Were there ever any catastrophic mortar failures in battle?

[Terry C.]

There are many accounts of catastrophic failures of cannon tubes, often with grave injury and/or loss of life. These explosions have been happening since artillery was adapted for battle. Serving on a gun crew was a dangerous profession.

I realized that what I haven't seen are any instances of mortars (big or small) exploding with casualties. Are there any reliable accounts of mortars failing, causing injury or death to crew?

CAVEAT: This is not to include the ancient practice of lighting the fuse on the shell (bomb), then firing the mortar, which I understand was a scary and dangerous undertaking. Accidents of this nature would most certainly be more a result of human error.

I'm talking about failure of the tube itself due to poor construction, inferior materials, fatigue, etc., so we should probably concentrate on the American Revolution through U.S. Civil War time period (but not necessarily American artillery) when mortars were operated under a standard drill.

What say ye?

[seacoastartillery]

     We say that something  BAD  happened to this mortar that Mike and I found at Fort Ticonderoga at the southern end of Lake Champlain in New York State.  There was no sign or literature describing what happened here, but casualties were almost a certainty.  Look, DD, they followed the "One Caliber Thickness Rule" too!  

Tracy and Mike

[Double D]

       Look, DD, they followed the "One Caliber Thickness Rule" too!  

Tracy and Mike

...a leg pulling with a good point!

[Terry C.]

Now that's what I'm talkin' about.

But without an account of how it was destroyed, there's no way of knowing whether it exploded during battle, or was intentionally destroyed.

Mortars, unlike cannon, would be easier to evacuate, but there could be an instance where the mortar had to be left behind and in such an instance it might be destroyed rather then left as a prize.

Since it can't speak for itself, we will probably never know.

[dan610324]

I would even go so far that I said they got a good 1,3 chamber diameter in wall thickness
between 1,25 and 1,5 is very common on cast iron barrels

[KABAR2]

In the 17th Century the man firing the mortar did a dance with the devil.....
common practice was to light both the bomb and the mortar at the same time (Double firing)
If the mortar misfired and the bomb didn't you would get a similar result as
seen at Fort  Ticonderoga the practice may have continued into the early 18th Century.......

[bcp]

Still dangerous:

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=27129

Bruce

[GGaskill]

That looked like counter-battery to me.  The explosion seemed to be closer to the camera than the goof firing the mortar.

[KABAR2]

T&M I was told by one of the staff at the fort that this was found down
near the lake and was drug up to the fort since it was rebuilt, the mortar
does not look english to me (trunnion placement), French perhaps? You don't
see very many iron mortars that size..... they are usually bronze.

[Double D]

Could this have been destroyed to prevent capture?  It looks so purposely destroyed.

[KABAR2]

Could this have been destroyed to prevent capture?  It looks so purposely destroyed.

Why not just spike it? to blow it like this means you set a bomb in it
light the fuse and run like hell! 

[mcwoodduck]

In the 17th Century the man firing the mortar did a dance with the devil.....
common practice was to light both the bomb and the mortar at the same time (Double firing)
If the mortar misfired and the bomb didn't you would get a similar result as
seen at Fort  Ticonderoga the practice may have continued into the early 18th Century.......

I thought they would have had a groove cut in the shell (bomb and a fuse run to the bottom and coiled above the chamber and when fired the charge would ingite the fuse.  Never thought they would have light both.  May explain why we have mortor pits.  not to protect the motor from counter attery fire but to protect the people around from the projectile.

[Artilleryman]

If it is original I would hazard a guess and say that since it was made of iron that it was cast in the colonies.  As you all are probably aware the fuse side of the shell was put opposite the powder charge and was lit when the mortar was fire by the flames sweeping around it.  Having said that someone might have put the fuse toward the powder charge, and when the mortar was fired the fuse was driven into the shell exploding it.  This might be the reason for the broken mortar.  Since it is iron it could be that someone used a sledge hammer on it to destroy it.  Just guessing.

[Terry C.]

This was in the very early days when artillery was more "trial and error" than science. Eventually they figured out that the flame that escaped around the shell due to windage would ignite the fuse just fine, no need to double fire.

(note: Artilleryman beat me to it)

That's why I'm limiting my inquiry to actual failure of the mortar tube itself during a standard firing drill.


DD, it looks like it may have been intentionally destroyed to me too. Like I said, with no account there isn't a way to know for sure.

How big is this mortar fragment? It still seems to me that a mortar would need to be too cumbersome to move to require destruction.

It also seems to me that if there had been motar failures in battle that resulted in injury or death there would be an account of the incident somewhere.

Where are they?

[Artilleryman]

I would think that if it were small enough and being near a lake that they would have taken it out and dumped in deep water.  This would have be fast and simple if they didn't want it to fall into enemy hands.  What size is this mortar?

[KABAR2]

I would think that if it were small enough and being near a lake that they would have taken it out and dumped in deep water.  This would have be fast and simple if they didn't want it to fall into enemy hands.  What size is this mortar?

It's been 30 years + since I was there but it is at least a 8" if not 10" bore size.

Another possible reason for failure - a poorly cast shell with a hidden crack just in the right place. If I am not mistaken in M&T's write up on the monster mortar
when testing shells filled with sand they discovered a couple that failed due to too thin a wall in the shell.

I thought they would have had a groove cut in the shell (bomb and a fuse run to the bottom and coiled above the chamber and when fired the charge would ignite the fuse.  Never thought they would have light both.  May explain why we have mortar pits.  not to protect the motor from counter artillery fire but to protect the people around from the projectile.

Fuses for mortar shells were fitted in a tapered wooden plug this would be cut to the desired length in an effort to time the explosion,
the wooden plug was hammered into the shell it fitted and would stick out slightly, wick style fuses were not used with these.

[Artilleryman]

Eight inch would make it too heavy to try and throw it out into the lake.  I am thinking that if they deliberately blew it up that they over charged it and wedged a shell or solid shot in it, laid a fuse train and took cover.

[dan610324]

or turned the shell upside down maybe

[Artilleryman]

Maybe with the muzzle to the ground.  There are instructions for disabling artillery pieces, there has to be something for mortars.

[Terry C.]

Eight to ten inches?

From the photo, I would have never guessed it was that large.

[KABAR2]

Eight to ten inches?

From the photo, I would have never guessed it was that large.

I wish T&M would chime in they probably took a measurement......

[Cat Whisperer]

I'll bet those are 4x4's underneith.

[seacoastartillery]

Eight to ten inches?

From the photo, I would have never guessed it was that large.

I wish T&M would chime in they probably took a measurement......

     Alas, we did not, however, I have asked Mike to look at this half mortar and he remembers it to be around 6 inches and I know it was less than 8.  I have a sense of what 8" looks like because that's what my hand span is and it has come in handy when you spot a tube off the planned route when you don't have a tape measure.  I would say around 6" also, so what's closest to that size?  That would be 5.82" or 24 pounder, a pretty standard mortar bore size in the French and Indian, Revolutionary and Civil Wars.

     As far as a cause for it's condition, we are still leaning toward burst in battle trying to reach a distant (over 1,200 yards), enemy using a bit more powder than was prudent to use.  As far as provenance, that's easier.  Look at that design; no self respecting Frenchman or anybody with Abercrombie in 1758 would own up to using THAT.  It was most certainly a Colonial design, probably the result of some back woods foundry and blacksmithing shop.  During that time the colonials were fighting with the British against the French and brought all the equipment and artillery that they could to the Battle of Carillon, the French name for Fort Ticonderoga which they originally built.  Perhaps the Colonial forces were bombarding the heights where Montcalm's French troops were deployed to the North-West of the fort near Mt. Hope as they attempted to soften up the strong French position of trenches and redoubts in depth.  Montcalm's 4,000 Frenchmen held out against a frontal attack by 16,000 British and Colonial troops on July 6, 1858 due to superior position and the fact that Abercrombie launched the assault without detailed knowledge of his enemy's deployment and without the benefit of his artillery (bad move).  The use of this mortar in this action is just supposition on our part and we have no real evidence to support this possible scenario.

Tracy and Mike

[Double D]

 

 
Things I see.

Ball bore line on bottom is a straight line
Ball bore line on top is not a straight line, it bend inward.
Rust mark from pooled water should be smooth tear shaped, it's not, it juts in right at the ball seat on top.

I would like to see outside top of the barrel.

[seacoastartillery]

 
Things I see.

Ball bore line on bottom is a straight line
Ball bore line on top is not a straight line, it bend inward.
Rust mark from pooled water should be smooth tear shaped, it's not, it juts in right at the ball seat on top.

I would like to see outside top of the barrel.

     Well Double D, people in Hell want icewater!  What's your theory?

Tracy and Mike

[Double D]

No theory, need more information.

[Cannoneer]

Excellent topic, Terry! I can’t recall ever reading of any drastic black powder mortar accidents, whether in our history, or foreign wars, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. This is a French bronze 15cm mortar from the period of the mid 1800’s. The 15cm would translate to it being a 24pdr, which size would put it in the Coehorn class. I know nothing of how this mortar came to look this way, so this is all pure speculation on my part. In my opinion there is a probability that this damage is the result of a premature detonation of the shell, caused by a faulty fuse, or improper loading. I would also guess that this mortar was “hot” from repeated firing, because of the way the bronze has been flattened in the bore near the muzzle, and the way the tube on the other side of the ‘split’ has been turned upward into the bore. I know this post doesn’t shed a lot of light on your real question, but the photo does go far in demonstrating how bronze is superior to cast iron when it comes to the safety of the artillerymen manning these mortars. A premature detonation that resulted in a split, or bulged, barrel in a bronze piece would/could result in a fragmentation grenade in an iron piece.
There is also the possibility that this mortar was disabled on purpose.
It’s interesting to me that in looking at the photo of the top of the mortar you can’t see any pronounced deformity in the barrel.

[dan610324]

yeah thats typical for a bronze piece failure , they just split open but still reamain in one piece .
as you said cast iron would shatter like a grenade .
but so far I havent found any evidence from a bronze barrel failured during firing with standard loads
Im not sure but I dont think it ever have happened and I have tried hard to find such evidence .
I read in an old swedish document where they tried to blow up 2 cannons to not get in enemy hands , they wasnt able to do it with 3 powder loads and 2 balls (thats all they got left) so they got to knock off the trunnions instead

[Victor3]

 Boom J,

 I'm pretty sure that the mortar you show was intentionally destroyed from the outside. It appears that pressure was applied to 1/2 of the dia near the muzzle and it split at the C/L. The lack of deformity on the opposite side may have been because it was held in a cradle or V-block of some sort so that it wouldn't move as it was being crushed.

 No way I can see that the damage could have been caused by pressure from within.

[Cannoneer]

Boom J,

 I'm pretty sure that the mortar you show was intentionally destroyed from the outside. It appears that pressure was applied to 1/2 of the dia near the muzzle and it split at the C/L. The lack of deformity on the opposite side may have been because it was held in a cradle or V-block of some sort so that it wouldn't move as it was being crushed.

 No way I can see that the damage could have been caused by pressure from within.

Victor,
You voice some of the same concerns about this mortar that I had when first viewing it, and I'm guessing because of the same reason; the left side of the split folds up and in on itself. The fact that the barrel can be viewed from a certain angle and not show any damage seems to be irrelevant to me; the barrel split where it split, that's pretty simple, I'm sure that there are many bronze guns that split or bulged, and could also be viewed from an angle that showed no damage. I don't see anything extraordinary in this. 
There are a few things concerning your judgement that impress me as being more than slightly problematic. You think that some great pressure (a cutting instrument of some kind that could apply great pressure) was brought to bear on the underside of this mortar to split it in this manner. Why is the right side opening outward with another crack showing above the split? How was the right side flattened to such an extent that at one point it's only a fraction of the thickness of the muzzle ring?  Why is the wall showing a realistic thickness right next to the area where it's at its smashed thinnest? Why does the area of the split that's shown in the photo display a roughness to its surface as if pressure ripped it apart as opposed to something cutting down on it? Why is there no indentation showing on the metal by the slit where the cutting edge of some apparatus applied this great pressure?