THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
99 
203rd round 1 a crack appeared in the steel tube. Was this crack (which 
Captain von Doppelmair states expressly was small in the beginning 
and less than that which first appeared in the Krupp) , 2 at once cut away, like 
the crack which twice appeared in the Krupp gun ? Not at all. The firing 
was continued for another 78 rounds with battering charges , and 30 rounds 
with reduced charges, until the injury had become developed to such an 
extent that it was impossible to repair it except by the removal of the gun to 
the factory for re-tubing. Such removal the Prussian authorities refused to 
sanction. They informed Sir William Armstrong that he might cut out 
the crack if he could on the ground, as Mr. Krupp had done; but the 
permission was worthless, because it came too late. It is important to put 
this matter in a clear light. What had happened, then, was this : a crack 
appeared in the English gun, which could, like the crack in the Krupp gun, 
have been readily removed at first, but, after the existence of the injury was 
well known to the Commission, it was developed by continued firing to an 
extent beyond the possibility of repair, except with larger mechanical 
appliances than were available on a practice ground. When a similar crack 
appeared in the Krupp gun, its removal was at once authorised—a proceed¬ 
ing, as we have seen, which was also successfully repeated on a second 
occasion. The flaw in the Krupp gun was precisely similar to that in the 
English gun, and originated, as did that in the latter, at the vent. The 
treatment of the two guns under these circumstances should have been exactly 
the same. It was, however, as different as possible. The Krupp gun was 
promptly and efficiently repaired ; the English gun was not repaired at all, 
but subjected to about 100 more rounds of heavy charges, and with a 
severe powder, after which repair on the ground —the only repair permitted 
—had become impossible. 
But this treatment, although it placed the English gun at a serious and 
improper disadvantage in the competition, did, in fact, and perhaps contrary 
to the anticipations of its opponents, establish an important merit of the 
construction. It showed that even after the steel tube has cracked, the 
gun might still be fired a considerable number of rounds without danger. 
Is there anything in the Tegel or any other trial of the Krupp guns which 
will enable Captain von Doppelmair to affirm the same of those weapons ? 3 
We may here state, also, that the English gun has since been re-lined 
and re-proved, and is at this moment in the service of a foreign Government, 
which, knowing its history, purchased it at the same price as if it had been 
a new gun. 
There is another circumstance about the cracking of the English gun to 
which, as bearing upon the question at issue, attention must be called, viz. 
that the part of the gun which failed—the part which behaved, when com- 
1 Captain von Doppelmair says, at the 138th round a guttering, 20 millimetres long, appeared 
(pp. 50, 61), 
2 See note above, where the guttering in. the English gun is given as 20 millimetres ; while at 
p. 53, the original Krupp crack is stated to have been 25 millimetres. 
3 It is not beside the subject to compare this behaviour with that of the 8-inch Krupp gun which 
burst explosively, at Tegel, into many pieces (see Doppelmair, pp. 84,85). Captain von Doppelmair 
will say that this was a solid gun ; to which we reply, that the solid guns were originally advo¬ 
cated by Mr. Krupp just as confidently as his hooped guns are now. 
