Steven H Smith | 20 Jan 2008 3:53 p.m. PST |
To rupture or not to rupture. That is the question. Moved over from the Napoleonic Book section: A friend of mine has read the book and he tells me that the authors claim on pages 245-247 that canister was designed NOT to rupture upon leaving the barrel, but in fact to rupture ON IMPACT with the ground in front of the target. This would seem to run counter to everything that I have been led to believe, which is that cannister is like a giant shotgun blast. While I don't agree with that assessment, I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary and would like to hear more. Soubise Canister – a cylinder filled with musket balls – or grape – filled with iron balls of larger diameter. At short ranges one wants a rupture at or near departure. At longer distances a rupture at first ‘bounce' would be best. I notice on several occasions it was mentioned that the ground was ‘too soft for [grape]'. Waterloo being one of them. This puzzled me. The rupture at first bounce would explain this. Of course, the larger, iron balls of ‘grape' would also bounce on hard ground.
Yes, I agree, the book will be an interesting read. Steven H. Smith How do you control the rupture of the canister if it was indeed possible to fire in both these manners? I have never read anything that would lead me to believe that canister did not rupture at or near departure from the barrel. When one of the authors was recently questioned about this novel theory, his replies were less than convincing. Captain Snort |
Steven H Smith | 20 Jan 2008 3:59 p.m. PST |
Also: Canister ruptures as it leaves the gun tube. The force of the explosion of the propellant causes the round to rupture. That's the purpose of the round. If it ruptured when it hit the ground there would be little or not effect on target. The ricochet of the individual iron balls of the canister round is what is being referred to with the ground being too soft. Sincerely, Kevin |
Steven H Smith | 20 Jan 2008 4:07 p.m. PST |
I have no idea as to what is written in the "Napoleonic Artillery" book on the mentioned pages. I have no idea as to what item it refers, nor to which country or countries it refers. I am making a distinction between 'canister' – stuff packed in a can, as it were, and 'grape' – iron balls placed between two iron plates connected together by an iron shaft and covered by some type of material. Steve |
Steven H Smith | 20 Jan 2008 4:50 p.m. PST |
Found this interesting book. The first sections go into various types of projectiles. Gunshot Injuries, Their History, Characteristic Features, Complications, and
by Thomas Longmore. 1895. 821 pages: link |
(religious bigot) | 20 Jan 2008 5:20 p.m. PST |
Didn't naval guns fire canister? Not sure that trying to bounce it would have been too effective. |
rmaker | 20 Jan 2008 9:03 p.m. PST |
Yes, navies used canister as an anti-personnel round. The case ruptures at the muzzle (or possibly in the bore). I know men who are artillery re-enactors who also make guns and ammunition for them (the Paulson brothers, for those of you in ACW re-enactment circles). I have watched them fire canister rounds – it is obvious from the downrange behavior that the balls are out of the can right away. Grapeshot wasn't used much in the field. It was intended to demolish light structures, with anti-personnel work secondary. Unfortunately, many laymen (and some military writers who should have known better) wrote 'grapeshot' when they meant 'case shot' (aka canister). The stuff that burst out in front of the target was Major shrapnel's time case, but it didn't need to hit the ground first. In fact, that would have been detrimental to performance. As for the ground being 'too soft for (grape or case)' at Waterloo, one only has to read Mercer's "Journal of the Waterloo Campaign" to realize that wasn't true. Mercer's troop fired literally hundreds of rounds of case repulsing French infantry and cavalry. In total, he expended nearly 700 rounds (all types) per gun, and a large part of it was case. |
Oliver Schmidt | 21 Jan 2008 3:40 a.m. PST |
Scharnhorst in his "Handbuch der Artillerie", vol. 3 (published posthumously in Hannover, 1814), pp. 317-359 deals with the effects of canister (Kartätschschüsse). By 1800, canister (balls in a tin case) had become the regular way of packing grapeshot for the field artillery. One advantage was that the cartridge did not lose shape so easily on transport. Scharnhorst states (§. 209, p. 319) that the canister balls (Kartätschkugeln) expand to all sides as soon as they leave the barrel. The balls which thus will hit the ground in front of the gun will ricochet (if the condition of the ground allows). As a rule of thumb, the "cone" of the canister balls will expand for each 100 paces by 25 feet for the first 300 paces (but the are always individual balls – the greater the distance the higher their number – which deviate much more): at 100 paces: 25 feet diameter at 200 paces: 50 feet diameter at 300 paces: 75 feet diameter above 300 paces the diameter expands more As another rule of thumb, 80% of the balls will be within a funnel-shaped area of the following dimensions (§. 231, p. 341): at 300 paces: 50 feet diameter at 400-500 paces: 100 feet diameter at 600 paces: 150 feet diameter at 700-800 paces: 200 feet diameter These results are gained from experiments executed by the Prussian artillery in 1795. They are described in detail in tables 33 to 39 [vol.3, appendices, pp. (75)-(94)] |
Kevin F Kiley | 21 Jan 2008 4:57 a.m. PST |
I do believe that Mercer erred in his total rounds fired per gun. That is probably what he expended all day. 700 rounds per gun is a lot of ammunition. The gun tubes would have overheated at that type of expenditure rate. Sincerely, Kevin |
Oliver Schmidt | 21 Jan 2008 5:32 a.m. PST |
700 rounds per battery on one day is already quite high. The highest amount of rounds per battery fired in the Prussian army which I came accross, was horse battery no. 14 at Ligny: 1125 rounds. |
Jacko27 | 21 Jan 2008 8:53 a.m. PST |
This got me thinking about prolonged fire from batteries. I know that many battery commanders had some guns in the battery laying idle for periods such that as the active guns heated up with repeated use the idle guns could be activated. But did they ever rotate the crews? Working a gun for a long period of time must have been extremely physically demanding.As crews became tired there must have been an increased chance of them making mistakes-which could be fatal ones in the case of firing artillery pieces. So did they ever let some of the crew rest and swap over periodically? |
summerfield | 21 Jan 2008 9:06 a.m. PST |
Dear Jacko This is a very sensible question. The jobs within the crew would be rotated. The most arduous job would be as rammer. This is where the front two would swap over (loader and rammer). The loader would also rotate with the ammunition numbers depending upon the drill. This is what was done for the Prussian drill which made a great deal of sense. The ammunition was placed into the satchel and when this was exhausted, the person was replaced with another ammunition number. This required a great deal less ferrying of ammunition and far safer. Opening the satchel when there are embers is not pleasant. A stachel could have 3-4 charges and this would be about 4kg or more of gunpowder. The number of rounds per battery must be what was referred to above as no Army even the French had 700 rounds per gun. This would give 110-120 rounds which was about right for a battle. Stephen |
rmaker | 21 Jan 2008 8:07 p.m. PST |
"As near a I could ascertain, we must have fired nearly 700 rounds per gun." p.185 in the 1969 Praeger edition. To be sure, Mercer, editing his journal about 15 years after the event, may have mistaken total expenditure for per gun expediture. |
Steven H Smith | 21 Jan 2008 8:49 p.m. PST |
The 1870 edition of "Journal of the Waterloo Campaign: Kept Throughout the Campaign of 1815", page 339, also states, "As near as I could ascertain, we must have fired nearly 700 rounds per gun." I wonder if it is a typo for "nearly 200 rounds per gun"? That would make more sense in context. link |
nvrsaynvr | 21 Jan 2008 8:57 p.m. PST |
Whatever his other sins, "Hamilton-Williams" does make the interesting point that Mercer's 3 editions became increasingly, er, expansive in narrative
NSN |
11th ACR | 22 Jan 2008 9:01 a.m. PST |
YOU SPOKE THE EVEL NAME OF "Hamilton-Williams" NO! |
SteveJ | 23 Jan 2008 10:42 a.m. PST |
To get back to the original question- this sounds as if he's getting mixed up with shell or shrapnel. Canister was most definitely designed to burst on leaving the barrel. |
Supercilius Maximus | 26 Jan 2008 7:59 p.m. PST |
<<I do believe that Mercer erred in his total rounds fired per gun. That is probably what he expended all day. 700 rounds per gun is a lot of ammunition. The gun tubes would have overheated at that type of expenditure rate.>> A pretty safe assumption, I would say – ignoring time spent in reserve, movements and limbering/unlimbering throughout the day, and allowing a minute per round average to take account of increasing fatigue, it would have taken Mercer's detachments almost 12 hours to fire off 700 rounds each. Could he have meant 700 per gun for the entire campaign? |
KF Kiley | 26 Jan 2008 8:02 p.m. PST |
Was his troop engaged at Quatre Bras? |
Steven H Smith | 26 Jan 2008 11:31 p.m. PST |
"Mercer's troop was at Quatre Bras, where he got off a few rounds at Napoleon himself
" See: link |