Re: Shell firing cannon
- From: dbohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 11 Aug 2006 19:26:16 -0700
mike wrote:
weasel wrote:
The invention of the shell firing cannon sometime in the 1st half of
the 19th century was certainly revolutionary to naval warfare, but I
remain pretty ignorant of what happened between the Napoleanic wars and
the US Civil War:
Who "invented" it? Where? When?
Col. Paixihans of the French Navy popularized it, but Napoleon
had done work on this for Forts, and even Stephen Decatur looked
into it. But the was some English guy who done it first around 1790,
but the name fails, and his effort was pretty much ignored.
What was the 1st successful fuse technology? (was it just a powder
train?)
The wood plug with a compressed BP train went back hundreds of years.
But the main 'delay' was in reliable fuzes, that started to appear
during the 1840s, the best of the early lot being from Captain
Bormann from Belgium. Getting a fuze to ignite when fired,
keep lit even when the shell ricochets off water or impacts wood,
and then keeps the desired time delay, was no easy task.
Given its lethality against wooden ships, why did it take so long for
iron-clads to arrive?
(or was it not so long?)
There first had to be combat showing their effect, the Battle of
Sinope in 1853, where the Russian Navy with shellguns destroyed
the wooden Ottoman Fleet. Effect, Countermeasures.
How long did it take for cannon bores to grow from "24-pounder" size,
to 8+ inches?
Being able to do such large pours of molten iron, but 8" wasn't
beyond what the tech of the day in 1800 could do.
A 24 pdr with 5.8" bore and 5000 pound of metal was easier to do
than an 8" (or 64 pdr) of 9000 pounds, but it was still possible to
skilled
casters
But the real problems was going over 9". as the metal weigh increased
rapidly.An 11" Cannon was over 15000 pounds, a lot of iron
to pour in one shot.
Capt. Dahlgren of the USN solved this, with his 'Soda Bottle' shaped
tubes, where a 9" weighed the same as the older gun, but besides
a heavier shell, could fire shot without exploding the tube, something
the earlier shell cannons couldn't do. Shellguns typically had less
stress than firing solid iron. Same problem happened years before'with
the change to stone to iron shot.
Given its lethality against wooden ships, and the attendent advantage
of "first hit," what attempts were made to increase the effect range?
(Monitor vs Virginia was still ~ point blank, fergawdsake!)
The MkI eyeball looking down the tube was the limit to accuracy,
not the range of the shell. No reason sights couldn't have been used
sooner.
**
mike
**
I find this thread to be interesting, what book would cover this sort
of historical technical development?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Shell firing cannon
- From: kenney
- Re: Shell firing cannon
- From: mike
- Re: Shell firing cannon
- References:
- Shell firing cannon
- From: weasel
- Re: Shell firing cannon
- From: mike
- Shell firing cannon
- Prev by Date: Re: Hezbollah Crack Israeli Tanks Like Walnuts
- Next by Date: Re: US Civil War Ironclads projectiles
- Previous by thread: Re: Shell firing cannon
- Next by thread: Re: Shell firing cannon
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading