|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 18, 2014 23:47:53 GMT
Lead shot, Cannon balls.... Thay aint all lead.
I am a bit of an armchair archaeologist, as in, I catch a lot of archaeology type programs on discovery, and the like, and I have watched "Time team" since day one, about every single episode, but the one I just caught had me googling furiously....
It concerns the War of the Roses, and the battle of Bosworth.
The cannon shot they recovered was put in a large radioactive source, and a sort of reverse x-rax scan done, as in, once its eradiated, they Xray it from the inside to the outside, dont ask me what thats called but it made perfect sense?... The "scan" made a perfect 3D scan of the entire thing, passing through the lead. Anyway, it was found to contain a roughly cube shaped piece of flint, or perhaps iron ore, it was starting to show "rust" coming through from the inside, which made them look.
From the chatter I can find on these interwebs, its a common thing?.. to save time in production of cannon balls, the mould they used was frequently "stuffed" with any old shape roughly just smaller than the ball and made up to ball size with lead.
The Bosworth thing, they only just discovered this, because after war, most battle sites were cleared and recycled, so old shot was collected up and made into new. The shot they are finding now was well concealed, extremely rare, and hard to find.
So we have done the makeup of cannon balls before, how is this for a slight change in direction... part rock, part lead.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 19, 2014 0:06:25 GMT
Open to edit. The Cannon... Loading the cannon, the put in the powder, then a loose plug of wood. Maybe called a Tappe (tap-pay..)?... Is that right spelling pronunciation?... When fired, this "Plug" would strike the base of the ball forcing it outwards to squeeze the round to fit the cannon... This made the round "fit" better, less passing of gasses, better range. This plug would then fly off anfd cause some damage somewhere as well as the main ball.
Of course, this is early days of cannon, things changed, the "Fit" of the ball got better.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 19, 2014 0:07:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 19, 2014 0:15:13 GMT
Ok, cant get a free link to that, it keeps blocking it "In my country".... and I am trying to find it on TOR as well... looks like Channel 4 have blocked it everywhere. You can try 4oD, $ on demand. But you have to sign in...
Its Time Team Special eppisode 46, war of the roses, its a good program, if you can get it.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 19, 2014 0:16:44 GMT
By the way, just to add to all this, it looks like Bosworth Field is not where they thought it was... its really about a mile and a half away in <<-- that direction..... up a bit, slightly to the left, near that marshy bit..?... Stop when you go squelch.....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 19, 2014 17:39:46 GMT
By the way, just to add to all this, it looks like Bosworth Field is not where they thought it was... its really about a mile and a half away in <<-- that direction..... up a bit, slightly to the left, near that marshy bit..?... Stop when you go squelch..... as much as my truck weighs, I do whether I want to or not (stop) I doubt the block would actually deform the ball sufficient to make the ball seal - but the wood itself could be a press fit more easily than the ball, and drive the ball out like the shotcup in a shotshell.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 19, 2014 21:20:13 GMT
What I saw on the video after firing was a definite block shaped "dent" in one side of the ball, so yes, the heat and pressure did do some deformation... How much?.. Well, I just dont know.
Is it worth a test with a loose fitting ball in a cannon to see how much it does deform to find out... Will the ball "Fit better" after firing?.. Presuming you can catch it afterwards without too much damage.
This is why I posted this... I cant find anyone who went back and tested the fit with a fired cannon ball, but many say the balls of that time were a loose fit beforehand... Why has no one (that I can find) tested the post-firing fit?...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 20, 2014 1:04:50 GMT
What I saw on the video after firing was a definite block shaped "dent" in one side of the ball, so yes, the heat and pressure did do some deformation... How much?.. Well, I just dont know. Is it worth a test with a loose fitting ball in a cannon to see how much it does deform to find out... Will the ball "Fit better" after firing?.. Presuming you can catch it afterwards without too much damage. This is why I posted this... I cant find anyone who went back and tested the fit with a fired cannon ball, but many say the balls of that time were a loose fit beforehand... Why has no one (that I can find) tested the post-firing fit?... sometimes people just miss things. I know in the US, the idea of something expanding to fit tightly against the barrel did not come about until around the civil war. this means it may have been an undocumented feature in older ammunition - though if they basically used lead to round out whatever stone they had handy, there might not have been that much possibility of deformation at the equator. and that's the other question - did the dent occur under acceleration or deceleration?
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Dec 20, 2014 1:31:26 GMT
The Minie Ball came into use in the US in the early 1850's. My the time the Civil War broke out, it was standard military ordinance. The Springfeild 1861 was the most common weapon of the war and was a minie (or variation) and percussion cap setup.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 20, 2014 2:18:59 GMT
The Minie Ball came into use in the US in the early 1850's. My the time the Civil War broke out, it was standard military ordinance. The Springfeild 1861 was the most common weapon of the war and was a minie (or variation) and percussion cap setup. I was being vague to avoid actually bothering to look up the precise year.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 20, 2014 15:54:04 GMT
What I saw on the video after firing was a definite block shaped "dent" in one side of the ball, so yes, the heat and pressure did do some deformation... How much?.. Well, I just dont know. Is it worth a test with a loose fitting ball in a cannon to see how much it does deform to find out... Will the ball "Fit better" after firing?.. Presuming you can catch it afterwards without too much damage. This is why I posted this... I cant find anyone who went back and tested the fit with a fired cannon ball, but many say the balls of that time were a loose fit beforehand... Why has no one (that I can find) tested the post-firing fit?... sometimes people just miss things. I know in the US, the idea of something expanding to fit tightly against the barrel did not come about until around the civil war. this means it may have been an undocumented feature in older ammunition - though if they basically used lead to round out whatever stone they had handy, there might not have been that much possibility of deformation at the equator. and that's the other question - did the dent occur under acceleration or deceleration? Acceleration... they took a plug of the same type and measured it up to the dent, almost perfect fit.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 20, 2014 16:00:10 GMT
Correction.
I sad...
It was NOT to save time, it was to save lead, and then time and firewood.
As stated, much of the lead was scavenged to be re-used in the next battle. You have enough for maybe 100 balls, if you now use a stone roughly 75% size of the ball inside the mould, you now have enough lead for 400 balls?....
And you dont need as much fire to melt 400 balls worth of lead, so that takes less time. Stones are everywhere, you dont need to transport them.
You get more balls to the pound of lead with a foreign filling....
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 20, 2014 20:54:56 GMT
I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that this wasn't a way of saving lead, it was a quick way of making an irregular projectile round.
Early cannon balls were often made of stone. Carving and smoothing a suitable rock down to the right size and shape would have taken time (and skilled workers). If you're away from home and away from a suitable source of stone, you're going to have to look around for alternatives. So you find rocks and stones of roughly the right size and add a outer coating of lead (which is easily moulded) to make it round in order that it'll fit the bore of the cannon.
It's not ideal because each ball would vary in weight, it would therefore be difficult to get any consistency when firing the gun (even if the gunner weighed each shot and adjusted the charge accordingly). As we're dealing with the very infancy of field artillery, the purpose of the guns on the battlefield was more one of 'shock-and-awe' than of overwhelming firepower, so this inconsistency wouldn't have been too problematical.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 21, 2014 12:37:32 GMT
It could well be a mixture of all of the above.
As you say, early cannon ... Who is to say they even understood trajectory of cannon back then?... Aim it straight at the first enemy you see and that one and a few behind them as well all tumble over.... As a short range shock that takes the charge out of charge, stopping the front of the opposing infantry puts them on the back foot straight away.
Cannon were no more than big guns, and hand weapons of gun type of that time, you aimed straight at the target... they were not long range, they didnt have the accuracy to be long range.
Are we over-thinking this here from our position of knowledge, did they even understand the mass inertia weight trajectory gravity thing, a big round rock flies fast and kills, thats all they needed to know?... They eventually understood the better it fits the faster and further it goes, but that again is pointing towards straight line shooting.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 21, 2014 14:56:50 GMT
It could well be a mixture of all of the above. As you say, early cannon ... Who is to say they even understood trajectory of cannon back then?... Aim it straight at the first enemy you see and that one and a few behind them as well all tumble over.... As a short range shock that takes the charge out of charge, stopping the front of the opposing infantry puts them on the back foot straight away. Cannon were no more than big guns, and hand weapons of gun type of that time, you aimed straight at the target... they were not long range, they didnt have the accuracy to be long range. Are we over-thinking this here from our position of knowledge, did they even understand the mass inertia weight trajectory gravity thing, a big round rock flies fast and kills, thats all they needed to know?... They eventually understood the better it fits the faster and further it goes, but that again is pointing towards straight line shooting. if we had access to their twitter and instagram accounts we could find out. oh wait, they didn't think every moment of their lives was so fascinating it had to be recorded for posterity back then
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 22, 2014 10:23:53 GMT
Experimental Archaeology.
This is why the re-enactment teams are so important. They take the professionals and make them safety experts, but let those who know nothing suggest the actions... That way they dont let experience get in the way, and thus, they find out the method of gaining experience.
Sometimes its ONLY by doing it that you can work out why you are doing it?...
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 22, 2014 10:27:03 GMT
I am on the track of an early cannon, a Barrel built cannon, much like coopering. Early cannon. As in it was constructed the same way as an old wooden straight sided barrel, held together with iron bands, but instead of wooden planks, Metal planks. These were "welded" together after construction, but basically, were long strips of metal formed into a cylinder shape, and held together by metal bands along the length....
Anyone have anything?...
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 22, 2014 22:40:26 GMT
Some things to keep in mind;
Cannons of that period were not standardized calibers, both due to there being some variation between different weights and measures in different countries but different parts of the same country and because many such cannon were made in the nearest smithy rather than by dedicated gunsmiths. In this light under-sizing shot may have been just a question of the person making the shot using slightly different units of measure from the guy who made the gun. Or it may have been deliberate so that they could be sure that the shot would fit in any cannon regardless of the actual barrel width - you can use smaller shot than a cannon was designed for, but not larger.
The shot in question was not, at least as far as field guns went, anything close to the size of what we think of in regards shot. 'Standard' shot for such guns was slightly smaller than a tennis ball. This means that using lead was both practical, since you didn't need that much of it, and it would have dramatically increased the killing power of the shot due to the significantly higher mass.
If those making shot were paid for X-number per given period then they may well have been tempted to add stones to the shot they were making. With the natural variations in weights of the period it is unlikely that anyone would notice this, and the workers could pocket the lead to sell. An ounce of lead per shot multiplied by (say) fifty or a hundred rounds would quickly add up, and even at a fairly cheap selling price could easily be worth a month or more of their wages. This might even have been allowed, if unofficially, as it would have allowed the makers to pay lower wages - in the ship yards it was officially understood that dockyard workers were allowed to leave with as much 'scrap' wood as they could carry under one arm. Of course that 'wood' on occasion ended up including copper tubing/bolts. So clearly such practices were not uncommon, and may have been part of the way such shot was made. It is unlikely to have had any significant effect on the effectiveness of the shot.
Stone and iron shot was expensive at this period, and stone in particular has problems both in the numbers that can be made in a given period* and in terms of storage. (It can crack or chip, either making the shot outright useless of even less accurate than was usual). Lead was cheaper, and something that neither required any particular set of skills or any special equipment. (*Keep in mind that it took the Build Team, who were using modern equipment, the better part of a day to produce three stone shot.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 22, 2014 23:03:23 GMT
Some things to keep in mind; Cannons of that period were not standardized calibers, both due to there being some variation between different weights and measures in different countries but different parts of the same country and because many such cannon were made in the nearest smithy rather than by dedicated gunsmiths. In this light under-sizing shot may have been just a question of the person making the shot using slightly different units of measure from the guy who made the gun. Or it may have been deliberate so that they could be sure that the shot would fit in any cannon regardless of the actual barrel width - you can use smaller shot than a cannon was designed for, but not larger. The shot in question was not, at least as far as field guns went, anything close to the size of what we think of in regards shot. 'Standard' shot for such guns was slightly smaller than a tennis ball. This means that using lead was both practical, since you didn't need that much of it, and it would have dramatically increased the killing power of the shot due to the significantly higher mass. If those making shot were paid for X-number per given period then they may well have been tempted to add stones to the shot they were making. With the natural variations in weights of the period it is unlikely that anyone would notice this, and the workers could pocket the lead to sell. An ounce of lead per shot multiplied by (say) fifty or a hundred rounds would quickly add up, and even at a fairly cheap selling price could easily be worth a month or more of their wages. This might even have been allowed, if unofficially, as it would have allowed the makers to pay lower wages - in the ship yards it was officially understood that dockyard workers were allowed to leave with as much 'scrap' wood as they could carry under one arm. Of course that 'wood' on occasion ended up including copper tubing/bolts. So clearly such practices were not uncommon, and may have been part of the way such shot was made. It is unlikely to have had any significant effect on the effectiveness of the shot. Stone and iron shot was expensive at this period, and stone in particular has problems both in the numbers that can be made in a given period* and in terms of storage. (It can crack or chip, either making the shot outright useless of even less accurate than was usual). Lead was cheaper, and something that neither required any particular set of skills or any special equipment. (*Keep in mind that it took the Build Team, who were using modern equipment, the better part of a day to produce three stone shot.) reminds me of a story about our local paper mill: they had always maintained a policy that the work crews could simply grab random hardware to use at home from the hardware shelf. then they tried the same policy with stainless steel hardware. the next day after ordering all new stainless hardware to replace what had vanished during the time period, they went back to only galvanized hardware being available for personal use. {/tangent]
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 23, 2014 14:14:17 GMT
Question... Density..... [Random thoughts]
Density of a pound of lead is a given. Make it ball shaped for simplicity here. Density of a ball the same size as that ball that had a stone centre, would be less...?...
So how much bang for the buck?.....
Given that on "x" grains of powder it would fly say 100 yds, I am suggesting that the stone centre ball would perhaps fly not as far?.... Or is it that as its lighter it would fly further?...
Or did it bloody well matter on a battle field.
At that time, they had no idea what "Density" meant, they just load-and-fire.....
I am absolutely sure that as now we have the evidence it was a time thing, and how much shot could you prepare in perhaps one or two days on site before the battle. So I suspect it was more of how much lead can you chuck down the field in a given time before your position is compromised....
|
|