Planning for the Defeat of Fort Pallet

[seacoastartillery]

       Last summer Mike and I had a terrific time at the Cut Bank Cannon Convention II.  Although there were many different, friendly,  contests within the structure of this cannon shoot, the highlight for us was the attempted destruction of Fort Pallet.  Flying an evil looking black flag it was holed many times by cannoneers present, but at the end of their bombardment it remained largely intact.  Double D. did a fine job of constructing the fort and it's structure of four pallets standing on their edges in a square with three more on top to provide overhead protection was sturdy enough to withstand the fusillade.  Although our prototype Brooke cannon with a 1.167" dia., 9 oz., steel bolt at 1,300 fps caused sprays of maple splinters to erupt from the fort's roof, it was ineffective in advancing the effort to dismantle the evil fortification.  Southpaw's bowling ball mortar was most effective in doing that when it scored an occasional hit.
 
      Mike and I have discussed the possibilities at length, but have yet to come up with a design that meets the criteria of a piece of ordnance which takes the best attributes of both of those types just mentioned.  We do believe, however, that a successful fort destroyer must have these two basic criteria:  Accuracy and Energy.  For us, accuracy can be achieved in two ways.  First you can build a rifled gun with sufficient bore size to get the requisite energy.  Second, you can build a solid shot gun with minimum windage for superior accuracy and clean thoroughly between shots.  Just how you build an accurate mortar of any kind is a question.  We have never done this so will let others tell us how this is done.

     Keep this in mind also;  Double D., we believe, has been bought off by the evil forces represented by Fort Pallet and is on a mission to make the new Fort Pallet even stronger than the old one.     It's likely that the energy component will have to be increased to achieve the true destruction  desired.

    Mike and I solicit your comments and suggestions.  While actual building might be 6 months away, brainstorming must start now in order for all possible ideas to be considered. 

Thanks!

Mike and Tracy

[Zulu]

Maybe a hot air baloon bomb.
Zulu

[Artilleryman]

What size guns are used in this effort to destroy Fort Pallet?

[Rayfan87]

Scale version of chain or bar shot might be an interesting way to go. It would certainly rip apart the wood better.

[seacoastartillery]

     Zulu,   I don't believe a balloon bomb will be allowed, but we sure could have used a few Barrage Balloons at the last shoot in Cut Bank to keep the aircraft away.  Not going to be a problem this time though.  Different weekends for the events negate that difficulty.

     Artilleryman,    We believe the basic rules have not changed for the 2013 shoot.  Any 1/2 scale or smaller gun, mortar or rifled cannon modeled on a  historical, full size cannon will be allowed, plus bowling ball mortars.  DD can advise us if this is incorrect.  He also talked about having a smaller, closer fort for the smaller guns, but we don't know that a bore size maximum has been announced yet.  Double D., what say you?  We believe cost will hold the actual size of the ordnance built for this event to a very reasonable size.  Mike and I both doubt that you will see any 1/2 scale, Great Turkish Bombards or Dardanelles Bombards showing up in Cut Bank!

Mike and Tracy

[intoodeep]

Scale version of chain or bar shot might be an interesting way to go. It would certainly rip apart the wood better.

 That's what I suggested a while back. 

http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,238757.msg1099359065.html#msg1099359065

[The Jeff]

Artilleryman,    We believe the basic rules have not changed for the 2013 shoot.  Any 1/2 scale or smaller gun, mortar or rifled cannon modeled on a  historical, full size cannon will be allowed, plus bowling ball mortars

Hmm, a half scale 100 ton gun just might do the trick.    It'd have a 8.86" bore, it'd be over 16 feet long, and have a maximum diameter of 38.275".

[Double D]

The failure to breach Fort Pallet was not because of inadequate ordnance.  The ordnance deployed was adequate to do the job.  The failure was in tactics and training, or rather the lack there of.

Take a look at Fort Pulaski  and how it was breached and you will understand what I am talking about. Pick a point and aim at it and keep aiming at it. That's what they did a Pulaski.

FWIW in 2013 we may be restricted to 1/4 scale and smaller for cannons. 

In my opinion the gun that had the greatest possibility of breeching Fort  Pallet last summer was Gary's GB Parrot.

Watch the video.  at 3:04, 3:27 and 5:28 you will see Gary's hits and they rock the fort and debris flys.

The Brooke got excellent penetration and appears to be exceptionally accurate with the scope.  But since we shoot the Fort in the spirit of the original and you can't use the scope, it's on the gunner to make the gun shoot.  Just penetrating the fort isn't going to breach it.  Breaking down structural integrity of the walls is how to breach the walls. The  Brooke is accurate enough for that.

I also believe that the mortars can breach the fort, but it is going to take a dedicated skilled mortar shooter to do it. The bowling ball mortars have the power, but by the very nature of the  projectile they are difficult to aim. I think a good popcan mortar shooting a round lead or zinc ball will break the walls down if the  mortar man can aim his gun and get hits.

What is going to breech the fort is the Gunner, if he can aim his gun and make repetitive hits in a critical area he will breach to the fort.

[Artilleryman]

      Mike and I have discussed the possibilities at length, but have yet to come up with a design that meets the criteria of a piece of ordnance which takes the best attributes of both of those types just mentioned.  We do believe, however, that a successful fort destroyer must have these two basic criteria:  Accuracy and Energy.  For us, accuracy can be achieved in two ways.  First you can build a rifled gun with sufficient bore size to get the requisite energy.  Second, you can build a solid shot gun with minimum windage for superior accuracy and clean thoroughly between shots.  Just how you build an accurate mortar of any kind is a question.  We have never done this so will let others tell us how this is done.

     

Thanks!

Mike and Tracy

I have been trying to find my reference that stated that for battering down some types of fortifications that it was better to reduce the powder charge.  This was supposed to cause the projectile to try to bull its way through causing maximum damage rather than punch a neat hole. 

[BoomLover]

Perhaps, just for effect, you understand, a few strategically placed cans of "Tannerite" would make for some good "Booms" and "Flash" shows, if hit with a round going thru the "Fort" ... 

[Double D]

Most of the cannons don't have enough velocity to set off tannerite

[Rayfan87]

One big factor is the pallets themselves and how they are arranged to make the fort. If the supports are versicle than one it two lucky shots will so more damage than of the top slats are vertices where you would have to break each one. I work with pallets just about every day. The type of pallet is also big, are they ones where the top boards are nailed to the edge or to the face of the support beams?

[Cat Whisperer]

Hmmm.

Are "angry birds" allowed?

 

[dominick]

I think a concrete filled water cooler jug fired from a already constructed Paixhans would obliterate Fort Pallet.

[exlimey]

Many many moons ago agroup of us got permission to try to bring down a 20'x 15' wood shed that had to be taken down at a N.P.S. Historic site, after hours of course! We were using a repro 18th century Howitzer with 5.54 concrete balls firing from about 50 yards " hey we did,nt want to miss" after two shots that punched nice holes thru the dilapidated shed we reduce the powder charge and ricoche,d fireing low and slow which proved to be much better at damaging the structure than the first fast shots.  In the end after running out of concrete solid balls we burned it down with the Parks Firetruck standing by. My suggestion would be low and slow.

[seacoastartillery]

    There is absolutely no sense in making further suggestions to this thread until ALL the new restrictions, rules, regulations and controls for CBCC III are known and posted here.
 
    Douglas,    In order to allow the most variety of bore sizes to be used on the full size fort, you may want to specify an energy level max in Ft. Lbs. As a base line figure, consider what the familiar 10 Pdr. Parrott rifle produces, which is 242,839.70 Ft. Lbs. with a 10 Lb. Bolt at 1,250 fps. By specifying 1/2 of this energy level or 1/3 or 1/4 or even as low as 1/5, you allow the maker or someone who owns a larger, unique gun to compete fairly with those who make or own smaller, high velocity guns.  After all, everyone here knows that, with lighter projectiles and lower velocity, larger calibers can be "tamed" and yet provide visual interest and spectator appeal, without any capability of sweeping Fort Pallet away with one hit or even 20.
 
M&T 

P.S.    Muzzle Energy in Ft. Lbs.=(Mass in grains, avoir) X (velocity in f.p.s., squared) divided by the constant 450,400.

[Double D]

There will be no change in format for the shoot.  I will vigorously fight to maintain status quo.  The rules, what they are, will stay the same if I have anything to say about it, and I will.  I do not think the BoD will over-ride me.

• 1/2 scale and smaller black powder cannons and mortars meeting the ATF definition of an antique,  and black powder bowling ball mortars.  All guns  following the safety and firing rules of the American Artillery Association.

You asked for comments and discussion and we gave them.  We each have our own ideas how to approach this problems.  Is your idea, the better idea?  We will see after CBCCIII.

[Scout.308]

Where was the shoot conducted?

[Double D]

Where was the shoot conducted?

Cut  Bank, Montana.

[GGaskill]

Cut  Bank, Montana.

While not quite the middle of nowhere, tMoN is visible in the distance. 

[jamesfrom180]

Structurally the orientation of the pallets is critical to weak spots.  It appears there is little to no diagonal bracing so the elimination of an unbalanced number of vertical or horizontal supports will create a rotating frame.  Pallets by their design have redundant members so this allone will not sufice.  Almost any structure will be weakest also at corners.  So structurally a corner that has the heaviest unbalanced load on it would be the weakest and the point of any attack.

Tactically any means capable of removing the greatest number of members will be most effective for reducing the walls.  This may not mean the greatest number of hits,  but instead the greatest number of damaging hits.  Also the glancing or bowling shots may decrease velocity but provide higher numbers of strikes in one vertical zone. Repeated strikes in one area would obviously ensure destruction of that general area.  DD pointed out Fort Pulaski, Fort Wagner though not reduced since it was sandy walls did demonstrate that shells could be rolled into embrasures and would defeat guns.  Since shell will not be used this may not be effective but does demonstrate that glancing shots can be aimed. 

Aiming at corners and utilizing bar shot will more than likely reduce the fort.  Obviously calling the structure a fort would be a misnomer since it is not providing any real defense against penetrating shot, but it is a catchy name.  Smashing the walls looks to be quite fun and I wish I could come try out some of these ideas.   

On proofing this comment, the idea came to me that if a person placed a strong plate or even 2x12 with lets say a face of 2' long hanging on a wall, a impact might result in something similar to striking the "forts" magazine.  I believe someone had previously posted pictures of someone shooting a foam fort and said that steal plates where used so that points could be attacked.  The results of striking the plate was the much more damaging. 

Also on a side note I have seen "shot ovens" both at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Sumter.  How was the use of hot shot accomplished?  My main thought is if it is hot enough to ignite wood why would it not ignite powder?  My guess would be the use of a thick wood sabot. 
 

[Artilleryman]

 

Also on a side note I have seen "shot ovens" both at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Sumter.  How was the use of hot shot accomplished?  My main thought is if it is hot enough to ignite wood why would it not ignite powder?  My guess would be the use of a thick wood sabot.

Loading hot shot was accomplished by first carefully cleaning the bore and then inserting a charge taking care not to break it open.  A dry hay wad was inserted and rammed once.  This was followed by a clay or wet hay wad rammed twice.  The charge was reduced to break and splinter the wood better and to keep it from penetrating too deeply which would keep it from getting enough air to start a fire.  When firing at angles of depression a 1/2 caliber wad of wet hay or clay is rammed to keep the shot in place.  Supposedly you could let the shot cool in the bore without setting off the powder charge.

[Zulu]

I like the idea of burning down fort pallet. 
Zulu

[Cat Whisperer]

I like the idea of burning down fort pallet. 
Zulu

Average pallet weighs about 13 lbs.  Most are made from low grade oak.  It would take 5 a day to heat my 3 story house on the coldest day (here in Virginia).

Save the pieces to heat the house next winter.

[seacoastartillery]

     Thanks for that clarification Double D.  You really had us going when you poster this comment previously:  "FWIW in 2013 we may be restricted to 1/4 scale and smaller for cannons."  Mike said to me, "Well there goes that idea and one of yours too." 


     So, I guess we are back on track to pitch all and any ideas that meet the criteria just stated in DD's post.  Please suggest types and sizes that definitely meet those criteria.  How about some serious suggestions like the excellent one on ammo from  Intoodeep  related to the photo below.  I remember how impressed we were with those authentic recreations at Fort Conde in Mobile, Alabama.  See his pic below:





     As for penetration versus a breech that DD mentioned, high velocity cannons both rifled and smooth can get the penetration, but a breech, defined by a hole larger than any single shot can only be accomplished by careful aiming with an accurate gun.  As we will be using only iron sights on whatever we build, accuracy might be a bit in question, so slightly bigger bore may be required.  We have a photo below of the full size original of the one we are thinking about.  We believe that Paulson Bros. Ordnance has 10" solid shot for a 1/2 scale version of this 20" Rodman Gun at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, NY.  These 128 pound solids should do the job even at a brisk walking speed!  The only problem is the weight.  117,000 divided by 8  (2x2x2=8) is still a whopping 14,625 pounds!  You need not worry DD, we can do a lot, but not this one!  We agree that Gary did quite well last time, so we have pretty much decided on a smoothbore gun, but are as yet undecided on a type.

That mushroom cascabel is about 48" across! 2002 Seacoast photo.





     Looks like some good ideas out there, but no specific gun type/sizes yet.  Anybody?

Mike and Tracy

[seacoastartillery]

     O.K., what we are seriously considering is either a half scale 24 Pdr. Flank Howitzer, M1844 or a half scale Carronade as used by the British Navy and as developed at the Carron Foundry in Falkirk, Scotland after 1778.  We believe a half scale 32 Pdr. would be doable with a 3.125" diameter bore and a solid shot of 3.085" dia., cast of zinc going about 500 to 700 fps should be about right.  Approx. 3 oz. of cannon grade BP per shot would not break the bank and yet should be able to achieve the desired velocity.


"A variety of ingenious carriages were designed for carronades, with “slides” often substituted for wheels (to eliminate recoil across the deck)."  quote from Wiki-Carronades.


     So what do you think?  Are we soft in the head or right on the money, or what??  Called "Smashers" back in the day, these bad boys are noted for smashing rather than cutting holes in ships. They were known to be effective only at close range. With a reamed bore these short guns could be quite accurate even with iron sights.

Tracy

The type of Carronade we are talking about, this is a 24 Pdr. on a garrison carriage.  We prefer the naval carriage with it's slide for accuracy and to control recoil.




 

[Zulu]

I vote "smasher"!!!
I love those things.  And after you destroy Fort Pallet, you still get to keep the gun.
There is a very interesting carronade type piece mounted as a swivel gun on page 87 of Boarders Away II.  I think this piece is awsome!
Zulu
 
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/Library/BookPage.aspx?bid=FW0003163&sid=FW000000595365&pid=2

[jamesfrom180]

Thanks Artilleryman, might just have to look into that further.  I do want to say I think it still a very dangerous practice and one that should be left in history.  Like rapid firing of barrels best to know how they did it and still not try.

A carronade, I really wish I could get out there.  I think even smooth bores should afford the accuracy needed to defeat your most evil of opponents.

[Max Caliber]

Tracy,

The flank howitzer sounds good but I don't think you could ever get very good accuracy from a Carronade. I think at best the accuracy would be about like that of a mountain howitzer. My choice would be a half-scale 20-pounder Dahlgren Rifle ( it has trunnions) on a well fitted flask carriage would probably give good accuracy out to 300 hundred yards or so.

[Double D]

You do realize that this is going to create a logistical night mare for me don't your?  Now I have build a third fort for the bigger guns.