"Slow Motion video of artillery shooting" Topic

I think the post title says it all gentlemen. Many have been done. What is missing that surprises you?

For me it is Russian, Austrian, and Prussian cavalry.

youtu.be/MgqIWDPMALk

Some interesting video of a group of duffers shooting off replica ACW artillery pieces. I especially like the video showing the shock waves.

sigh, bugged.

Fascinating – as was

Wow, that was really cool. You could even see the bolt from the rifled cannons spinning as it went down range.

Thanks for posting.

Watching the number of items besides the main round that flew out makes one appreciate why infantry did not like artillery firing over their heads, even when at a higher elevation.

I'm surprised at the size of the muzzle flash before the ball comes out. Neat video, thanks for posting.

It looks like there is a double blast out the barrel. The first might be the powder/gas from the charge and the second might be the contents still within the barrel being pushed out by the ball/shot ?

I would suspect these chaps allow a fair degree of windage, for safety reasons. In other words the ball or shot would not be as tight a fit as professional artillerymen of that era might have been forced to use. Sacrifice accuracy for the reduced risk of the thing blowing up in your face.

What I see is a flash and some smoke, an instant later the ball emerges, followed by a bigger flash and smoke. I wonder if we are seeing, in succession, the "leakage", the shot and then the blast that did actually propel it

What a marvellous video this is. If you do watch, stick it out until the end and see the cannister round. Also note the rifle round visibly rotating. Great technology gone into this. Stout chaps those gunners (in every sense)

I wonder if we are seeing, in succession, the "leakage", the shot and then the blast that did actually propel it

That was my take on it.

And, yes, stay to see the canister!

It's amazing how ineffective blackpowder was/is. That giant ball flame is infrared energy that does nothing to aid the energy/speed of the projectile. Just imagine how much energy the projectile would have if all that heat had been kenetic energy transferred to the cannonball.

The amount of smoke produced was something. A few shots and things got really dim and completely obscured things down range. Image the smoke with an entire battery. It is no wonder that firing twelve shots per gun in a half an hour to an hour was typical.

McLaddie's point is a good one to remember when we are considering Effective against Maximum range.
Ammo wasn't something to waste, so there'd be little point in blasting away at targets obscured by smoke (something difficult to satisfactorily reproduce on the table, as we all know.)
So when rules say something like "Effective range: 600" for a 12-pounder, I feel we are lucky to get even that, honestly. Black powder smoke tended to hang about after firing, so a battery would be indeed fortunate to get in a couple of shots a minute.

Excellent video! I agree that powder during the 1800's was a lot different than the ones produced today. Much more smoke.

"Watching the number of items besides the main round that flew out makes one appreciate why infantry did not like artillery firing over their heads, even when at a higher elevation."

At on Gettysburg reenactment, my battalion was lying down in front of a battery of guns which were about 30 yards to our rear, firing over our heads. After a few rounds we started to notice that we were covered with with grains of unburned powder and bits of the aluminum foil they wrap the powder in. Of course, firing blank charges, the combustion is a lot less complete than when you have a live rounds, but still…

And more residue was left in the gun tube which is why it was swabbed after firing and a thumbstall was used at the vent when ramming a new round.

The reenactor giving the description of canister was wrong in what happened to lead balls in canister when fired. They melted into a large mass instead of maintaining their integrity which is why the change was made to iron balls. The French ran experiments for this ca 1765 and switched from lead to iron for the round.

thanks, Brechtel, never thought of that but it makes sense.

I do think the switch from Lead to Iron is interesting and have to ask …. how did you know?

How encyclopaedic is your knowledge?

This is classic example of Da Bug leading us to summat we would never have seen on Napoleonic Forum, but proves absolutely fascinating.

OK, re-enactors and how accurate for 1863 let alone 1815, when it really mattered? But I loved it

The French experiments and trials with canister consisting of both lead and iron balls can be found in Otto DeScheel's artillery treatise written in the 1770s.

But…with huge respect…

You do not answer my question.

How can you know this? I did not take to my pit last night and think I really must read my copy of Otto DeScheel's treatise. I read two pages of Rothenburg's Tactics etc and fell asleep with the light still on. (We had spent a good night in the local village pub with the landlord's family).

I am seriously impressed by your encyclopaedic knowledge of the era!.

Please do tell me about Saxon Generals of Cavalry for about 1812 then. My Black Musketeer Zastrow will have a gap, as one was totally destroyed to make a Louis XVIII Black Musketeer. It did not work. It cannot be done.

I have some Perry Bavarians coming and reckon one could be a general. Red breeches?

I meant Black Hussar Zastrow.

It was a very good family lunch…everyone else is asleep as I type this