over 5 ins. 2 into the wood backing, where it stuck, and was shaken out on 
the following day by the concussion of a succeeding round. Both Captain 
von Doppelmair and Mr. Krupp affirm that this shell struck on an excep¬ 
tionally strong place; whereas, in fact, the unsupported balk of timber at 
the back would not materially add to the resistance when the target clearly 
overmatched the gun. 
Bound 7 3 was fired at the 9-inch target from the Woolwich gun, with a 
shell made by Gruson in exact imitation of a Palliser, 4 but slightly heavier. 
The shell did fairly, penetrating about ins. into the wood backing. At 
the same time, it is doubtful if this round should be included in the com¬ 
petition, having been supplied by the Prussian Government without the 
concurrence of Sir William Armstrong. 
Bound 8 5 was a Palliser shell proper from the Woolwich gun, at the 
9-inch target. It penetrated about 4 ins. into the backing—about 1-| in. 
less than the Krupp steel shell in Bound 6. Mr. Krupp states that this 
shot “ struck the 9-inch plate between two bolts and struts (favourable 
spot) .** 6 An eye-witness of the trials, writing in the “ Times/'’ says:— 
“ Krupp’s pamphlet is incorrect in stating that this shell struck on a 
favourable spot. It struck on a strut/* 7 The same eye-witness comes to a 
conclusion with regard to these trials which every impartial witness must 
arrive at, that ec no advantage can fairly be claimed for either side/* The 
same conclusion, in point of fact, was arrived at by the Prussian Com¬ 
mittee, which reported that no definite superiority had been established on 
either side. 
What, then, had become of the large theoretical penetrative superiority of 
the Krupp gun—the 18 to 33 per cent, excess of ballistic power? It had 
become absorbed apparently by the inherent disadvantages of the system; 
and this result was as distinctly a substantial victory for the Woolwich 
system, as would be a dead heat between two horses of which the smaller 
was heavily handicapped. 
And this conclusion we reach without any reference to the question that 
the only Krupp shell which produced results comparable with those obtained 
by the Palliser was a steel projectile—and steel, Mr. Krupp affirms, is vastly 
superior to chilled iron for penetrating purposes.** 8 If this be so, the 
victory of the English system becomes still more marked, and Mr. Krupp is 
on the horns of this dilemma—he must either maintain the superiority of 
his steel shell, in which case he has a further excess of non-productive 
penetrative power on the part of the Prussian gun to account for; or he 
1 No. 4 in Captain von Doppelmair’s account. 
2 Mr. Krupp sets it down as 5 ‘ 9 "; another account gives it as 5 ‘ 3 ". 
3 Round 6 in Captain von Doppelmair’s pamphlet. 4 Doppelmair, p. 29. 
5 Round 6 in Doppelmair. 6 Krupp, Table IV. 
7 “ Times,” January 23, 1869. 3 Krupp, p. 9, 
