A Battle-Damaged or Blown-Up Cannon CONTEST, just for fun.

[seacoastartillery]

     Thanks Max,  Right you are, it's a Parrott, and right you are, it is Fort Morgan, the only equal sided fort built in the Third system.  The only Confederate Parrott we have seen there looks like it was under water for a few years and didn't have the breech blown off.  Maybe you can't quite see it with your screen problems, but it sure looks like something is odd about the bore or rather, chamber hole in relation to the reinforce.  What is going on there??  Could that have contributed to the demise of this piece?  Max has 1/2 of No.9, anyone care to explain the "What happened here"?

T&M

[Max Caliber]

Well, the bore was drilled off center but I agree that may not have been the only reason it failed. Maybe it was drilled too deep, overcharged, several things combined could have contributed to the failure.

max

[seacoastartillery]

     Once again, thank you Max.  I was beginning to doubt my own vision.  I was thinking,"Am I the only one seeing this chamber as off center?"  You certainly earned full credit on No. 9 which gives you 3 full credit answers.  I sure wish somebody, anybody would tackle the STORY part or the "WHAT HAPPENED HERE?" part of that one that Terry so nicely described as a ratchet type breech; it's the one that almost took Robert E. Lee's head off before the War Between The States even started, AND while he was a United States Army Officer!  The "where" is very important here too!

T&M

[Victor3]

Well, the bore was drilled off center but I agree that may not have been the only reason it failed. Maybe it was drilled too deep, overcharged, several things combined could have contributed to the failure.

max

 I doubt that the bore was drilled as off-center as it appears - It's more likely that the bore has a hemispherical bottom, and that the separation occurred at a location that only makes it look as if the machining is off-center.

 Note that the lower right area of the break appears to be deeper than the rest of it, and 'geometrically speaking', the picture is exactly what one would expect if the above is true.

[seacoastartillery]

     Max Caliber,    Congratulations Max, you won the contest and are hereby deemed eminently worthy of the title of "Ordnance Inspector  Extraordinaire" and you are rightfully bequeathed all rights and privileges attached thereto.  You proved yourself knowledgeable, persistent, tenacious and detail oriented, all excellent qualities for cannon makers and ordnance inspectors.

     The final contest score card is as follows:  Photo No.
                                                                   1.   waynef
                                                                   2.   Terry C.
                                                                   3.   Max Caliber
                                                                   4.   Max Caliber
                                                                   5.   Explanation follows
                                                                   6.   Swampman
                                                                   7.   KABAR2
                                                                   8.   Boom J
                                                                   9.   Max Caliber

     One tremendous Seacoast Gun Salute to everyone who participated in this fourth Contest brought to you by the Colorado Cannon guys!!  Thank you!

     A few notes on No. 5 follow.  It was very tough, but some of the others were not duck soup either.
The hint of "New England"and "university" was pretty good and the word "quadrangle" would have cinched it for you, at least on Google.  The  exact search terms we used were:  new england university damaged cannon quadrangle.   These brought up a site on the first page of results that was called  "Artillery in New England".  This became sort of a roadmap for Mike and I on this latest trip, along with the National List of Surviving CW Arty.  In this site they have photos for some, but not for this one which is listed as a damaged cannon on the quadrangle of Rhode Island University in South Kingston, RI.  When we got there, it proved to be the remains of a 30 pdr. Parrott Rifle, which, according to the University's own site, was used in 1892 to salute the start of construction of the university.  It blew up, killing the firer and lost most of the tube forward of the trunnions.  We saw no markings due to heavy black paint.  In our photo, the reinforce is to the left, where you can just barely see a little tiny bit of it.  Cause?  Who knows, maybe an overload and too many wet Harper's Weeklys jammed down on the powder!  Or, "We want a really big bang, how about a piece of firewood on top of the newsprint wad?"

     The trouble with the location of No. 2 is the fact that this is not a Third System fort, with all the large features that are present in the forts of that era.  It is an improved, second system fort and is quite a bit smaller than Fort Adams, Fort Monroe or Fort Jefferson or even nearby Fort Pulaski on Cockspur Island.  Old Fort Jackson, was started in 1809 about eight years before the early Third system forts were started.  It is on the Savannah River about 5 miles east south east of the City of Savannah, GA.  Fort Pulaski is about 10 miles further along the same road.  No battles were fought at Old Fort Jackson, but it was always the Headquarters of the Command of that region.  It was also a backup line of defense for the city.  Also in it's immediate vicinity were ordnance testing and proving batteries and one of them saw this older style, pre-war Rodman Gun blow up upon proof firing, sending about 1/2 of the breech to the rear and just over the heads of Robert E. Lee and a few other United States Army Officers who were standing on a little rise to the gun's rear.  The errant piece of seacoast cannon went about 200 yards and landed in a swamp where it was discovered during our millenium year. 

     And finally, that last photo was taken late in 2003, but before we had decided to keep a journal of each day of each research trip.
We have never failed to log in the location of a Dunkin Donuts shop, I am proud to day.  The best place in the country to visit one is North Boston, MA.  We found a road where they had three (3) in a 2 mile stretch!  Enough talk about fine cuisine in "Bean town".
Anyway, back to that cascabeless Parrott rifle.  Is it bored off center or is Victor3's theory correct?  I remember putting a measuring tape on both side of that, less-than-boresize hole, but without detailed notes, we can't say that he is either correct or incorrect here.  He is correct about the hemi shape of the bottom of the bore.  Parrott Rifles were ALL like that. No cow-teat chambers or impossible to machine, angular vent intersections for him.  We don't know what the machinists said behind Admiral Dahlgren's back, but we bet it wasn't too complimentary!  Mike and I think the chamber might possibly have been bored too deep, because on the 10, 20 and 30 pdrs. there isn't too much thickness beyond the end of the reinforce, whereas the 100, 200 and 300 pdrs. all have a nearly full spherical radius of metal leading to the cascable.  Next time we are there we will take a closer look and write our findings in the journal we now keep.

Regards,

Mike and Tracy

     

   
                                         

[Max Caliber]

Thanks Mike and Tracy, the contest was a lot of fun. Now, lets see more pictures from your latest trip.

Max

[A.Roads]

Seeing these interesting battle damaged pieces I couldn't resist adding one which has always impressed me - check out the number of hits on, and in, the muzzle of this gun, on display at Fort Nelson.
Adrian

[Terry C.]

If that gun kept firing through that onslaught, that was a brave gun crew indeed!

It appears to me that the mouth of the bore was gouged as a result of the damage, either by forcing a ball past the dented muzzle during loading (which would have probably been very difficult) or more likely, a ball already loaded exiting the muzzle after it had been hit.

This may have also contributed to the cracking in the dented areas.


Are there any accounts of the battle and the ensuing damage?

[Cannoneer]

 Thanks for your comments Mike and Tracy, I knew the Napoleon now located at the RI State house with the shot lodged in the bore had a website listed on a CW Artillery page, so I couldn't resist posting it. I see that you two just put no.1 into the mix as an easy first give-away; I for one will not soon forget the powerful imagery of Captain Cannonmn lobbing exploding shell from a swivel howitzer mounted on the top of the mainmast onto and through the decks of an enemy ship, exploding their powder magazine.  
I think that some people usually think of cannons as being used against troops and calvalry but the descriptive narrative that goes with the photo of the Napoleon always impresses upon me the deadliness of the contests between artillery batteries when they unleashed their cannonades on each other, which they often did.                                                                                                                      

Anyway, back to that cascabeless Parrott rifle.  Is it bored off center or is Victor3's theory correct?  I remember putting a measuring tape on both side of that, less-than-boresize hole, but without detailed notes, we can't say that he is either correct or incorrect here.  He is correct about the hemi shape of the bottom of the bore.  Parrott Rifles were ALL like that. No cow-teat chambers or impossible to machine, angular vent intersections for him.  We don't know what the machinists said behind Admiral Dahlgren's back, but we bet it wasn't too complimentary!

I don't have the book in front of me, but I think in "The Big Guns" by Hazlett, Olmstead and Parks, the authors (after having some sport with Dahlgren's odd concept) stated that the machinists of the time after looking at Dahlgren's drawing of his unusual "teat chamber" and straight then angled vent, came to the conclusion it couldn't be done, and therefore never attempted it.
As for the  Parrott's, (and for that matter, any other cast iron cannon) I think Private Augustus Buell of Battery B, 4th U.S. Artillery may have made the most profound comments: "So long as the Parrott gun held together it was as good as any muzzleloading rifle", and "If anything could justify desertion by a cannoneer, it would be an assignment to a Parrott battery" (and you think I'm sarcastic).                                                      
                                             
Edited 9:50PM  "(and for that matter, any other cast iron cannon)"  I've got to emend this: That is of course except John Adolphus Dahlgren's IX and XI-inch shell guns.


     

   
                                         

[seacoastartillery]

      There are one or two loose ends to tie up on this thread before we let it fade, fade away.  An unanswered question is a terrible opportunity to waste, like the one below:

 or more likely, a ball already loaded exiting the muzzle after it had been hit.

Are there any accounts of the battle and the ensuing damage?

     With all those scratches on the bottom of the bore at the muzzle, Mike and I believe Terry might be correct here, after all we cannot ever know the exact sequence of hits displayed in Adrian's photo.  We also believe that two or more crews might have been used to man that gun.  French naval forces have, on many occasions, evidenced tremendous tenacity in battle and, on occasion, have displayed a ferocity rarely displayed in that era.

     Yes, we believe that tube with that severe battle damage is evidence of a ferocious naval battle between three French ships, La Belle Poule, Le Coureur and La Licorne and a larger British naval force named the English Channel Fleet.  It seems that the French flotilla was probing the western approaches to the English Channel when they were set upon by the Channel Fleet.  A vicious five hour scrap ensued as the swirl of ships drifted toward the coast of Brittany, the out-come of which, was that two of the three French ships were captured, and only La Belle Poule escaped and sailed back to Brest with 40 dead and 61 wounded.  The 30 gun Frigate La Licorne was a prize and her guns were now trophies, so, would it not be logical to think that Adrian's battered gun at Fort Nelson is a trophy of La Licorne's capture during that wild melee back in 1778?  Dates on signs can mean anything.  Read Warships of the World to 1900 by Paine.

     We are not saying that this is THE answer, just a possible one. 

     Boom J brings up a good point about counter-battery fire.  It was quite common and still is.  He is also correct about our new primary resource book The Big Guns Civil War Siege, Seacoast, and Naval Cannon by Olmstead, Stark and Tucker.  We wore the dust cover to tatters and are now wearing out the binding, we use it so much! 

Thanks for that photo, Adrian!

Mike and Tracy

     

[A.Roads]

I believe that this damage was sustained in the Crimean War with the gun being eventually captured by the British (if my memory serves me correctly). This would explain the damage as it would have occurred in a "static" siege situation over a lengthly period, hence the potential for numerous strikes to such a small area, it would be incredibly difficult to get the same result if firing at a moving target from a moving & heaving gun platform for a relatively short single battle, such as in a ship to ship engagement. If you look closely you can even just see a large strike several inches inside the barrel, on the bottom surface. The external surface of the chase also has more glancing strikes which do not show in this photo - it certainly must have been leathal work crewing this piece. 
Adrian

[seacoastartillery]

      Adrian,   It is far more logical to assume a static position for this tube in a Russian redoubt in 1854.  We all know how the Russians loved their bronze artillery.  I just went through my online collection of photographic images from the Crimean War and some of the "after-action" photos of the Russian field fortifications are very revealing.  Can't tell if it was British or French artillery creating the damage, but one position was so thoroughly sieved that one half of the gabions were smashed and both rope mantlets surrounding the naval carriage guns had about 40 holes through them.  More than a few muzzle hits would not be outside the norm here.

Thanks for that information,

Mike and Tracy

[Cannoneer]

M&T,
 I was looking over the photos on this thread again because of the reference in Dan's safety thread, when something clicked and I noticed something I hadn't noticed before.
What is wrong with the clue for the second photo?

This one almost killed Robert E. Lee when he was a United States Army Officer.

[GGaskill]

The only thing I can guess you are challenging is the "United States Army Officer" part and that he was prior to the War Between the States, although since that is a Rodman-style barrel, it would have had to be pretty close before the War since the Rodmans weren't adopted until 1861 (I think.)

[Terry C.]

Hmm... I don't see it.

Robert E. Lee was a Union officer before the war. And he was at Fort Pulaski in GA during this period. And this is a pre-CW design Rodman.

I'm not gettin' it.

[seacoastartillery]

      Col. Rodman experimented with hundreds of solid cast guns of various metalurgies during the years 1845 to 1857 along with a substantial number made by the Rodman, or, at the time, the "Hollow Cast Process".  This particular piece may or may not be the one which blew up near Old Fort Jackson, in the years immediately preceding the Civil War.  This is knowledge passed on by the Old Fort Jackson historical staff directly to us.  We have not been able to find a reliable written source to cite as yet.  They told us this was a test firing, so it could have been a solid cast gun of the new cascable shape fired as a comparison or as a stand alone experiment for a whole host of reasons. 

     As people who have each spent almost 40 years in manufacturing, Mike and I can say with some authority that various design elements usually show up years before the final model #, in this case 1861, is released on many major products, regardless of industry.  This was especially true back in those days and more especially associated with Army ordnance.  After all, the Army was incredibly slow to adopt ANYTHING new.

Regards,

Mike and Tracy

[Cannoneer]

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/011300/new_0113000014.shtml

I thought that I had read in a biography of Lee, that he was already a General in the Confederate Army when this cannon accident occured. This Associated Press article is all I could find on the net that relates the story of R.E. Lee's close call, but the more I look at that date of April 1862 the more doubt I have about this being likely. I know that in June of 62 he was given command of the Army of Northern Virginia, and you would think that he'd be too busy conducting the war to be observing a Columbiad firing near Ft. Jackson. The book that is given as a source in the article is, "A Present for Mr. Lincoln: The Story of Savannah from Secession to Sherman," by Alexander Lawrence.
What was the prewar date that you were given for the time of this cannon mishap?

[seacoastartillery]

     Sorry, just "pre-war"; they gave no specific date for this incident.  I read that press report too.  I WAS NOT impressed.  The historian at Old Fort Jackson when we visited in 2005, although part-time, was very professional and well read and knew all the details of the blown breech piece recovery operation including the crane company, etc., etc. so we found no reason to question his veracity.  Now, we do know that Lee visited the area in February or early March of '62 to recommend what extra preparations that the Fort Pulaski commander could make to thwart Federal siege and investment operations concerning that Confederate held fort.

FYI

Mike and Tracy

[Terry C.]

I partly based my "prewar" identification of the piece on the shape of the rear section of the tube. Too straight for wartime production.

This shape did show up again when the CSA started making their own Rodman copies. And according to cwartillery.org they did make them at Tredegar, starting as early as 1861. But I don't know if any had the ratchet notches. If they used one of the very early guns as their pattern, they may well have copied the ratchets as well.

Another anomaly I didn't catch at first is the length of the trunnions. I've never (to my knowledge) got a really good look at a prewar Rodman prototype, so I don't know if they had long or short trunnions. But the production guns I've seen had shorter trunnions. I've also never seen a really good close-up photo of a CSA Rodman clone's trunnions or breech face, so I don't know if this is an indicator of lineage or just a characteristic of this particular tube.

So there exists a possibility that this was not a prewar Rodman, but instead a Confederate Rodman-styled Columbiad. That could lend credence to the 1862 story.


So which story is correct? Since everyone directly involved is long dead, we can only examine the artifacts and weigh the credibility of the storytellers.


And by the way...

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

[Cannoneer]

Robert E. Lee as a brevet colonel was assigned to the 2nd U.S. Cavalry which was stationed in Texas with orders to protect that states western frontier from hostile indians, the timeline of this duty would be from 1856 to the spring of 1861 when Texas seceded from the Union. Lee did not like this duty and took every opportunity to get back to Washington D.C so he could visit his wife and family in Virginia, while visiting his home in Oct. of 59 he was ordered to Harpers Ferry to put down John Brown's attempted insurrection. Keeping in mind that during this entire period Lee was no longer in the Army Corps of Engineers; why would Lee have been in Georgia examining forts or observing the firing of experimental ordnance?
M&t, while I certainly agree with you that it's possible that a reporter given an assignment to write about an historical occurence connected with a contemporary event might show a tendency to be a little lax in his research, I think in all fairness that it may be equally plausible that this reporter did a thorough job in his researching facts for the article (this observation is in no way meant to denigrate the guide that gave you info when you visited the fort). The given month of April may be in error, but J. Davis did have Lee at Ft. Jackson's location in this general time period to devise a plan of opperations to prevent the Northern advance inland from Tybee Island.
Terry, I thought exactly the same thing that you did; is the time frame here after the states secession when Tredegar Foundry became a Confederate ordnance manufacturer? Was this Rodman pattern Columbiad that failed on its first shot another example of how the South used already existing U.S. cannon patterns, sometimes with new modifications added when they cast new guns? Just for kicks I sent an email to the editor of AP asking some questions about sources used for the article.

Anyway, I concur with Terry that this investigation can resume after this holiday, and I'd like to second his wish that every one of you, and your families have a great Thanksgiving Day.

[Terry C.]

Well, since it involves a pre-CSA Robert E. Lee, I'm thinking it must be Pulaski.

The reason I jumped on the Pulaski location early on was that it's a known fact (at least to Georgia history buffs) that Robert E. Lee served at Fort Pulaski as both a Union and Confederate officer.

A young Robert E. Lee was not yet a Colonel during his early stint as an engineer at the Fort Pulaski construction site, he was Brevet Second Lieutenant Lee.

This predates the Cavalry assignment you detailed above.

National Park Service Website, Robert E. Lee at Fort Pulaski

And, yes, it is time to get off the computer and eat!

[GGaskill]

Looking with a more critical eye at the photo certainly shows the long trunnions and straight reinforce of a Tredegar Columbiad.  The cwartillery.org Rodmans & Confederate Columbiads page gives a number of interesting details of those guns including the fact that Tredegar did not use Rodman's water-cooled core process in casting their guns.  Since the Rodman profile was based on actual pressure measurements and presumably expected to use the wet-core process, it is surprising that the Tredegar guns didn't regularly fail.  Perhaps the powder charge was reduced with this in mind.

Since we are speaking of Rodman, perhaps someone authoritatively knows his correct name as I have seen references to both Thomas Jackson Rodman and Thomas Jefferson Rodman.

[seacoastartillery]

     Looks like you guys are getting pretty close to solving this mystery.  I think we need a good solid clue here.  Like the one where you see the cow leaning heavily against a tree in an apple orchard in Autumn.  You know there are some real good cider apples on the ground nearby!

     We need to know what year Rodman introduced his mushroom head cascable.  That would pretty much propell us along toward a conclusion as to whether the pre-war event was possible.

You guys are great!  Thanks for all your help so far.

Mike and Tracy

[seacoastartillery]

     George,   We hope that you will consider this as the final word on the answer to your quandary, Jackson or Jefferson?  After all this is where politics and agendas end, the final resting place.  Glad to help out,

Regards,
Tracy and Mike


A Great place to visit with all kinds of volley guns and real early machine guns and cannons too.




An 8" Rodman with long trunnions, fancy that.




The answer!

[Cannoneer]

 I ate waaaaaaay too much, which is why I'm up at 3:30 in the morning with a great case of heartburn, and looking at these posts.
Now, M&T while I have to agree that death is a certainty and describes an ultimate biological truth, there's nothing that impels me to give the same credibility to the information inscribed on any grave marker; if man is the recorder, then the possibility of error is always there. I'm just messin' around, I've probably had to much tryptophan; Rodman's middle name WAS Jackson. This excerpt is from a letter written by Rodman's daughter in 1939:
"My dear General Rhodes,
My niece Mrs. Barnhardt sent me your letter to her, and I wanted to give you the information you ask for. My fathers name was Thomas Jackson not Jefferson. His fathers name was James Rodman and his mothers name was Elizabeth Burton...................... My father was a man of the utmost integrity of character, gentle kindly nature and a wonderful inventive genius. His twenty inch gun and giant powder were only a few of the things he invented...................... Sincerely yours,
Florence R. Butler"

Looks like you guys are getting pretty close to solving this mystery.

 

I'm of the opinion that the mystery has been pretty much already solved. Terry, in reply #48 is basically pointing in the direction of the answer, and GG, in reply # 51 is right on top of it. The # 2 photo in this contest is of a fragment from a cannon that realistically speaking shouldn't even be called a Rodman. It is from a Confederate Columbiad cast at Tredegar foundry, cast solid and cooled from the outside in the old solid core system. Basically, the only thing this gun has in common with a Rodman Columbiad is a similar profile. If the statement made by Greg Starbuck (site manager of Old Fort Jackson) that was reported in the Associated Press article is accurate ("Starbuck said he's 99 percent sure the cannon in the Wilmington is the one that nearly struck Lee...."), then the fragment in the photo is of a Tredegar Confederate Columbiad and Robert E. Lee was a General in the Confederate States Army when pieces of this exploded gun flew over his head, and into the marsh on the bank of the Wilmington.