TItE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
05 
Thus the Krupp guns are more costly than the Woolwich by at least 
100 per cent., to say nothing of the far greater cost of the projectiles of 
the former. 1 
VI. 
Comparative 'Endurance of Woolwich and Krupp Guns . 
Hitherto, as we have seen, Captain von Doppelmair has contrived so to 
confuse the issues as to convey a superficial impression that throughout the 
contest at Tegel not merely did a particular Krupp gun prove superior to a 
particular English gun, but that the Prussian system of heavy rifled ordnance 
established on that occasion a complete superiority at all points to the 
English system of heavy rifled ordnance. Directly the knot which Captain 
von Doppelmair has so elaborately tied is disentangled, his argument, as we 
have seen, falls to pieces. In the same way, when we reach the question of 
the relative endurance of the English and Prussian guns, Captain von 
Doppelmair, instead of strictly limiting the comparison to the respective 
merits of steel and coiled wrought-iron as materials for ordnance, and 
eliminating as far as possible all conditions foreign to the comparison, 
proceeds to envelop the subject in so much smoke and darkness, that the 
difficulty of seeing one's way to a clear and just conclusion becomes greater, 
if possible, than ever. Captain von Doppelmair's attack at this point, 
partakes of the character and confusion of a midnight sortie. It ought to 
have been an essentially plain, philosophical discussion. Eor it may be 
said that herein resides the fundamental, the permanent, and characteristic 
difference between the two systems of ordnance, and here, if anywhere, 
temperate and judicial criticism was desirable. 
The test determined upon for the Tegel guns was 600 rounds, with 
1 The “ Times correspondent, from whose admirable article on the Tegel experiments we have 
already made one or two extracts, makes the following calculations with regard to the relative cost 
of the two systems:—“ The question of cost is not to be measured by the difference between that 
of the projectiles actually fired, but between the cost of the whole quantity of ammunition to be 
provided for all the guns in a battery. We were informed that by using Siemen’s furnaces, and 
otherwise cheapening the manufacture, M. Krupp can make steel projectiles at the cost of one 
shilling per pound. A 280 lb. shell would, then, cost £14—or, roughly speaking, about £10 more 
than the Palliser shell. Let us suppose that the Krupp gun is reduced in price to £3000. We 
know that the Armstrong can be sold at £1300. Let us further suppose only 200 rounds per gun 
to be provided. We believe the selling price of Palliser 9-inch chilled shell is £4 10s. each. Against 
the 10s. we will put the cost of the extra powder used in the Krupp gun and shell, and the neces¬ 
sary renewals of the breech-loading apparatus. Then, a battery of ten Prussian guns will cost 
£17,000 more than ten Armstrongs of 9-inch calibre, and the difference in the cost of shells will be 
£20,000—or £37,000 altogether in the battery. To leave no margin for possible exaggeration, the 
difference may be put at £30,000—or £3000 per gun—enough to provide Moncrieff’s carriages and 
the whole of the magazines and building of the fort. If these considerations have no value in 
the eyes of the Prussian War Office, it must be rich or extravagant beyond anything we can dream 
of in England.”—“Times,” January 23, 1869. 
