m 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
Captain Toll, who in his historical researches found in the library of the 
Heidelberg university, a MS. of the year, 1573, which incontestably proves : 
that the German artillerists of that epoch knew perfectly well the principle 
upon which the present shrapnel tire is founded, and that notwithstanding 
their limited means, they had even succeeded in the application of this 
projectile, which was then called hag el hug el (hail shot).”— Shrapnel Shell in 
England and Belgium, pp. 59, 60. 
Artillerymen, however, will probably not think the proof as "incontestable” 
as General Bormann appears to consider it, when- they read the description 
which he gives of the projectile in question. “ This hagel hiigel consisted 
of a leaden shell, or rather box, of cylindrical form ; its fuze was the old 
common fuze placed in the axis of the shell and at one end of the cylinder ; 
the bursting powder surrounded and covered the fuze in the interior of the 
shell; the rest of the empty space of the shell was filled up with ‘ hail/ 
pieces of iron, bullets, or even pebbles; and lastly, the shell was suitably 
closed at the other end. This projectile was introduced into the gun so 
that its fuze was turned towards the charge of the piece; the fire with it 
seems to have been successful to such a degree that it was employed in 
action.”— Ibid. p. 61. 
It is perfectly evident from this description, that the hagel hiigel was 
merely a clumsy description of case, only adapted for short ranges; for it 
would of course be impossible to project a cylindrical leaden box to any 
considerable distance from a smooth-bore gun.* 
It is possible, therefore, that the hagel hiigel may have had something to 
do with the introduction of case, but that it gave any hint as to how case 
might be made effective at long ranges cannot be conceded ; and it has already 
been explained that it is only at long ranges that shrapnel is superior to case; 
herein alone the great advantage claimed for it lies—that it enables afire 
similar to that of grape or ease to be delivered at distances beyond the ranges 
of those projectiles. 
It is difficult, therefore, to see how the principle of the Shrapnel shell, 
much less the application of the principle, can be fairly said to have been 
derived from the hagel hiigel, when the characteristic feature of the former— 
the great advantage upon which its claims to notice were founded, viz. that 
it enabled case effects to be produced at long ranges, was necessarily, from its 
form and construction, absent in the latter. 
(2) The Trench claim to the Invention: 
Piobert says:—"Les projectiles creux ont ete employes, notamment 
a Lille en 1672 a lancer des balles de plomb en grande nombre et a grandes 
* It might appear at first sight to the modern artilleryman that the fact of the fuze and bursting 
charge of the projectile being “turned towards the charge of the piece,” affords an additional reason 
for supposing that the projectile was intended to hurst soon after quitting the gun. I have not 
overlooked this consideration, but I do not think it proves anything; for there is no doubt that in 
those times the fuzes of shells were frequently turned towards the charge, and clearly, shells could 
not have been intended to burst invariably on quitting the muzzle. The explanation of this 
arrangement is probably to be found in the fact that the artillerymen of those days did not know 
that the flash of the discharge would ignite the fuze if placed away from it.—See Le Passe et 
VAvenir de VArtillerie , Yol. Ill, p. 342, ante, et seq. 
