From: daveu@sco.COM (Dave Uebele)
Subject: Re: Artillery Question
Organization: SCO Engineering, 150 Dubious St.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:37:05 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.184851.16523@mcs.kent.edu> dmcclory@Chaos.mcs.kent.edu (Daniel McClory) writes:

>and Civil War era artillery, it appears to me that that, while exploding
>shot was available, it was used sparingly, and appeared to be of little effect.
>It seems to have mostly be shot from mortars during seiges.  The vast majority
>of rounds fired were solid shot, with grape used at close quarters.

Just a minor point that I want to clarify. Grape shot and canister
are two different things.  Grape shot is a number of balls approx 1-2 inches
in diameter (depending on the bore of cannon used) that is stacked 
in series of layers of (usually 3 balls per layer).  each layer is 
seperated with a plate or ring of metal.  A bar of metal runs through the
center holds a top and bottom plate on to hold things together in handling.
The center bar and rings break/scatter during discharge.  Often a canvas bag
is tied over the outside.  The general apearance is that of a cluster of
grapes.  Thus the name "Grape" shot.  It was generally used to destroy rigging
on sailing ships. Anything less than about 1 inch diameter would not
do enough damage to disable rigging (you want something with enough cross
sectional area to cut rigging ropes even if its not dead on center of the
rope). and of course you want as many balls as possible to get the scatter
effect.

Canister, on the other hand is a large number of musket balls or iron
balls (approx 1/2 inch diameter), packed semi-loosely in a metal canister.
Often packed with sawdust in the canister.  It is an anti-personal
cannon load. Since people are more fragile than rigging, you can
use smaller balls and thus get a better scatter effect.  Canister you
will find on field cannons and for land use. 
Grape shot you find at seacoast forts and on naval ships (up until
the iron steam ships can into their own).

>Perhaps it would be impossible to simulate these kinds of terrifying cannon 
>shots on film, but I would think it would vastly change peoples perceptions of
>what war was like during these times.  One of the most memorable descriptions
>I recall reading of Gettysburg included a description of solid shot cannon
>balls bouncing (yes, bouncing) across an open field where men were advancing
>in rank and file.  The results were, to say the least, devestating.  Imagine
>being struck by a hurtling, red-hot iron bowling ball.  Combine this with
>the injuries produced by grape shot and .50 calibre low-velocity musket rounds,
>and Civil War battlefields become a grusome image. 

Yes, the idea of skipping or bouncing shot was used. It worked better 
with the smoothbores (round shot vs cylindrical shot).  The type of
shot used depending on ground conditions and ranges. If the ground
was too soft or uneven, then bouncing shot would not be used and exploding
shells would be used.  The fuses were not real reliable though, so often
what was supposed to be exploding shell would only be solid shot...
Also, it was considerably more work to fire "hot shot" preheating
each round. That would be used more in a seige situation where you
could set up forges/furnaces for heating the shot and you were
shooting at fortifications that you wanted to set fire to wooden
parts of the structure.  I seriously doubt they used hot shot for
something like pickets charge (The balls will heat up in firing,
but not red hot...).

>Not quite the neat and tidy "man blown into the air" Hollywood image of 
>a cannon shot.

No, war is really ugly and hollywood for the most part does fine
job of glorifying it and making it prettier.  

>-- 
>          Daniel McClory               
>	  Kent State University        
dave

-- 
Dave Uebele	uunet!sco!daveu  or daveu@sco.com