"How common was counter battery canister fire?" Topic

he mentioned a rusty grape shot, that is pretty evident for me, the rest is hair splitting

Ah, but who?

In the quoted passage from his memoir, Henry Curling is paraphrasing what he remembered of a conversation with Vivian some 30 years before, regarding remarks he, Vivian, made during the conversation with Uxbridge, on a subject about which he cannot have been very well informed given that he never actually saw what hit Uxbridge. Even Uxbridge himself probably had little idea what exactly hit him. I wonder how anyone could tell whether the ball was rusty, unless the surgeon observed residue in the wound. Hardly essential information since the leg was coming off anyway.

Brechtel, I am curious. Where is it codified that a 'light gun' or "light artillery' just means "not siege guns" and nothing else- or is this simply your personal assessment?

There is an obvious distinction to be made between field guns and siege guns/ field artillery and siege artillery, while at the lighter end of the field artillery spectrum we have light guns, where destructive power was balanced against mobility; an equation that was being revised regularly during the period. Isn't that what we mean by light artillery?

'Under the name of light artillery are comprehended field, horse and mountain artillery; the guns with their ammunition and appendages; horses for drawing them; drivers for taking care of the horses; and, finally, the regiments of foot and horse artillery, and battalions of train. As the field artillery is entirely different from besieging pieces, it will not be altogether foreign to my subject, nor uninteresting to the reader, to introduce a short sketch of the improvements which have taken place in that important branch of the military art.'-American Artillerist's Companion by Louis de Tousard, Volume II, Chapter I, page 1.

The chapter's title is 'Of Light Artillery.'

To be fair, VWs, I think Bechtel was merely stating the facts as currently available, i.e. the lack data to support French 4pdrs on the field and that damage to clothing is problematic in determining the size of the projectile.

Moreover, I think we all know the hazards of relying too heavily on a single eyewitness account.

I have seen Uxbridge's trousers. The hole is between 1.5 to 2 inches in width. The shot did not go straight in, so the *exact* size is not clear. What is clear is that it is not a canister pellet or a 3 inch+ cannon ball.

So a quick question to those who may have seen both types of ammunition fired (obviously as part of living history or a technical experiment) – would there have been a significant difference in fire effect between canister and grape to someone on the dangerous end?

Canister is like a shot gun, so the odds are you would get several holes about the size of a musket ball. If only one [the single hole in the trousers], then very small compared to 1-2 inches.

Unfortunately, the only picture I could find is not clear at all, nor displayed the way I saw it. The hole is just above the knee touching the stripe… between the two lighter patches above and below.

In the quoted passage from his memoir, Henry Curling is paraphrasing what he remembered of a conversation with Vivian some 30 years before, regarding remarks he, Vivian, made during the conversation with Uxbridge, on a subject about which he cannot have been very well informed given that he never actually saw what hit Uxbridge. Even Uxbridge himself probably had little idea what exactly hit him.

Well, because 1. they had the shot.itself, and 2. some memories are more vivid than others, particularly if often repeated, and 3, he saw the trousers and he saw the leg. Back then they has some odd ideas about such things compared to us. His friends buried his leg in the farmhouse garden and erected a small monument. So, they just might have remembered the circumstances…

The idea that Vivian, because he was a cavalry man, wouldn't know what a grape shot was, is sort of like saying that a WWI infantryman wouldn't know the difference between a 155 and 105 being fired at him. Not likely for a veteran. Then again, why would Vivian even know or think of the term 'Grape Shot' if they were never used in battle?

I have seen Uxbridge's trousers. The hole is between 1.5 to 2 inches in width. The shot did not go straight in, so the *exact* size is not clear. What is clear is that it is not a canister pellet or a 3 inch+ cannon ball.

The canister iron ball is not a 'pellet.' It is a cast-iron piece of ammunition the same size, depending on the caliber, of the cast-iron balls used for grapeshot-as has already been shown to you. So, what is absolutely clear is that you cannot determine if it is from canister or grapeshot, and since the French no longer used grapeshot in field artillery, for the reasons already clearly demonstrated, you don't know which was fired.

Canister is like a shot gun, so the odds are you would get several holes about the size of a musket ball. If only one [the single hole in the trousers], then very small compared to 1-2 inches.

The effect of firing both canister and grapeshot is like a giant shotgun. And both rounds have similar if not the same characteristics when fired. The cone formed when the canister is opened upon firing in the gun tube as the iron balls leave the gun tube dissipates and grows wider the further they travel. So at a relatively longer range from the gun tube it is quite likely that one of the iron balls can hit a random target, which it appears that Uxbridge probably was. And, again, the iron balls that made up a canister round in the French service were about the same size as the iron balls in a grapeshot round. The wound caused by one iron canister ball would not be 'very small.'

It appears that you don't really understand the effects of target of canister or how it was constructed. I suggest that you get hold of a period French artillery manual, a good suggestion is DeScheel's artillery treatise, to help you understand canister.

The idea that Vivian, because he was a cavalry man, wouldn't know what a grape shot was, is sort of like saying that a WWI infantryman wouldn't know the difference between a 155 and 105 being fired at him. Not likely for a veteran. Then again, why would Vivian even know or think of the term 'Grape Shot' if they were never used in battle?

At the business end of the canister and grapeshot rounds, it would be very difficult to tell, if not impossible, what type of round the iron shot came from. Your War II analogy is quite illogical as the difference between a 105mm and a 155mm is quite marked, while getting hit with either canister or grapeshot would be similar if not identical.

Using the term 'grapeshot' or just 'grape' was a common misnomer during the period and after for any antipersonnel round used by the artillery. And, again, if you can find the French basic load that includes grapeshot, I would be very interested in seeing it.

For the composition of canister and grapeshot, see pages 78-82 of the English translation of DeScheel.

The caisson loads for the following calibers of the Gribeauval System might be useful. There is no mention of grapeshot:

4-pounder: 100 roundshot, 50 canister.
8-pounder: 62 roundshot, 20 canister.
12-pounder: 48 roundshot, 20 canister.
6-inch howitzer: 49 common shell, 11 canister.

The canister range for the 4-pounder was 400 meters; for the 8-pounder 550 meters, and for the 12-pounder 600 meters.

They had they shot itself! Well that narrows the argument somewhat. I assume the projectile must still have been lodged in Lord Uxbridge's leg when he was brought into the dressing station. I don't imagine anyone had been scrabbling around under the good lord's horse to recover it. If that was the case, it does suggest a musket ball- sized object since anything larger is less likely to have lodged in the wound, and indeed might have taken his leg clean off.

There seems to be some confusion over what size a true grape shot might have been. On the British side of the hill I have the clear impression from discussions elsewhere that 'true' grape projectiles were significantly larger than canister projectiles -indeed, what would be the point of having the two munitions in the inventory otherwise. The answer to that question seems to be that, in British usage, the true grapeshot round was a naval munition- a fact of which the average non-gunner appears to have been oblivious.

I have the impression from Brechtel's posts that the diiference between 'grape' and 'canister on the French side was not, to any great degree, the size of the projectiles but how they were packed for firing, their 'grapeshot' round, aranged in layers between discs, having been deemed less effective and rendered more or less obsolete.

"I have seen Uxbridge's trousers." There will not be a better single sentence on this forum in 2016.

Does anyone have the size of British canister as compared to grapeshot?

However, as Uxbridge was in all probability not hit by British canister, that point would be moot.

The canister iron ball is not a 'pellet.' It is a cast-iron piece of ammunition the same size, depending on the caliber, of the cast-iron balls used for grapeshot-as has already been shown to you. So, what is absolutely clear is that you cannot determine if it is from canister or grapeshot, and since the French no longer used grapeshot in field artillery, for the reasons already clearly demonstrated, you don't know which was fired.

Kevin:
This is what you wrote, "made clear by you."

The small canister round had 41 iron balls for each caliber. The large canister round had 63 iron balls for the 4-pounder, and 112 shot for the 8- and 12-pounders.

French grapeshot as of 1764 was composed of 36 iron balls. The diameter of the balls per caliber (4-, 8-, and 12-pounders) was .16, 1.31, and 1.5 inches respectively.

So, if the hole is between 1 and 2 inches, it can't be 1. from a 4 lber in any sense and 2. certainly with 36 balls for grape, the shot is far larger than the 112 balls for canister.

Canister and case shot are two names for the same round.

Only in the U.S.
Tin Case-Shot or Canister Shot in the 18th Century
by Adrian B. Caruana

"Case Shot was called Canister Shot in the U.S." This article was originally published in the magazine Arms Collecting (vol.28, No. 1)

In the eighteenth century, grape shot was a general term embracing all forms of artillery ammunition made up of small shot.

Tin case shot was originally classified as a variety of grape shot.

The same period (about 1745) saw the formal introduction of light field artillery as a class. One reference notes that tin case shot was recommended for field service on the grounds that it was more compact and less expensive, and the inference is that before this date, some other form of grape shot had been in use. The same manuscript refers to matted grape and quilted grape, and makes it clear that the nine shot quilted grape which is comparatively well known was specifically for sea service.

It is understandable that case shot would be confused with canister because canister was an outgrowth of case and grapeshot, as well as both using the same construction with a 'canister' filled with balls, just smaller. The U.S., particularly during and after the ACW, case and canister were considered the same thing.

The caisson loads for the following calibers of the Gribeauval System might be useful. There is no mention of grapeshot.

Well, silly them. Can't imagine what Uxbridge and Vivian were thinking.

Have you read DeScheel, Gassendi, Tousard, or any other artillery manual of the period? I highly recommend them for an understanding of the artillery, and its ammunition and accoutrements of the period.

Uxbridge was undoubtedly in a lot of pain and could have cared less what he was hit with. Vivian would not have known the difference on the receiving end if it was either canister or grapeshot as he did not see the round loaded into the piece that fired it.

And as the French did not have or used grapeshot with field artillery, the round had to be canister.

Interesting how you have confused canister and case shot, as they were both different terms for the same round. How do you suppose the British came up with the name 'spherical case shot' for the anti-personnel round invented by Shrapnel?

With the diameter of the iron balls that made up a round of grapeshot, the diameters of them are relatively the same as those for canister. All of that has been given to you already. Are you now trying to confuse the issue?

For the terms 'canister' and 'case shot' being synomyous, see British Smoothbore Artillery by BP Hughes, 52. Grapeshot is covered on page 53, of which there were generally two types, quilted grapeshot, in which the iron balls that constituted the round formed around a spingle, were covered by a canvas bag; and tiered grapeshot upon which the iron balls of the round were placed on iron plates, three levels of which were stacked and then covered by a fourth plate.

It is also a fact that the firing of grapeshot from brass gun tubes, which all or most of the field artillery was cast, hurt the inside of the gun tube, causing wear and tear. The canister, where the rounds were contained in a tin 'canister' which was enclosed at both top and bottom, was less damaging to the bore of the gun tube.

What would the practical effective difference between case shot and grape shot in the period be **rounded to the nearest 10% different?** :-)

This Search page illustrates pretty well how grapeshot rounds differs from caseshot or canister.

If Brechtel is correct in saying these munitions were not used by the French artillery at the time of Waterloo, then I guess we do have to look at how reliable Curl's 1847 account of his conversation with Vivian Hussey might have been. If the projectile that hit Lord Uxbridge was available for examination, that would obviously go some way to corroborating Vivian's reported words.

I realise this is off at a tangent to the OP question but I am now intrigued by your report, McLaddie, that the ball which shattered Lord Uxbridges' knee was available for examination at the dressing station. Who was it that recorded that information for us? Did he describe the projectile in any detail? That would surely settle the question. The use of the word 'grapeshot' alone, for reasons we have discussed would be less convincing.

Uxbridge's wounding in the last moments of the battle and what he and Wellington may or may not have said at that moment is a cherished element of British folklore. The fact that the offending projectile was recovered would obviously be important material evidence. Did it make it back to Blighty to reside in a museum somwhere?

This Search page illustrates pretty well how grapeshot rounds differs from caseshot or canister.
link

If Brechtel is correct in saying these munitions were not used by the French artillery at the time of Waterloo, then I guess we do have to look at how reliable Curl's 1847 account of his conversation with Vivian Hussey might have been. However, if the projectile that hit Lord Uxbridge was available for examination, that would obviously go some way to corroborating Vivian's reported words.

I realise this is off at a tangent to the OP question but I am now intrigued by your report, McLaddie, that the ball which shattered Lord Uxbridges' knee was available for examination at the dressing station. Who was it that recorded that information for us? Did he describe the projectile in any detail? That would surely settle the question. The use of the word 'grapeshot' alone, for reasons we have discussed would, I suggest, be less convincing.

Uxbridge's wounding in the last moments of the battle and what he and Wellington may or may not have said at that moment is a cherished element of British folklore. The fact that the offending projectile was recovered would obviously be important material evidence. Did it make it back to Blighty to reside in a museum somwhere?

A further definition of canister and grapeshot from Artillery Through the Ages by Albert Manucy, 68-69:

'One of the earliest kinds of scatter projectiles was case shot, or canister, used at Constantinople in 1453. The name comes from its case, or can, usually metal, which was filled with scrap, musket balls, or slugs. Somewhat similar, but with larger iron balls and no metal case, was grapeshot, so-called from the grape-like appearance of the clustered balls. A stand of grape in the 1700s consisted of a wooden disk at the base of a short wooden rod that served as the core around which the balls stood. The whole assembly was bagged in cloth and reinforced with a net of heavy cord. In later years grape was made by bagging two or three tiers of balls, each tier separated by an iron disk. Grape could disable men at almost 900 yards and was much used during the 1700s. Eventually it was almost replaced by case shot, which was more effective at shorter ranges (400-700 yards.'

The term 'case shot' was used by both the British and the Americans. The French term was 'cartouch(es)'.

Mr Manucy's account is remarkably woolly, though, is it not? This sort of general work really gets on my merves.

"Case shot or canister, used at Constantinople". What does that actually <i<mean? Clearly those are not the terms they used. And who were they anyway- the Greeks or the Turks? And what army and when used 'scrap' or 'slugs' (small shot?)in its canister munitions? And I'm fairly sure 'can' comes from 'canister', not the other way round.

The reference to "the grape-like appearance of the clustered balls" is not helpful, either. He presumably means "bunch of grapes-like appearance" because, as far as I can see, most grape shot projectiles were larger than grapes which has caused no end of confusion. In fact, I'd say they're more the size of limes or certain types of firm plum.

H'm- 'lime shot'.. 'plum shot'… I don't think it'll catch on.

This information on the number of balls per shot and the range is exactly what I'm looking for. I'm going to do a model for effect myself in order to create a chart for effect on target. I suspect that it will be pretty interesting when I'm done. I did this with American Kriegspiel casualties rates for the ACW a few years back and the results was really quite interesting.

Any number of artillery treatises discuss the construction and uses of both canister and grapeshot.

For instance, Tousard, in his two volume treatise 1811, has a section VI, page 241, volume II on

"OF Canister and Grape Shot firing: a cartouche, a mitrailles."

Now, if cartouche refers to canister, then mitrailles is the French term for grapeshot, a term found in French battle reports.

When Tousard is describing grape and canister, he often refers to BOTH as canister, because both have the basic same construction, a canister. The differences being the size of the balls and number in a canister.

Ayde also describes both 'case' and grapeshot in his work in 1804 and Eliot's edition in 1813 under 'Shot.' they give the sizes for both case and grape for several nations in their works.

From one website on canister:

"Canister shot is a kind of anti-personnel ammunition used in cannons. It was similar to case and the naval grapeshot, but fired smaller and more numerous balls, which did not have to punch through the wooden hull of a ship."

The term "Case" is also applied to spherical and shrapnel for the same reason.

Here is another site that provides pictures of grape and quilted grape shot:

On the same website, here is the picture for case or canister:

The site states: The main difference between case shot and grapeshot was that grapeshot normally had larger and fewer balls and a different configuration.

Now, looking at the two pictures, there is more similar than different, even with the comment.

The point being:

Because both grape and canister/case used canisters as ammunition, and evolved from grape shot, there was a lot of mixing of terms among both military and artillerymen during the Napoleonic wars, depending on who was talking and which nation they belonged to.

Now, I certainly won't dispute Kevin's 'official' list of artillery loads. I have seen it too. However, to accept that list and the only loads that all French artillery carried all the time is a 'just so story' that doesn't match history.

To accept that French artillery never carried grape we have to believe that:

1. All the captured [and artillery] ammunition used by the French contained no grape-shot.

2. All artillery throughout all campaigns regardless of circumstances always had the same ratios.

3. All artillery, never used naval or foreign-produced ammunition.

4. Artillery officers had no control over what loads they used. Immaculate uniformity was always preserved. [I can't believe that Kevin, an artillerist himself, saw such uniformity always preserved within the army at any given point.]

5. All French [and other nations'] treatises before, during and after the Napoleonic wars-- spent time and print describing a cannon load that was seen as inferior and never used during the Napoleonic wars.

6. The hole made in Uxbridge's leg was made by…?

.I realise this is off at a tangent to the OP question but I am now intrigued by your report, McLaddie, that the ball which shattered Lord Uxbridges' knee was available for examination at the dressing station. Who was it that recorded that information for us? Did he describe the projectile in any detail? That would surely settle the question. The use of the word 'grapeshot' alone, for reasons we have discussed would, I suggest, be less convincing.

42flanker:

The ball and trousers are on display either at the Waterloo museum or the house where his leg is buried. [To tell the truth, I can't remember which or if some items were at each location. The ball was recovered and a ball is on display next to the pants… obviously the same size as the hole. The story is that the ball was recovered. [hit the saddle spent, but that is from memory.]

Regardless of the memory, we still have the hole in the trousers. Too big for canister and too small for even 4 pound shot which Kevin insists wasn't at Waterloo.

Sooo, it would be understandable if Vivian concluded it was grapeshot. The rusty part is interesting, but that could have been dried blood, or weathered shot was reused. I don't know. Remember, I saw this back in 1972. It is a vivid memory for me, but I too have forgotten some of the details.

Yes, if you add the right two people, you can take a thread which would otherwise have come to a logical conclusion in 10-12 posts and give us this.

McLaddie, a few notes arising from your thoughts on French terminology: Cartouche is short for Cartouche a balles de fer – Cartouche, after all simply being the word from which we derive the English 'cartridge.' 'de Fer' indicates that these were iron rather than lead projectiles.

Mitraille is a general term, originally meaning 'small bits of metal', that described any submunitions smaller than round shot. ('Mitrailleuse,' the French word for a machine gun, derives from the early weapon being conceived originally as an area anti-personnel weapon, and treated as an artillery piece firing the equivalent of case shot).

The "whiff of grapeshot", if a Frenchman had ever used the phrase, would have been "un tir de mitraille" but that doesn't specifically mean 'grapeshot' in the sense of the larger diameter submunition, except in the promiscuous sense that most English speakers understand it.

The French also spoke in terms of boites de fer to specify case shot or canister. To indicate 'true' grapeshot there was the term grappe de raisin, which is interesting, since grappe, confusingly means 'cluster' or 'bunch' while raisin means 'grape'- and so suggests an alternative possible origin for the English term 'grapeshot' which has less to do with the fruit of the vine than 'cluster munitions.'

Sir George Ducket's Technical Dictionary German-English- French is interesting on this subject.

As an ignorant onlooker, I have to express a doubt as to whether the large grapeshot munition is likely ever to have been loaded as case shot. The latter was developed simply as a convenient container and delivery vehicle for the high number of submunitions projectiles required in the anti- personnel round. And the grapeshot round was designed to slip neatly down the gun barrel. A tin container would have required smaller balls. Matron.

However, when it comes down to it, this whole discussiom
stems from a dispute as to whether Lord Uxbridge could have been wounded by a bona fide grapeshot round on 18th June.

I have to say that I am not persuaded by Henry Curling's anecdote of Sir Hussey Vivian's account from thirty years after the event. He gave a slightly different account in 1855. The version you quote omits a rather significant section where he admits he can't remember whether Vivian referred to the knee or some other bit of the leg. The reference to 'grapeshot' need be no more accurate than any other use of the phrase between 1755 and 1855. I am not saying it isn't true, it's just really not a lot to go on. Some people seem to think that the words are Sir Hussey Vivian's, speaking verbatim, when that is celarly not the case.

I also have to say that I don't think the hole in the Uxbridge trouser can be taken as an accurate indicator of the size of the projectile that hit Lord Uxbridge. I am also sceptical as to the recovery and survival of the offending ball. We don't really know where that came from, do we? In fact, I am equally curious how the Uxbridge trouser survived. Who thought on the 18th June to preserve a torn pair of bloody trousers? But it doesn't do to be too cynical.

However, even if the ball on display was simply picked up on the battlefield and dubbed 'The Ball That Lost Lord Uxbridge His Leg', and if you remember its size correctly, that would at least indicate that 'true' grapeshot munitions might have been in use that day.

So…

there are other eye witness accounts on the British side which mention grape shot wounds as well for Waterloo.

One would have to ask a real specialist about French artillery at Belle Alliance – Paul Lindsay Dawson – what the French artillery used in this campaign for ammunition.

Mitraille is a general term, originally meaning 'small bits of metal', that described any submunitions smaller than round shot. ('Mitrailleuse,' the French word for a machine gun, derives from the early weapon being conceived originally as an area anti-personnel weapon, and treated as an artillery piece firing the equivalent of case shot).

42flanker:

And yet the Frenchman Tousard used the term Mitraille to refer specifically to Grape Shot.

I think there is some notion that the French and other Nations during this period all used the same terms the same way all the time, particularly when grape shot was the original ammo and canister/case etc. were variants of it.

I haven't seen anything to demonstrate such uniformity over the twenty-plus years of war in this regard or many other military terms in use. I have given several examples of the various differences and the possible reasons for it.

I can also see a 1815 French army making huge efforts to be battle-ready in a hurry, and in the process using any ammunition that was available.

As an ignorant onlooker, I have to express a doubt as to whether the large grapeshot munition is likely ever to have been loaded as case shot. The latter was developed simply as a convenient container and delivery vehicle for the high number of submunitions projectiles required in the anti- personnel round. And the grapeshot round was designed to slip neatly down the gun barrel. A tin container would have required smaller balls. Matron.

And yet, Tousard refers to both Grape and canister as having a 'canister' and referring to both as canister in his treatise.

I can understand why you might question Vivian's account. The ball itself could well have been a substitute and not the real one for all I know.

What remains clear is this: The hole in the trousers was far too large to be made by a canister ball [singular or less likely a group] and far too small to have been made by a cannon shot of any weight. It is a round hole. The actual size of the hole squares very well with a 1.5 inch ball… which is the size of French grape shot and what Vivian says it was.

Who thought on the 18th June to preserve a torn pair of bloody trousers? But it doesn't do to be too cynical.

The same people who thought to bury his leg, keep his entire uniform and plant a small monument over the burial site.

We have gotten off topic. The grape 'controversy' actually started when I suggested that Grape was also used on the battlefield and Kevin disagreed.

Just to add stuff.

in a thread past I asked if their (or is it there) were any 8pdrs at Waterloo.

I came to one of our wonderful members who lived in France and had cause t0 go down to the armory and so he looked up the records and the only guns checked out for the French where 6 and 12pdrs.

Is that not cool I love this board.

Wow, I wonder if he could go down and look up what ammo they took, did they have large and small case.

oh now I am confused, is large and small a size or amount description when used with canister.

oh did not Napoleon state" he gave them (crowd attacking the Assembly) a whiff of grape". Being a well trained artilleryist I am sure the command was load canister and knowing a good phrase when he coined it. Well any one know French and can look up the records.

oh and Kevin when did the tin case for the balls start being used. I thought that during the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars canister was just wrapped in cloth with a wooden sabot. well back to the pocket gunners guide.

My final offering

1. I think you are reading too much into the form of the Tousard's section heading that you quote.

Immediately afterwards, he writes

"the firing with canister or grapeshot, a mitrailles, has been acknowledged.." etc.,

which shows the more general application of the French term.

A little further he says

"when the piece is loaded with the same weight of small peices of iron, as heads of nails, &c. it is called grape shot firing (tirer a mitrailles)…"

which is someting very different, and a little further on he describes the experimantal arrangement of regular-sized balls around a pivot and bound with cloth and wire and as

"grape shot, on account of its configuration from the pyramidical disposition of the balls…"

So Tousard's use of both mitraille and 'grape shot' seems to be fairly generalised, if not downright vague.

2. You assume the hole in the trousers, (if we accept they are genuine) was made by a projectile that penetrated fully. The sort of crushing wound suffered by Uxbridge could have been made by a ball of larger diameter, that would have damaged the cloth but not passed through. I don't have a dog in this fight. I am merely saying that the diameter of a hole in a pair of trousers (that you saw twenty years ago) cannot be taken as exact evidence of the calibre of projectile that wounded their owner.

3. It may be the owner of the house retained the bloodied trousers along with the severed leg. Wasn't the house where the leg lay was subsequently demolished, the leg having been destroyed (although the monument remained)? The Waterloo museum was established independently, I believe, so the chain of evidence might be described as sketchy.

Surely, the most significant element in all this is that whatever the munition, Uxbridge was not wounded up in the ridge by artillery brought up close to open gaps in the allied squares.

French guns were brought up close on the ridge, however, and did cause critical, if not decisive, damage. What the munitions used there were, I shall leave to the experts to elucidate.

Except to say that, surely, the key to the form of caseshot or canister, is the case, or canister.

Mr Manucy's account is remarkably woolly, though, is it not? This sort of general work really gets on my merves.

Maybe-but it is another 'arrow in the quiver' for our use. Years ago, when I was in grade school (too far now for me to count!) it was the first artillery book that I read. My brother picked it up from the National Park Service.

It does have useful information and I keep it handy, though I don't use it often. It was appropriate here, I think.

Mitrailles: In my 1846 French dictionary the term is defined as 'caseshot.'

In my 1917 French-English Military Technical Dictionary it is defined as 'case shot (grape, canister); langrage (obsolete); any fragmentation material used for scattering effect.

So, it appears that it is used interchangeably, just as the English usage of 'grape' is used for canister or canister fire.

The terms for large and small canister/case shot, I believe, indicate the number of iron balls per canister.

When Tousard is describing grape and canister, he often refers to BOTH as canister, because both have the basic same construction, a canister. The differences being the size of the balls and number in a canister.

If it is in an enclosed tin container, or 'can' it is canister, not grapeshot.

What remains clear is this: The hole in the trousers was far too large to be made by a canister ball [singular or less likely a group] and far too small to have been made by a cannon shot of any weight. It is a round hole. The actual size of the hole squares very well with a 1.5 inch ball… which is the size of French grape shot and what Vivian says it was.

That is not correct. French canister was also 1.5 inches in diameter for 1.509 and 1.065 for 12-pounders and 1.309 and .932 for 8-pounders (with that for 6-pounders being undoubtedly similar if not the same) so I don't see your logic here. And as has already been stated, judging the size of the hole in the trousers is a very inaccurate manner of measurement and conclusion.

To accept that French artillery never carried grape we have to believe that:
1. All the captured [and artillery] ammunition used by the French contained no grape-shot.
2. All artillery throughout all campaigns regardless of circumstances always had the same ratios.
3. All artillery, never used naval or foreign-produced ammunition.
4. Artillery officers had no control over what loads they used. Immaculate uniformity was always preserved. [I can't believe that Kevin, an artillerist himself, saw such uniformity always preserved within the army at any given point.]
5. All French [and other nations'] treatises before, during and after the Napoleonic wars-- spent time and print describing a cannon load that was seen as inferior and never used during the Napoleonic wars.

1. You have to be careful when talking about captured ammunition being used, as the caliber of the ammunition and its measurement was not equal between armies as the weight was different. Ammunition would have to be modified for use to ensure there wasn't a windage problem and it would also have to be shown that the other nations were using grapeshot. You haven't done that as you haven't demonstrated that the French were using grapeshot either.

2. Ratios for what?

3. You cannot demonstrate or prove a negative. What has to be shown is if they did use naval or other ammunition. The French naval establishment produced their own naval artillery and ammunition. Naval arsenals where those were produced were not run by the army, but the navy.

4. French artillery officers controlled the production of their artillery and ammunition, and with the advent of Gribeauval and Maritz, there were strict production standards for gun tubes, artillery gun carriages and other artillery vehicles, as well as artillery ammunition. So, yes, there was uniformity of production for all of the above, and quality control which was supervised by a group of artillery inspectors, I believe there were 130 of them, whose job was to ensure uniformity of production and quality control. There is uniformity of production and quality control in the present-day US for both the US Army and Marine Corps. As an example, I was the testing officer at Camp Lejeune for the M777 light 155mm howitzer in 1990.

For more information on artillery quality control with the Gribeauval System as well as uniform production standards, see The Systeme Gribeauval by Howard Rosen. Tousard, Volumes I-III also clearly demonstrate those production standards.

5. I don't have any idea what you're trying to say here. To what artillery treatises/manuals are you referring? I have multiple French artillery manuals in my personal library (Gassendi, d'Urtubie, etc.) as well as Prussian, Austrian, and American artillery manuals. Perhaps you can give an example of what you're talking about here. And how many artillery manuals have you personally taken a look at or read and used? Taking miscellaneous material posted on the internet really isn't very helpful unless its the original material.

there are other eye witness accounts on the British side which mention grape shot wounds as well for Waterloo.

Unless they saw the round being loaded and then fired, and then saw the wounds inflicted by that/those rounds, they couldn't tell of it was grape or canister.

In order to find if grapeshot or canister was in the French basic loads, that information would have to be found in French records, if those were kept, and it the term 'mitraille' was used, that was a universal French term for both, and generally during this period it meant canister unless describing naval artillery or artillery other than field artillery.

…in a thread past I asked if their (or is it there) were any 8pdrs at Waterloo.

I came to one of our wonderful members who lived in France and had cause t0 go down to the armory and so he looked up the records and the only guns checked out for the French where 6 and 12pdrs.

The same information is available in orders of battle from the French archives, notably in Scott Bowden's work on Waterloo.

…Tousard refers to both Grape and canister as having a 'canister' and referring to both as canister in his treatise.

If the small caliber iron balls are in a tin canister, then it is canister, not grape shot. The terms refer to how the round was assembled and packaged, not to the specific diameter of the iron balls used.

Wow all thease years I have been using the terms small and Large canister wrong! Who would have thunk it?

I have heard that the French kept records of rounds fired through the gun, I wonder if any surive from Waterloo and did they record round type?

So Tousard's use of both mitraille and 'grape shot' seems to be fairly generalised, if not downright vague.

42flanker:

Which is interesting in itself and is part of my point. However, he titles the section."

"OF Canister and Grape Shot firing: a cartouche, a mitrailles."

So are we to assume that 'a cartouche' is specific to case/canister, but Mitrailles is not?

The 'vagueness' and interchangeability of the terms is what I have been noting.

This information on the number of balls per shot and the range is exactly what I'm looking for. I'm going to do a model for effect myself in order to create a chart for effect on target. I suspect that it will be pretty interesting when I'm done. I did this with American Kriegspiel casualties rates for the ACW a few years back and the results was really quite interesting.

Test data for canister using cast iron shot is available in the French artillery manuals that have the testing included.

The French tested the older canister which had lead shot and they found they did not travel as far as the cast iron shot and likely as not the heat generated by firing melted the lead and it 'congealed' into a solid mass which only dented the target and didn't go as far as the canister with iron shot.

The target used was eighteen feet long and eight feet high.

12-pounders fired from 800 yards had 7-8 balls hit the target; at 700 yards 10-11 hits; 600 yards 25 hits; 500 yards 35 hits and at 400 yards 40 hits.

8-pounders fired from 700 yards had 8-9 hits; 600 yards 10-11 hits.

And the iron canister shot had the added advantage of being able to ricochet when it hit the ground if the ground was hard enough.

That may be the culprit that hit Uxbridge.

The information, of the above is a sample, can be found on page 78-79 of DeScheel's Artillery Treatise, translated by Jonathan Williams and edited by Don Graves. DeScheel in the original French can be found on Google Books.

link

Maybe someone could care to explain to me what is the relevance of the French using grapeshot or canister. It looks like a storm in a cup of tea.

It is a small subject, but when it develops into a bigger error then I think it should be corrected.

Artillery is seldom covered adequately for the period and it is the least written about subject for the period, with the exception probably of the engineers.

McLaddie,

So are we to assume that 'a cartouche' is specific to case/canister, but Mitrailles is not?

I would say, in general, never assume anything.

In relation to Tousard, specifically, it would be unwise to assume since he appears not to be expressing himself systematically on this topic.

Cartouche, in the vocabulary of the day, would certainly seem to refer specifically to canister (cartouche de fer or, if you like, boite a balles. Mitraille, as I think we agree, is a more general portmanteau term, similar to the (erroneous) use of 'grapeshot' in English, so should not be taken to refer exclusively to 'true' grapeshot.

As a comparison, I think it would be illuminating to know what French terms are used in the sources from which Brechtel is quoting.

I think it would be illuminating to know what French terms are used in the sources from which Brechtel is quoting.

The same ones in French as already mentioned, as well as 'canister' and 'grapeshot.'

The same ones in French as already mentioned, as well as 'canister' and 'grapeshot.'</q?

Forgive me, but having scrolled back, I didn't spot any French terms. Did I miss them?

Mitraille, cartouche, etc.

1. You have to be careful when talking about captured ammunition being used, as the caliber of the ammunition and its measurement was not equal between armies as the weight was different. Ammunition would have to be modified for use to ensure there wasn't a windage problem and it would also have to be shown that the other nations were using grapeshot. You haven't done that as you haven't demonstrated that the French were using grapeshot either.

Kevin:

Yes, I know that. And you haven't demonstrated they never did. That negative argument you mention below.

2. Ratios for what?

Your list of ammunition for each type of gun you supplied.

3. You cannot demonstrate or prove a negative. What has to be shown is if they did use naval or other ammunition. The French naval establishment produced their own naval artillery and ammunition. Naval arsenals where those were produced were not run by the army, but the navy.

Yes, I know who ran what. I also know that Napoleon could and did dictate where Naval men and material went in regards to the Army.

4. French artillery officers controlled the production of their artillery and ammunition, and with the advent of Gribeauval and Maritz, there were strict production standards for gun tubes, artillery gun carriages and other artillery vehicles, as well as artillery ammunition.

So, yes, there was uniformity of production for all of the above, and quality control which was supervised by a group of artillery inspectors, I believe there were 130 of them, whose job was to ensure uniformity of production and quality control. There is uniformity of production and quality control in the present-day US for both the US Army and Marine Corps. As an example, I was the testing officer at Camp Lejeune for the M777 light 155mm howitzer in 1990.

We aren't talking about production quality, Kevin. We are talking about supply uniformity on campaign. And in regards to the French, if they never produced grape shot for the army, why would they have the production specs. for it, which you provided?

5. I don't have any idea what you're trying to say here. To what artillery treatises/manuals are you referring? I have multiple French artillery manuals in my personal library (Gassendi, d'Urtubie, etc.) as well as Prussian, Austrian, and American artillery manuals.

It isn't all that complicated. All those treatises from what I have seen, all describe grape shot as ammunition for field artillery. I gave two examples of treatises.

If you are finding artillery treatises between 1750 and 1820 that don't mention grape shot at all, I'd be interested. Even ones that discuss 'large and small canister'.

Mitrailles: In my 1846 French dictionary the term is defined as 'caseshot.'

In my 1917 French-English Military Technical Dictionary it is defined as 'case shot (grape, canister); langrage (obsolete); any fragmentation material used for scattering effect.

So, it appears that it is used interchangeably, just as the English usage of 'grape' is used for canister or canister fire.

That is what I have found.

That is not correct. French canister was also 1.5 inches in diameter for 1.509 and 1.065 for 12-pounders and 1.309 and .932 for 8-pounders (with that for 6-pounders being undoubtedly similar if not the same) so I don't see your logic here. And as has already been stated, judging the size of the hole in the trousers is a very inaccurate manner of measurement and conclusion.

Well, now we have canister balls the same size 1.5 inches diameter as what you've stated earlier as the size for French grape shot. Both Tousard and Ayde give 1.5 inches as the size of French grape shot.

If it is in an enclosed tin container, or 'can' it is canister, not grapeshot.

Tousard, in the section starting on page 241 vol. II describes at length Muller's experimentation with canister and grape Strasbourg. He describes the problems with grape shot falling apart and the lead balls of canister melt together.

The solution was iron balls in all cases and canisters in all cases. Now, he describes "large and small" loads for canister.

These experiments proved, 1st, that each cartouch of large canister shot, for twelve pounders, [36 balls as with earlier grape shot] strike seven or eight balls, in front of an enemy at a distance of eight hundred yards; at seven hundred yards, ten or eleven balls and that at six hundred yards, the same piece, with small canister shot, will carry twenty-five balls to its object; at five hundred yards, thirty-five; and four hundred yards, forty. [of 112 balls]

In other words, 'canister' suddenly has two sizes for the same 12 pounder. He goes on to describe the same large and small caliber canister effects for 4 and 8 pounders.

He finishes by noting:

After what has been said with respect to the range of large canister shot, it will not be surprising that it was agreed to prefer this kind of ball to the caliber shot, at a distance of about eight hundred yards for twelve pounders, about seven hundred yards for eight pounders…

Thanks, therefore, to this new cartouche, artillerists are enabled now to fire canister shot at a distance which had been hitherto reckoned uncertain even for caliber shot firing; and at such distances, at which small canister shot can be used, they can do three times the execution that was formerly done by the old grape shot.

This is written in 1811. I think it is easy to see:

How 'old grape shot' and the new [same size and number of balls in a container, would now be considered 'large and small caliber' canister, though the large caliber could still be differentiated by referring to it as grape shot…as the size of the shot and number had not changed.

And yes, it can be important in seeing the growth and changes over time… the development in history. We are looking back through the subsequent developments and terms, where the contemporaries were not.

What I meant was, when you for instance, specify 'grape shot' (as opposed to canister, or caseshot, etc.) how is that expressed in French?

I should have written "how was that expressed in the original French."

Similarly, when you cite measurements according to the Imperial system (at least, I'm assuming that "1.5 inches" (e.g.) is an Imperial measurement), would it be right that the original French was expressed in metric, or the relevant pre-metric Bourbon scale? Are you making the conversions?

Well, now we have canister balls the same size 1.5 inches diameter as what you've stated earlier as the size for French grape shot. Both Tousard and Ayde give 1.5 inches as the size of French grape shot.

I already posted the diameters of both French canister and grapeshot on 28 April. Did you miss it?

And it is from DeScheel from 1777 writing on the new Gribeauval System. I gave the link to the manual/treatise.

…when you cite measurements according to the Imperial system (at least, I'm assuming that "1.5 inches" (e.g.) is an Imperial measurement), would it be right that the original French was expressed in metric, or the relevant pre-metric Bourbon scale? Are you making the conversions?

I'm not making any measurement conversions. I'm quoting and taking the numbers straight from the manuals-both DeScheel and Tousard.

I should have written "how was that expressed in the original French."

I gave the link to DeScheel on Google Books which is in French.

the problem is – brech cites translations – or Tousard, which is not the same as original French sources, I remember well the created by him using Toussard instead of de Scheel, which brech always cited, but in fact used Tousard.

As to grape shot, brech should read Austrian contempoary sources – which he claims he owns (but maybe did not read)
to learn more about grape shot for field artillery compared to canister

Similarly, when you cite measurements according to the Imperial system (at least, I'm assuming that "1.5 inches" (e.g.) is an Imperial measurement), would it be right that the original French was expressed in metric, or the relevant pre-metric Bourbon scale? Are you making the conversions?

I am assuming, as both Tousard and Ayde give the same numbers, all for English readers.

by him using Toussard instead of de Scheel, which brech always cited, but in fact used Tousard.

If you actually read both, the same information is contained in both manuals/treatises.

Tousard is spelled with only one 's'.

As to grape shot, brech should read Austrian contempoary sources – which he claims he owns (but maybe did not read)
to learn more about grape shot for field artillery compared to canister

Perhaps you can cite the work (the Austrian regulations or Smola (I have both) and the page number(s) to support your argument?

I am assuming, as both Tousard and Ayde give the same numbers, all for English readers.

Have you not read them? Do you have them on hand? Measurements in DeScheel is also in inches, as previously stated.

Tousard, which is not the same as original French sources…

Tousard uses both French and English artillery manuals as references and liberally quotes them, making the texts somewhat similar. So, for all intents and purposes, they are the same.

The best way to find out is to read the manuals. It does take some time, but it isn't too difficult.

And it should be remembered that Tousard was a school-trained French artillery officer.