THE ItOYAL AETILLEEY INSTITUTION. 
81 
Since the efficiency of shrapnel shell (other things being equal) 
depends on its velocity at the instant of bursting, the higher velocity 
is of considerable importance. The efficiency of common shell for 
penetration and destruction of materiel (provided the bursting charge 
is the same) depends on the “ energy/' or work stored up at the 
moment of impact. The column in Table II. headed “ Comparative 
Per-centage of Energy/' gives the per-centage of energy at different 
ranges. At 1000 yds., the 3‘3-in. shell has 2‘6 per cent, greater 
energy; at 2000 yds., 5*8 per cent.; and at 3000 yds., 9 per cent.; 
and so on increasingly as the range increases. Yet, owing to the 
method of experimenting, and judging exclusively from the ranges 
obtained at equal angles of elevation, the harder hitting of the 3‘3-in. 
gun at ordinary artillery ranges has been practically overlooked. Had 
the guns been tried, as they would be in actual service, at certain 
definite ranges—viz., 1000, 2000, and 3000 yds.—giving each gun its 
proper elevation to strike a target at these ranges, and estimating by 
the effects produced, the opinion of the Committee might have been 
greatly modified. 
If a 3‘3-in. gun, built on the lines of a 3‘6-in. gun, proves itself a 
hard hitting gun, it may reasonably be expected that a 3‘3-in. gun 
constructed on its own lines will be still better. 
The practical way to compare the “ flatness of trajectory " of any 
two guns, would be to give each of them such an elevation that their 
respective times of flight may be equal; then the gun which ranges the 
farthest has the flatter trajectory for that range. Also, the practical 
way of comparing the relative power of any two guns, would be to fire 
them at such an elevation that they should both strike an object at a 
fixed range; the gun which hits the hardest [cceteris paribus) is the most 
powerful gun at that range. 
The method of judging by range irrespective of time is most fallacious, 
as it leads to an unfair conclusion; for, in the first place, the trajectory 
itself may not be so high, and the time for travelling may be less. By 
giving a little more elevation to the gun with a lower muzzle velocity, 
the time of flight may be equalised; then they would both have the 
same height of trajectory, and the same time to travel in. 
There is a manifest discrepancy in the ranges of the 3‘3-ifl. and 3‘6-in. 
guns for 2° 5' elevation (see Table I.) By calculation it may be shown 
that the correct range for the 3‘3-in. gun at 2° 5' elevation would be 
about 1057 yds.—the same as that determined by experiment; also, the 
correct range for the 3‘6-in. gun at the same elevation would be about 
1087 yds.— i.e. } 100 yds. less than that determined by experiment. It 
can only be accounted for from the fact of the 3‘3-in. gun being allowed 
to recoil, while the recoil of the 3‘6-in. gun at the same elevation was 
checked.* 
Again, the fact of taking only muzzle velocity into consideration 
has led to a misapprehension. The higher muzzle velocity of the 
3‘6-in. gun, instead of proving the inferiority of the 3‘3-in. gun, proves 
^ “Proceedings of Department of Director of Artillery,” Vol. IX., p. 118. 
11 
