Unicornology 101

[cannonmn]

Boris sent some more pix, this time of a Russian regimental unicorn ca Seven Years war (ca. 1760).  He did not say but I think this is the equivalent of a 12-pounder howitzer.  Notice the huge dolphins, shaped like what, lions?  The cascabel is another animal's head.  Notice how far back the vent is, even behind the basering!  The ironwork on it is extraordinary, and plentiful.  It looks like they have a unique way of joining the cheeks to the axle.  Maybe this is a quick-takedown carriage, that's the only reason I can see for this type of joint.

[cannonmn]

More pix from Boris, an M1756 with some extraordinary casting/chasing.  I think I see the steel chaplets sticking up though the chamber area.  This appears to be same model as in previous set of pix, but this one's very highly decorated.  Perhaps it is a presentation piece.  Note how it was bored with a very dull cutter, and doesn't appear to aave fired any iron shot or canister since then due to undisturbed ring-marked bore.  It must have had a steel front sight due to hole in muzzle now plugged with brass?  Nice horsie-dolphins.  I wonder if the bulbs of bronze around the cascabel have some function or are just decoration?

If anyone can read the sign, please post what it says here.

[KABAR2]

Isn't amazing that weapons of war could be works of art in their own right!
I think the dolphins on these are actually horses,
I wonder what role the horse played in Russian Myths
or was it just for art sake?

[cannonmn]

I've since gotten out the museum catalog, which says the horsies are really unicorns.  I guess their horns aren't too prominent because they'd break off in service.  The Russian word shown in the catalog for unicorn is "edinrog."  It says the guns were called unicorns due to the unicorns on top of the gun and the one serving as the cascabel.

[KABAR2]

That makes sense, if you look at photo three in your second post you can see a hole where the horn would be perhaps they were removable
as it would not be practical to have sharp pointy things on you cannon to catch on,
clothes..... accouterments etc. while firing the piece.

[cannonmn]

if you look at photo three in your second post you can see a hole where the horn would be perhaps they were removable

"What sharp eyes you have, Grandma!"'

I didn't notice that at all.  And maybe they weren't made to be removeable but after the gunners got a few nasty stab wounds, they mysteriously came up missing.

[KABAR2]

Cannonmn,

Well just for the heck of it I did a little searching on the Mythical Unicorn and came up with some interesting stuff.......

first is a web site that appears to dedicate its time to war gaming these gentleman take this seriously and do their research, so this artical may be of some interest to you,
I can not vouch for its accuracy.

http://www.napoleonicassociation.org/research/articles/Russian%20Artillery%20-%20Guns%20and%20Howitzers%20of%20the%20System%20of%201805.pdf

there is also some info in the Men At Arms series of books.

http://books.google.com/books?id=K55QpcFfle4C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=unicorn+artillery&source=web&ots=ia2qdh2X60&sig=WJoX2v4TaXT07UPq_iCaSbV5Sf4#PPP1,M1

European Armies and the Conduct of War
 By Hew Strachan

http://books.google.com/books?id=loqpKB629zsC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=unicorn+artillery&source=web&ots=m_iCRFBUBU&sig=iYmYhPVt093e4SwFQXhEqfVmaCA#PPA32,M1

There is even one account of archaeologists and the finding of a Russian war ship (66 guns ) with Unicorns

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/archeosm/archeosom/en/slava-s.htm

This was a quick search but some interesting reading.

Allen <><

[cannonmn]

Allen, thanks for posting that.  I've only read the first link by the "war gaming" brothers but it looks like a very concise summary of the Russian systems.  Their description of chambering and outside lines of the barrel gets a bit confusing, probably since the terminology is new to them, but I think you could take most of what they wrote to the bank.  I'm going to post the link on the fast-moving "napoleon series" board that's inhabited mostly by serious authors and historians, and see what they think, but I don't see how they could find any huge faullt with it, there just isn't much info generally avail. and this fills a need.

[cannonmn]

Allen's third link to a book by Strachan is interesting, a very quick review of major artillery trends in Europe beginning in the 18th C.  The author states that the Russians had vastly more artillery than anyone early in the 18th C., because they had more trees.