THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
101 
to defend steel guns and to disparage wrought-iron guns, is an exceedingly 
convenient theory. Having got one steel gun to exhibit, under the excep¬ 
tional circumstances above described, a fair amount of endurance, it is of 
course important to make the most of this result; and in no way can this 
be more conveniently done than by laying down as an axiom that “ from 
the trial of one specimen, a judgment can be formed as to all guns of the 
same description.” 
The application of this theory must immensely facilitate the introduction 
of the Krupp guns. Prove one Krupp gun, and you have proved all. 
There is no occasion for going to the expense and trouble of a number of 
tests to destruction—which, looking to the enormous cost of Krupp guns, 
is an advantage. Nurse one steel gun carefully, minimise the strain to 
which it is exposed by the employment of a mild powder and a rear vent, 
promptly cut away any incipient injury, renew the breech mechanism 
whenever it requires it, and if a crack appear which cannot be repaired, 
explain it, if possible, by the explosion of a shell within the bore; and in 
this way you may establish not merely the endurance of a single specimen, 
but of all steel guns of the same description. That is, in fact, the method 
which Captain von Doppelmair recommends when we have to deal with 
Krupp guns. Nor is the method peculiar to Captain von Doppelmair, 
although to him is due the credit of thus bluntly enunciating it. It is the 
method which, more or less, has governed the introduction of Krupp^s system 
of heavy artillery, and against which we desire strenuously to expostulate. 
If we seek for the source of that system, we always find ourselves referred 
back to some one single performance. An 11-inch Krupp gun has done 
well; therefore all 11-inch Krupp guns must do well. The 9-inch Krupp 
gun gave satisfaction at Tegel; therefore all 9-inch Krupp guns must give 
satisfaction. If we enquire in Belgium for their warrant for the purchase 
of a few heavy Krupp guns, we are referred to the Prussian experience; 
and the Prussian warrant for the adoption of these guns, if we except a few 
isolated and partial trials, is the Kussian experience; and the Kussian 
experience, to which we always come back, is so remarkable as to be worth 
relating in some detail. 
In 1865, a report was made by a Kussian Artillery Commission which 
had been appointed to inquire into the provision of ordnance for fortresses 
and naval service. 1 A most important point must be noticed in connection 
with this report—viz. that a large order for steel ingots, out of which guns 
were to be carved, had been given to Krupp by the Kussian Government 
before the trials which the Committee were required to conduct had com¬ 
menced. This circumstance is stated to have been due to the political 
exigencies of the moment ("the political aspect of the moment called for 
immediate armament, and did not allow of loss of time,”) 2 and Cronstadt 
had suddenly in 1864 to be placed "in a condition to oppose the attack of 
an armour-plated squadron.” 3 
However unavoidable this order for a material for making guns before 
its suitability for the purpose had been established, the circumstance can 
1 A translation of this report will be found in the “Proceedings of the Royal Artillery 
Institution,” Yol. V. pp. 59-73. 
2 “ Proceedings of the Royal Artillery Institution,” Yol. Y. p, 63. 3 Ibid. Yo!. Y. p. 64. 
