78 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
the lead jacket. He observes, “ The proportion between these two numbers 1 
is as 1 to 1*17. These numbers are in contradiction to the results of the 
trial, which showed that the effect of both guns is about the same. This 
trial serves thus as a further proof that the momentum of the lead jacket is 
almost entirely lost as regards the effect desired from the projectile,” 3 —a 
conclusion, as we have before pointed out, exceedingly unfavourable to the 
Krupp system, as imposing the necessity for an excess of ballistic power to 
produce penetrative effects equal to those obtainable with the muzzle-loader. 
The comparison obtained in this trial of August 4, if it added nothing to 
the reputation of the Krupp gun, but rather further marked its inherent 
inferiority, had for the Prussians one useful result. It showed that the 
power of the English gun might be minimised against a strong target by 
using large capacity shells; and this piece of practical information deter¬ 
mined the course of the subsequent experiments. We have seen already how 
the Prussians had opposed themselves to any attempts to increase the power 
of the English gun by using large charges of other powder, or by other 
means, such as had been adopted for the Krupp gun. But when it became 
a question of reducing the power of the English gun, by using against a 
strong target a shell specially designed for use only against weak targets— 
a shell designed not for producing great penetrative but great explosive 
effects—then all hesitation about breaking the rule disappeared. There 
was no longer a question of strictly adhering to one pattern of English 
shell. 
But, as we shall see, the selection of a large capacity English shell for 
use on this occasion, in competition with small capacity German shells, was 
not the most remarkable incident of the trials of August 4. The experiments 
were made against the 7-inch target, at 782 yds. range. Seven rounds 
were fired in all—viz. five from Krupp, consisting of two Gruson chilled 
and three Krupp steel shells; two from the Woolwich gun. Three out of the 
seven rounds were thrown out of the comparison. One of these, 3 a Gruson, 
struck the wood at the bottom of the target; one Krupp shell 4 struck on the 
top of an old live shell which was sticking in the target, and exploded it; 
and one Krupp 5 grazed the edge of a plate and carried it away. Mr. Krupp, 
we observe, takes credit for both the two latter shells as “ through.” 6 
Captain von Doppelmair most properly throws out these rounds. This 
leaves us with the four following effective rounds : 7 — 
Bound 1. There is very conflicting evidence about this round—a Gruson 
shell. Captain von Doppelmair says that it “made a clean hole right 
through the target.” 8 Krupp* s pamphlet does not give it as “ through,” 
but states that it stuck in the wood backing, where it exploded —" explosive 
effect principally in the direction of gun.” 9 The “Times” correspondent 
says the shell “burst backwards in the backing” 10 'It seems clear, there¬ 
fore, that the shell did not act as perfectly as readers of Captain von 
Doppelmair* s pamphlet might be led to suppose. 
1 About 2*34 metre-tons per square centimetre of the cross section of the Palliser, and about 
2*75 metre-tons per square centimetre of the Gruson.—Doppelmair, p. 34. 2 Ibid, 
3 Round 1 in Krupp’s pamphlet. 4 Round 4 in Krupp’s pamphlet. 
5 Round 3 in Krupp’s pamphlet. 6 Krupp, Table X. 
7 No. 2 in Krupp’s pamphlet. 8 Doppelmair, p. 35. 
9 Krupp, Table X, 10 “ Times,” January 23, 1869, 
