3 
Again, General von Saner finds fault with the present field guns for not being 
adapted for firing shrapnel with a wide cone of dispersion, the only method in 
his opinion of reaping the full advantage of plunging fire. His arguments in 
support of this theory may be summed up as follows :—Hollow projectiles, like 
common and shrapnel shell, only produce effect by bursting; but this effect is 
very different in the case of direct and of high-angle fire. For instance, in the case 
of a shrapnel fired directly and reaching the target with a “ remaining velocity ” 
of 300 or 400 f.s., it is evident that the velocity of the splinters and bullets will 
principally depend upon that of the projectile at the moment of bursting. In 
this case we obtain an action powerful as to length, but weak as to depth; that 
is to say, a very long, but very narrow, cone of dispersion. To strike an object 
sheltered behind a parapet with pieces with flat trajectory, it is obvious that the 
cone of dispersion must be widened. This result can only be obtained by using 
an explosive (explosif) so powerful as to give the bullets a velocity very superior 
to that possessed by the projectile at the moment of bursting. But this cannot 
be done in the case of the present field guns, where the “ remaining velocity ” 
is great and the bursting charge is small. 
The conditions are very different with pieces intended for high-angle fire, 
mortars or howitzers. In this case the remaining velocities are low, the interior 
charge is large, and there is, therefore, no difficulty in giving the bullets a velocity 
very superior to that of the remaining velocity of the shrapnel by the employ¬ 
ment of a “breaking” charge (charge brisante). A shrapnel loaded in this 
manner and bursting at a good height above the ground will not produce any 
great effect in depth, but its action will be felt on all sides, and will be terrible. 
The object aimed at will be covered with a regular hail of bullets descending 
almost vertically, and if the troops, decimated by this murderous fire, try to take 
refuge in their shelters they will be none the less in danger, for “ a plunging 
shell with its ‘ breaking 5 charge (charge brisante) can penetrate every kind of 
cover which can be made use of in the field.” 
If then this reasoning is correct, the employment of plunging fire upon the 
field of battle will necessarily entail the abandonment of the shrapnel with the 
narrow cone of dispersion, and the adoption of that with the wide one. But we 
may be allowed to dispute this opinion, and to inquire whether there is any 
necessity for resuscitating a projectile, which has long since been abandoned by 
the artillery. 
General von Sauer takes exception to the shrapnel with the narrow cone of 
dispersion because it only acts in one direction, that of depth. This mode of 
action, which appears to him suitable for direct fire, is not so for plunging fire, 
because, he says, in the case of marks behind cover, “ a terrible effect must be 
produced in every direction, and a hail of bullets must fall upon the mark such 
as is only possible by the use of the shrapnel with the open cone of dispersion.” 
To show the inaccuracy of this conclusion it need only be pointed out that 
when it is wished to cover a mark with a “ hail of bullets ” there is little sense 
in using a projectile which disperses splinters and bullets in all directions. The 
fact is that the artillery have preferred the shrapnel with the narrow cone of 
dispersion in order to retain the possibility of producing a powerful effect, even 
if the projectile bursts at a considerable distance in front of the target. The 
trajectories of the individual bullets being nearly parallel, the cone of dispersion 
is very long; and although, in spite of every care taken in the manufacture of 
fuzes, the position of the bursting point may vary within considerable limits, 
nevertheless the target is struck with good effect. This advantage is as impor¬ 
tant for direct as for plunging fire. This fact has been clearly demonstrated in 
the numerous experiments made by the Russian artillery in field shrapnel fire. 
Without entering into a deep discussion upon this question, it may be said that 
the effect produced by the shrapnel with the open cone of dispersion is always 
31b 
