"Canister vs Grape shot" Topic

Now, as far as I know, by the napoleonic wars, canister was the norm, even tho the term grape was used at times.
And canister would have as much as 100 balls in them.
While grape, atleast as I understand it would just have a dozen or so bigger balls.

From what I've gather grape was the standard type up to the 1790s?

So during the AWI and 7YW you would have fewer bigger balls, while from the napoleonic period and later you would have smaller and more balls?

Sorry for all the balls :D

Grape-shot had longer range – but I'm pretty sure cannister was in use well before 1790, though possibly not in the same form.

But what about Shrapnel's spherical case?

Shrapnel's spherical case appears in the Napoleonic Wars and is a different animal from grape or cannister. Both grape and cannister rounds are designed to disintigrate upon leaving the tube of the gun and have a fairly short range. Spherical case is a hollow cannon ball filled with smaller balls and a bursting charge set off by a time fuse. It would have a much longer range than grape or cannister.

It's the serious people who make -taking such hard work :(

Strictly speaking, grape was a naval munition, though larger (longer range) canister was used on land and period accounts talk about grapeshot. But be aware some will say it's wrong to speak of grapshot in land battles.

And don't mention bricoles.

Spherical case shot (Shrapnel) for a 12-pounder contained 78 (lead) musket balls.

Cannister for a 12-pounder contained 27 cast-iron balls weighing, on average, .43 pounds each. Each shot was almost 1.5 inches in diameter.

Cannister for a 10-pdr/3" rifle contained 49 .96 caliber iron balls.

Source: Arms & Equipment of the Civil War, by Jack Coggins

At the time of the Seven Years War Prussian canister rounds contained 3-ounce lead balls. 50 balls in a round for a 3-pounder cannon, 80 in the 6-pounder, 150 in the 12-pounder and 300 in the 24-pounder. The Prussians also had grapeshot ('Traubenkartätsche') and for the 24-pounder a round called the 'Klemmkartätsche' which was a canister containing nine 3-pounder shot.

My understanding, from talking with re-enactment gunners of the Rev War on this subject, is that artillerist of that period did not like grape, as it was hard in the interior of the barrel. The larger steel balls tended to gouge the tube, especially bronze guns, and pit the iron ones. Cannister had the advantage of not breaking out of its container till fired out of the tube, thus being easier on the barrel.

Yes, grape was a naval shot. I can't help but wonder if those quoted of using grape shot at the time were not infantry officers instead of artillerists, who confused the two.

Donlowry – i didn't spot the decimal in "27 cast-iron balls weighing, on average, .43 pounds each."

That would have been a weapon of wonder I can assure you.

Pat

I've often read modern experts pouring scorn on the "incorrect" usage of the words "grape shot", stating this is only correct for naval battles. Whatever the modern usage, in 1815 the word was grape and I can find no mention of cannister!

"A furious discharge of grape met us, and thinned our ranks." (Sgt Hemmet, 7th Hussars)
"Lieutenant Doherty received a severe wound: a grape -shot contusion in his groin…" (Regimental history)
""Two guns under lieutenant Speckmann were posted on the little rising ground… sending a shower of shot and grape among the horsemen". (Kuhlmann)
"Colonel Canning, of the Duke's staff, lay on the ground… he said it was quite useless, that he could not live long, being shot in the body with grape" (Tomkinson, 16th Light Dragoons).
"[Ensign] Bruce got knocked over by a grape-shot which luckily grazed his chest" (Gronow, 1st Guards).
""Captain Diggle, commanding No. 1 company, was wounded with grape through the head" (Lt Hart, 52nd Foot)
" I was wounded, by a grape shot through the knee, fired from one of our own guns, which the enemy had taken between us and La Haye Sainte. They fired it three times, loaded with grape shot, into our square, and did great execution." (Captain Miller, 95th Foot).

and dozens more

historygamer –

I'd take the word of some Rev War reenactors with a large grain of salt on such matters. And I should know, I've been one for 30 years!

I've heard people just plain make up "facts" and spout them to the public like they are gospel. In truth, the level of historic scholarship in the reenacting community if quite uneven.

I've never read ANY first-person accounts of the gunners of the 18th century "disliking" any type of ammunition. The fact of the matter is that there are known cases of muzzle-loading artillery being loaded with scap horseshoes, nails, you name it. The priority was on killing/wounding the enemy in battle. The idea that they were worried about damaging the interior of the cannon barrel is absurd.

I imagine that reenactors (who have to buy their own guns) shy away from using grapeshot due to the (unproven if you ask me) theory that doing so will permanently damage them.

We've been firing our brass 3-lber since 1976, and while the vast majority of those thousands of rounds were blanks, we've still fired hundreds of live rounds. While there is definitely some wear to the barrel, it is not appreciable, and the gun functions just as efficiently and safely as ever.

Regarding the ammunition type often called canister or grape, the more proper 18th century term would be "case shot". Here's an excellent article on the subject by a noted artillery author, Adrian B. Caruana.

link

About reenactors, isn't also true that they are often less up to date on what was realy worn.
For instance, I have never seen any reenactors with the propper "southern dress" for the AWI, they all seem to use the earlyer 7YW style uniforms, that was probebly used during the realier northern theater

>About reenactors, isn't also true that they are often less >up to date on what was realy worn.

Depends on the unit.

link

link

Part of this I suspect goes back to the Bicentennial when everybody went with 1768 Warrant as that was the "official" uniform.

With more recent research, it's clear that the regulation uniform was increasingly rare (but not unknown) as the war went on (apart from brand new units arriving, for example). It can be pricey to redo an entire units uniforms (my unit is working up campaign kits slowly but surely) and many larger, more established units started with the regulation outfit.

There has been a variation of this issue in ACW circles, mostly CSA regiments as research has challenged some "facts" about uniform color, etc.

Like Virginia Tory said…

Also note that the uniforms, even if not modified for campaign wear, are NOT the same as were worn during the Seven Years War. Even the full, regulation uniform had changed.

British Line Infantry AWI: picture

British Line Infantry F&I/SYW: link

Navy used grape the pongos cannister.

<<The Prussians also had grapeshot ('Traubenkartätsche') and for the 24-pounder a round called the 'Klemmkartätsche' which was a canister containing nine 3-pounder shot.>>

Effectively, a 27-pounder?

pongos? I sense a kindred spirit!

Sadly, that delineation between the senior service and those that they occasionally have to rescue from foreign coasts is merely a legend, as Lord Hill has shown above.

Gunfreak:

What events are you basing that assertion on?

Effectively, a 27-pounder?

Indeed. And, with canister the 24-pounder would have apparently been firing something like a 56 pound shot.

I'm not sure that the choice of roundshot, grape or canister would have been available to all guns in the field all of the time.

"What events are you basing that assertion on"

Only that in books covering the period before the napoleonic wars, the always use the word grape especaly during the AWI.

And the grape shots I've seen pics of have a few big shots,
While the canister I've seen have many small shots

No, I mean this statement:

"About reenactors, isn't also true that they are often less up to date on what was realy worn."

What re-enactors, or what events that you have seen them at, are you referring to?

Just something I got from this forum and from looking at diffent reenactor sites.

I read a statement that wargamers are quicker to adopt new evidence for tactical and uniforms dietales then reenactors.

There might indeed be confusion with the distinction of grape and canister. Possibly the result of different meaning with different armies. I noted 18th cantury Hanoveran source mention grape only as part of it's ready munitions supply, while Prussian sources has cannister and no grape. It was the custom at that time to employ both types of rounds, charged with more or less balls of different size. The larger ones usually referred to as grape and meant for longer range, and the letter with more smaller sized balls per charge for the shorter ranges. I believe those 2 example German armies are talking about the same share of munitions supply, and merely using different terms. If not so, Hanoveran artillery would have employed no cannister at all, but only grape, which I seriously doubt. You might do without grape, but not without cannister.

"I read a statement that wargamers are quicker to adopt new evidence for tactical and uniforms dietales then reenactors."

If that is true, it might have something to do with re-enactors having thousands of dollars invested in uniforms…

"I read a statement that wargamers are quicker to adopt new evidence for tactical and uniforms dietales then reenactors."

Forgive me from sounding a bit defensive, but I highly doubt that. For one, you can't tell much from looking at online photos of what re-enactors are doing tactically. My experience in two periods (F&I and Rev War) are that tactically they start will the manuals and build from there. They read a lot of first person accounts, many more, I would argue than your average or even more advanced wargamers, as they are looking for different information than a gamer is. They are looking for how the manuals were applied and adapted in the field. Granted, they don't get many chances to command a battalion or even brigade size formation, but say from company on down, they are looking and applying.

Uniforms are a bit more tricky. A vast majority of re-enactors, just like wargamers, have to commit to a certain year, a certain army, and a certain regiment. Documentation in these periods is often sketchy at best, at times contradictory, and at worst non-existant. But again, they are often at a level of research far beyond your average wargamer. What cut of coat? What type of hat? Lace pattern? Long gaiters, short, or overalls? Wargamers are often bound by the figure sculpted, re-enactors, not so.

Yes, making changes in uniforms can be somtimes slow, say like to a new waistbelt buckle, but how on earth does a wargamer, who's beltplate is a blob of paint, beat that? Also, wargamers are tied to rules sets. For instance, how many rule sets represent open files for the British in Rev War? Extended files? Oh, tied to your stands are you? Can't modify that.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my points.

There are many similarities, but in the end, I'll take a good re-enactment group over your average wargamer anyday for more detailed research.

A good re-enactment group might know a lot of stuff that your average re-enactor doesn't know. That doesn't mean it gets adopted into the re-enactment.

I wanna a see a re-enactment group make a sudden attack where they run forward like a bunch of stealthy indians and start popping away at the other side from over 200 yards out… better yet, toss the script, fix bayonets and charge like they mean it.

>I wanna a see a re-enactment group make a sudden attack >where they run forward like a bunch of stealthy indians and >start popping away at the other side from over 200 yards out…

Well, that wouldn't be any AWI battle I can think of involving anybody armed with muskets. Little hard to be "stealthy" with 300-500 guys advancing in open files.

Mind you, if you are recreating a very specific event (as I've done with both AWI and ACW) anything is possible.

Also, today's standard of stealth is something 18th century formations could only have dreamed of.

What I heard is that after a campaign season in North America the 42nd Royal Highlanders stopped wearing kilts into battle. Also, heard they fought pretty well out-of-formation.

Here's their commendation:

Brunswick, 1st March, 1777
EARL CORWALLIS'S ORDERS.
The General desires that an extraorinary day's rum may immediately be given to the Forty-Second Regiment, for its gallant conduct in repulsing and defeatings upwards of three thousand of the enemy, with considerable loss.
Brunswick, 14th May, 1777

EARL CORWALLIS'S ORDERS.
His Excellency the commander-in-cheif has requested Earl Cornwallis to communicate his thanks to the Forty-Second Regiment, for its spirited behaviour on the 10th instant, when it defeated a body of the enemy much superior to itself in numbers; and he his much pleased with the alertness with which the second brigade got under arms to support the Forty-Second Regiment.

The kilt was not a practical item of clothing for campaiging in most of N. America. Funny that the F&I highland regiments retained it, but then their experiences were different than those of the Rev War.

Most re-enactment units are pretty up to speed. They makes choices on a year and campaign, or just go with the clothing warrants. The formations used depend on the site, battle scenario and how much land they have to work with.

Sites, especially state parks, often have restrictions on fixing bayonets in battles. That is not the re-enactors fault. Blame the state rules.

I haven't gone to many re-enactments in part b/c when I've seen them advertised many try and recreate a particular battle. I'd rather go to a re-enactment where they aren't trying to re-create a particular battle, but rather re-create what one or more companies might do on a particular day--drill, etc… and then maybe recreate what a company vs. company battle might looke like.

For instance, if an ACW event was held and there were 5 companies of re-enactors per side, they should just recreate what a 5 co v. 5 co. battle might have looked like. It would also be great if they could go through some of the drills that 5 companies would've gone through.

For a large reenactment of say over 1000 per side. Make it a brigade vs. brigade action. Divide each side up into historical sized regiments and have a brigade v. brigade action.

Bascially, only re-create what you've got. Maybe some do already?

>Bascially, only re-create what you've got. Maybe some do >already?

Most events turn out this way. There is a general plan and it is executed during the weekend. This can often be combined with a separate "tactical", where both sides march out in the morning and then look for one another, using period tactics.

I'll keep an eye-out for some ACW events, especially those with some artillery.

Any groups ever let onlookers load and fire a period piece?

>Any groups ever let onlookers load and fire a period piece?

No. For safety/insurance purposes alone this would not be a wise thing to do.

Bottom Dollar,

But I'll bet you can join, purchase (or borrow) a very basic uniform, and fall in with some unit if that is what you'd like to do. Expect to be heavily supervised!

What I heard is that after a campaign season in North America the 42nd Royal Highlanders stopped wearing kilts into battle.

Early on they adopted overalls, that is trousers with the gaiter part built in.

link

>Also, heard they fought pretty well out-of-formation.

Well, they fielded about 600 men at both Brandywine and Monmouth the following year so I doubt they were any more fought out than other regiments that fought in the southern campaigns and were fielding 100 or less by that time. They were pretty ragged in terms of uniforms, however.

After Monmouth only the Grenadier company saw significant service in the south.

"But I'll bet you can join, purchase (or borrow) a very basic uniform, and fall in with some unit if that is what you'd like to do. Expect to be heavily supervised!"

Supervision?!? I'll make like that Reb on Big Round Top, who just climbed a tree where he saw fit and took potshots at the Yanks all day :)

Insurance and liability for firing blanks ?!? Oh, that's right, this is the United States of America.

Thanks, for that link.

>Supervision?!? I'll make like that Reb on Big Round Top, who >just climbed a tree where he saw fit and took potshots at >the Yanks all day :)

Good luck with that…you'll stand in ranks and do your duty to the Crown…or Congress…:)

>Insurance and liability for firing blanks ?!? Oh, that's >right, this is the United States of America.

You'd be surprised what people can manage to do to themselves even with blanks.

I'm sure more than one person has lost an eye or a finger or two, maybe even a whole limb, not to mention a life.

I once saw a guy IN BETWEEN paintball fields--not even in a game-- pull his googles a few inches away from his face to quickly wipe out the condensation. A single, random shot from the woods nailed him on the side of the eyeball.

Well you don't use blanks, it's real blackpoweder, just with out a shot.
Aslo most reenactors have now stoped using ramrod and only pour the powder down the barrle. As people have forgotten to take the remrod out and be acident shot it out at the "enemy"

>As people have forgotten to take the remrod out and be >acident shot it out at the "enemy"

This happened more than once when I was doing reenacting in Europe in the 80s…not as regulated back then. We're lucky the most serious thing that happened was a broken foot from a ramrod that sailed high over the lines and hit a camp follower.

Gunfreak,
Variations
Most of the posters have statistics which are true, but perhaps imply a limitation. In fact, the ammunition was many and varied: basically, the further you want the balls to go, the larger the charge and the larger the balls needed. But you can't just bung in more charge, because aside from damaging the cannon, then lead balls flatten, are less efffective and spread out too much. Some nations tried increasing the weight of balls or used iron to stop distortion. Hammering shot was also a way to slip-stream heavier shot, but it was so expensive, especially with ball, that it was hardly used.

Effectiveness
-as a proportion of the number of balls in the cartridge.

Range (paces)*small balls on target*large balls on target
100*1/2*1/3
200*2/9*1/6
300*1/6*1/9
400*1/9*1/12
500*1/12*1/14
600*1/14*1/17

The pattern shows, that larger balls are effective about 100 yards closer

Canister vs grape
The term 'canister' comes about from the attempt to place the balls in a tin canister container so that a wooden disc could be placed between the balls and the charge, thus reducing the ball-flattening effect. However they damaged the barrel slightly. The term 'grape' meant the use of canvas ball sacks.

Ball size and quantity
Eg:
France

Calibre/balls in cartridge/weight (oz)/powder charge (lb)

12/41/6/4.5
12/112/2-3/4.5
8/41/4/2.75
8/112/1-2/2.75
4/63/0.75-2/1.75

you want. On the other hand, the lighter each ball is, the

……..the more innacuracy there is.

In fact the effectiveness table title needs correcting, thus:

Effectiveness

-as a proportion of the number of balls in the cartridge.

Range (paces)*large balls on target*small balls on target
100*1/2*1/3
200*2/9*1/6
300*1/6*1/9
400*1/9*1/12
500*1/12*1/14
600*1/14*1/17

The pattern shows, that larger balls are effective at distances about 100 yards closer than small balls need to have the same effect.

Cacadores, what's your definition of effective? To Hit or To Kill ? You two posts are inverted and sort of cancel each other out.

Bottom Dollar,

Hello,
The first Effectivness table had an incorrect title, that's all. The second one is correct.

'Effectiveness' is defined by a sliding scale: obviously the more you hit, the more effective you are! The tables are most useful when you look at them as patterns, letting you know the factors that increase or decrease with range or powder. The table was based mainly on Hanovarian tests where they fired at boards or marked sheets representing an enemy battalion. They would have had to do the tests on live people to determine the number of deaths cannister causes, but whether of not we think they were remiss in not taking that option, nevertheless getting hit by a musket ball is probably going to have an adverse effect on the victim's effectiveness.

As regards 'effectiveness' in games: how many hits can a unit take before it routs in your game? 5? Say a unit needs 50% casualties before it routs (for argument's sake), then you can work out how many men a game shot is meant to eliminate before it's woth recording. If you work out approximately how many people might get hit in a cannister shot by taking into account the distance between men and the above table, and include statistics about the spread of shot and the rate of fire times the number of cannon in the battery represented by the model, then you can make a good estimate of what kind of shot is worth recording in a game. If one game shot doesn't kill off 1/10th of you unit, then it probably isn't worth recording in the game. 'Effective range' in a game therefore can mean anything, but most often it means something like the range at which you have more than a 50% chance of killing, say, 1/10th of the battalion.

Interesting stuff.

So, at 100 yards a 12pd. firing 41 large balls approx. 20 will hit. 200 yards approx. 9-10 will hit. 300 yards approx. 6-7 will hit ?

And at 100 yards a 12pd. firing 112 small balls
approx. 37 will hit. 200 yards approx. 19 will hit. 300 yards approx. 12-13 will hit?

According to this website:
civilwarartillery.com
USA/CSA 12pd smoothbore artillery fired a standard canister shot of 27 iron balls, each about 1.5 inches in diameter using a 2 pound charge. It also says, that both sides more or less discontinued using grape which I suppose would've been larger.

Now if each of those balls was .43 pds and was heavier than the ones you cite above, that means they would've been more accurate than the tables you cite.

So, at 100 yards more than 13 would hit. At 200 yards more than 6 would hit. At 300 yards more than 5 would hit. Since each ball was an 1.5 inches in diameter I would assume that if you got hit by one, it could take you out of the fight, if not kill you outright.

What this seems to point to is that ACW canister could be used effectively at over 200 yards which could put attacking infantry at risk before they even got into effective RM range.

Bottom Dollar,

Technically, effective range for a rifle musket is the same then as it is today: 300 yards. That's the range at which an average man, with iron sights, can distinguish and engage an individual target. Beyond 300 yards, the average man would need to start using optics to distinguish and engage a man-sized target.

According to the 1862 Ordnance manual,(pp36), the 12lb gun has 1.49" & .43lb projectiles. The 6lb gun has 1.17" & .21lb, the 12lb Howitzer has 1.08" & .16lb, and specifies that .69 musket balls be used for 12lb Mountain Howitzer. Interestingly, although it lists all other forms of ammunition for rifled guns, no canister is listed for them in any of the tables.

It then goes on to say (pp37) that "All shot and shells, except for canister shot for mountain-howitzers, are made of cast iron." It states that "Grape and Canister shot should be made of a soft, gray iron; it ought to be very fluid. They are made smooth, and polished, by rolling in a barrel for that purpose."

PP 275 gives the instructions for making and filling canister rounds. No fixed number of balls is prescribed. rather, the canister is simply filled, one layer at a time, the balls being forced into position with a pointed stick such that they will hold their place, before another layer is added. Sawdust is used to help pack the balls in each layer, but is poured out after each layer is set into place.

Of interest, pp335-336 contains tables listing the contents of limber chests. For the 12lb gun, contents are as follows: 20 fixed shot; 8 spherical case, fixed; 4 canisters, fixed; 2 spare cartridges (powder in bag, ready to load, 2.5lb charge), 48 friction primers, plus 1.5 yards of slow-match and two port-fires. That gives 48 rounds per chest, and three chests per gun (one with the limber, and 2 with the caisson).

Now, 4 rounds of canister isn't much, but if more is required after exhausting the limbers, all of the manuals instruct the gunners to simply load case or shell, with no fuse, or cut short, so as to burst at the muzzle.

respects,

For what it's worth the "Field Artillery Tactics, 1864", a compilation work of French, Barry, & Hunt, all premier Artillery Officers, says (pp29)

"Care should be taken not to cease firing solid shot too soon, in order to commence with canister. If the effect of the latter be very great on hard, solid, or smooth ground, which is without obstruction of any kind, it is less in irregular or soft ground, or that covered by brushwood; for, if the ground not be favorable, a large portion of the canister shot is intercepted. A solid shot is true to it's direction, and in ricochet may hit the second line if it misses the first.

Solid shot should be used from 350 yards upwards. The use of canister should begin at 350 yards, and the rapidity of fire increase as the range diminishes. In emergencies, double charges of canister may be used at 150 or 160 yards with a single cartridge.

Spherical case ought not, as a general rule, to be used for a less range than 500 yards; and neither spherical case nor shells should be used at rapidly advancing bodies as, for instance, cavalry charging."

Respects,