THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
243 
likely now to find many, if any, supporters. Among objections of this class 
may be noticed the following :—that a complete separation of the powder and 
bullets could not J)e effected by the Diaphragm arrangement; that the shells 
will not continue for any length of time in store in a serviceable condition; 
that the effect caused by the jolting action in travelling in limber boxes, 
will render the shells inefficient; that owing to the skill and care requisite to 
cast the shell correctly being so great, the expense of manufacture will be 
very considerable, and that there will be little guarantee that the projectiles 
supplied are of the proper quality. 1 Other objections, such as, that the shell 
is generally of too complex a character, have been raised, but these are of so 
vague and intangible a character,—and where not vague and intangible, so 
often afford unmistakable indication of having been put forward by those who 
are unacquainted with the details and objects of the Diaphragm construction; 
that it is unnecessary to attempt to reply to them categorically. 2 
Of course the Diaphragm shell will always be open to those objections which 
some hold to be common to all shells of the Shrapnel class. I have already 
in a former paper, 3 dwelt at considerable length upon “ The Practical Value of 
shells of the Shrapnel Class,” and have explained the grounds upon which my 
own high opinion of these projectiles is founded ; in the present paper I have 
merely attempted to answer the objections which have been urged against 
the particular form of Shrapnel shell known as the Diaphragm. The 
general conclusion I would draw is—and I believe that those who are at the 
1 Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shells, pp. 27, 28. 
2 As an example of the class of objection to which I refer, I give the following passage from a 
Report of some American Officers:— 
“Some objections present themselves in ex aminin g this arrangement, viz, the complicated con, 
struction of the shell, the great reduction of its capacity for balls, the peculiar boring instrument 
required for piereing the fuze, and the time required for performing this operation and adjusting 
the fuze in the shell in the field.”— 'Report of American Commission to Europe, p. 140. 
By two foreign authors—General Bormann and Colonel Delobel—the Diaphragm system has 
been subjected to vigorous criticism ; but I believe that an attentive perusal of the objections urged 
by them (see The Shrapnel Shell in England and Relgium, p. 47 to 57, et seq.; and Revue de 
Technologie Militaire, Yol. II., p. 329 to 405) will satisfy any one well acquainted with the con¬ 
struction of the projectile that neither to General Bormann nor to Colonel Delobel were the details 
of this construction thoroughly familiar. It is, of course, impossible for me to quote their objections 
at length,—I have given references to the works in which they may be found; but one objection 
appears to me so good an illustration of the way in which the indictment against the Diaphragm 
is sometimes made up, that I extract it entire: The objection is urged by Colonel Delobel, and 
quoted approvingly by General Bormann, who, indeed, adduces it in his Appendix, p. 126, on his 
own account: “ The series of operations necessary at the very moment of the fire for the prepara¬ 
tion of the Shrapnel, the regulation of the fuze and the driving it into the ampoulette, will 
require too much time; without taking into account that, if all this may be done properly 
and without error” on the practice ground, it would not be the same on the field of battle 
for the complete boring of the regulating-hole up to the column of fusing composition, the 
introduction of the fuze into the ampoulette, so that the how of cyphers correspond 
TO the GROOVE AND its HOLE OR vent ( lumiere ), and especially the driving home of the 
fuze into the ampoulette, are things very difficult to do rapidly and well during the excitement 
of battle and amidst a thick smoke, and which will certainly occasion a great number of failures in 
igniting and premature burstings.”— The Shrapnel Shell in England- and Belgium, pp. 55, 56. 
To the practical and well-instructed artilleryman this objection will suggest its own comments. 
3 See p. 4. 
[VOL. IV.] 
32 
