Random thought about cannon ball.

[Officers'Wife]

I'm wondering if the "minie ball" concept was ever adapted for cannon. I doubt a hollow base capable of expansion would be practical but perhaps a soft metal sleeve around the projectile?

Has anyone heard of this sort of thing that could point me in a direction to research?

 

[Jim K]

Yes, it was, though not in exactly the same form as in the infantry rifle. Rifled cannon as early as the American Civil War had "bullet shaped" projectiles that had copper bases or driving bands to take the rifling. Some had base cups of copper or soft iron that expanded under the gas pressure and acted like skirt of the Minie bullet. Those projectiles were able to take advantage of nose-mounted impact fuzes for greater reliability.

Jim

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Sounds like a naval cannon to me....

 

[72coupe]

Modern artillery has a steel projectile that has a boat tail profile and is hollow. They are filled with TNT or nerve gas or smoke or white phosporus or what ever is needed to do the task at hand.

Around the base of the projectile is 1 or 2 driving bands made of fairly soft brass to engage the rifling.

Here is a picture of a piece of a 105mm shell that exploded about 3 feet down the barrel.

 

[OYE]

Has anyone heard of this sort of thing that could point me in a direction to research?

To answer your question, think if you start searching for "rifled cannon" it will
start you on the right trail for your research. OYE

 

[ofitg]

A couple of examples -

The Parrot-Reed projectile had an base expansion cup.

The Hotchkiss projectile employed a different scheme - the projectile had an iron base and an iron nose section, separated by a lead belt. When the gun was fired, the two iron sections would jam together and the lead belt would expand outward to engage the rifling.

 

[Officers'Wife]

A couple of examples -

The Parrot-Reed projectile had an base expansion cup.

The Hotchkiss projectile employed a different scheme - the projectile had an iron base and an iron nose section, separated by a lead belt. When the gun was fired, the two iron sections would jam together and the lead belt would expand outward to engage the rifling.

Interesting. how did they keep the two halves together? It sounds a lot like when my uncle would saw a projectile in half then attach 10 or 15 foot of wire to each half. In theory on leaving the barrel the two halves would separate and spin on the axis of the center of the wire. He abandoned the experiment before it was fully tested though.

 

[kBob]

Not only did they, but they got used up until the retirement of the 4.2 inch "Chemical" Mortar from the Infantry Battalion Mortar Company in the 1980's. Their rifled barrels made them different from about anyone else's drop tube muzzle loading Mortar. They used spin rather than fins to stabilize the projectile.

The Four Duece had a curved copper plate affixed to the base of the shell that engaged the rifled barrel when the propelling charge flattened out this slightly cupped shape disc until it engaged the rifling. This technique was used in the 3 inch Parrot guns and Ordinance rifle of the ACW (along with shells of other designs) Some shells had expanding copper plates or bands, lead that got squeezed by various means to grab the rifling and believe it or not paper mache'.

There was even a rifle cartridge that used one or two copper disc being expanded to engage rifling. These were called cleaning cartridges as they were mixed in with normal Minnie Ammunition with the idea that the Cleaning round would scourer the bore free of fowling to allow troops to keep loading and shooting longer between cleanings. Troops complained of a lack of accuracy with this ammunition. I suspect it was about as accurate but that the one Cleaning round in ten or 20 shots of Minnie ammo actually just shot to a different point of aim. They were much more costly per round than an open base Minnie.

The James converted smooth bore to rifled guns used pretty much an iron shell with a lead base that was A LOT like a Minnie ball.

Biggest issue with all the rifled artillery rounds of the ACW was the danger to bystanders when the driving material broke free as the shell left the muzzle or traveled down range. This also spoiled accuracy of that occasional failure. Not an every shot occurrence for sure but not something I would want being shot past me in support.

-kBob

 

[ofitg]

Interesting. how did they keep the two halves together?

I imagine that the "fit" between the two iron sections, and the force of the "hammer blow" imparted by the powder charge to the rear, would determine how well the projo stayed together in flight.

In practice, it might not even matter if the rear section and the lead belt separated in flight, as long as the "payload" section continued toward the target, nose-forward.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Officer's Wife: It sounds like your Uncle was trying to recreate the type of projectiles used in the days of sail powered warships to take down the rigging and masts of their opponents. The projectile (can't recall the name just now) used two cannon balls connected by a length of chain. It was supposed to be quite effective.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I imagine that the "fit" between the two iron sections, and the force of the "hammer blow" imparted by the powder charge to the rear, would determine how well the projo stayed together in flight.

In practice, it might not even matter if the rear section and the lead belt separated in flight, as long as the "payload" section continued toward the target, nose-forward.

If the weapon was being used for close artillery support it would matter greatly to the supported troop. I'm sure the infantry might not care to share a foxhole with the base coming from friendly fire. They might even go as far as to consider it rude.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Officer's Wife: It sounds like your Uncle was trying to recreate the type of projectiles used in the days of sail powered warships to take down the rigging and masts of their opponents. The projectile (can't recall the name just now) used two cannon balls connected by a length of chain. It was supposed to be quite effective.

Perhaps, I always made it a point not to try and get into the OMB part of my uncle's mind. The products showed it to be a rather frightening place.

That said, he was a student of technology history including arms & projectile. My best guess comes from an argument he had with my Dad that if Custer's men had a way to "mow" the tall vegetation at the Greasy Grass a few of them might have come home. Such a ball could conceivably clear a swath of grass. Then again, he might have been trying for a bolo effect for targets behind trees. The only one that can say is him, since it's not in his notes there will be no answer this side of heaven.

 

[ofitg]

[If the weapon was being used for close artillery support it would matter greatly to the supported troop. I'm sure the infantry might not care to share a foxhole with the base coming from friendly fire. They might even go as far as to consider it rude.

If it's any consolation, the Hotchkiss projo in my collection was dug up with the two iron sections firmly wedged together (the lead belt was missing - corroded away?), so the design worked properly, at least sometimes.....

 

[Officers'Wife]

It's still an interesting concept, using the malleability of the lead to make a seal. Kind of like swagging bullets in the barrel.