THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION 
7 
tlie merits of this description of projectile. Other objections, which perhaps 
held good against the original Shrapnel shell, such as the liability to 
premature explosion, and the comparatively short range at which they were 
effective, can certainly no longer be urged against the Diaphragm. 
I cannot do better than conclude my remarks, and fortify my opinion, by 
a quotation from Col. Boxer’s Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell: “ I am 
aware that various opinions are entertained by artillery officers in relation to 
the value of Shrapnel Shells as a military projectile; and, although it is not my 
intention in this paper to discuss the merits of this most destructive missile, 
I cannot refrain from making a few remarks upon what appears to me to 
be an extraordinary notion which has lately been advanced in relation to this 
point, namely,—that a round shot is, under all circumstances, a more efficient 
projectile than a Shrapnel shell, and that the latter ought to be removed 
from the field service. Let us consider for a moment what this opinion 
involves; no less than this—that round shot are more efficient than case 
and grape at very short ranges. But, in fact, there are even stronger reasons 
why Shrapnel should be more destructive than round shot at long ranges, 
than that case and grape should be superior to round shot at short ranges, 
when the irregularity in range of round shot, combined with the effect 
produced in the direction of their motion by grazing on irregular ground 
are duly considered. 
“Even on the sands at Shoeburyness, and more frequently on the marshes 
at Woolwich, a round shot will, after striking the ground, often ricochet at a 
considerable elevation, and pass over many hundred yards before it again 
touches the plain, and also be deflected considerably to the right or left of 
the object aimed at; and if the practice were carried on over the ordinary 
ground of any country, which was the seat of war, this irregularity would 
be greatly augmented. 
“But, at short ranges, as the shot would seldom or never strike the 
ground until after it had taken effect upon the object fired at, there would 
be no injurious effect of irregularity, in its action from grazing; and, 
consequently, there is, as I have stated above, greater reason why a Shrapnel 
should, under a great variety of circumstances, be a more efficient missile in 
the field than a round shot at a long range, than that grape and case 
should be superior to round shot at a short range. 
“There is one thing, however, in connexion with this point which must 
Shrapnel Shells, p. 16. I do not quite hold with General Shrapnel in this matter; hut I go to 
the length of saying that the importance of the objection which has been urged against Shrapnel 
Shells on this account has been much overrated. Doubtless it is necessary to the full development 
of their efficiency that they should burst with tolerable correctness as regards the object aimed at; 
but it must not be supposed that their effect will be nullified if they do not burst at the exact spot 
required: no doubt their effect will be lessened in proportion as they explode further from the 
required spot, (may not this be said in a greater or less degree of all other projectiles ?), but the 
limits of error in this respect are very large—larger perhaps than with any other projectile, except 
a solid shot. There is a passage in Col. Boxer’s Remarks on the Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell 
which has a very direct and practical bearing on this subject, as showing the margin of error, 
allowable with shells of this class; it is quoted in the text, p. 8, “ There is a point of much 
importance, &c.” . . . down to end of quotation. 
