80 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
Bound 4 was a Krupp steel shell from the Prussian gun, which did good 
execution. It penetrated the plate, exploded in the backing, and blew a 
hole clean through the target. This, without doubt, was the best result 
obtained on this occasion. At last—when, by the adoption of frequent 
alterations and improvements in the Prussian gun; when, by the use of 
53 lbs. instead of 43 lbs. of powder, of an improved construction of pro¬ 
jectiles, and of steel shell, the effective penetrative power of that gun had 
been brought up to its maximum, while the effective penetrative power of 
the English gun had, by the use of improper shell, been brought down to a 
minimum-—the former weapon was able to snatch a victory; the only victory 
which it had scored throughout the trials, and not substantially a victory at 
all, if we take into account the disparity in the two guns, and in the 
conditions under which they had been fired. “ The case stood thus/” says 
the “ Times” correspondent:—“The Gruson chilled shell from the Krupp 
gun penetrated the plate and burst backwards. Both the Armstrong chilled 
shell of the wrong pattern did the same. One shell only of the three steel 
ones struck a sound place. It passed through the target with good effect. 
This was the first success (so called) of the Prussian system.” 1 2 This was 
the point at which the Prussian Artillery Committee determined to make 
their report. The representatives of the English gun pressed, over and over 
again, for a trial of proper English shells (i.e. small capacity Palliser) before 
any decision was come to. They reminded the Committee that it had been 
proved in England—not by one or two rounds, but by a long series of 
experiments—that the bursting charge does not diminish, but rather increases 
the penetrative power of Palliser shell ; 3 they appealed to the results of the 
trial on June 2 to show that the English gun with empty small capacity shell 
was capable of penetrating the 8-inch target, and that it followed that the 
same shell if fired loaded against the 7-inch target, were not likely to fail. 
Equally cogent were the arguments that the Gruson shell of proper and 
latest pattern had failed to penetrate both the 8-inch and 7-inch targets; 
that in England live Palliser 9-inch shell had pierced the 8-inch target at 
Shoeburyness, 3 and that the failure to penetrate the 7-inch target at Tegel 
could therefore only have been due to the shell being, as it had been 
expressly declared to be, too weak. Finally, no argument was needed to show 
that—considering the previous performances of the Woolwich gun, the 
advantages which the Krupp gun had enjoyed in the matter of alterations 
of charges, shell, &c. } and the fact that this was the first occasion on which 
the Prussian gun had succeeded in even slightly passing the English gun, 
notwithstanding its two tons greater weight, its greater weight of projectile^ 
its greater charge, and its resulting greater ballistic power—it was manifestly 
improper to bring the contest summarily to a conclusion, and to render a 
report at this particular stage. But it appears that the Prussian Artillery 
1 “Times,” January 23, 1869. 
2 See “Extracts of Report and Proceedings of O.S.C.,” Vol. V. p. 44. “The results of this 
practice appear to warrant the following practical conclusions:—1. That the bursting charge in a 
Palliser shell evidently assists the penetration to a certain extent. . . .” And again, Ibid. 
Yol. V. p. 47 :—“ The bursting charge in the Palliser shell assists penetration j” so much so, indeed, 
that we find the Ordnance Select Committee recommending an increase of the bursting charge. 
3 See, inter alia , Round 1248. “ Extracts of O.S.C.,” Yol. IY. p. 374. 
