On Canister!

[OotKust]

Hi guys,

I’ll not belabour your scant time for hobbying with a mass of details and data. However, on re-reading fully my Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield Napoleonic Artillery, I was somewhat taken aback by the statement that “the cannister broke open on first bounce”. That was a WTF moment for me!?

For years I’ve believed, and read ad-infinitum, both rules and historically based and memoires tomes, that cannister ‘spread’ from the mouth of the gun/piece and mowed down any targets in range.

So exactly when did this change, and why?  How, given Yermelevs excellent work (I actually now appreciate it a lot more after first read through) and citation that at Eylau, in deep snow drifts, roundshot/ ball was useless, and they fired all their cannister (unicorns especially).

If the above statement were accurate, then how could cannister have been more effective? IE it relied on the bounce/ break up impact. Call me unnerved… in an otherwise excellent work with technical expertise, how… why…?

regards davew

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[kyoteblue]

Same WTF !!!!

[Guy Farrish]

Not heard that one before. Like you I’ve always read that the canister or case split on exit.

If they have some different data they should say what and how it was obtained.

Quick look at a slo mo film of a replica US Civil War artillery piece firing canister suggests the case here broke up without any ground bounce – but it isn’t clear as its a ‘gee whizz’ shoot rather than a study. For what it’s worth:Slo mo canister c 10m 30s.

There is a whole series of same period firings of canister shot here: canister shot This is more of an academic exercise to check spread of shot. But the firing is full speed. The skip of the canister in waves is clearly seen, and they do find pieces of the canister quite close to the cannon, but it’s not clear that there is a bounce and break.

I see there is an error page from Summerfield regarding the book but there is no mention of the canister issue, despite some online reviews questioning the description.

[Tony S]

First I’ve heard of that – I always thought like yourself that the canister broke open almost immediately rather than when it impacted.

I’m not an expert by any means, but apparently in the ACW, gunners would sometimes deliberately aim at the ground, so that the balls would bounce randomly off the earth, which increased the area of fire, but that seems to imply that the balls were already spreading before they hit.  As well, didn’t the Russians have a gun with an oval bore, that was supposed to spread grape in a wider pattern?  Again, that would imply that the balls were already in the air before hitting anything wouldn’t it?

There’s also some footage of reenactors firing an ACW Napoleon.  Again, I’m not an expert, but looking at the pattern of the dust as the balls hit the field, it looks to me as if the canister has already released its cargo.

[Guy Farrish]

snap! :^)

[Jonathan Gingerich]

This came up at the time Dawson and Kiley had both published. It was own-goal. Apparently, Dawson confused some contemporary analysis of the use of lead balls in canister. The heat of the propulsion would fuse the balls together into masses. That is why everyone ended up using iron balls in cannister. At least that’s how I remember the situation.

[Jonathan Gingerich]

Tony that’s a fantastic video! Was there a paper written up on the results?

[OotKust]

Ripsnorting stuff!

Yes its on Page 247- the first continous paragrph from p246 on ‘Effects of Ammo’. I’d thought I’d seen the reference far earlier in the book; but perhaps my skim reading got me carried away.

 

As well, didn’t the Russians have a gun with an oval bore,…?

Yes that Shuvalovs 1757 model ‘Unicorn’ gun/howitzers, though I’m not explicitly sure it was to increase spread rather than range. Internally they had an oval powder chamber, not round, that helped increase pressure, and therefore ranges slightly.

I see there is an error page from Summerfield regarding the book but there is no mention of the canister issue,

Aww c’mon, throw us old dogs a bone… any errata corrections greatly appreciated; tho I didn’t read too much to grumble about in the book otherwise, which I’d not be confident in saying about other tomes.

The film is interesting, but at 0º firing elevation it appears. Certainly would have been an interesting review of impact, spread and height distribution. It seems a lot of the impact was ground level bounce judging by the ‘spurts’ of dust thrown up. Is there an elaboration on leg injuries in AWC battles? Getting ankle tapped would be enough to reduce numbers,

cheers d

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Greystreak]

The Shuvalov “secret howitzer” and the Danilov-designed ‘unicorn’ were two different guns, with only the latter enjoying a long service life.

For a different discussion of canister, including how the Russians resolved their canister issues, see  Alexander Zhmodikov’s comments at Page 85 of this issue of the “Smoothbore Artillery Journal”: https://www.napoleon-series.org/military-info/OrdnanceJournal/Issue7/SOJ-07_Part3_Weights.pdf .

Bryce Allen

[Tony S]

Guy Farrish wrote:

snap! :^)

Ha!  Great minds, and all that!

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

Tony that’s a fantastic video! Was there a paper written up on the results?

Not as far as I know.  Damn shame if not; seems like a huge opportunity.

[Guy Farrish]

https://www.napoleon-series.org/reviews/military/c_NapArtyCorrections.html

Summerfield’s Corrections.

[OotKust]

Greystreak wrote:

The Shuvalov “secret howitzer” and the Danilov-designed ‘unicorn’ were two different guns, with only the latter enjoying a long service life.

Thanks Greystreak- I’ll admit to thinking I saw lineage there but now, no. So really, nothing in ‘Napoleonics’ has anything to do with said machines and their mention should be excised completely. I was hornsswoggled I say!

What I can say that isn’t at all clear, and is deliberately leading to further confusion, is the notion that Arakcheevs ‘modernised’ materiel called ‘1805’ actually came into army hands and was used when…? well outside my era of interest (Rev#2 -1805-1807max) anyway.

Summerfields books give huge amounts of technical data, but seem to miss that such is a vital consideration to some. In reference to same, he once wrote:

The 20-pdr had the same calibre length as the AnXI 24-pdr howitzer. Both were far superior to the Gribeauval Howitzer that ceased to be used by about 1800 by the French.

So if them Frenchies ceased to employ said Gribeauval; and AnXI  being 1803; and were barely ‘tested’ within two years, what would they have used in 1805? Are all the army returns wrong? Was it a typo? Doesn’t seem possible, but this is what we are left with.

This [subject matter] sits up there with ‘French voltigeurs formed in Sept.1805; Austrian German infantry getting shakoes in 1805; Brit Navy Captains tea parties curtailled after Nelson died etc… and all regulations were instantly implemented’– yeah right!

On a serious note, thanks for the links. Hadn’t seen either of those before, and in N-S ever gets serious, or even professional help, the web site will be dangerous. [Not holding breath on that one either…]

cheers dave

Swinging from left to right no matter where the hobby goes!

[Author]

Posts