96 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
battering charges, viz. 43 lbs. of R.L.G. powder, fired from the forward 
vent of the English gun; 53 lbs. of Russian prismatic powder, fired from 
the rear vent of the Prussian gun. No artillerist will need to be told that 
this comparison w r as absolutely worthless. The difference in the force 
hrisante of the two powders is so great, that the trial was no more com¬ 
parative than would be a trial of two guns with totally different descriptions 
of detonating compositions. In what exact relation the destructive action, 
or maximum pressure, of the English powder stands to that of the prismatic 
powder, it may be difficult to say positively. The Prussians themselves 
have estimated it, as already stated, at twice as great. 1 This estimate 
is probably excessive. At all events, it is unreliable, as it was arrived at 
by means of an instrument—the Rodman pressure-gauge—which recent 
experiments in England have shewn to be practically worthless for the 
purpose for which it is intended. 2 The English estimate of the maximum 
pressures exerted by the two powders, as determined by the chronograph, 
is as follows 
R.L.G. Russian prismatic. 
Tons per square in. Tons per square in. 
8-inch gun. 29 20 
10-inch gun. 28 19 
Whether we accept these figures as absolutely correct or not, it is certain 
that the hrisante character of the English powder is vastly greater than 
that of any other known powder. Indeed, this fact has been most distinctly 
and emphatically recognised in general terms by nearly every artillerist— 
among others by a Prussian officer, whose authority Captain von Doppelmair 
will hardly dispute. Captain Sallback, “ Reporter on Artillery Experiments 
at the Prussian War Office,” states that the English powder is so exceed¬ 
ingly racking and destructive (“ si enormement hrisante ”) that “ no gun in 
the world can resist it during a long number of discharges.” 3 The Russian 
prismatic powder, on the other hand, has recommended itself on account 
mainly of its mild character—its progressive inflammation—by which the 
maximum strain on the gun is immensely reduced. To subject guns to a 
comparative trial of endurance, with powders differing so widely in their 
destructive effects upon the gun, was therefore manifestly an absurdity. 
Put this was not all. The English gun was saddled with a still heavier 
burden: while the Krupp was fired with a rear vent, the English gun was 
fired throughout with a forward vent. No artilleryman will fail to appre¬ 
ciate the importance of this difference. With the forward vent, the maximum 
pressure exerted by the R.L.G. powder is of course greatly increased, in con¬ 
sequence of the more rapid inflammation of the whole charge. The increase 
of pressure due to the position of vent, has been estimated by the Com¬ 
mittee on Explosives as :— 
Forward vent. Rear vent. 
R.L.G. powder. 28 18 
More than this, in computing the number of rounds fired at Tegel, it 
1 See p. 63, note 1. 
2 This instrument has been entirely discarded on this account by the Committee on Explosives. 
3 “ Journal des Armes Speciale.” We have already seen what the effect of only a few rounds 
of the English powder was on the Prussian gun. (See p. 68). 
