Author Topic: civil war mortar fusing question  (Read 426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline navygunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 178
civil war mortar fusing question
« on: December 05, 2011, 04:55:58 AM »
Gentlemen,
 It's been a hectic year but I still sit in the bushes. The president of the Navy/Marine Living History Association threw this out to me and frankly I'm at a loss. What did "wetting the fuse" entail as in the following passage? Obviously Commodore Foote thought highly of it.
 
"On Monday 900 shot were fired from the gunboats, mostly shells, besides 300 shells from the mortars. On Tuesday Commodore Foote directed the fuses to be wet, with a view to destroy the works and dismount the guns. The result was satisfactory."

Thanks
 
Geo. Dailey
gunnersmate U S Naval Landing Party (www.usnlp.org)
Pvt. Battery D 1st Michigan light artillery

Offline Ex 49'er

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (8)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Gender: Male
Re: civil war mortar fusing question
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2011, 05:55:09 AM »
I think that if the fuses in the cannon balls were wet that they would take longer to explode and therefore wouldn't explode on contact with the walls of the fort and would instead embed themselves further into the stonework and do more damage when they did finally explode.  Just my 2 cents.
 
When you're walking on eggs; don't hop!!

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: civil war mortar fusing question
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2011, 06:25:13 AM »
What's the source of the quote?
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline navygunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: civil war mortar fusing question
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2011, 07:56:30 AM »
Cannoneer,
   I think I got it sorted out. The source was an article in the Boston Daily Advertiser dated 22 March 1862 entitled "Matters at Island #10." It's my belief that the un-named reporter misinterpeted a "cut fuzes" order as a "wet fuze". The standard 13 inch seacoast morter fuze being seven inches in length giving an approx 49 seconds of flight most likely would have needed cutting to shorten the functioning time of the fuze.
 
geo

Offline seacoastartillery

  • GBO Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2853
  • Gender: Male
    • seacoastartillery.com
Re: civil war mortar fusing question
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2011, 07:56:31 AM »
     I see that EX 49er beat me to it.  I can add this though, when a naval commander had most of his firepower at a set distance from the target fort, the standing orders were that the fuses be cut to such a length that the shell would air-burst, just over the target.  The object of this was to drive the enemy's gunners from their guns to prevent return fire.  Primarily a mortar crew's responsibility, this suppression of fire was very important then so that the direct fire weapons could be carefully aimed to make holes at critical areas using solid shot to penetrate and fracture masonry and shells with fuses cut long to penetrate and then explode removing large quantities of fractured masonry and fill material.  Army commander Quincy Gilmore used this technique during the investment of Fort Pulaski in 1862.  He also issued orders which had a similar effect as Commodore Foote's "wetting the fuze" order.  He directed that all the 13" mortar batteries "cut their fuzes long so that they strike before exploding".  The purpose of this was to crush masonry arches and to produce large holes in the terraplein, disrupting ammunition delivery and to destroy gun carriages.

     Land batteries had the luxury of creating true, "blind shells" which were filled with sand or dirt instead of gunpowder, naval forces just wet the fuses with much the same effect, especially with the very heavy, 220 pound 13" mortar shells fired from mortar barges.

Tracy and Mike
Smokin' my pipe on the mountings, sniffin' the mornin'-cool,
I walks in my old brown gaiters along o' my old brown mule,
With seventy gunners be'ind me, an' never a beggar forgets
It's only the pick of the Army that handles the dear little pets - 'Tss! 'Tss!

From the poem  Screw-Guns  by Rudyard Kipling

Offline navygunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: civil war mortar fusing question
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2011, 08:00:53 AM »
Tracey& Mike,
  Thanks thats another possibility.
 
geo

Offline Cannon Cocker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Gender: Male
Re: civil war mortar fusing question
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2011, 06:00:56 PM »
If you want to batter a target with a gun (cannon) you have the ability to shoot a bolt rather than a shell.  If you want to batter with a mortar and all you would have is shells, you could wet the fuse making it just a kinetic weapon.  The problem is that I don't see why you wouldn't just use a long fuse which would batter, then explode afterwards.  Why waste a shell that already has the ability to do further damage with the explosion after it batters.  If you had shells previously filled with inert material you wouldn't have to do anything with the fuse as it would only be a plug and wouldn't matter if it burned or not.