"firing red hot balls how? with black powder in guns" Topic

no barrel expansion ?

They would put a thick wad of soaking wet material in then roll the shot on top and fire immediately

There's a wonderful description of firing red hot shot in "Lieutenant Hornblower".

Excellent primary source material for firing red hot shot, or as the French called them 'red bullets', can be found in Volume II of Louis de Tousard's American Artillerist's Companion, pages 253-258.

1.The round shot would be heated on an iron grate over a 'well-kindled coal fire' and it usually took three-quarters of an hour to properly heat the shot for firing.

2.The powder charge is smaller than that for regular firing, a fourth or a fifth of the shot's weight. And the roundshot have to be carefully chosen as the heat will cause the shot to expand and then it won't fit in the bore.

3.The powder cartridge should be serge or flannel with no holes so that the powder does not 'leak' into the tube when rammed.

4.A 'good dry wad' is first used with the powder cartridge and then a damp one and then the hot shot is placed and then the entire round is rammed, then fired.

I would not like to have been a gunner in this situation.
Kids, don't try this at home!

Nasty. Liable to burn your ship down to the water-line.

Modern version: Chimney fire.

Leginarius, it's the rammer that has the sucky job!

"Here, Verne.
Hold my grog and watch this."

The firing of red bullets didn't only happen in the navies, but also with artillery on land, especially during sieges.

Needless to say, it was not a popular exercise.

Apparently, that would be a lot safer and easier to do as the firing platforms were stable and not moving in all axes.

would like to see this done ofcource

Liable to burn your ship down to the water-line.

I thought Hot Shot was only used by shore batteries, and not on board vessels.

through heat barrels having problems ?
diameter ball and barrel

"The firing of red bullets didn't only happen in the navies, but also with artillery on land.."
Perhaps we could have the detailed references describing wooden ships firing heated shot?

Didn't Cap'n Jack do it?

Better explanation:

A private horror of mine is to have a smouldering beam in the chimney – which then causes a chimney fire that burns the house down – whilst you are asleep :(

Receiving a hot shot (mebbe from shore battery) which lodges in a ships timber might have a similar effect – and your ship gets burned down to the waterline.

Build your ships and chimneys with brick. Job done

Apparently the French Navy in the 18th Century experimented with red-hot shot on board ships. It did not end well.

By the time of the Napoleonic Wars, heated shot was confined to land based artillery with a particular emphasis in shore batteries against ships at sea. As all above have said, it was a particular skill and not that popular with gunners. There were so many problems to overcome. The heat did not usually effect the barrels of the ordnance used, but if the furnace grew too hot the balls could warp out of shape with attendant problems.

The key thing was the use of dry and wet wads and an efficient drill.

As YankeeDoodle has said, you can do little better than read the account of firing heated shot in 'Lieutenant Hornblower' in the sequence where they shell Spanish vessels holed up in a harbour in the West Indies.

and on buildings / a fortresses?

barrel wear and tear ?

Yes, used against buildings in the context of a siege. The difference in barrel wear and tear between hot shot and cold was minimal. The barrels were already surviving the intense heat of multiple discharges anyway.

If you wanted to set buildings on fire, didn't you just fire carcasses at them? Much less danger and faff than heating shot.

If only we had a professional ex-Artilleryman to give us an authoritative view….?

Perhaps you could get hold of artillery memoirs, such as those by Mercer and Boulart for example, or get hold of the five volumes of the Dickson manuscript.

I have Dickson and Mercer amongst others – can't recall any of them describing wooden warships operating a furnace for heating shot?

Have you read any of the histories of the Royal Navy and the French Navy?

If you need the titles of various publications please let me know.

I've read many histories of the Naval War in the late-18th/early-19th centuries. One point that often comes up is dousing the galley fire as part of clearing for action. Never yet come across "Flash up the shot furnace"? You made a slight error – understandable given the volume of your posts – just live with it and move on?

Perhaps we could have the detailed references describing wooden ships firing heated shot?

I've read many histories of the Naval War in the late-18th/early-19th centuries. One point that often comes up is dousing the galley fire as part of clearing for action. Never yet come across "Flash up the shot furnace"? You made a slight error – understandable given the volume of your posts – just live with it and move on?

And what 'slight error' was that?

Regarding firing hot shot from a naval platform, a good place to begin would be Arming the Fleet: US Navy Ordnance in the Muzzle-Loading Era by Spencer Tucker, pages 93-94:

'Hot shot were also employed at sea, for wooden sailing ships were especially vulnerable to it. The shot was heated red-hot (white heat might turn it too brittle). The powder charge, contained in a strong flannel cartridge with no holes, was loaded, and then a tight, dry wad of hay 1 caliber in length was put in. This was followed by a tight clay wad or a wet hay wad with the water squeezed out. The hot shot was then loaded by means of a carrier, and the gun was fired. If it was to be fired depressed, another tight wet wad was rammed in to hold the shot in place. If two wads were used-one dry and the other damp-there was no danger of the shot causing ignition and the gun could be pointed [aimed] before it was fired.'

'The gun could also be double-shotted, that is, fired with an ordinary shot followed by a hot shot. Hot shot required a reduced powder charge, usually one-quarter to one-sixth the weight of the ball. This enabled it to penetrate the enemy hull 10 to 12 inches (if it penetrated farther, there would not be sufficient air for burning).

I do hope this answers any questions about hot shot being employed aboard ship. And if the US Navy did it, I have no doubt that the capability of the Royal Navy and the French Navy was also able to accomplish the exercise.

The only remaining question is have you read this volume, even though it is about the US Navy?

Nasty. Liable to burn your ship down to the water-line.

The object of the exercise was to burn the enemy's ship down to the water line.

And then we have the issue of Congreve naval rockets which the Royal Navy successfully employed firing from modified warships…

Such a neat trick, that if anyone in any fleet was doing it I'd expect the memoires to be full of mentions. Anybody found any?

Otherwise it just becomes a unicorn; an interesting diversion, written about by theorists but not seen in the wild.

And your point, again, is…what?

The issue is were either the naval services or the artillery arms capable of firing hot shot…and the answer to that question is 'yes.'

I wouldn't expect it to be done routinely either at sea or on land.

However, the Royal Navy did use the Congreve naval rockets, most spectacularly, and uselessly, at Baltimore in 1814.

Red hot shot and Congreave rockets are completely different munitions – total red herring. I don't see anywhere in your quotation that indicates it being FROM a vessel at sea, rather than AT one? To suggest a warship's galley range was capable of sufficiently heating shot is risible – unless US warships of the period were specifically fitted with suitable furnaces? As for "clay wads" and "wet hay wads"? Both so readily available in a ship at sea? As Handlebarbleep suggests, simply a unicorn.

You were shown the evidence from a credible source. If you cannot accept it, and also show proof that the source is incorrect, then your response to the issue at hand is ludicrous at best.

And the use of Congreve naval rockets is anything but a red herring. It was innovative and warships had to be significantly modified to use them. That you don't understand that is amazing. And there is primary source evidence to support the use of naval rockets and how the warships were modified.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

So is ship fired hot shot just theory, or practice?

The Royal Navy was indeed innovative in modifying some of its ships to fire Congreave's rockets and their use is well documented. But a rocket isn't a red hot solid shot. It doesn't require a customized furnace to be in full operation whilst the ship is in action, nor the movement of these extremely hazardous objects around a ship in open water. Your reference – especially the specific wadding proposed – suggests their use against ships but not from ships. And if it was all that simple, why is there no celebrated mention of their use in action?

Both of you are doing nothing but 'beating the air with vain sounds.'

You have not shown anything credible which negates the practice of using red bullets. If you can show anything like historical evidence to support your position, instead of insult and condescension, then you might have a point. So far, you have done nothing to provide contradictory evidence of the practice.

The Hornblower novels are not historical evidence, although CS Forester did write an excellent volume on naval warfare of the period-The Age of Fighting Sail: The Story of the Naval War of 1812. It is a factual historical study and not a novel.

The question was, unless I am mistaken, was how to fire red bullets and that was amplified to show how from warships. That was given from both a primary source and a credible secondary source. What do you have to offer in its stead?

If only we had a professional ex-Artilleryman to give us an authoritative view….?

That comment leads anyone to believe that you have no idea about either period artillery or modern artillery employment and the ammunition that was fired by both.

Here is an excerpt from John Elting's Swords Around a Throne in Chapter XXIV, pages 486-487 regarding 'hot shot':

'Hot shot,' the most efficient incindiery projectile, was simply a solid shot, heated in the middle of a good fire. (Coast defense forts often had special reverberatory furnaces with racks for heating large numbers of shot at one time. Captain Napoleon Bonaparte built a good many excellent ones along the Mediterranean coast in 1793.) The guns were laid on their target and carefully cleaned beforehand so no loose powder grains remained in their tubes; the powder charge was then loaded, followed by a sabot and one or more wads of woven hay, the outer one slightly dampened. That completed, the glowing hot shot was inserted in the tube and rammed down and the gun immediately fired. This could be a ticklish business, though it looked far more dangerous than it actually was; artillerymen, especially home guard types like the canoniers garde-cotes, did not like to handle 'red bullets.' In November 1810 Napoleon ordered a detailed manual printed on the use of hot shot and intensified training.'

Interestingly, Col Elting had service as an artilleryman during almost forty years in the US Army.

What I would suggest to both of you if you are actually interested in the subject and not merely in attempting to post 'clever' and demeaning postings, that you conduct actual research based on historical inquiry and then share your findings with the forum. That does take time and effort which can be sometimes a little difficult. If you believe you are up to it, then have at it. If not, then I suggest this subject is closed.

No-one is disputing the use of red-hot shot – as evidenced by Col Elting's eloquent description quoted above – from shore batteries AT ships. We still await a practical instance of ships of the period having and using the same capability.

I found on the site of the US Constitution Museum an article by Matthew Brenckle:

As the Royal Navy tightened its blockade of the American coast during 1813, U.S. Navy captains searched for innovative ways to give American warships an advantage against superior numbers. In Boston, Captain Charles Stewart, a life-long tinkerer, conceived of a portable furnace capable of quickly heating cannonballs to between 1,200 and 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. The red-hot balls might be fired at a pursuing warship; if they stuck in its timbers, they could quickly ignite dry, tarry, painted wood.
On December 5, 1813, Stewart outlined his concept for the Secretary of the Navy William Jones. According to Stewart, nothing could be more effective at extricating a ship from a tight spot than a few hot shot fired from the ship's stern chasers. His idea was not wholly original. Shore batteries often employed this tactic during the period, but the process was generally considered too dangerous for shipboard use. The problems of heating and transporting super-heated shot from furnace to gun, and then loading the gun without the powder charge going off prematurely, speak for themselves. Nevertheless, Secretary Jones seemed intrigued by the idea, and 20 days later Stewart forwarded a model of his invention to Washington.

By this point, the full-scale prototype had already been installed on board USS Constitution. On December 18, Navy Agent Amos Binney paid $294.34 USD to George Darracott of Boston. The bill enumerates the items purchased: "1 Furnace for heating Shot 467lbs," "Grates and Frame," "1 p[ai]r Shot Tongs," "1 Shot Ladle," and "30 lbs Sheet Iron."
[…]
So far, we've never found evidence of Constitution or other American ships using the furnaces in combat. The British were well aware of them, however. A Dutch informant in New London, Connecticut told Captain Nash of HMS Saturn that it was "generally understood in the United States all the American Ships of War are now fitted with furnaces for heating Shot; and…the same person knows it to be the case with the Frigate Constitution."

So it would seem that Kevin is right in that at least the US Navy had furnaces installed on its ships in order to use red hot shot. However there is no indication that they were ever used in combat.

Perhaps the Captain of Constitution had rather more commonsense than Secretary Jones?

That may very well be…

We don't have to provide any historical evidence to negate anything. It is for the person who propounds to provide supporting evidence for their assertion.

So far we have evidence for land based use, evidence for theoretical possibility and intent to equip vessels with the purchase of at least one set of equipment.

We have no physical evidence that vessels were so equipped or testimony that it was ever employed, either in action, training or even a record of any trials or demonstration. Is that correct?

Not entirely. We have evidence that at least in the US Navy they were installed on one, if not more ships. It's more than intent as there was a bill of purchase of the required items. The bill was paid so the items had been delivered.

We have no evidence they were ever used in earnest.

Purchased is not the same as fitted, unless the bill of sale included installaton. And just because something got installed once doesn't mean it stayed installed, things get unshipped all the time. And even if it was aboard doesn't mean anyone was trained in it's use or indeed it got used at all.

I'd I've thought it unusual enough to make a memoir or two? Or some trial report? Or inspection report mentioning it's continued employment? Or purchase of further equipment? Or storing or provision of spares?

Can't think it was a secret weapon, the red hot balls would have been a bit of a giveaway, and pretty obvious how it was done.

I quote again the last paragraph:

So far, we've never found evidence of Constitution or other American ships using the furnaces in combat. The British were well aware of them, however. A Dutch informant in New London, Connecticut told Captain Nash of HMS Saturn that it was "generally understood in the United States all the American Ships of War are now fitted with furnaces for heating Shot; and…the same person knows it to be the case with the Frigate Constitution."

That still doesn't prove that it was ever actually used, of course.

We don't have to provide any historical evidence to negate anything. It is for the person who propounds to provide supporting evidence for their assertion.

You don't have to do anything at all.

However, if you're going to begin an argument on the subject, then it is common sense to provide something to support that argument. Neither you nor YD has done that.

And I would suspect that training was involved even if the ships involved never used red bullets in training.

I'd I've thought it unusual enough to make a memoir or two? Or some trial report? Or inspection report mentioning it's continued employment? Or purchase of further equipment? Or storing or provision of spares?

Now you've set yourself a task. When are you going to start?

And, in case you have forgotten, the initial question was how it was done – that question was answered succinctly.

Kevin, you alone stated that red hot shot was used on ships, therefore the burden of proof rests with you.

Previously I quoted Carl Sagan on you and you rejected his words on the ground that he's not an historian.

You are fond of quoting David Hackett Fischer, "Historians' Fallacies, Toward a Logic of Historical Thought". Let me quote him as well when on page 63 he says substantially the same as Carl Sagan:

[…] the burden of proof, for any historical assertion, always rests upon its author. Not his critics, not his readers, not his graduate students, not the next generation. Let us call this the rule of responsibility.

I did part of the work for you, finding proof that at least in the US Navy the equipment for using this was installed on (some of) its warships. The rest really is up to you.

Again Brechtel, I have no task to find proof. Whether it be trial data, memoir, eyewitness report etc the duty lies with the person who makes an assertion.

If such evidence is not forthcoming (perhaps for the not unreasonable reason that it does not exist) then the assertion remains, at best, theoretical only.

Perhaps I'm the one being unreasonable here, but I have the rather simplistic notion that for something to be historical it has to have actually happened. I don't demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, I'd happily accept on balance of probabilities. All we appear to have so far is a possibility, nothing more.

That opinion is ready to be revised, but only on receipt of more evidence.

Kevin, you alone stated that red hot shot was used on ships, therefore the burden of proof rests with you.

And I provided supporting documentation from a work on naval gunnery/artillery. That supported the thread how the ammunition worked/was used.

Seems to me that I answered the OP. And I do thank you for your contribution.

Lastly, I wasn't the one who brought up the naval usage. YD brought it up with his Hornblower reference. So, apparently the ball is in their court, not mine.

Perhaps I'm the one being unreasonable here…

I couldn't agree more.

Brechtel, I often am unreasonable, as many of us inadvertently can be. I just have the good grace to admit it.

@Brechtel198

I couldn't agree more.

I couldn't agree less.

On another forum you quote: "From The Line of Battle: The Sailing Warship 1650-1840", edited by Robert Gardner, 158:

‘Red-hot shot had been tried at sea from time to time but again the dangers seemed to outweigh any advantages. A furnace was required and a gun had to be run out and fired very quickly after the shot was loaded; the shot needed to lodge in the target ship's timbers to stand a chance of setting the ship alight and even in these circumstances the fire was often quickly extinguished. Conventional wisdom confined the use of hot shot to coast defense fortifications.'

So you agree that rod hot shot was not used at sea, just not here on TMP?