Author Topic: Question about calander photos  (Read 772 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline subdjoe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Gender: Male
Question about calander photos
« on: November 01, 2010, 02:34:53 PM »
I just now got around to looking at the enlarged photos.  The one identified as a Confederate Iron Napoleon - isn't that a Parrott?  Tapered tube, no muzzle swell, looks like a reinforce at the breech. 
Your ob't & etc,
Joseph Lovell

Justice Robert H. Jackson - It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.

Offline Double D

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12608
  • SAMCC cannon by Brooks-USA
    • South African Miniature Cannon Club
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2010, 02:38:34 PM »
The question was asked and answered some time ago.

The South was short of bronze.  To make Napoleons out of iron and keep the weight down they banded them.  Iron Napoleons and bronze Napoleons weigh about the same at just over 1300 lbs.  There were 120 Tredegar Iron Napoleons like this one built in the last 12 months of the war.  There are nine known to exist.   

Offline Terry C.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you did there...
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2010, 03:00:00 PM »
Also, the Confederate iron Napoleon did not have a muzzle swell.

Offline Artilleryman

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2010, 04:20:23 PM »
In all fairness the 20 pdr Parrott looks similar.
Norm Gibson, 1st SC Vol., ACWSA

Offline subdjoe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2010, 04:40:07 PM »
Thank you, gentlemen.  I had been under the impression, just from written descriptions, that the reinforce was more blended and that there was little or no taper.  That is what I get for trusting memory and not digging for images.

But, effectively, it was an unrifled Parrott with a 4.62 bore. 
Your ob't & etc,
Joseph Lovell

Justice Robert H. Jackson - It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.

Offline Max Caliber

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2010, 07:02:00 AM »
Somewhere in the distant past, I recall reading a report where an artillery officer stated that cannon crews liked the new iron Napoleons because they did not cause the cannoneers to bleed from the ears when fired like the bronze Napoleons did.
Max

Offline Zulu

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2477
  • Honor is a gift a man gives himself.
    • Wood & Ironworks
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2010, 07:30:42 AM »
One time at a re-enactment, I shot my Parrott next to an original bronze Napoleon 12 pounder.  It was 20 feet away and shooting 2 lb. charges.  The foil wrapped round looked like a loaf of bread.  We found ourselves paying more attention to the Napoleon than the battle so we could cover our ears before he shot it.  I truely believe it could make your ears bleed.
Zulu
Zulu's website
www.jmelledge.com

Offline Artilleryman

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2010, 01:17:08 PM »
Somewhere in the distant past, I recall reading a report where an artillery officer stated that cannon crews liked the new iron Napoleons because they did not cause the cannoneers to bleed from the ears when fired like the bronze Napoleons did.

In smoothbores the ball bounces three times in the bore on its' way out.  The bronze rings like a bell, the iron doesn't.  It was the ringing sound that caused the cannoneers discomfort.  The report otherwise would be the same.
Norm Gibson, 1st SC Vol., ACWSA

Offline subdjoe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2010, 02:32:00 PM »

In smoothbores the ball bounces three times in the bore on its' way out.  The bronze rings like a bell, the iron doesn't.  It was the ringing sound that caused the cannoneers discomfort.  The report otherwise would be the same.

OK...three times?  Not two,not four, but three?  (no Holy Hand Grenade jokes!)  I have to ask who came up with that, how they came up with it, and what is it that causes it to bounce three times.  

(hey, Phred!  Put your head on the tube and tell us how many times you hear the ball bounce when we fire!  Here, I'll hold your beer for you.)
Your ob't & etc,
Joseph Lovell

Justice Robert H. Jackson - It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.

Offline moose53

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2010, 02:47:41 PM »
When I shot ball bearings out of my smooth bore , you could look down the barrel and count the divits in the bore from the ball bouncing . Had to rebore my cannon . Was not using sabots , will use them in the future.

Offline Artilleryman

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2010, 03:46:18 PM »

In smoothbores the ball bounces three times in the bore on its' way out.  The bronze rings like a bell, the iron doesn't.  It was the ringing sound that caused the cannoneers discomfort.  The report otherwise would be the same.

OK...three times?  Not two,not four, but three?  (no Holy Hand Grenade jokes!)  I have to ask who came up with that, how they came up with it, and what is it that causes it to bounce three times.  

(hey, Phred!  Put your head on the tube and tell us how many times you hear the ball bounce when we fire!  Here, I'll hold your beer for you.)

The information about this can be found in John Gibbon's "The Artillerist's Manual" pages 75-76.  As Moose observed the damage to his bore, the Manual discusses this damage and how to extend the life of the barrel.  No joking, it is an interesting read.
Norm Gibson, 1st SC Vol., ACWSA

Offline Double D

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12608
  • SAMCC cannon by Brooks-USA
    • South African Miniature Cannon Club
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2010, 03:55:14 PM »

Offline subdjoe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2010, 08:14:53 PM »
Thanks for the reference and the link, gentlemen.  I didn't think it was a joke - mostly wondering the how and why of Three.  (the number of bounces shall be three, and three shall be the number of the bounces, no more, no less)

Off to read it now.  Or just plain off. 
Your ob't & etc,
Joseph Lovell

Justice Robert H. Jackson - It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.

Offline Artilleryman

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Question about calander photos
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2010, 02:53:21 AM »
In the reference it says "generally three" which I believe would be due to the length of the bore.
Norm Gibson, 1st SC Vol., ACWSA