THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
89 
operation with the breech-loader simple and easy, and with the muzzle- 
loader long and heavy; he begs the whole question by informing us that 
the loading of the Prussian gun is “ much more convenient;" and he is 
thus finally (e led to assume 33 that the Prussian gun can be more rapidly 
and conveniently loaded than the English gun, and with less danger to the 
gunners. 1 By this means he easily arrives at the conclusion that a gun, 
which actually proved itself in open competition more rapid in manipulation 
than its rival, is slower, more difficult, and more dangerous to load. If 
Captain von Doppelmair's conclusions could be depended upon, it would 
follow apparently that a 14^-ton gun is generally easier to handle than 
one of 12^ tons. Further, while up to this point the whole English 
system had been kept rigorously together—dealt with as a whole, and 
not permitted to be resolved for the purposes of comparison into its 
elements—we suddenly find that system broken up into different parts. 
If the English gun proved rapid in manipulation, the merit did not belong 
to the gun, but to the carriage. It is no longer a question of a complete 
system, but of a system composed of many elements. If Captain von 
Doppelmair had adopted this mode of comparison throughout, there would 
be no reason to complain—only in this case his pamphlet would probably 
not have been written. But to refuse on one page to recognise any separa¬ 
tion of the parts of the system, and to reserve a right of separation when 
convenient, is plainly inadmissible. 
It is a common error, similar to that which assumes an “ incontestable" 
superiority of accuracy for breech-loaders, to assume an incontestable 
superiority of rapidity for the same class of guns. This theory is put 
forward indifferently with regard to breech-loaders of all sizes and calibres. 
It has been well observed on this point, that “ it is forgotten that the 
strength and skill of men are limited, while the size of guns, and 
consequently the weight and complexity of the breech mechanism, are 
comparatively unlimited. Men can work small breech-loaders very quickly; 
mere men cannot work quickly the mechanism of such breech-loaders as the 
Krupp 1000-pr. With muzzle-loading guns there is no such wide difference 
between guns of different size, because the labour peculiar to muzzle-loaders 
—that is, the labour of sponging and ramming, does not increase in any¬ 
thing like the same ratio as the labour peculiar to breech-loaders—that is, 
the working of the mechanism. Thus, there may be a point where the 
muzzle-loader will overtake and pass the breech-loader in rapid fire; and the 
question is wholly practical." 3 
Turning from theory to fact, what do we find ? That the rapidity of fire 
of the English 9-inch muzzle-loading gun was at Tegel nearly three times 
as great as that of the Krupp 9i-inch breech-loading gun; that the former 
gun has been proved at Shoeburyness to be capable of being fired with 
accuracy at a rate of 5 rounds in 3 minutes 22 seconds; that the 9-pr. 
muzzle-loading bronze gun has fired 50 rounds in 7 minutes; 3 and that 
with the 9-inch Woolwich gun the following practice for rapidity and 
accuracy is officially recorded 
1 Doppelmair, pp. 60, 61. 2 “ Neue Militar Zeitung.” 
3 “ Report of Special Committee on Field Artillerv for India,” p. 10. 
12 
