THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
79 
Round 2. 1 2 This was an English shell, and a small capacity shell, but it 
was one which ought not to have been fired. It was made of pure Redsdale 
iron. Experiments in England had shown that iron to be unsuited for 
penetrative purposes; and the shell had been, at the request of the repre¬ 
sentative of the English gun, withdrawn from competition. 3 The shell was 
painted brown to distinguish it from others; and on account of its having 
been withdrawn from the penetration trials, it had been ordered by the 
Prussian Artillery Committee not to be used at all, even for the endurance 
trials. The firing of this shell was in flat disobedience of this order. It 
occurred “ during the absence of Armstrong’s agent from his gun, and it 
was only on picking up the pieces that the mistake was discovered/'’ 3 The 
shell, as it happened, produced very much the same effect as the Gruson 
shell in Round 1. That is to say, it penetrated the plate, lodged in the 
wood backing, and burst backwards. 4 The circumstances under which this 
shell was fired gave rise to a good deal of discussion and angry feeling at 
the time, for which what we have stated of those circumstances affords 
sufficient justification. It was impossible for anyone in Captain von 
DoppelmaiPs position, and with his knowledge of these trials, to be ignorant 
of all this. And we may therefore fairly ask, why does Captain von 
Doppelmair omit all mention of the fact that this shell was experimental— 
that it had been improperly fired? And a further justification is needed of 
his misleading statement, that the shell was a “ small capacity Palliser shell,” 
when it was, as we have seen, not a Palliser shell at all. It is with regret 
that we observe the grave error which was committed at Tegel, reproduced 
and apparently sanctioned, in a pamphlet which professes to give an accurate 
account of those trials. We are afraid, however, that it must be admitted 
that Captain von DoppelmaiEs narrative has by this time reached a point 
at which there is no longer any pretence of impartial criticism. The 
neutral tints which appeared to prevail for a few pages, soon brightened 
into the warm colouring of the partisan; and, pressed on all sides by the 
difficulties which necessarily attended an attempt to evolve conclusions 
unfavourable to the English gun and favourable to tbe Krupp out of the 
Tegel trials, Captain von Doppelmair seems, even before this crucial 
experiment (as the Prussians chose to consider it) of August 4, to have 
abandoned in despair the impossible task of keeping up his self-imposed 
role of a candid critic, and to have found it necessary, if he would 
cut his way at all through the difficulties which lay between him and his 
desired conclusions, to throw off every encumbrance, and to rely upon the 
ignorance or carelessness of his readers for effecting his escape from a false 
and inconvenient position. 
Passing to Round 3, 5 we find a Palliser “ large capacity” shell—which, as 
has been explained, was not the proper .shell to use for this purpose—getting 
through the plate and into the backing, where it exploded without producing 
any very great destructive effect. 6 
1 Round 6 in Krupp’s pamphlet* 
2 The shell had been sent to Berlin confessedly as experimental, pending the result of some 
trials at Shoeburyness. Those trials showed that shells of this iron were too brittle, and it had 
therefore been at once formally withdrawn from trial. 
3 “ Times, 1 ” January 23, 1869* 4 Doppelmair, p. 35. 
5 No. 7 in Krupp’s pamphlet* 6 No. 5. in Krupp’s pamphlet. 
