THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
77 
We now reach an important point in the narrative of the Tegel trials. 
Hitherto, as we have seen, the Prussian gun had proved itself at first 
inferior to the English gun, and afterwards—when the charge of powder had 
been largely increased, the projectiles altered, and the initial velocity im¬ 
proved—it had succeeded in equalling the performances of the English gun, 
but not in surpassing them. And this equality had been obtained at the 
cost of an expenditure of ballistic power on the part of the breech-loaders, 
which, as has been explained, left the substantial advantage with the English 
system. 
It was now determined to try the two systems with live shells. But 
before doing this, the Prussians satisfied themselves, by actual trial against 
the 8-inch target, that the “ large capacity ” Palliser shell— i.e. a shell 
containing a bursting charge of 5Jibs, instead of 2-| lbs., and having there¬ 
fore thinner walls—was less .effective than the “ small capacity ” Palliser 
against a strong target. That this was so, hardly needed an experiment to 
prove. The large capacity shells were intended to develope high explosive 
effects when the target was well within the power of the gun. The inferior 
penetrative power of the large capacity shell had been expressly declared 
upon the ground by the representatives of the English gun, and the small 
capacity shell had been expressly prescribed for maximum penetrative 
effects. It is worth while also to notice that the Prussians themselves fully 
recognised the value of thick walls for high penetrative effects; because we 
find presently that when a Krupp steel shell failed, the failure was ascribed 
to the “ thinness of wall consequent on their large chamber for bursting 
charge,” * 1 2 and Captain von Doppelmair is careful to tell us that this is 
" not in disfavour of steel for projectiles, but of the construction of this 
particular shell.” 3 That therefore the large capacity Palliser shell should 
fail when it struck a strong place on the 8-inch target, was only what might 
have been anticipated; and yet this shell actually, as Captain von 
Doppelmair admits, did “about the same” 3 as the only round from the 
Krupp with which it could be compared. This performance is very in¬ 
structive; because not merely had the Krupp projectile, according to 
Captain von Doppelmair, a striking momentum of 117 as against 100 for 
the Palliser shell, 4 but it was a small capacity Gruson shell; nay, more, it was 
a 336 lb. Gruson shell, which had a chamber only large enough to contain 
as much powder (2 \ lbs.) as a small capacity 250 lb. Palliser. 5 It was, 
therefore, or should have been, a stronger shell than an English small 
capacity shell; the comparison is still more in its favour when made, as in 
this case, with a large capacity English shell adapted for carrying 5 lbs. of 
powder. And yet the two shells did about the same. Captain von 
Doppelmair is only able to account for this result by throwing the blam e on 
p. 3 lie states that “the Krupp steel shells with hardened point and thin lead jacket were 
excellent.” At. p. 32 he says “ Both the Krupp steel shells were set up on penetrating into the 
target.” At p. 31 he speaks of the great accuracy of the steel shells with thin lead jacket. At 
p. 33 he speaks of the inferior accuracy of these shells. 
1 Doppelmair, p. 63. 
2 Ibid. p. 47. 3 ibid. p. 34. * Ibid. 
* Indeed the Prussian shell contained a rather less charge than the small capacity Palliser— 
viz. 2-420lbs. against 2-464lbs.—Doppelmair, p. 3o. 
