Unusual bronze 7 inch Howitzer, Boston made.

[A.Roads]

I am involved with another project in Oman whereby a series of carriages is to be made for a number of ML barrels, for one of these barrels they are ascertaining whether it is most historically corrrect to mount it on a Field Carriage & Limber, such as the No.3, or a garrison carriage, or even posssibly a naval carriage. If the barrel fits a known pattern this would make identifying its correct carriage type quite straightforward.

The barrel is of U.S. origin and is a Howitzer with normal trunnions, often called a Gunnade in the U.S. It is bronze, of 7 inch calibre, measures 87 inches overall including cascable and is marked on the breech MAUM OF MUSCAT, BOSTON, No. 671, 652.

It is not too disimmilar to the U.S. 32 pr Bronze Field Howitzer in its proportions but clearly does not conform to that pattern, especially as the calibres are different with the 32 pr at 6.4" & the subject gun at 7.0" (this was double checked). I am not overly familiar with U.S. artillery patterns and have been unable to identify this barrel with the few references I do have. I am beginning to suspect that it perhaps does not conform to a known pattern and I therefore pose this question here, I am sure there is not a more knowledgeable forum for such a subject.
Adrian.

See images in attachment...




 

[cannonmn]

The only U.S. founder who marked "Boston" on his products as his location was Cyrus Alger.

That's a fascinating piece.  The breech area mixes the US Navy "shark's jaw" type cascabel with elements of the Dahlgren boat howitzer, notably the clevis for the percussion hammer.  This is certainly a unique weapon and I'm sure there's nothing like it in the US.

I'd love to see more photos.  Photos of the markings, an overall profile photo, and photos from various angles would be great.  What's the little round thing on top?  Look down the bore with a Maglight or strong "torch" and see if it is chambered, it probably is.

[A.Roads]

Thanks for the reply, it seems that it has probably been made to customers specifications rather than an existing pattern, unfortunately they are the only photos I have for now.
Adrian

[cannonmn]

Cyrus Alger & Co. was quite aggressive about seeking non-US military customers for cannons.  I've seen probably dozens of different patterns of iron "insurance guns" cast in the 1850's by Alger, many of which featured the "shark's jaw" cascabel, and many of which had somewhat bulbous "Dahlgren soda bottle" type breech profiles.  I've only seen one bronze insurance gun marked Alger, but that told me they would cast them in bronze as well.

I'd love to dive into the Alger company records if anyone would tell me where they went after the company closed.  I'm sure if they exist, this 7-inch howitzer would be documented in those files.

Where are Alger's company records?  Anyone?

[A.Roads]

Apparently there were more pictures taken & these have just been forwarded to me. It will be some time before anyone will be able to take more & have a closer look at markings & features etc.

Can anyone help with images of a suitable U.S. elevating mechanism?
Also the percussion hammer?
The elevating gear will have to be reproduced & there is a good chance that the hammer will be as well if sufficient details are at hand.

Tracy & Mike have you ever come across anything similar to this on a carriage?
We are still in a quandry as to what carriage type to mount it on. There are three probabilities:
 
1). On one hand a large wheeled field carriage would have limited its use somewhat, their fort's towers are mostly just too small for such a carriage, whereas a garrison carriage could have been suitable for fort defence, naval use & even in a siege role if transported on a regular cart.
 
2). On the other hand it does seem that the pieces' design intent was to combine as large a calibre with as little weight as possible, even going to the expense of bronze for minimum weight. This could suggest that the piece was intended to be quite mobile, such as on a field carriage, & able to deliver quite a shell into the typical mud brick forts encountered in Oman. This then would suggest that its primary role was one of laying siege to a Fort with a secondary role of mobile defence etc.
 
3). Naval - The Omani navy is unlikely to have consisted of large ships, comparable to the major European & American powers, & a howitzer such as this would have comprised a serious piece of ordnance for any opposing "Arab" ships or pirates etc. It was probably about the maximum that could be carried & would be sufficient to deal with most enemy shipping encountered.

So as you can see, still no clear direction as to carriage type.

Thoughts anyone?

Adrian

[cannonmn]

We are still in a quandry as to what carriage type to mount it on.

Look into Paixhans guns or "canon-obusiers" and how they were mounted.  That's the closest type of weapon I can think of, to this piece.  If there was a good deal of French influence in the region, that may have influenced the sultan (or whatever his title was) to request something like that.

Thanks for the additional photos.

[seacoastartillery]

Can anyone help with images of a suitable U.S. elevating mechanism?
Also the percussion hammer?
The elevating gear will have to be reproduced & there is a good chance that the hammer will be as well if sufficient details are at hand.

Tracy & Mike have you ever come across anything similar to this on a carriage?
We are still in a quandry as to what carriage type to mount it on. There are three probabilities:
 
1). On one hand a large wheeled field carriage would have limited its use somewhat, their fort's towers are mostly just too small for such a carriage, whereas a garrison carriage could have been suitable for fort defence, naval use & even in a siege role if transported on a regular cart.
 
Thoughts anyone?

Adrian

     Adrian,   While we have never seen this exact type of cannon before, the Large Bore, Light Weight and Short Tube indicate it'e closer to a gunnade in these various characteristics, rather than a typical field howitzer.  More suited to naval or garrison type carriages, it is, as it's recoil, even with reduced charges, would be fierce and very destructive to any field carriage.  We would also believe shells would be the projectile of choice, both for effectiveness and reduced recoil impulse also.

     Take a look at these photos below; hopefully they will help you decide which way to go toward a proper carriage.

Regards,

Tracy and Mike


This American Civil War photo features our favorite carriage, the Marsilly, for naval use.  A French design, it was copied by the Americans in the 1850s for naval use up to the 100 pdr. Parrott Rifle shown.  It's advantages were reduced recoil movement, and speed of maneuver in battle.  It can handle recoil much better than any cast iron garrison carriage ever could from all that we have read.  Excellent in tighter quarters like fort tower artillery positions or smaller scale battlements.




The elevation screw shown here will work on a garrison, naval or field carriage.  Used on a 7" Brooke Rifle on a wood, barbette carriage here, the bottom rounded end rests on a small, simple, iron plate and the top end is about 9" longer, and, of course, included a handle similar to the type used in vises about 1" from the top.  Do any of you fellows notice something strange about this tube's mounting?




This is a drawing that we found at Waterveliet Arsenal on the Hudson River in New York State.  We looked at about two hundred old drawings on April day in 2004 in the Cast Iron building, now the Museum.  This was one of several which they let us copy and take with us.
Used primarily on 9" and 11" Dahlgren Shell Guns, it would be properly used on a tube size similar to your's as well.  The only view available is shown in this photo, no top view, unfortunately.

[cannonmn]

Used primarily on 9" and 11" Dahlgren Shell Guns, it would be properly used on a tube size similar to your's as well.

Nice drawing.  I've got to make one addition to what these gentlemen wrote.  The hammer they show has a slot in it which causes it to retract from the vent after striking, so it won't be propelled upwards with great force.  The hammer head is solid, no hole in it.  Here's a pic of the complete lock of the slotted-hammer type.

http://www.history.navy.mil/pics/rodgerscoll_dahlgrena.jpg

I think the hammer that might be more proper for the "boat howitzer-like" lock clevis on the bronze gun, would be a non-slotted hammer with perforated head.  The difference in hammers always follows the metal the tube is made of, from what I've seen.  Bronze Navy tubes seem to always use the non-slotted, perforated head hammer.  The iron guns seem to always use the slotted, solid-head hammer.  I have some of those I can get to this coming week, and photograph.

You can find very good drawings of all of the CW-era US Navy cannon locks in John A. Dahlgren's book "Naval Locks and Primers" which was published ca. 1855.  I haven't checked whether Google has digitized it yet or not.  If not it may be hard to find an original, they are pretty rare and probably sell in 4-figs.  I've never seen one for sale, but then I don't go antique book shopping very often.  I'm pretty sure the picture I linked above is from that book.

[A.Roads]

Gentlemen, thank you very much for this additional information & images etc, it will be most helpful in coming up with a suitable design of carriage & elevating gear.
Adrian

[Cannoneer]

Hey Adrian,

 You used the terms Howitzer and gunade in reference to this bronze cannon, both of which might denote that the barrel had a reduced powder chamber, but when Cannonmn asked in one of his replies if the gun was chambered, I didn't see a response.
Do you know for certain that this tube does have a reduced chamber?