SHRAPNEL EIRE. 
201 
Comparing these, the evenness of distribution of time fuzes over 
the whole of the column is very marked; with the percussion, the 
rear seems to have come off almost scathless. The return of dummies 
(182 to 131) shows the superiority of the time shell in the most marked 
manner. If, deducting blinds and overs, we take only the 28 effective 
time shell which remain, the result is still more striking; the dummies 
disabled per shell being 
Time, 6*5 ; percussion, 3'6. 
The same remark as to the far greater power of time shrapnel 
compared with percussion, may be made here as at p. 187. The 
throughs are 397 and 222 respectively; or the time gave an average 
of 14*2 per effective shell, and the percussion of 6*2. 
It may be thought that the retardation, and consequent loss of 
power after graze, has been overstated. At p. 79, Okehampton 
Report, is some practice with percussion shrapnel which shows it very 
clearly. In the front rank of No. 1 Squadron are some hits which 
must have been made by shell after graze, as there is nothing for 
them to burst through; and they must have burst near up, for the 
return of disabled is only 3 dummies, and the hits must therefore have 
been close together. Three shell have burst without grazing—viz,, 
one through the front rank of No, 3, and two through the front rank 
of No. 4 Squadron, Their effects are on the respective rear ranks. 
If we contrast the two groups, we have—• 
Shell, Through. Lodged. Struck, 
After graze. 3 . 2 . 116 No. 1 Squadron. 
before graze . 39 . 1 . 13 Nos. 3 & 4 Squadrons. 
When the ground on which the object stands slopes rapidly towards 
the battery, the loss of effect with time fuzes is very small; and any 
men exposed in such a position would find greatly increased difficulty 
in obtaining shelter from a fire necessarily so searching. With per¬ 
cussion fuzes however the case is very different; if the slope is 
considerable, unless the ground is exceedingly favourable for them, 
they will either bury themselves, or else, rising at a very high angle 
with a greatly decreased velocity, the result will be out of all' pro¬ 
portion small compared with the amount of ammunition expended. 
With ground moderately broken and soft, the loss is quite extra¬ 
ordinary, as is shown from the practice at p. 61, Okehampton Report, 
of which the following table gives the result:— 
Series. 
Gun. 
Range. 
No. of 
shell. 
Burst short. 
Through. 
Struck. 
Lodged. 
1 
16-pr. 
yds. 
1300 
5 
yds. 
from 11 to 15 
12 
1 
6 
2 
9 „ 
a 
3 
// 
1 to 10 
24 
13 
10 
3 
16 „ 
a 
7 
II 
1 to 20 
7 
3 
6 
4 
9 n 
II 
5 
n 
1 to 20 
14 
20 
9 ! 
5 
16 „ 
1400 
5* 
n 
3 to 80 
68 
34 
5 
6 
9 /, 
n 
2 
n 
15 to 20 
2 
— 
_ - ) 
7 
16 n 
n 
6* 
it 
4 to 20 
64 
47 
13 j 
8 
9 * 
a 
1 
ii 
0 to 20 
II 
— 
■ ! 
* Two shell, 400 and 100 yds. short, eliminated. 
