Swedish superweapon of 1862? Where's Dan?

[cannonmn]

Dan, can you translate for us?  Who was the official whose name is on the drawing?  This is in the US National Archives.  It looks like it was sent to the US by our consul in Sweden at the time.  Unfortunately this sheet lacks the view we'd need to understand how the breech mechanism works, fi it is even intended to be a breechloader, but this was the only sheet I found.

[dan610324]

he he he 

it seem to be an reinvention of the wheel   

it seem to be the same idea as was used during the 15th and 16th century with long iron bars kept together by rings around them . but ok this seem to be a real breachloader .

Ive been looking and thinking over and over again , but I cant figure out how it works .

John please send me the original full size photos and I will translate it word by word for you , its a bit difficult to read it from those small pictures .
my inbox can handle 20 mb mails

dan610324@hotmail.com

[dan610324]

here is the translation , but the word order is the same as the old writing in most places .

its probably not a breach loader . just looks like it should be one on the drawings .


this cannon that should be produced from forged iron . that should be plane and turned together , they can be taken apart in 40 pieces and transported on wagons , railroadwagons , boats , carried by men to the places where no other posibilities are available . can be produced from the smallest to the largest by using more rings after eachother , and the idea is that it should be many of those cannons on board a ship and if the ship run aground the cannons can be taken apart by the crew and transport to land on boats until the ship become afloat again , then take them onboard again with the ships crew , if you are going on landroad with such a cannon and comming to a river or floating water then can his carriage been taken apart and from those parts make a raft . take a few parts each time of the cannon until all parts are at the other waterside without boats , if there are no such available .

                                                       J.I.Frisk
                                             supervisor at the royal navy

so it wasnt any official , just the superviser at the navy workshop .

[mcwoodduck]

What bore size is a round 232 pound ball?

[dan610324]

wouldnt that probably to be 2,32

[mcwoodduck]

Are you sure?
looks like 232.  Could be 2,3 pounds as a charge but it looks like the ball is 232.
Would that be a 10" ball?

[dan610324]

2,3 pounds of powder for a 232 pound ball ??
do you think thats sound realistic ??

[cannonmn]

Dan, thanks very much for translating that, I had to know what it said.

[dan610324]

no problem , just let me know if you need any more help

[mcwoodduck]

no.

[cannonmn]

I don't know exactly what units the weights are shown in, maybe Swedish pounds, but it was clear to me the shot-to-charge ratio is about 10.5 to 1, pretty much standard for the 1860's, isn't it?

[dan610324]

yeah , but it cant be a 232 pound ball

to big to be in an cannon that the idea is that it should be easy to move

[Artilleryman]

If 232 lbs is correct that would make it a 12 inch bore.  If the idea is to disassemble it for transportation because of its size, then this might make sense.  The powder charge might read 99 lbs, but that seems excessive as much as 2.3 lbs seems to be too light.  Just guessing.

[dan610324]

the text say that it easy could be carried by men , a 10 inch cannon cant be moved by manpower even if its in 40 pcs .
so I dont think so , but I must confess that I havent any idea what the numbers on that drawing should be read as 
its not a fortification siege gun
10 inch round ball seem to be a bit to much for an easy transported gun .
but ok it seem to say 232 pound on the drawing .
I dont understand anything   

[cannonmn]

I think the inventor knew what he wanted but had a little trouble getting it drawn so people would understand it easily. 

I think the lever or wrench at the rear of the breech is to emphasize the gun's main selling point which is that it can be disassassembled easily.  The big nut and bolt at the rear may be there to tighten a flange inside the bore,  back against the intersecting "staves" that run lengthwise.  I guess first you have to take off the muzzle ring, then a trunnion band, and the hoops will slide off, then you can loosen the nut and flange at rear and take the staves apart.

Make sense or not?

One thing the inventor would really need would be a gas-tight sleeve to go inside all the staves and hoops, otherwise you'd have all kinds of gas leakage at each and every joint.

[dan610324]

the gas leaking is probably one of the reasons it never was built , at least I assume it wasnt .