484 
ARMOUR-PIERCING PROJECTILES. 
shells of forged steel gave on the whole the best results when fired 
directly against wrought-iron plates,, and they alone would have carried a 
bursting charge behind the armour. 
The Cammed shells were slightly superior to the Whitworth shells 
with both direct and oblique fire at steel-faced plates, when beyond 
the power of either to perforate. They could not, however, in their 
present state of manufacture, be relied upon to remain unbroken even 
when perforating comparatively weak armour—that is to say, they 
would not with any certainty carry the bursting charge behind the 
armour. 
The chilled shells gave the best results as to penetration when fired 
obliquely at thick wrought-iron plates, but they invariably broke up 
on impact with both direct and oblique fire. 
In experiments with the 6-in. R.B.L. Armstrong gun, Whitworth 
shell, having a striking velocity of from 1700 to 2000 f.s., were, after 
impact, for the most part entire, and only slightly set up. None broke 
up, but out of 12 rounds two shells were badly cracked. Curiously 
enough these were shells fired with low striking velocities (1152 and 1054f.s.) 
against comparatively thin [6 ins. and 5 ins.) plates. 
In experiments with the 8-in. R.B.L. Armstrong gun some forged 
steel shells by Cammell and Firth were fired at plates with high 
velocities. One of CammelFs shells remained unbroken, but set up, 
after striking a 16‘5 in. wrought-iron plate with a velocity of 2212 f.s. 
Another shell by the same firm set up only 0*03 in., after penetrating 
12*1 ins. into a 12-in. wrought-iron plate, while a third passed through 
14 ins. of iron (2 + 12 ins.), and remained entire till it broke up against 
a target in rear. 
Against steel-faced armour the compound shells (cast-steel with 
chilled heads) gave rather better results than the forged steel shells, 
but the latter, when not unduly tried, were superior in that they could 
remain entire, and carry a bursting charge through the armour which 
it was within their power to perforate. 
If steel-faced armour become generally adopted the superiority of 
chilled shells against wrought-iron will go for nothing, and in any case 
these shells lack the power of carrying their bursting charge behind 
the armour which they can penetrate. 
The Committee stated that they had no means for forming ail 
opinion as to the best form and material for projectiles wherewith to 
pierce chilled-iron armour, such as foreign powers are adopting, 
especially for coast batteries. 
They were of opinion that for the attack of steel-faced armour it is 
absolutely necessary to employ steel projectiles. 
Also that studless projectiles should be used for piercing armour, as 
in studded shells the stud-holes form lines of weakness. 
Of the forms of head, CammelFs special pattern No. 1 (with sharp 
point) gave the best results with direct fire against iron, but failed when 
fired obliquely, or against steel-faced armour. 
The Cammell special pattern No. 2 (with point cut off) gave no good 
results. 
The fiat-head gave the least penetration of all when fired directly 
