92 
MINUTES OF PllOCEEDINGS OF 
as seamen besides those appertaining to gunnery.” 1 But having made these 
important admissions. Captain von Doppelmair hastily explains them away. 
He does not “ attach any particular importance ” to these points. These 
defects are (e unimportantthey “ exist in the case of all things of improved 
construction.” 3 In other words. Captain von Doppelmair is forced, by the 
pressure of his own reasoning, to the admission that in his opinion simplicity 
is a matter of no practical value, and that no particular credit ought to 
attach on this account to a system which possesses this characteristic in a 
pre-eminent degree. How far an officer who holds this view is a trust¬ 
worthy guide in artillery questions, practical artillerymen will best be able 
to judge. 
Y. 
Comparative Cost of Woolwich and Krupp Guns. 
On one point—the relative cost of the Krupp and Woolwich guns— 
Captain von Doppelmair is silent. Whether he thought that a difference 
of 100 per cent, in favour of the English gun was, like the greater 
simplicity of the weapon, a matter of “no particular importance,” and 
therefore not ■worth mentioning, or whether he found the fact insoluble 
by any available theory, he has assigned to this point no place in the com¬ 
parison of the two systems. And yet the question of price is surely one of 
great importance. Is it nothing that the English gun should have cost 
only £1500, as against £3450, which was paid for the Krupp? The 
subject appears to be one of sufficient interest to make it worth while to 
supply the details which Captain von Doppelmair has omitted to furnish. 
The following table gives the prices of the heavier Krupp guns and pro¬ 
jectiles. We have included in it other particulars, respecting the calibres, 
&c., of the Krupp guns, which may be useful. 
I Doppelmair, pp, 56, 57, 
2 Ibid. p. 57, 
