404 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
5, 9, and 20 secs. B.L.B.O. fuzes are used for the breech-loaders. As 
to percussion fuzes for B.L. field service, the one that has come in and 
is now issued is the original pattern of Armstrong fuze with the phos¬ 
phorus composition replaced by cap composition, which in the form of 
a cap as proposed by Colonel Milward, is much more reliable than its 
predecessors. This is of the pattern which is dropped into the B.L. 
segment and common shell, being used beneath the screw plug; the 
F and F time fuzes being called in from land service equipments but 
not from the navy, so that the segment and common shell for boat 
service are fired as formerly with time and percussion fuzes, but for 
land service with percussion fuzes and screw plugs. But this arrange¬ 
ment sometimes leaves a little play so as to allow the fuze to rattle ; 
to obviate this, therefore (which might cause premature explosion), a 
lead disc is served out to field batteries to press home into the bottom 
of each segment shell, the burster being replaced in the shell over it. 
The use of time and percussion fuzes together in segment shells I believe 
is a mistake, and it has led to misconception. It may be seen by 
anyone who cares to analyse results that all the success of shells so 
fired has been due to those which were burst by the percussion fuzes, 
in fact for good effect segment shell should be burst within a very 
few yards of the object. No time fuze can be set accurately enough to 
effect this, and hence it commonly either spoils the effect by opening 
the shell too soon, or else simply plays the part of a plug. 
A screw pattern of “ cap ” percussion fuze is likely to come in for 
field service shells, with the general service gauge fuze hole, which I 
shall notice presently. 
The segment and common shell remain unchanged, except that the 
sockets in the common shell have been found too weak, and are being 
replaced by sockets of a stronger pattern. Shrapnel shell of the 
pattern used at Dartmoor and elsewhere experimentally have been 
since introduced into the service equipments. 
Again we are brought face to face with the question of what shell 
to use in the field, considering the results obtained at Aldershot and 
those of the gigantic trials in actual service in the French and Prussian 
war. It is impossible to ignore the great results achieved by the 
Prussian artillery fire, but what conclusion do they justify ? If we take 
the Prussian view of the matter, apparently to the adoption of common 
shells with percussion fuzes for the chief projectiles used in the field ; 
so that whereas last year after Dartmoor the decision had still to be 
made between segment and shrapnel, we this year have competing 
with them, common shell fired with percussion fuzes. 
It is well, then, first to see on what grounds the common shell, which 
we have found to be so inferior in effect on the personnel of an enemy, is 
to be preferred, and chiefly what results have been obtained with it. The 
most striking I believe were those produced at Sedan, where we read of 
appalling havoc; that the dead lay in heaps, and that the ground was 
covered with men blown into “ masses of flesh and rags.” This result 
was no doubt produced by common shells fired with percussion fuzes ; in 
fact it is needless to quote the Prussian report on this matter, for nothing 
else would effect this result. Some officers here may remember a heap 
