THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
105 
can be accepted as satisfactory. But, for the moment, we are concerned 
with our English weapons, and with observing how far they have satisfied 
the test which Captain von Doppelmair very properly desires to impose upon 
them. That officer, it is perhaps hardly necessary to observe, conscientiously 
believes that the English guns have failed to satisfy such a test. He states 
this, indeed, in express terms, and labours through several pages to prove 
it. He assures his readers that “the English artillery can only bring 
forward two guns” which have stood a satisfactory endurance test; 1 he 
gives us a table of twelve English guns, which he says have failed; 2 he 
quotes seven passages from the reports of the Ordnance Select Committee 
to prove how frequent have been the failures, and how numerous the 
difficulties with the English guns; 3 and, finally, he condemns the whole 
English system of gun-making, stating that, “in the English guns there is no 
scientific arrangement of metal ;” 4 that “ the scientific arrangement may be 
there, but it is only accidental;” 5 that “the tension of the wrought-iron in 
the coils, according to their different diameters, is left entirely undetermined ;” 6 * 
that “ great accuracy in making the coils is not observed, and no trouble is 
taken to fulfil any of the requirements of the theory of the resistance of 
guns;”? that the durability of wrought-iron guns depends “on the con¬ 
scientious and technical knowledge of the individual workman .” 8 
It is hardly necessary to inform anyone who knows anything about the 
subject that, if the case were as Captain von Doppelmair represents it, no 
defence of the English heavy guns would be possible. If we really had for 
all these years been blindly groping our way by rule of thumb—making 
guns on no definite or scientific arrangements, bursting one specimen after 
another, adopting innumerable and hap-hazard modifications of construction, 
and in the result producing only two guns of satisfactory endurance—we 
should deserve not merely all the hard things which Captain von Doppelmair 
says of us, but many besides, and our heavy artillery would be simply a 
disgrace to our service. Indeed, assuming, as we are bound to do, that 
Captain von Doppelmair sincerely believes what he tells us, we must render 
a tribute to his comparative moderation of language, and esteem it in some 
sort an honour that he has thought it worth while seriously to discuss an 
artillery which is in so deplorable a condition. 
But let us examine the several statements upon which this lively attack 
upon our heavy guns rests. 
1st. “ The English artillery can only bring forward two guns ” of any 
considerable endurance. 9 
We do not remember to have met, in any work on artillery, a statement 
at once so broad and so inexact as this. Only two English guns which have 
stood severe endurance tests! If Captain von Doppehnair j s information 
1 Doppelmair, p. 74 2 Ibid. p. 69. 3 ibid. pp. 75-77. 
4 Ibid. p. 71. 5 Ibid. p. 71. « ibid. p. 71. 
7 Ibid. p. 72. s i^d. p. 69. 
9 Ibid. p. 74 This extraordinary passage is as follows:—"Against these seven Rrupp guns 
of large calibre which have stood the test in the most brilliant manner ” (see ante, p. 103, where 
it is shown that four of these were solid guns), " the English artillery can only bring forward two 
guns, one of which, of only 7-inch calibre, cannot strictly be reckoned as belonging to guns of large 
calibre.” 
14 
