276 
MEPPEN EXPERIMENTS. 
velocity, 1725*5 ft.; stored-up work, about 41,290 ft. tons, or 745*07 ft. 
tons per incli circumference, equivalent to a penetration of over 
34*9 ins. of armour. The pressure on the bore was 17*6 tons. 
It is quite clear, from the above, that the 71-ton gun is a much better 
weapon than the 80-ton gun, inasmuch as it beats it in every respect. 
It fires a heavier projectile with a higher velocity, which has therefore 
more energy or stored-up work, and an inch and a half more penetration, 
and all this is done with less pressure on the bore of the gun. The 
reason is that it is a better proportioned gun, its main advantage being 
its greater length. The 100-ton gun compares much more favourably 
with Krupp’s gun, but, nevertheless, would do so better if its length 
were greater. The main difference in the guns depends on the difference 
in the length. Comparing these three guns together, I must remind 
you that the 100 and 80-ton guns are productions of an earlier date 
than the 71-ton gun, and the latter ought therefore be better propor¬ 
tioned. I am not speaking, then, of any superiority in knowledge shown 
by Krupp; on the other hand, I am anxious to do justice to the labours 
of General Younghusband and Captain Noble in making investigations 
on this question, which the artillery world generally has turned to good 
account. Speaking, then, not of the knowledge but of the embodiment 
of it in new guns, the question naturally arises, how it is that our 
Government should be now completing and issuing 80-ton guns so 
inferior in power to Krupp’s 71-ton gun, which achieved the results we 
speak of half a year ago ? The answer is, that the guns are designed 
for the “ Inflexible, ” and that, being muzzle-loaders, the vessels had to 
be made with portions of the deck corresponding to the length of the 
gun, to make provision for its loading. All this was determined five 
or six years ago. Since that time our own investigations have shown us 
the desirability of greatly increasing the length; but the gun being a 
muzzle-loader, it is impossible to do so. For the ship in question, a 
muzzle-loader is limited as to its length by inflexible conditions; and 
all that can be done is by enlarging the chamber, to utilize to the fullest 
extent the disproportionate thickness of metal. Circumstances have, 
in this instance, then, combined so as to bring out the disadvantage of 
a muzzle-loader in a peculiar way; for we find ourselves, in the case of the 
“ Inflexible 9> issuing new guns of obsolete proportions for a new ship. 
Apart from this trying instance, however, it is clear that every increase 
in length is in favour of the breech-loader, because the labour and in¬ 
convenience of muzzle-loading increase in an increasing ratio; and, in the 
case of turret guns, and probably in some guns in casemates and cupolas, 
muzzle-loading with long guns becomes eventually almost impossible. 
To pass from this principal experiment to minor ones at Meppen. 
Very remarkable results were obtained with smaller guns. An 
excellent 51-ton 14-in. gun was tried, whose behaviour closely re- 
sembled that of the 71-ton gun, including the method of working, 
occasional miss-fires, and the like. An 11 -in. (28 0m ) howitzer, a 4*13-in. 
(10*5 cm ) siege gun, and a 3*78-in. (9*6 cm ), were fired, which did well, 
but need not be here noticed in detail. 
A long 5*9-in. (15 cm ) gun, on a special sea service carriage with oil 
buffer gave good resultsj also an8*27-in. (21 cra ) howitzer, and a 5‘9 s in» 
