76 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
must give up the superiority of his steel shell, in which case he must explain 
why he has recourse to a material at least four times as costly as chilled 
iron. 
Captain von DoppelmaiFs conclusions from these trials are—First, that 
the Prussian gun can pierce the 8-inch target “ with a surplus of power,” 1 — 
a conclusion which, in view of the decided failures at rounds 1 and 5, and 
the circumstance that round 2 was on a weak place, is hardly likely to 
receive unqualified acceptance; secondly, that the English 9-inch gun also 
pierces the 8-inch shield, “ but that the destruction of the target at the 
back is much less considerable.” 3 This last is rather a strong conclusion 
to arrive at on the evidence of so few rounds, and we are disposed to doubt 
if the effect upon the back of the target of a blind Gruson or steel shell, 
which breaks into few pieces, is at all equal to that of a Palliser shell, which 
breaks into many pieces. But if we admit it, what does it amount to ?—that 
the Palliser projectile, instead of expending itself in producing comparatively 
useless destructive effects, enters the ship in a shower of fragments which 
carry havoc and destruction among the crew. This is a naval question, 
upon which English opinion has long since pronounced itself. The real 
object in the attack of iron-clads, as of other ships, is less the disablement 
of the vessel than of the men and guns which it contains; to destroy the 
vessel, when we can, if we choose, reach the men and guns, is a tedious and 
roundabout way of accomplishing our object. “A ship, its guns, and its 
crew, constitute in combination an active fighting power. Destroy or 
paralyze one of the elements, and you destroy or paralyze the combination. 
. . . . In making choice of the direction and nature of attack, it is 
important to endeavour to effect the object in the shortest time, in the 
easiest manner, and with the least possible expenditure of men, money, and 
material.The ship represents a passive agent in the combination 
of fighting power. The men are the active and vital agents—the soul of the 
system; and while the passive agent, constructed as it now is, will stand a 
vast deal of battering without becoming disabled, comparatively few shells 
will serve to disorganise and paralyze the best crew ever brought together. 
. . . . This view, we conceive, embodies the whole merits of the shell 
system of attack. The great primary advantage of the use of shells is, that 
they wreak a tremendous destruction within the vessel, carrying terror and 
confusion between decks, creating smoke and wounds, and accomplishing 
a demoralising effect, such as shot produce, only in a very much less marked 
degree.” 3 This view we hold to be a perfectly sound one, and it is an 
answer to Captain von DoppelmaiEs depreciation of the English projectiles 
on the ground that they break up into a greater number of pieces than the 
Prussian shells, 4 since these pieces are effective, and serve as so much 
mitraille among the crew. It is worth while also to point out, in passing, 
that it is only externally jagged holes—not those which are internally 
jagged—which are difficult to plug, and therefore especially damaging to 
ships. Externally, the hole produced by the English shell is of the same 
character as that produced by the Prussian shell. 5 
1 Doppelmair, p. 30. 2 Ibid. 
8 “ Pall Mall Gazette,” November 6, 1867. 4 Doppelmair, pp. 30, 62. 
5 We notice, in passing, an apparent contradiction in Captain von Doppelmair’s narrative. At 
