THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
117 
already once changed from steel to chilled iron., of which latter several 
descriptions exist in the service; that, finally, even the more comprehensive 
question of breech-loading for heavy guns has been more than once officially 
and keenly discussed, and only abandoned in consequence mainly of the 
heavy expense which such experiments—conducted, as they must be, with 
guns of the heaviest class, and on an extended scale—would entail, coupled 
with the consideration that there is no apparent necessity for the change. 1 2 
The question of breech versus muzzle-loading for heavy guns is one of 
exceeding complication. We hesitate to pronounce decidedly on one side 
or another. We are free to admit that under certain circumstances breech¬ 
loading is an advantage. It may be conceded that the breech-loading gun 
enables a weapon of greater length to be employed than is convenient with 
a muzzle-loading gun; but, on the other hand, it must be remembered that 
the breech-loading arrangement by which this advantage is gained greatly 
increases the weight of the gun. It is certainly a fact that the Krupp 
breech-loaders are relatively much heavier than the English muzzle-loaders ; 3 
and a lighter gun, it must be remembered, is not only more manageable, but 
admits of being carried in greater numbers by any given ship. The advan¬ 
tage which is claimed for breech-loading guns on the ground that they 
afford superior protection, disappears when the guns are used on board 
turret ships, in which case the guns while being loaded are turned away 
from the enemy. It is also more convenient in turret ships to bring the 
ammunition to the muzzle than to the breech of the gun. We have already 
shown that, in precision and in rapidity of loading, the muzzle-loading heavy 
gun is in practice not merely equal to the breech-loader, but that the 
muzzle-loader really leaves nothing to be desired. The assumed theoretical 
advantages in respect of accuracy are not corroborated by actual comparative 
practice, of which England, as we have before observed, has had more than 
any other nation, and before which the partial and limited results obtained 
at Tegel fade into complete insignificance. Of the superior simplicity of the 
muzzle-loader, there are no two opinions; and breech-loaders of which the 
shot have a lead coating require, as we have seen, an excess of ballistic 
power to produce penetrative results equal to those of the muzzle-loader. 
Kespecting the efficiency of the particular system of breech-loading which 
Captain von Doppelmair advocates, opinions are sharply divided. In Belgium, 
for example, where the Krupp steel is employed for all the field guns, the 
breech mechanism is that of Wahrendorf. 
1 The Ordnance Select Committee were, indeed, in favour of making some experiments in this 
direction. But the minimum expense was set down at £10,000 for testing even two or three of the 
best systems. Admiral Key, the Naval Director of Ordnance, expressed himself against the 
experiments (15. 9. ’68), on the grounds:—1st. That no system of breech-loading has proved 
itself so efficient as to be worthy of adoption. 2nd. That the cost of the experiment would be 
enormous. In this view the Admiralty concurred, as did also the Director of Ordnance, General 
St. George (27. 9. ’68), with the further observation that the prospects of success were not 
sufficient to justify the expense; and General Lefroy (the late Director-General of Ordnance) 
subsequently agreed with General St. George on similar grounds. Lord Northbrook also expressed 
his opinion that “ it is out of the question to consider the suitability of Krupp’s system for large 
guns.” 
2 See table at p. 126, where it is shewn that the power of fhe Woolwich guns per cwt, of gun is 
greater than that of the Krupp guns. 
