114 
MINUTES OF PEOCEEDINGS OF 
VII. 
General Comparison of Woolwich and Krupp Systems of Heavy 
Artillery . 
Thus far we have been content to parry Captain von Doppelmair’s several 
attacks on our English system of heavy ordnance. We have confined our¬ 
selves as much as possible to examining the statements upon which those 
attacks rest, and to showing that the Tegel trials really furnished no 
comparison between the Krupp and Woolwich guns, for the reason that the 
former weapon was much bigger and longer and heavier; that it fired far 
heavier charges and projectiles, with a large resulting theoretical ballistic 
superiority; and for the further reason, that in the endurance tests it was 
not only fired with a far milder pow^der than its rival, but enjoyed special 
advantages whicli the English gun was not permitted to share. We have 
sliowm also, we believe, that, despite these disadvantages, the English gun, 
wdien fired with proper projectiles, actually surpassed the Prussian gun in 
penetrative effects; that it exhibited an endurance which was practically— 
notwithstanding the failure of its treacherous steel tube—more valuable and 
excellent than that obtained by the skilful nursing of the Krupp gun; that 
in accuracy of shooting it was not inferior to the Krupp; while in rapidity, 
simplicity, and economy, it was vastly superior to it. And these conclusions 
justify, we think, the surprise which we have already expressed at the 
attempts on the part of foreign critics to derive from the Tegel trials a 
verdict unfavourable to the English system of heavy ordnance and favour¬ 
able to the Krupp. 
But before quitting the subject, it is desirable to make some general 
remarks respecting the issue which Captain von Doppelmair and his fellow- 
critics have raised. That issue is not limited to the disparagement of the 
English ordnance. On the ruins of our system, it is proposed to erect 
another system—that of Krupp. The proximate object, no doubt, is the 
destruction of confidence at home and abroad in English guns. The ultimate 
object is the adoption at home and abroad of steel breech-loaders, manufac¬ 
tured at Essen. The road to this conclusion lies through the English 
ordnance. There is no byeway through bronze or cast-iron. The one real, 
substantial obstacle is the English wrouglit-iron gun. Until that obstacle is 
removed, the desired conclusion cannot be reached. We have written to 
little purpose if we have not shown that there is here no right of w r ay—that 
English heavy ordnance rests on too broad and solid a basis of experimental 
approval to be thus easily disturbed. 
But our defence of the position wrnuld be to some extent incomplete, if w r e 
w r ere to stop here. 
Let us briefly consider, then, in general terms : 1st. What is this system 
of artillery which it is now r proposed to destroy; and 2nd, What is the 
system which it is proposed to establish in its place. 
The Euglish system of heavy artillery is a system which has been gra¬ 
dually and carefully developed by successive experiments, and which is 
