§
The might of England, avouches the historian, stood upon archers8. The prowess of the archer9, the dreadful precision of the longbow, and the athletic10 arm by which it was strung, form the constant and animated11 theme of ancient British story. In battle and the chase, we are told, the power of the archers always prevailed, and the attainment12 of that power was an182 object of incessant14 anxiety, in all ranks of people, from their earliest infancy15. The longbow was thus, as described in the above-quoted act of Henry VIII, a continual defence of the realm. Over all other countries England had this advantage, that against the exigencies16 of war she had, not only her race of splendid seamen17, but armies of the most skilful18 archers in the world. In peace she was thus well prepared. Good use was made by legislation to maintain the skill and stimulate20 the ardour of the bowmen, and the statute21 book bears witness, reign22 after reign, to the importance attached to archery from its military aspect. At one time every man between the ages of fifteen and sixty had to possess a bow equal in length to his own height. Every township had to maintain its butts23, each saint’s day had its shooting competition. The churchyard yew24 gave its wood for staves, the geese on the green their best wing feathers; and a goose’s head was the orthodox and inconspicuous target. No man under the age of twenty-four was allowed to shoot at any standing25 mark, and none over that age at any mark of eleven score yards or under. Restraint was laid on the exercise of sports which might interfere26 with archery, and when the mechanically strung crossbow was introduced its use was forbidden except under special conditions.111 Honours and prizes were awarded the best marksmen. The range and accuracy achieved by them was without doubt prodigious27. Much of their power lay in their strength of arm; but one of the chief secrets of their craft lay in the way in which they set their arrow-feathers at the requisite28 angle to give the arrows a spin which would ensure a long, a true and a steady flight.
With the advent29 of gunpowder30 the shooting competitions declined. An embargo31 was put on fire-arms; instead of being pressed to possess them the people were forbidden their use except under conditions. The military character became a separate order in society. Encouragement was no longer given to the individual to own and master the unwieldy fire-arm. The English peasant, enthusiasm evaporating as his skill declined, no longer gave the State the military value which his forefathers32 possessed33. The clumsy mechanism34 of the English musket, the uncertainty35 of its action (especially in wet183 weather), its slow rate of fire, its gross inaccuracy, and its inability to penetrate36 armour37 under all conditions, were factors which kept fire-arms for long years in disfavour in this country.
Abroad, on the other hand, the development of fire-arms was actually encouraged and skill in their use patronised. The rivalry38 which already existed with bow and arrow was extended to the new medium, and in Sweden and Switzerland, Germany and France, shooting competitions continued in vogue39 and proficiency40 with musket and arquebus was honoured and substantially rewarded. In Switzerland and Southern Germany especially, shooting was very popular. The character of the people, their skill in making delicate mechanisms41, the nature of the country, all tended to promote an interest in musketry which did not exist among our own people. As a result England has little to claim in the early stages of the development of portable fire-arms.
During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries smooth-bore weapons firing spherical lead balls were the only kind known and used. But in the early part of the sixteenth century a development took place which was to prove of the first importance to fire-arms; which was to make the primitive weapon in the course of time “the most beautiful, and at the same time the most deadly instrument of warfare42 ever devised by the ingenuity43 of man.” The value of rifling was discovered.
How, when, or where this discovery was first made, appears to have defied the researches of investigators44. As to the manner in which the development took place and the effects which it was intended to produce by its means there is an assortment45 of evidence; and this is so various and so interesting as bearing on the action of the rifle and its evolution, that we reproduce it in some detail. On one point there appears to be small doubt: The earliest rifling had no twist in it.
“It seems to have been generally accepted by writers on the subject,” says the author of The Book of the Rifle, “that the earliest barrels had straight grooves47, the object of which was to give a space into which the fouling48 of previous shots might stow itself without obstructing49 the process of loading with a well-fitting ball, and that spiral grooving50 was merely an accidental variation of this, afterwards found to possess special advantages.” Nevertheless, he himself inclines to the opinion that the straight groove46 was not necessarily a prior form of the spiral. The collections in museums contain examples of spiral184 grooving older than the oldest straight-grooved52 barrels. In any case, it is antecedently more probable, he considers, that the spiral grooving was not a variation of the straight groove, but that it was “a deliberate attempt to find a means of giving to the bullet the spiral spin which was well known as having a steadying effect on the javelin53, or on the arrow or bolt discharged from the bow.”112
But in this view he is in a minority. Whereas the invention of helical grooving is generally attributed to Augustin Kutter, a gunmaker of Nuremburg who died in A.D. 1630, straight grooving had been known since 1480, and is ascribed to one Gaspard Z?llner, a gunmaker of Vienna. “Smooth-bore guns,” says Schmidt,113 “had the disadvantage of fouling, and with the poor powder could only be recharged by leaving a comparatively large space between the ball and the barrel. This windage prejudiced straight shooting. To overcome this deficiency the practice was adopted of cutting grooves, more or less numerous, in the barrel, and in wrapping the ball in a rag greased with suet. In this way the windage was reduced, and as the greased rag cleaned the barrel, the weapon could be recharged for a large number of rounds. At first these grooves were made straight.”
A theory propounded54 in a well-known treatise55 published in the year 1808, entitled Scloppetaria, was to the effect that grooving had its origin in the habit which the early huntsman had of gnawing56 or biting the balls before putting them into the piece, with a view to causing the wound inflicted57 by them to be rendered more severe. This habit gave rise to the idea that the barrel itself might be made to do the work of jagging or indenting58 the bullet. “These grooved or sulcated barrels appear to be of great antiquity59, and are said to have existed in Russia long before their introduction among the civilized60 nations of the south.”
According to Hans Busk, straight grooving was adopted for the reason given by Schmidt: i.e., purely61 for the purpose of facilitating loading, and for assisting to dislodge the products of combustion62 left in the bore. “No doubt the adoption63 of this plan was calculated to increase the efficiency and accuracy of the arm from the steadiness it imparted to the bullet in its passage through the barrel.”
185 And that is a view which, it is suggested, might be expanded to give a motive64 or combination of motives65 which may well have operated to induce the early gunmakers to cut grooves in their musket-barrels. Thus: the variations in the flight of spherical lead balls fired from smooth-bore guns were chiefly due (though these causes were not clearly appreciated till a much later date) to the incalculable effect of windage and to the varying axis66 about which spin took place. If by any means windage could be reduced, and if the ball could be made to assume a central position in the bore and spin about a definite axis in its flight, a large increase in accuracy would be attained67. Suppose, for instance, a single groove or gutter68 were filed along the barrel parallel with its axis. The effect surely would be, by creating a rush of powder-gases along this groove, to cause the ball, under the tangential69 impulse of the gases, to rotate always in the same plane as it passed through the bore. And thus by the cutting of this single groove a uniformity of flight of the ball would be attained which was unattainable without the groove. The same effect, in fact, was produced by Robins71 when he bent72 the musket barrel. He demonstrated that the result was to make the ball roll on a definite part of the barrel and thus to deviate73 during flight in a definite direction. He might have shewn, as another result of his experiment, that by giving the ball a uniform spin he had endowed it with a regularity74 of flight, or accuracy, many times greater than it before possessed.
Or suppose that, instead of one groove, two or more grooves were filed in the same way. While the above advantage derived75 from the single groove would be less fully76 obtained, another would result. By providing a space on each side into which fouling might spread, and into which the plastic metal of the ball might be intruded77 by the pressure of the ramrod, their presence would certainly allow of a tight-fitting ball being used. The loss in efficiency of discharge due to friction78 between ball and barrel would be more than compensated79 for by the annihilation of windage.114
186 Suppose, however, that the grooves were augmented80 in number until they became a series of triangular81 serrations all round the interior of the barrel. The value of this formation might lie, not so much in the grooves, as in the ends or points of the serrations which supported the ball and held it in a central position on the true axis of the gun. In short, the prime idea of the gunmaker may have been, not so much the provision of grooves, as the provision of internal ribs82 for holding the ball truly in the musket.
Whatever the cause or motive which led to its adoption, the rifling of musket barrels became a common practice in the sixteenth century. Two significant quotations83 will suffice to show the period of the invention. The first is an edict issued by the Swiss Government in 1563:
“For the last few years the art of cutting grooves in the chambers85 of the guns has been introduced with the object of increasing the accuracy of fire; the disadvantage resulting therefrom to the common marksmen has sown discord86 among them. In ordinary shooting matches marksmen are therefore forbidden under a penalty of ￡10 to provide themselves with rifled arms. Everyone is nevertheless permitted to rifle his military weapon and to compete with marksmen armed with similar weapons for special prizes.”115
The second is a recipe from a book by Sir Hugh Plat, written in 1594.
“How to make a pistol whose barrel is two feet in length to deliver a bullet point blank at eight score. A pistol of the aforesaid length and being of petronel bore, or a bore higher, having eight gutters87 somewhat deep in the inside of the barrel, and the bullet a thought bigger than the bore, and is rammed88 in at the first three or four inches at the least, and after driven down with the skowring-stick, will deliver his bullet at such distance.”
So at some date not long after that at which straight grooving was put into common practice, the evolution of the rifle made a further advance by the introduction of spiral grooving. This gave all the advantages of the straight grooving, and in addition, spin in a definite plane to a definite187 degree; so that it entirely89 superseded90 straight grooving in all countries where fire-arms were in common use. Experience amply confirmed the superiority of the twisted rifling. With the accession of accuracy the skill of the marksman naturally increased, enthusiasm grew, and the shooting competitions gained in popularity and importance. “Le go?t de tir des armes rayées de précision est poussé jusqu’à la passion: passion qui excite l’amour-propre en ne laissant pas à la maladresse l’excuse si facile de l’imperfection inévitable de l’arme à canon lisse.”116
BULLET MOULD
Yet in spite of improvements the rifled musket remained unrecognized as a military weapon for another two hundred years. Its use was confined to sporting purposes; though far less in common use than the smooth-bore it became, for its increased accuracy, the favourite weapon of the deer-stalker and the chamois hunter. In England it was little known before the nineteenth century; and when, in 1746, Robins made his famous prophecy, the possibilities inherent in rifled fire-arms, even such as were then in existence, were unrealized by the people of this country.
It is to be noted91 that it was only in increased accuracy of flight that the rifled gun had a superiority over the smooth-bore; no increase in ranging power was possessed by it. And yet this claim is constantly made by old writers, that, probably (as they say) owing to the fact that increased resistance of the ball to initial motion gave time for all the charge to be thoroughly92 ignited, the rifled gun carried further than the smooth-bore. As a fact, the contrary was true; other things being equal, the range of the rifle was actually less than that of the smooth-bore. The explanation of the paradox93 was given by Robins. “It is not surprising,” he said, “that those188 habituated to the use of rifled pieces gave way to prepossessions like these; for they found that with them they could fire at a mark with tolerable success, though it were placed at three or four times the distance to which the ordinary pieces were supposed to reach: and therefore as they were ignorant of the true cause of this variation ... it was not unnatural94 for them to imagine, that the superiority in the effect of rifled pieces was owing either to a more violent impulse at first, or to a more easy passage through the air.” The true value of the spiral grooving resided, of course, in the spinning motion which it gave the ball. By making this spin uniform two variable factors determining the trajectory95 were thereby96 transformed into constants: first, the effect just mentioned, the influence of the varying resistance of the air on the parts of the ball which met it at different speeds, some parts moving forward relatively97 to its centre and some parts retreating; secondly98, the effect of eccentricity99 of mass and irregularity of exterior100 surface, which were both almost nullified by the rotation101. The importance of this second effect may not at first sight be apparent. It must be remembered, however, that the balls used in those days were of the roughest description; cast in hand moulds, “drawn” in cooling to such an extent that in a large proportion an actual cavity was left in their interior, which could be revealed only by cutting them open; their burrs removed with pincers, their surface rough and broken, their shape distorted by the ramrod’s blows.
The superiority of the rifle in accuracy was generally admitted; and this advantage not only counterbalanced such deficiency in ranging power as may have accrued102 from the use of grooving, but actually led to a general but mistaken belief that the rifle carried farther than the smooth-bore. The reverse was the case. Moreover, it was not safe to use with a rifle the very large charges of powder which could be used with safety with a smooth-bore musket. On account of the resistance to motion of the ball which had been forced by ramrod, sometimes even by mallet104, down the grooved barrel of the rifle, high chamber84 pressures resulted, and not infrequently the barrels burst. Hence in spite of the thicker metal of which they were generally made, rifles could only be used with moderate charges, and so could not compete on equal terms, in this respect, with the smooth-bores for superiority of range.
189 Toward the end of the eighteenth century events occurred which drew attention to the utility of the rifle for military purposes. In spite of its slow rate of fire—to load it carefully took from one and a half to two minutes—it showed itself to be a very effective weapon in the hands of French tirailleurs, Swiss, Austrian, and Tyrolese J?gers, Hottentots and American Indians. In the War of Independence the superior accuracy of their rifles, and their capacity for hitting at ranges beyond the 200 yards which were about the limit of the smooth-bore musket, placed the American backwoodsmen at such an advantage over the British troops that riflemen were recruited on the Continent and sent across the Atlantic to counter them. New military tactics came into vogue at this time, their inception105 influenced by the gradual improvement in fire-arms and artillery106. Bodies of riflemen, “a light erratic107 force concealing108 itself with facility and forming an ambuscade at will,” were formed in the continental109 armies to act in concert with the masses of infantry110 as skirmishers or sharp-shooters, their object being to surprise and demoralize the enemy by the accuracy of their long-range shooting. Rifles were now looked on, too, as the natural counterpart of the now flying or horse artillery, “which, from the rapidity of its motions, the execution of cannon111-shot in all situations, appears to be the effects of little less than magic.”117
RIFLEMAN PRESENTING
(From Ezekiel Baker112’s Rifled Guns, A.D. 1813.)
In 1800 a rifle corps113 was raised by the British government from the old 95th Regiment114. As the result of competitive trials the rifle made by Ezekiel Baker, a gunmaker of Whitechapel, was adopted: taking spherical balls of twenty to the pound, and having a barrel 30 inches long, rifled with two grooves twisted one-quarter of a turn. This degree of twist was certainly much less than that used in French, German and American rifles, which as a rule had three-quarters or a whole turn in them; but Baker found that so great a twist190 caused stripping of the balls; so, as the accuracy of the lower twist was as great as that of the higher up to a range of 300 yards, and as it required a relatively smaller charge, gave smaller chamber pressures and caused less fouling of the barrel than its competitors, it was accepted. There was a strong opinion at the time in favour of the larger twist as universally used by the more expert foreign marksmen; and this opinion was justified115 by experience.118 The quarter-turn twist might give sufficient accuracy at low ranges, but as the skill of the riflemen increased longer ranges were attempted; and then it was found that sufficient accuracy was unattainable with the approved weapon. Rifles having a larger twist were therefore made by rival gunmakers and, the results of shooting matches giving incontestable evidence of their superiority, a demand arose for their supply to the army riflemen. Accordingly in 1839 the Brunswick rifle was adopted for the British army. The new weapon had two deep grooves twisted a whole turn in the length of the barrel, in which grooves studs, cast on the ball and designed to prevent stripping, were made to engage.
This was the last stage of the evolution of the rifle firing a spherical ball. So long as the spherical ball was retained, spiral grooving offered relatively small advantages over straight grooving; straight grooving offered small advantages over the best smooth-bore muskets116. The tedious loading of these rifles and the inefficiency117 of the system by which windage was eliminated by the force of ramming118, are sufficiently119 set forth120 by the various writers on early fire arms; and there is small wonder that the value of rifles as military weapons was seriously questioned by the highest professional opinion of the time. The charge of powder had to be carefully varied121 according to the state of the weather and the foulness122 of the piece. Care had to be taken that all the grains of the charge poured into it went to the breech end and did not stick to the sides of the barrel. Patches of leather or fustian123 were carried, in which the ball was wrapped on loading, to absorb windage, lubricate the rifling, and prevent the “leading” of the barrel and the191 wear which would ensue if a naked ball were used. “Place the ball,” says Ezekiel Baker, “upon the greased patch with the neck or castable, where it is cut off from the moulds, downwards124, as generally there is a small hole or cavity in it, which would gather the air in its flight.” The ball, a good tight fit, had to be rammed, in its surrounding patch, right down to the powder: for, if not rammed properly home, an air-space would be left and the barrel would perhaps burst on discharge; at the least, would give an inaccurate125 flight to the ball. If the barrel were at all worn, double or treble patches were necessary. To loosen the filth126 which collected in the barrel, and which sometimes prevented the ball from being either rammed or withdrawn127, water had to be poured down; not infrequently urine was used.
All sizes and shapes of groove were given to the early rifle, and their number depended largely upon caprice or superstition128. Seven, for instance, was a number frequently chosen on account of its mystic properties; in Scloppetaria an attempt is made to prove that an odd number has an advantage over an even. So, also, various degrees of twist were used. But in respect of this the evolution followed a definite course. The pitch of the twist necessarily bore a certain relationship to muzzle129 velocity130. With the earliest rifles a fairly rapid twist was given, being rendered possible by the small muzzle velocities131 employed, and indeed being rendered necessary to ensure stability to the flight of the ball. Then, with the endeavours made, at the end of the eighteenth century, to use higher charges and thereby to extend their range, higher muzzle velocities came into use, and the danger of stripping was then only prevented by the use of low twists. Special devices enabled a return to be made, in the Brunswick and other patterns, to the more rapid twists originally used.
Whatever devices were adopted to prevent stripping, however perfect the design and material of the equipment employed, two factors stood in the way of any further advance in the evolution of the rifle firing the spherical ball. First, the unsuitability of the sphere itself for projection133 through a resisting medium, by reason of the large surface which it offered to the air’s resistance and the relatively small mass by means of which it could maintain its flight. Second, the gyroscopic action of the spinning sphere, which limited its effective range in a manner which was probably unrealized192 until after it had been completely superseded. The sphere, unlike the elongated bullet, which always keeps its axis approximately tangential to its trajectory, maintained throughout flight its spin on its original axis. This did not matter much when ranges were short and trajectories134 flat; but as greater ranges and loftier trajectories came into use the effect on accuracy of aim became very important. During its descent through the latter part of the trajectory the rifle ball rotated in a plane no longer normal to its direction of flight; “it tended more and more to roll upon the air, and deviated135 considerably136.”119
§
The old Brown Bess, the ?-inch smooth-bore musket which our armies carried at Waterloo, in the Peninsula, and even at the Crimea, differed in no great respect from the muskets borne by British troops at Ramillies, whose inefficiency was such that it was seriously questioned whether, without the invention of the bayonet, they would have permanently137 superseded the crossbow of the Middle Ages. The inefficiency of Brown Bess was indeed remarkable138. Its standard of accuracy was so low that a trained marksman could only depend on putting one shot in twenty into an eighteen-foot square target at two hundred yards, at which range it was supposed to be effective. Its windage was so great that bullets flew wild from the muzzle; and it is not very surprising that, armed with such a weapon, our infantry should often have been impelled139 “to resort to the strong and certain thrust of the bayonet, rather than rely for their safety on the chance performances of the clumsy and capricious Brown Bess.” Writers on fire-arms are able to give dozens of tragic140 and laughable instances of its erratic shooting. In the Kaffir war, for example, our troops had to expend141 no fewer than eighty thousand rounds to kill or cripple some twenty-five naked savages142. After Waterloo a musket was sent down to Woolwich, to ascertain143 whether its ball would penetrate a French cuirass at two hundred yards’ range. The cuirass was mounted on a pole, the musket aligned144 and held firmly in a vice132; but it was found impossible to secure a hit until, at last, a random145 shot fired by one of the officers present did take effect! Nevertheless, Brown Bess remained in favour for a number of years after Waterloo. It had a flat and raking193 trajectory, owing to the very high muzzle velocity imparted to it by the large charge of powder used; from its great windage it loaded easily; and, although rather too heavy for long marches, it was strong enough to bear any amount of hard usage.120
So long as the rifle used a spherical ball it could not claim to rival Brown Bess for general service. As soon as the elongated projectile146 was developed the supersession147 of the smooth-bore was a matter of time alone. It is strange, however, in view of the enthusiasm of the Victorian rifleman and the ease with which the fire-arm lent itself to novel experiments, that the evolution of the elongated projectile covered so long a period as it did.
Apart from the fact that cylindrical148 bars and shot had often been fired from ordnance, it was known that Benjamin Robins himself had tried the experiment of firing egg-shaped projectiles149 from a rifle with a certain amount of success. The inefficiency of the loose sphere, in the case of the smooth-bore, and of the tightly rammed sphere, in the case of the rifle, were both recognized in the early days of the century. And, while no solution could be found, the problem was generally agreed to be: how to drop the projectile loosely down the barrel, and tighten150 it so as to absorb the windage when already there.
Two or three English inventors made proposals. In 1823 a Captain Norton, of the 34th Regiment, submitted an elongated projectile with a base hollowed out in such a way as to expand automatically when the pressure of the powder-gas came on it, and thus seal the bore. The idea came to him from an examination of the arrow used by the natives of Southern India with their blow-tube: an examination which revealed that the base of the arrow was formed of elastic151 lotus-pith, which by its expansion against the cylindrical surface of the tube prevented the escape of air past it. In 1836 Mr. Greener submitted a pointed152 bullet having a cylindrical cavity in its base in which a conical plug was fixed153, expanding the base by a wedging action when under the pressure of the powder gases.121 Had either of these ideas been considered with the attention which it deserved, the development of the rifle in this country194 might have been more rapid than it was. “By blindly rejecting both of these inventions the authorities deprived England of the honour of having initiated154 the greatest improvement in small arms.”
It was in France that the elongated projectile waged an eventually successful struggle against the spherical ball, its ancient rival. The French, troubled by the superiority of their Arab enemies in shooting at long range, founded a School of Musketry at Vincennes. In 1828 Captain Delvigne, a distinguished156 staff officer of that school, established the two main principles on which all succeeding inventors were obliged to rely: one, that in muzzle-loading rifles the projectile must slip down the barrel with a certain windage, so as to admit of easy loading; two, that only elongated projectiles were suited to modern rifles.
Before coming to these two conclusions Delvigne had made important efforts to render the spherical ball as efficient as possible. He had, in particular, proposed to make that part of the barrel near the breech which formed the powder-chamber of slightly smaller diameter than the rest of the barrel; so that a spherical ball, rammed down on it, became indented157 against its ledge158 and flattened159 sufficiently to fill the rifling grooves. By this device quick loading was obtained and the accuracy of aim, it was found, was doubled. Certain practical disadvantages, however, were associated with it: the chamber fouled160 rapidly, and the ball was frequently distorted and jagged by over-ramming. So in ’33 the Delvigne system, as it was called, was modified by the wrapping of the ball in a greased patch and the attaching of the patch to a “sabot” or wad of wood which was interposed between the ball and the shoulders of the powder-chamber. Rifles thus loaded did good work in Algeria in ’38.
In the meantime Delvigne, admittedly inspired by the writings of Robins, was urging on the authorities the superiority of the elongated ball. He was insistent161 on the advantages which would accrue103 from augmenting162 the mass of the projectile while at the same time making it present to the air during flight its smallest surface. The shape he proposed was that of the present-day rifle bullet, considerably shortened: a bullet with a flat base, cylindrical sides and ogival head, somewhat resembling the form which had been proposed by Sir Isaac Newton as a “solid of least resistance.” After a succession of195 disappointments and refusals, the inventor had the satisfaction of seeing his bullet accepted. Its advantages over the spherical ball had been made manifest on the proving-ground. It was accepted in combination with the carabine à tige, a rifle invented by a Colonel Thouvenin, in which the Delvigne shouldered chamber was replaced by a small central pillar or anvil163, projecting from the breech-end of the bore, against which the bullet was rammed. The powder, when poured into the barrel, collected in the annular164 space around the pillar. By this arrangement the necessity for the sabot was obviated165 and the charge of powder, protected by the pillar, was not in danger of being crushed or mealed. In ’46 the new bullet proved its high accuracy and ranging power on active service in Algeria. But the pillar was found liable to bend and distort; and the difficulty in keeping the space round it free from fouling proved to be another of its inherent disadvantages.
“CARABINE à TIGE”
MINIé BULLET
And then, in 49 the Minié compound bullet, self-expanding, of the same shape as the Delvigne and utilizing166 the same principle of an expansive bore as that embodied167 in Greener’s bullet, was produced. The full value of the rifle was at last obtained. By virtue168 of the elongated bullet the mass of the projectile could be increased to a large extent without any increase in the cross-sectional area exposed to air resistance. With such a projectile, impelled by a charge whose combustive169 effect could be accurately170 gauged171 owing to the absence of all windage losses, great speed and accuracy were possible. As to power, the only limit imposed was the strength of the barrel and the capacity of the marksman to withstand the reactionary173 blow due to the projectile’s momentum174. But now, not only was rifling advantageous175: with the elongated bullet rifling was an absolute necessity. “Rotation,” it was said, “is the soul of the bullet.” Rotation was necessary to impart stability, and to keep the projectile, by virtue of the initial196 spin acquired, true in its flight throughout the whole trajectory.
In England, where the two-grooved Brunswick still marked the limit of development, the discovery of the Minié weapon and its powers occasioned misgiving176 and surprise.122 In ’51 some Minié rifles were purchased and issued, as a temporary expedient177, to our army. And, interest in the question now becoming general,123 it was resolved to take under government control the future manufacture of military small arms. A commission of officers visited America for the purpose of inspecting the ingenious tools and appliances known to be employed there in the manufacture of rifles; and the features of the various European and American weapons were seriously studied. A government factory was established at Enfield, and with the products of this factory certain of our regiments178 were armed for service when the Crimean War broke out. The Enfield rifle, as it was called, combined the best features of the Minié with those of other types. It had a three-grooved barrel with a half-turn twist in its length of 39 inches. It was .577 inch in the bore, and fired a bullet whose recessed179 base was filled with a boxwood instead of an iron cup or plug.
The nation soon obtained value from the new development. The efficiency of the Enfield rifle at the Alma and at Inkerman was attested180 by the correspondent of The Times, who reported that “it smote181 the enemy like a destroying angel.” Three years later the Indian Mutiny afforded a still more conclusive182 proof of the value of this weapon. Though, from the greased cartridges183 which were used, it served as one of the pretexts184 for the mutiny, it proved in the sequel a powerful military instrument, and demonstrated both to friend and foe185 its superiority over the smooth-bore musket with which the rebels197 were armed. In fact, with the adoption of the Enfield rifle, England found herself in advance even of France; the French, partly perhaps from motives of economy, partly from a desire for symmetry, had retained in their Minié rifle the same calibre as that of their old smooth-bore: indeed, the greater part of the French army rifles were merely converted smooth-bores. In the Enfield a wise reduction of calibre had been made; whereby, while the weight of the rifle was reduced, its strength and the size of the permissible186 charges, and therefore the range and penetrating187 power of the projectile were all considerably augmented.
Having once gained the lead, England now took another rapid move forward in the development of the rifle. Though the new standards set by the Enfield were high, expert opinion aimed at something still higher; the Enfield gave variations in range and direction which could not be accounted for by errors in manufacture, nor did the range and penetrative power of the bullet come up to expectations. In these circumstances the government sought the advice of a man whose name was destined188 to loom189 large in the story of the subsequent development of ordnance: Mr. Whitworth. Mr. Whitworth was described as the greatest mechanical genius in Europe at that time. Certain it is that, although in the realm of ordnance his name may have been overshadowed to a certain extent by that of his great rival, yet on the broad ground of the influence his inventions exerted on the progress of mechanical science generally, his fame now grows with time. He it was who first swept away the medieval conception of measurement which hitherto had obtained in factories and workshops, and introduced a scientific precision into the manufacture of machines and mechanisms. The true plane surface, as we know it to-day, was unattained before his time; and his contemporaries marvelled190 at plates of metal prepared by him of so true a surface that, by their mere51 adhesion, one could be lifted by means of the other. The micrometer was a similar revelation. Men whose minimum of size had hitherto been the thickness of a chalk-line or a simple fraction of an inch, were taught by him to measure the inch to its ten-thousandth part, and even to gauge172 the expansion of a rod caused by the warmth imparted by the contact of a finger.
Such was the man who made modern artillery possible. To Mr. Whitworth, who knew nothing himself of guns or of198 gun-making, the government went for advice on the shortcomings of the Enfield rifle. At their request he promptly191 began an analytical192 inquiry193 into the principles underlying194 the action of rifles and the flight of their projectiles, resolved and urged to discover the secret of the very partial success so far attained. The results of this inquiry, published in ’57, had a great influence on the future of rifled fire-arms and ordnance. Briefly195, he discovered that the amount of twist hitherto given to the rifling of gun-barrels had been wholly insufficient196 to maintain the projectile in its true direction during flight; the weight of the projectile, relatively to its diameter, had been insufficient to give it the necessary momentum to sustain its velocity against the resistance of the air; lastly, the accuracy of manufacture of rifles had been inadequate197 to the ensuring of a good fit of the bullet in the bore. To prove the truth of these assertions a Whitworth rifle was produced by him which gave better results than any other hitherto made. The form of rifling which the inventor adopted was considered objectionable, and the rifle itself, with its polygonal198 barrel, was not approved by the authorities; but, instead, the valuable results of Whitworth’s experiments were embodied in the Enfield, to its obvious improvement.
WHITWORTH
RIFLE
BULLET
The muzzle-loading rifle had now reached the limit of its development. The rifle was the accepted arm of all the great military powers. But in the case of one of them, Prussia, the principle of breech-loading was already in favour, and it was not long before the progress in mechanical science enabled this principle to prove its superiority over the ancient principle of muzzle-loading. Although in the Prussian needle-gun great difficulties were encountered; although in service its reputation suffered from such defects as the rusting199 of the needles which pierced the percussion200 cartridges, the failure of springs, the escape of gases at the breech; yet it was recognized that none of these defects was necessarily inherent in the breech-loading system, and its merits were admitted. With the breech-loader a greater rapidity of fire was always attainable70, there was less difficulty in preventing fouling, and, above all, there was the certainty that the powder-charge would be fired to its last effective grain.
In 1864 breech-loading rifles were recommended for the199 British army, and shortly afterwards they were introduced in the form of converted Enfields.
§
We have seen how the development of field ordnance stimulated201 the development of the rifle. In turn the attainment of superior range and accuracy by rifled small arms led directly to a corresponding development of field ordnance, designed to recover the loss of its ascendancy202. In France, where the logical consequences of the progress in small arms were officially noted on several occasions, Napoleon III, himself an authority on artillery, took the initiative to restore field ordnance to its former relative position. It was in the Crimean War that the enhanced effects of rifle regiments were first seriously felt. Convinced by the protraction of the operations before Sebastopol of the inadequacy203 of smooth-bore guns, the Emperor caused bronze pieces to be rifled, and these, being sent to Algeria on active service, gave conclusive proof of their increased efficiency. On report of which, all the bronze field pieces in the French army were rifled in accordance with the plans which a M. Treuille de Beaulieu had submitted in 1842, viz. with six shallow rounded grooves in which engaged zinc204 studs carried on two bands formed on the cylindrical projectile. The gain in power obtained by rifling ordnance was greater even than that obtained from rifling as applied to small arms. For not only did rifling confer the advantages of a more massive projectile more suitably shaped for flight through a resisting medium, but it allowed a large increase in the number of balls which could be discharged in the form of case or shrapnel, and a large increase in the powder-charge which could be carried inside a common shell. An advantage was also gained in respect of that important detail, the fusee or fuze; the rotation of the projectile about a definite axis made it possible to use fuses whose action depended on one definite part of the projectile coming first in contact with the ground or target.124 All these advantages were found to be present in the French field pieces when rifled on the above200 plan. “And thus,” said an English writer, “at slight expense but too late for use in the Crimean War, France was put in possession of an artillery which, consuming its usual powder and using either round ball or elongated projectiles, proved of immense value in the war against Austria in 1856, when, at Magenta205 and at Solferino, the case shot from their rifled field-pieces ploughed through the distant masses of opposing infantry and decimated the cavalry206 as they formed for the attack.”125
In England an almost simultaneous development took place, but on entirely different lines. Let us tell it in the words of Sir Emerson Tennant:
“The fate of the battle of Inkerman in November, 1854, was decided207 by two eighteen-pounder guns which by almost superhuman efforts were got up late into the field, and these, by their superior range, were effectual in silencing the Russian fire. Mr. William Armstrong was amongst those who perceived that another such emergency could only be met by imparting to field-guns the accuracy and range of the rifle; and that the impediment of weight must be removed by substituting forged instead of cast-iron guns. With his earliest design for the realization208 of this conception, he waited on the Secretary for War in December, 1854, to propose the enlargement of the rifle musket to the standard of a field gun, and to substitute elongated projectiles of lead instead of balls of cast iron. Encouraged by the Duke of Newcastle, he put together his first wrought209-iron gun in the spring of 1855.”126
The manufacture of this gun marked a new era in ordnance. Repeated trials followed its completion; with the result that in 1858 the Armstrong gun was officially adopted for service in the field,—the epoch-making Armstrong gun: a tube made of wrought-iron bar coiled in a closed helix and welded at a white heat into a solid mass; turned to a true cylinder210 and reinforced by outer tubes shrunk on to it; rifled with a large number of grooves; breech-loading, a powerful screw holding a sliding vent-piece tightly against the face of the breech; firing a lead-coated projectile in whose plastic covering the rifling engaged as soon as it started its passage through the bore; and mounted on a field-carriage in such a way that the gun201 could recoil211 up an inclined slide and return by gravity, and in such a way that its motion both for elevating and for traversing was under the accurate control given by screw gearing.
The coming of the Armstrong gun at once revolutionized artillery practice and material in this country. The sum of all the improvements embodied in it was so great that existing material scarcely bore comparison with it. Its accuracy as compared with that of the smooth-bore field piece which it displaced was stated in parliament to be in the ratio of fifty-seven to one. And the effect of its inventor’s achievement was, “that from being the rudest of weapons, artillery has been advanced to be nearly on a par19 mechanically with the steam engine or the power-loom; and it differs as essentially212 from the old cast-iron tube dignified213 with the name of a gun, as the railway train of the present day differs from the stagecoach214 of our forefathers.”127 A revolutionary invention it certainly was. Yet, like most revolutionary inventions, it relied for its grand effect more on the aggregate215 effect of the small improvements in its various elements than on the materialization of some new-born idea. The building up of guns in coils was not a new discovery, polygroove rifling was already in use abroad, breech-loading, lead-coated projectiles, elevating screws—all had been known for years. Nor does this fact detract in the least from the fame of Mr. Armstrong in this connection. His greatness lay, surely, in the insight and initiative with which he made use of known forms and combinations, summoning to his aid the new powers placed at his disposal by Whitworth, Nasmyth, Bessemer and their contemporaries in order to evolve a system incomparably superior to anything hitherto achieved.
In England, too, an independent development was at the same time taking place in yet another direction. Mr. Whitworth, having satisfactorily established the principles governing the design of rifles, felt confident of extending them to field and heavy ordnance. Adhering to the muzzle-loading principle and to his hexagonal form of rifling he manufactured, between the years 1854 and 1857, several guns which fired projectiles of from six to twenty-four pounds’ weight with great accuracy and to ranges greater than any yet attained. Events occurred which caused him to be given every encouragement by the202 government. The attitude of the French in these years was suspicious and unfriendly. Schemes of invasion were openly discussed in their press, and war vessels216 of various types equipped with armour plate were designed and actually built. Reports of their plans, following closely on the exposures of the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, rendered the country increasingly restless and apprehensive217 as to the value of our offensive and defensive218 armaments. And then, although the new Armstrong gun was acclaimed219 as eminently220 suited for service in the field, doubts had been cast as to whether the principles of its design could be applied satisfactorily to the heaviest ordnance. Other rifled artillery had certainly failed to give the results expected from it. The Lancaster rifled gun, a muzzle-loading gun with a twisted bore of a slightly oval section, had failed lamentably221 at the Crimea owing to the tendency, according to one account, of the oval projectile to wedge itself against the slightly larger oval of the bore; according to another account, owing to the flames from the powder gases penetrating the interior of the welded shells which had been supplied for it. The breech-loading ordnance of Cavalli had failed the Italians. In Sweden several accidents had occurred with Wahrendorf’s breech-loading pieces. The French system, which had been copied by the majority of the powers, was that which appeared to be giving the least unsatisfactory results.
In these circumstances every encouragement was given Mr. Whitworth to develop ordnance on his own lines. In ’58 a committee on rifled guns was appointed by parliament to examine and report on the relative merits of the various systems in use. The committee quickly set to work. No difficulty was found in eliminating all but two, on which attention was soon concentrated: the Armstrong and the Whitworth. The result of the final investigation222 was a report in favour of the Armstrong gun, which, as we have already seen, was adopted in the same year for field service. Mr. Armstrong, who had handed over his rights in the gun for the benefit of the nation, was knighted and his services were subsidized for the improvement of rifled ordnance generally. The title of “Engineer to the War Department” was conferred on him, and later he received the further appointment of “Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factory” at Woolwich.
203
§
The revolution in field guns was closely followed by a corresponding revolution in heavy ordnance. The experience of the Crimean War proved two things: that the development of the shell gun necessitated223 the provision of armour to protect the flanks of warships224; and that the development of armour necessitated a heavy ordnance of a greater power than existing smooth-bore cannon. The shell gun, in fact, induced a rifled ordnance.
The French, who had already found a cheap and sufficiently effective rifled field artillery in the conversion226 of their smooth-bores on the de Beaulieu principle, merely had to extend this conversion to their heavier pieces. By 1860 they had converted their 30- and 50-pounder cannon in this way, thus enabling them to be used for the discharge of either spherical or elongated projectiles.
Britain, on the other hand, found herself committed to an entirely new and experimental system which could not be applied to existing ordnance; a large outlay227 of money was thereby involved for new plant and guns; our vast establishment of smooth-bore cast-iron cannon was in danger of being reduced to scrap228 material. At the same time doubts were expressed whether this new system, whose success as applied to medium pieces was generally admitted, would be found satisfactory when applied to the largest size of ordnance. It was natural, then, that great interest should be centred in what was regarded as a less experimental alternative to the Armstrong system, in case the latter failed. The results obtained by Mr. Whitworth in the manufacture of solid cannon, rifled hexagonally, muzzle-loading and capable of firing hexagonal bolts or, in emergency, spherical balls, were such as to give promise of competing successfully with those obtained from the ordnance officially patronized. To the public the simplicity229 of his system strongly appealed. Mr. Whitworth himself, far from being deterred230 by the decision given in favour of his rival, was now an enthusiastic exponent231 of the constructive232 principles which he had made his own. Trial succeeded trial, piece after piece was made and tested to destruction. By 1860 a very successful ordnance was evolved at Manchester by him: guns made of homogeneous iron,204 forged in large masses, and formed of cylindrical tubes forced one over another by means of a known hydraulic233 pressure—not, as in the Armstrong system, by heating and shrinking. And on the sands at Southport a series of public trials were carried out with these guns, the results of which proved a great advertisement for the Whitworth system. The accuracy of flight of the projectiles was unprecedented234, and all records in ranging power were broken by one of the pieces, a 3-pounder, which threw a shot to a distance of 9,688 yards!128
Even if the new Whitworth system were adopted, the utilization235 of the old smooth-bore cannon which formed the existing national armament of ships and fortresses236 was not secured. Neither the Armstrong nor the Whitworth system provided an expedient for converting to rifled ordnance the thousands of cast-iron guns in which the defence of the country was invested. Efforts were therefore made to reinforce the old pieces so that, when rifled, they would be sufficiently strong to withstand the greater stresses entailed237. Greater stresses in the metal, due to higher chamber pressures of the powder gases, were almost a necessary concomitant of rifling. For, apart from the increase in the size and mass of the projectile and its greater initial resistance to motion, pressures tended to increase in a greater ratio than the size of the pieces themselves;205 the mass of the projectile increased as the cube, the propulsive238 force of the gases as the square, of the diameter of the bore; hence to attain13 a given velocity, the larger the bore the higher the pressure required to propel it with a given type of powder,—other things being equal. No limit, therefore, could be assigned to the strength and power required of heavy ordnance. Moreover a struggle had begun in ’59, with the building of the Gloire and Warrior239, which was already foreshadowing tremendous developments both of guns and of armour.
The experiences of America in this connection were not encouraging. The civil war served as an incentive240 to the Americans to rifle all their large calibre guns as quickly as possible. In ’62 large numbers of cast-iron cannon were rifled and reinforced by external hoops241 of iron. The results were deplorable. A great number of pieces burst; and experience made it clear that “a gun made up of a single homogeneous casting soon reaches a limit of resistance to internal pressure beyond which the addition of extra metal has little or no effect.” Two improvements must be mentioned as having more than a passing effect on the progress of ordnance in America: first, the adoption of compressed and perforated powder which, by prolonging the combustion period, caused a more even distribution of stresses over all sections of the barrel; second, the casting of guns hollow and the chilling of their interiors, so as to form on the inside of the piece a hardened stratum242 on which the outer parts of the casting contracted as they slowly cooled, thus giving it support. But in spite of these inventions it became apparent that cast iron was in its nature unsuited as a material for rifled ordnance.
In England a safer method of conversion was followed. Guns were bored out, on a scheme proposed in ’63 by Major Palliser, and accurately turned tubes of coiled wrought iron were fitted in them, which were afterwards rifled. The resulting pieces consisted, then, of a wrought-iron inner tube, supported by a surrounding cast-iron jacket against which, on firing, the inner tube expanded. Thus converted, the old smooth-bores were enabled to develop an energy far in excess of their original limit, and so to prolong for some years their period of usefulness.
The conversion of the cast-iron guns was seen to be only a temporary expedient. Just as the smooth-bore cannon,206 after a last effort to overcome iron plates with spherical solid shot of the largest calibre, withdrew from the competition; so, as the thickness of armour increased, the converted cast-iron cannon, with its special armour-piercing shot of chilled iron, soon reached the limit of its power and gave place to the rifled artillery of wrought iron or steel.
And now, rifled ordnance having definitely supplanted243 the smooth-bore, a new struggle arose between the various systems of gunmaking, and more especially between the two rival methods of loading: by the breech and by the muzzle. The prognostications of those who had doubted whether the latter method was suitable for large ordnance were seen to be partially244 justified. Other nations had already relapsed into muzzle-loading, impressed by the complexity245 and weakness of the breech-loading systems of Cavalli, Wahrendorf and other inventors. Besides ourselves only the Prussians, the originators of the breech-loading rifled musket in its modern form, continued to trust in breech-loading ordnance. The Italians, following the example of the French and Americans, abandoned the system. “Thus,” said an English authority in ’62, “while, after more than four centuries of trial, other nations were giving up the moveable breech, ... we are still going from plan to plan in the hope of effecting what will, even if successful in closing the breech, be scarcely safe with the heavy charges necessary for smashing armour plates.”129
In the following year, ’63, the committee appointed to carry out the competitive trials between Whitworth and Armstrong guns, reported that the many-grooved system of rifling, with its lead-coated projectiles and complicated breech-loading arrangements, entailing246 the use of tin caps for obturation and lubricators for the rifling grooves, was far inferior for the general purposes of war to both of the muzzle-loading systems tried. This view received early and practical confirmation247 from a report sent to the Admiralty by Vice-Admiral Sir Augustus Kuper, after the bombardment of Kagosima. In that action several accidents occurred owing to the Armstrong guns being fired with their breech-blocks not properly screwed up. The guns were accordingly withdrawn from service and replaced by muzzle-loaders. In 1864 England reverted248 definitely to muzzle-loading ordnance, which, in the face of violent controversy249 and in spite of the gradual reconversion207 of her rivals to the breech-loading principle, she maintained for the next fifteen years. Whitworth’s system was adopted in the main, but the hexagonal form of bore and projectile was avoided. Studded projectiles were approved, the pieces being rifled with a few broad shallow grooves not unlike those used by the French. England at last possessed a muzzle-loading sea ordnance, characterized by ease and rapidity of loading, accuracy, cheapness, and capacity for firing, in emergency, spherical shot as well as rifled projectiles.
What was the effect of this retrogression upon the status of our naval250 armaments?
It seems frequently to have been held that, in view of the eventual155 victory of the breech-loading gun, the policy of reverting251 to muzzle-loading was wrong, and that this country was thereby placed at a serious disadvantage to her rivals. Several good reasons existed, however, for the preference given to muzzle-loading ordnance at that time. The accidents with removable breeches had been numerous and demoralizing. Muzzle-loading guns, besides the advantages which they possessed of strength, solidity and simplicity of construction, offered important advantages in ease and rapidity of loading—particularly in the case of turret252 or barbette guns, where “outside loading” was a great convenience. On the other hand the principal deficiency of the muzzle-loader, namely, the large windage required with studded projectiles, was now eliminated by the invention of the cupped “gas check,” a copper253 disc attached to the rear of the projectile which, on discharge, expanded automatically and sealed the bore.
Expert opinion confirmed the wisdom of the government policy. Experience, in the Franco-Prussian war and elsewhere, confirmed the views of the experts. “Reviewing the action of the artillerists who decided to adopt muzzle-loaders, with the greater experience we now possess it seems that they were right in their decision at the time it was first made; but there was too much hesitation254 in coming back to breech-loaders when new discoveries and great progress in powder quite altered conditions.”130 In fact, once having abandoned the disparaged255 system, the country was with difficulty persuaded by the professionals to retrace256 its steps. In the end, ordnance followed small arms; the researches of Captain Noble at Elswick proved conclusively257 to the world at large the208 necessity for a reversion to breech-loading; and in 1880 the muzzle-loading gun was finally superseded by a greatly improved form of breech-loader.
In 1880 the state of knowledge and the conditions under which ordnance was manufactured were certainly altered from those of ’64. The struggle between guns and armour begun with the Gloire and Warrior had continued. In the presence of the new powers of mechanical science, artillerists and shipbuilders had sought to plumb258 the possibilities of offensive and defensive elements in warship225 design. Guns influenced armour, armour reacted on guns; both revolutionized contemporary naval architecture. It was in the effort to aggrandize259 the power of guns that Noble discovered that, with the existing powders and with the short muzzle-loading gun, a natural limit of power was soon reached. Better results could only be obtained, he showed, by the adoption of slow-burning powder and a longer gun; by the avoidance of the sudden high chamber pressure which resulted from the small-grained powder, and the substitution for it of a chamber pressure which would rise gradually to a safe maximum and then suffer only a gradual reduction as the gases expanded behind the moving projectile. The work done by the gases on the projectile could by this means be enormously increased. But, for this result, larger powder-charges were required; and these larger charges of slow-burning powder were found to require much larger chambers than those embodied in existing guns; in short, the new conditions called for a new shape of gun. Long guns, having powder chambers of larger diameter than that of the bore, were necessary, and these could not conveniently be made muzzle-loading.
So a return to the breech-loading ordnance became inevitable260, and the change was made. The old Armstrong moveable vent-piece was avoided, however, in the new designs; of the two alternative breech-closing systems in use, viz. the wedge system of Krupp and the “interrupted screw” system of the French, the latter was adopted. A steel tube, rifled on the polygroove system, formed the body of the piece, and this was strengthened by hoops of iron or steel shrunk on its exterior. The new gun yielded a very great increase of power. Muzzle-loading guns were at once displaced, in the projected programme of new battleships, for the new type of ordnance, and a further series of revolutionary changes in ship armament209 at once took place. Other nations had already augmented the length and power of their guns. By the adoption of the improved breech-loading ordnance, Great Britain, who for the last few years had been falling behind her rivals, not only drew level with them but definitely took the lead in the power of her heavy ordnance: a lead which from that time to this she has successfully maintained.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
ordnance
|
|
| n.大炮，军械 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
musket
|
|
| n.滑膛枪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
spherical
|
|
| adj.球形的；球面的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
elongated
|
|
| v.延长，加长( elongate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
dread
|
|
| vt.担忧，忧虑；惧怕，不敢；n.担忧，畏惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
archers
|
|
| n.弓箭手，射箭运动员( archer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
archer
|
|
| n.射手，弓箭手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
athletic
|
|
| adj.擅长运动的，强健的；活跃的，体格健壮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
attainment
|
|
| n.达到，到达；［常pl.］成就，造诣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
incessant
|
|
| adj.不停的，连续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
infancy
|
|
| n.婴儿期；幼年期；初期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
exigencies
|
|
| n.急切需要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
seamen
|
|
| n.海员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
par
|
|
| n.标准，票面价值，平均数量；adj.票面的，平常的，标准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
stimulate
|
|
| vt.刺激，使兴奋；激励，使…振奋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
butts
|
|
| 笑柄( butt的名词复数 )； （武器或工具的）粗大的一端； 屁股； 烟蒂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
yew
|
|
| n.紫杉属树木 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
prodigious
|
|
| adj.惊人的，奇妙的；异常的；巨大的；庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
requisite
|
|
| adj.需要的，必不可少的；n.必需品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
advent
|
|
| n.(重要事件等的)到来，来临 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
gunpowder
|
|
| n.火药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
embargo
|
|
| n.禁运（令）；vt.对...实行禁运，禁止（通商） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
forefathers
|
|
| n.祖先，先人；祖先，祖宗( forefather的名词复数 )；列祖列宗；前人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
uncertainty
|
|
| n.易变，靠不住，不确知，不确定的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
penetrate
|
|
| v.透(渗)入；刺入，刺穿；洞察，了解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
armour
|
|
| （=armor）n.盔甲；装甲部队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
rivalry
|
|
| n.竞争，竞赛，对抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
Vogue
|
|
| n.时髦，时尚；adj.流行的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
proficiency
|
|
| n.精通，熟练，精练 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
mechanisms
|
|
| n.机械( mechanism的名词复数 )；机械装置；[生物学] 机制；机械作用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
warfare
|
|
| n.战争(状态)；斗争；冲突 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
investigators
|
|
| n.调查者，审查者( investigator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
assortment
|
|
| n.分类，各色俱备之物，聚集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
groove
|
|
| n.沟，槽；凹线，（刻出的）线条，习惯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
grooves
|
|
| n.沟( groove的名词复数 )；槽；老一套；（某种）音乐节奏v.沟( groove的第三人称单数 )；槽；老一套；（某种）音乐节奏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
fouling
|
|
| n.（水管、枪筒等中的）污垢v.使污秽( foul的现在分词 )；弄脏；击球出界；（通常用废物）弄脏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
obstructing
|
|
| 阻塞( obstruct的现在分词 )； 堵塞； 阻碍； 阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
grooving
|
|
| n.（轧辊）孔型设计v.沟( groove的现在分词 )；槽；老一套；（某种）音乐节奏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
grooved
|
|
| v.沟( groove的过去式和过去分词 )；槽；老一套；（某种）音乐节奏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
javelin
|
|
| n.标枪，投枪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
propounded
|
|
| v.提出（问题、计划等）供考虑[讨论]，提议( propound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
gnawing
|
|
| a.痛苦的，折磨人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
indenting
|
|
| n.成穴的v.切割…使呈锯齿状( indent的现在分词 )；缩进排版 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
combustion
|
|
| n.燃烧；氧化；骚动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
axis
|
|
| n.轴，轴线，中心线；坐标轴，基准线 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
gutter
|
|
| n.沟，街沟，水槽，檐槽，贫民窟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
tangential
|
|
| adj.离题的，切线的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
attainable
|
|
| a.可达到的，可获得的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
robins
|
|
| n.知更鸟，鸫( robin的名词复数 )；（签名者不分先后，以避免受责的）圆形签名抗议书（或请愿书） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
bent
|
|
| n.爱好，癖好；adj.弯的；决心的，一心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
deviate
|
|
| v.(from)背离，偏离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
regularity
|
|
| n.规律性，规则性；匀称，整齐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
intruded
|
|
| n.侵入的，推进的v.侵入，侵扰，打扰( intrude的过去式和过去分词 )；把…强加于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
friction
|
|
| n.摩擦，摩擦力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
compensated
|
|
| 补偿，报酬( compensate的过去式和过去分词 )； 给（某人）赔偿（或赔款） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
Augmented
|
|
| adj.增音的 动词augment的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
triangular
|
|
| adj.三角（形）的，三者间的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
ribs
|
|
| n.肋骨( rib的名词复数 )；（船或屋顶等的）肋拱；肋骨状的东西；（织物的）凸条花纹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
quotations
|
|
| n.引用( quotation的名词复数 )；[商业]行情（报告）；（货物或股票的）市价；时价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
chamber
|
|
| n.房间，寝室；会议厅；议院；会所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
discord
|
|
| n.不和，意见不合，争论，（音乐）不和谐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
gutters
|
|
| （路边）排水沟( gutter的名词复数 )； 阴沟； （屋顶的）天沟； 贫贱的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
rammed
|
|
| v.夯实（土等）( ram的过去式和过去分词 )；猛撞；猛压；反复灌输 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
superseded
|
|
| [医]被代替的，废弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
paradox
|
|
| n.似乎矛盾却正确的说法；自相矛盾的人(物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
unnatural
|
|
| adj.不自然的；反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
trajectory
|
|
| n.弹道，轨道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
eccentricity
|
|
| n.古怪，反常，怪癖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
exterior
|
|
| adj.外部的，外在的；表面的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
rotation
|
|
| n.旋转；循环，轮流 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
accrued
|
|
| adj.权责已发生的v.增加( accrue的过去式和过去分词 )；（通过自然增长）产生；获得；（使钱款、债务）积累 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
accrue
|
|
| v.(利息等)增大，增多 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
mallet
|
|
| n.槌棒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
inception
|
|
| n.开端，开始，取得学位 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
artillery
|
|
| n.(军)火炮，大炮；炮兵(部队) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
erratic
|
|
| adj.古怪的，反复无常的，不稳定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
concealing
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，遮住( conceal的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
continental
|
|
| adj.大陆的，大陆性的，欧洲大陆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
infantry
|
|
| n.[总称]步兵(部队) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
cannon
|
|
| n.大炮，火炮；飞机上的机关炮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
baker
|
|
| n.面包师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
corps
|
|
| n.(通信等兵种的)部队；(同类作的)一组 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
regiment
|
|
| n.团，多数，管理；v.组织，编成团，统制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
muskets
|
|
| n.火枪，（尤指）滑膛枪( musket的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
inefficiency
|
|
| n.无效率，无能；无效率事例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
ramming
|
|
| n.打结炉底v.夯实（土等）( ram的现在分词 )；猛撞；猛压；反复灌输 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
foulness
|
|
| n. 纠缠, 卑鄙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
fustian
|
|
| n.浮夸的；厚粗棉布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
downwards
|
|
| adj./adv.向下的（地），下行的（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
inaccurate
|
|
| adj.错误的，不正确的，不准确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
filth
|
|
| n.肮脏，污物，污秽；淫猥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
muzzle
|
|
| n.鼻口部；口套；枪(炮)口；vt.使缄默 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
velocity
|
|
| n.速度，速率 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
velocities
|
|
| n.速度( velocity的名词复数 )；高速，快速 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
projection
|
|
| n.发射，计划，突出部分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
trajectories
|
|
| n.弹道( trajectory的名词复数 )；轨道；轨线；常角轨道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
deviated
|
|
| v.偏离，越轨( deviate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
impelled
|
|
| v.推动、推进或敦促某人做某事( impel的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
tragic
|
|
| adj.悲剧的，悲剧性的，悲惨的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
expend
|
|
| vt.花费，消费，消耗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
savages
|
|
| 未开化的人，野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
aligned
|
|
| adj.对齐的，均衡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
random
|
|
| adj.随机的；任意的；n.偶然的(或随便的)行动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
projectile
|
|
| n.投射物，发射体；adj.向前开进的；推进的；抛掷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
supersession
|
|
| 取代，废弃； 代谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
cylindrical
|
|
| adj.圆筒形的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
projectiles
|
|
| n.抛射体( projectile的名词复数 )；（炮弹、子弹等）射弹，（火箭等）自动推进的武器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
tighten
|
|
| v.(使)变紧；(使)绷紧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
elastic
|
|
| n.橡皮圈，松紧带；adj.有弹性的；灵活的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
initiated
|
|
| n. 创始人 adj. 新加入的 vt. 开始，创始，启蒙，介绍加入 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
eventual
|
|
| adj.最后的，结局的，最终的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
indented
|
|
| adj.锯齿状的，高低不平的；缩进排版 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
ledge
|
|
| n.壁架，架状突出物；岩架，岩礁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
flattened
|
|
| [医]（水）平扁的，弄平的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
fouled
|
|
| v.使污秽( foul的过去式和过去分词 )；弄脏；击球出界；（通常用废物）弄脏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
insistent
|
|
| adj.迫切的，坚持的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
augmenting
|
|
| 使扩张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
anvil
|
|
| n.铁钻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
annular
|
|
| adj.环状的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
obviated
|
|
| v.避免，消除（贫困、不方便等）( obviate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
166
utilizing
|
|
| v.利用，使用( utilize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
combustive
|
|
| 易[可]燃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
170
accurately
|
|
| adv.准确地，精确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
gauged
|
|
| adj.校准的；标准的；量规的；量计的v.（用仪器）测量( gauge的过去式和过去分词 )；估计；计量；划分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
gauge
|
|
| v.精确计量；估计；n.标准度量；计量器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
reactionary
|
|
| n.反动者，反动主义者；adj.反动的，反动主义的，反对改革的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
momentum
|
|
| n.动力，冲力，势头；动量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
misgiving
|
|
| n.疑虑，担忧，害怕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
expedient
|
|
| adj.有用的，有利的；n.紧急的办法，权宜之计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
regiments
|
|
| （军队的）团( regiment的名词复数 )； 大量的人或物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
recessed
|
|
| v.把某物放在墙壁的凹处( recess的过去式和过去分词 )；将（墙）做成凹形，在（墙）上做壁龛；休息，休会，休庭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
attested
|
|
| adj.经检验证明无病的，经检验证明无菌的v.证明( attest的过去式和过去分词 )；证实；声称…属实；使宣誓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
smote
|
|
| v.猛打，重击，打击( smite的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
conclusive
|
|
| adj.最后的，结论的；确凿的，消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
cartridges
|
|
| 子弹( cartridge的名词复数 )； （打印机的）墨盒； 录音带盒； （唱机的）唱头 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
pretexts
|
|
| n.借口，托辞( pretext的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
foe
|
|
| n.敌人，仇敌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
permissible
|
|
| adj.可允许的，许可的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
penetrating
|
|
| adj.（声音）响亮的，尖锐的adj.（气味）刺激的adj.（思想）敏锐的，有洞察力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
destined
|
|
| adj.命中注定的；(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
loom
|
|
| n.织布机，织机；v.隐现，(危险、忧虑等)迫近 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
marvelled
|
|
| v.惊奇，对…感到惊奇( marvel的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
promptly
|
|
| adv.及时地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
analytical
|
|
| adj.分析的；用分析法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
underlying
|
|
| adj.在下面的，含蓄的，潜在的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
insufficient
|
|
| adj.(for，of)不足的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
polygonal
|
|
| adj.多角形的，多边形的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
rusting
|
|
| n.生锈v.（使）生锈( rust的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
percussion
|
|
| n.打击乐器；冲突，撞击；震动，音响 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
stimulated
|
|
| a.刺激的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
ascendancy
|
|
| n.统治权，支配力量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
inadequacy
|
|
| n.无法胜任，信心不足 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
zinc
|
|
| n.锌；vt.在...上镀锌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
magenta
|
|
| n..紫红色（的染料）；adj.紫红色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
cavalry
|
|
| n.骑兵；轻装甲部队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
realization
|
|
| n.实现；认识到，深刻了解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
wrought
|
|
| v.引起；以…原料制作；运转；adj.制造的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
cylinder
|
|
| n.圆筒，柱(面)，汽缸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
recoil
|
|
| vi.退却，退缩，畏缩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
dignified
|
|
| a.可敬的，高贵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
stagecoach
|
|
| n.公共马车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
vessels
|
|
| n.血管( vessel的名词复数 )；船；容器；（具有特殊品质或接受特殊品质的）人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
apprehensive
|
|
| adj.担心的，恐惧的，善于领会的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
defensive
|
|
| adj.防御的；防卫的；防守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
acclaimed
|
|
| adj.受人欢迎的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
eminently
|
|
| adv.突出地；显著地；不寻常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
lamentably
|
|
| adv.哀伤地，拙劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
necessitated
|
|
| 使…成为必要，需要( necessitate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
warships
|
|
| 军舰，战舰( warship的名词复数 )； 舰只 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
warship
|
|
| n.军舰，战舰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
conversion
|
|
| n.转化，转换，转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
227
outlay
|
|
| n.费用，经费，支出；v.花费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
scrap
|
|
| n.碎片；废料；v.废弃，报废 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
simplicity
|
|
| n.简单，简易；朴素；直率，单纯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
230
deterred
|
|
| v.阻止，制止( deter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
exponent
|
|
| n.倡导者，拥护者；代表人物；指数，幂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
constructive
|
|
| adj.建设的，建设性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
hydraulic
|
|
| adj.水力的；水压的，液压的；水力学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
unprecedented
|
|
| adj.无前例的，新奇的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
utilization
|
|
| n.利用，效用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
fortresses
|
|
| 堡垒，要塞( fortress的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
entailed
|
|
| 使…成为必要( entail的过去式和过去分词 )； 需要； 限定继承； 使必需 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
propulsive
|
|
| adj.推进的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
warrior
|
|
| n.勇士，武士，斗士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
240
incentive
|
|
| n.刺激；动力；鼓励；诱因；动机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
241
hoops
|
|
| n.箍( hoop的名词复数 )；（篮球）篮圈；（旧时儿童玩的）大环子；（两端埋在地里的）小铁弓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
stratum
|
|
| n.地层，社会阶层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
243
supplanted
|
|
| 把…排挤掉，取代( supplant的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
244
partially
|
|
| adv.部分地，从某些方面讲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
complexity
|
|
| n.复杂(性)，复杂的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
entailing
|
|
| 使…成为必要( entail的现在分词 )； 需要； 限定继承； 使必需 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
248
reverted
|
|
| 恢复( revert的过去式和过去分词 )； 重提； 回到…上； 归还 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
reverting
|
|
| 恢复( revert的现在分词 )； 重提； 回到…上； 归还 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
turret
|
|
| n.塔楼，角塔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
copper
|
|
| n.铜；铜币；铜器；adj.铜(制)的；(紫)铜色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
hesitation
|
|
| n.犹豫，踌躇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
255
disparaged
|
|
| v.轻视( disparage的过去式和过去分词 )；贬低；批评；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
256
retrace
|
|
| v.折回；追溯，探源 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
257
conclusively
|
|
| adv.令人信服地，确凿地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
258
plumb
|
|
| adv.精确地，完全地；v.了解意义，测水深 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
259
aggrandize
|
|
| v.增大，扩张，吹捧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
260
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |