GOLD MEDAL PRIZE ESSAY, 1879 . 
519 
25. On tlie Continent, where actual fighting took place, common shrapnel, 
shell reigned supreme. In 1866, and again in 1870, Prussia used 
nothing else. Theirs was a better shell than our common, but not 
nearly so good as our segment against troops in the open. 
The French shrapnel were almost useless, on account of the inferiority 
of their guns and the utter worthlessness of the fuzes. They had no 
very large proportion of them in their equipments. In 1870, some 
Saxon batteries fired a few shrapnel, and where their effect could be 
distinguished from that of the common shell the result is said to have 
been satisfactory. Since 1870 shrapnel has been introduced into nearly 
every equipment in Europe in some proportion. In Germany, with 
the new guns, about one-third is shrapnel. The introduction of this 
projectile naturally encountered a good deal of opposition there, but it 
appears that the effects obtained at practice had been so good, as officers 
and men have become accustomed to its use, that it will probably be 
carried in increased proportion. Their other projectile is a double-wall 
shell—an ingenious and cheap form of segment. 
During the late war between Russia and Turkey the effect of shrapnel During late 
appears to have been on some occasions very marked. We believe this war * 
to have been the case whenever it was skilfully used; which, however, 
probably owing to the bad training of the gunners on both sides, has 
been but seldom. 
In the Shipka pass its effect on the attacking Turks is spoken of by 
one correspondent as being awful. He says they were cut down by 
thousands by shrapnel. 
Again, at the Aladja Dagh the attack on the Turkish centre appears 
to have owed its success chiefly to the Russian artillery, who, the <e Daily 
News ” correspondent says, used shrapnel only with excellent effect. 
The Russian artillery, with the exception of that of the Guard, does 
not appear to be composed of sufficiently good artillerymen to use this 
projectile well, and a correspondent of a daily newspaper speaks of 
them firing for a long time at Turkish troops without ever bursting a 
shell nearer than 500 yds. to them. It seems odd to us why they never 
took the trouble to ascertain the range with a round or two of common 
shells and percussion fuzes. This course would at once have shown 
them their error. 
The best weapons put into the hands of those who do not know how 
to use them must be nearly useless, and the Russian guns, from their 
very low muzzle velocity (1000 f.s.) and large calibre in proportion to 
weight of shell, appear to be the very worst guns one could have for 
shrapnel fire. 
We have been induced to make the above remarks to show the value 
of this projectile even under adverse circumstances, and to express our 
belief that the want of effect of the artillery used in recent European 
wars has been, among other causes, due to the want of a suitable 
projectile. 
We may tak§ it for granted, then, that shrapnel will be the principal improve- 
weapon of the Field Artillery of the Future. How then may we improve Xapn3 
it? 
Of course increase of weight will enable us to insert more bullets, and 
in this direction we must move. 
