Case, Grape, Langridge Shot - Details
Pyers Symon
Grape Shot
Grape shot consisted of a number of iron balls arranged around a central
iron core in a canvas bag. The column was attached to a base and the
bag tied at the neck with the cords tied around the shot to give the
appearance of quilting.
The number of shot within grape shot was constant
(9) irrespective of the calibre of the Gun. The following describes
the composition of grape on a per gun basis:
Weight Of Gun Weight of each shot Total Weight of grape
(lb) (lb oz) (lb oz)
42 4 0 46 6
32 3 0 34 1
24 2 0 25 5
18 1 8 19 15 1/2
12 1 0 10 15
9 0 13 7 6
6 0 8 5 8 1/2
4 0 6 3 14 1/2
3 0 4 2 10 1/2
1/2 0 3/4 (lead) 0 8 3/4
Royal Navy Case Shot
Case shot consisted of a cylindrical tin case filled with regular
tiers of shot (not placed at random). The tin was sealed at the base
with a wooden plug (sabot). This wooden plug was then forced into
a cartridge and tied. The whole was then enclosed in another bag
and tied with gut.
Weight(Gun) Weight (shot) No. shot in case Weight Full Case
(lb) (oz) (lb oz)
GUNS
32 8 70 33 8
24 8 42 22 15
18 6 42 16 8
12 4 42 11 5
9 3 44 8 9
6 2 40 5 2
4 2 28 4 0
3 2 20 2 15
1 1 1/4 12 1 2 1/4
CARRONADES
68 8 90 46 2
42 8 66 32 8
32 8 40 21 4
24 8 32 16 1
18 6 31 12 2
12 4 21 8 2
Langridge Shot
Langridge Shot usually consisted of a number of iron bars enclosed in
the same type of tin case as used for case shot.
(Source : British Artillery on Land & Sea, R. Wilkonson-Latham)
Pyers Symon
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
Thank you for the fine post. I do note that in netscape the columns are
a little broken up
> I hope that the following might prove useful <g> :
>
> Grape Shot
>
> Grape shot consisted of a number of iron balls arranged around a central
> iron core in a canvas bag. The column was attached to a base and the
> bag tied at the neck with the cords tied around the shot to give the
> appearance of quilting.
I am surprised that the core was iron and not wood. does your source
show a sort of sabot placed between the layers?
> The number of shot within grape shot was constant
> (9) irrespective of the calibre of the Gun. The following describes
> the composition of grape on a per gun basis:
>
> Weight Of Gun Weight of each shot Total Weight of grape
> (lb) (lb oz) (lb oz)
>
> 42 4 0 46 6
> 32 3 0 34 1
> 24 2 0 25 5
> 18 1 8 19 15 1/2
> 12 1 0 10 15
> 9 0 13 7 6
> 6 0 8 5 8 1/2
> 4 0 6 3 14 1/2
> 3 0 4 2 10 1/2
> 1/2 0 3/4 (lead) 0 8 3/4
>
the 1/2 pounder is presumably a swivel gun ( see discussion) 3/4 oz lead
is a standard musket ball.
> Royal Navy Case Shot
>
> Case shot consisted of a cylindrical tin case filled with regular
> tiers of shot (not placed at random). The tin was sealed at the base
> with a wooden plug (sabot). This wooden plug was then forced into
> a cartridge and tied. The whole was then enclosed in another bag
> and tied with gut.
>
> Weight(Gun) Weight (shot) No. shot in case Weight Full Case
> (lb) (oz) (lb oz)
>
> GUNS
> 32 8 70 33 8
> 24 8 42 22 15
> 18 6 42 16 8
> 12 4 42 11 5
> 9 3 44 8 9
> 6 2 40 5 2
> 4 2 28 4 0
> 3 2 20 2 15
> 1 1 1/4 12 1 2 1/4
>
There is a slight discrepancy , since 70 8 oz balls would weigh 35
pounds without allwing for the case
> CARRONADES
> 68 8 90 46 2
> 42 8 66 32 8
> 32 8 40 21 4
> 24 8 32 16 1
> 18 6 31 12 2
> 12 4 21 8 2
>
This one I find a little confusing. why would a 32 pounder carronade
fire 2/3 the load of a 32 pounder cannon?
> Langridge Shot
>
> Langridge Shot usually consisted of a number of iron bars enclosed in
> the same type of tin case as used for case shot.
>
I can accept iron bars, that is a long way from "junk" Presumably it
might have been used on rigging the same as bar shot.
> (Source : British Artillery on Land & Sea, R. Wilkonson-Latham)
>
> Pyers Symon
Any dates attached to this excellent information?
Pyers Symon
>
> Pyers Symon wrote:
> >
>
> Thank you for the fine post. I do note that in netscape the columns are
> a little broken up
Sorry - probably my bad use of tabs <g>.
>
> I am surprised that the core was iron and not wood. does your source
> show a sort of sabot placed between the layers?
>
No: the shot was arranged in 3 layers with 3 shot on each layer around
the core.
Interestingly my source says that before 1800 the base and pillar of
grape shot
for land use was of wood not iron.
> 32 8 70 33 8
>
> There is a slight discrepancy , since 70 8 oz balls would weigh 35
> pounds without allwing for the case
Well spotted. Just checked in the source and it is as shown. Wonder if
there
was a typo in the book. 43lbs 8oz ?
>
> > CARRONADES
> > 68 8 90 46 2
> > 42 8 66 32 8
> > 32 8 40 21 4
> > 24 8 32 16 1
> > 18 6 31 12 2
> > 12 4 21 8 2
> >
>
> This one I find a little confusing. why would a 32 pounder carronade
> fire 2/3 the load of a 32 pounder cannon?
Genuinely no idea !
> > (Source : British Artillery on Land & Sea, R. Wilkonson-Latham)
> >
> > Pyers Symon
>
> Any dates attached to this excellent information?
No, which is a pity.
PS I made a typo in the authors name: R. Wilkinson-Latham
Pyers Symon
Pyers Symon
>
> No, which is a pity.
>
Sorry to follow my own post but just spotted that the guns used were
as for 1790.
Pyers Symon
Jack Love
Snips of all the good information.
Langridge Shot
>>
>> Langridge Shot usually consisted of a number of iron bars enclosed in
>> the same type of tin case as used for case shot.
>>
>I can accept iron bars, that is a long way from "junk" Presumably it
>might have been used on rigging the same as bar shot.
>
I seem to recall a description (during one of the great actions,
Armada or Trafalgar) of 'the gun crews became so maddened that they
fired anything they could find when their grapeshot ran out, including
anvils, carpenter's nails and gold coins.' This may be the source of
the 'firing junk' ideas of langridge.
>> (Source : British Artillery on Land & Sea, R. Wilkonson-Latham)
>>
>> Pyers Symon
>
Michael P Reed
>
>I seem to recall a description (during one of the great actions,
>Armada or Trafalgar) of 'the gun crews became so maddened that they
>fired anything they could find when their grapeshot ran out, including
>anvils, carpenter's nails and gold coins.' This may be the source of
>the 'firing junk' ideas of langridge.
During the Battle of Lake Erie, Lawrence loaded and fired a swivel gun
at Detroit [IIRC]. Which may suggest how usefull that gun was
considered.
BTW, I toured Niagra last Sunday, and certainly there was enough room
on the tops to mount swivels. How effective grape might have been, I
am not sure. The Gunwales were much higher than expected, and seemed
ample protection against grape unless through a gunport. I was
struck by the complete lack of height on the berthing deck. It could
not have been much over 4 1/2 feet high. I would have hate to have
witnessed the sanitary conditions with more than a hundred men crowded
down below on a dark and storm night.
I was also struck by the fact that a ship of that size used a tiller.
[correct terminology?] It would seem a rather cumbersome arrangement
during a battle.
Michael P. Reed
Peter Skelton
>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:53:41 GMT, ja...@nwlink.com (Jack Love) wrote:
>
>>
<s>
>
>BTW, I toured Niagra last Sunday, and certainly there was enough room
>on the tops to mount swivels. How effective grape might have been, I
>am not sure. The Gunwales were much higher than expected, and seemed
>ample protection against grape unless through a gunport. I was
>struck by the complete lack of height on the berthing deck. It could
>not have been much over 4 1/2 feet high. I would have hate to have
>witnessed the sanitary conditions with more than a hundred men crowded
>down below on a dark and storm night.
>
>I was also struck by the fact that a ship of that size used a tiller.
>[correct terminology?] It would seem a rather cumbersome arrangement
>during a battle.
The British damage report from Chesapeake claimed a lot of grape
penetration at higher levels. The relevant parts are reported by Sir Howard
Douglas, in A Treatise on Naval Gunnery.
(A "grape" from a 32 pounder is almost the size of a four pound shot.)
--
Peter Skelton
Skelton & Associates
613/634-0230
p...@kingston.net
dmb...@my-dejanews.com
sym...@boat.bt.com wrote:
>
> Sorry - probably my bad use of tabs <g>.
>
I expect it's Vince's browser set to proportional spacing - it works
fine here on Dejanews. About the only thing that doesn, though.
(Oh for a bullsh^h^h^h^h^h battleship filter...)
>
> > [Pyers]
> > > CARRONADES
> > > 68 8 90 46 2
> > > 42 8 66 32 8
> > > 32 8 40 21 4
> > > 24 8 32 16 1
> > > 18 6 31 12 2
> > > 12 4 21 8 2
> > >
> [Vince]
> > This one I find a little confusing. why would a 32 pounder carronade
> > fire 2/3 the load of a 32 pounder cannon?
[Pyers]
> Genuinely no idea !
>
Seems to apply to all the carronade rounds...
I suspect, from the description of the case shot, that the round is
quite long, what with the multiple layers, the charge and the sabot.
Perhaps adding an extra layer or two would have the thing so close
to the end of the barrel that you couldn't ram it. (I have an image
of a bag hanging out of the end of the very short Carronade barrel.)
David
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Pyers Symon
> Seems to apply to all the carronade rounds...
> I suspect, from the description of the case shot, that the round is
> quite long, what with the multiple layers, the charge and the sabot.
>
> Perhaps adding an extra layer or two would have the thing so close
> to the end of the barrel that you couldn't ram it. (I have an image
> of a bag hanging out of the end of the very short Carronade barrel.)
>
> David
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
You might well be right:
42 lb Gun - Length 9ft 6in Weight 65 cwt
42 lb Carronade - Length 4ft 4in Weight 22 1/2 cwt
32 lb Gun - Length 9ft 6in Weight 55 cwt
32 lb Carronade - Length 4ft 0in Weight 17 cwt
Pyers
Jets Moore
> [correct terminology?] It would seem a rather cumbersome arrangement
> during a battle.
>
>
the upper lakes during the War of 1812 were being built hastily at the end
of a long supply line. Anything that could help ease the supply
requirements and speed construction was used. I would suspect that a
tiller would be easier to construct and use only local procurable
materials.
--
John Moore
je...@kos.net
Andrew C. Toppan
> of a long supply line. Anything that could help ease the supply
> requirements and speed construction was used. I would suspect that a
> tiller would be easier to construct and use only local procurable
> materials.
Skipping the wheel would really make no difference to the supply
situation. In that era a wheel simply turned a large wooden drum/spool,
around which a line (rope) was wound; the rope in turn was connected to
the ship's tiller. Turning the wheel & drum wound or unwound the
rope,thereby pulling the tiller to one side or another, thus steering the
ship.
A wheel, wooden cylinder and a couple lengths of line would not have been
hard to procure.
And tiller-steering any large vessel must have been an absolute bitch...
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
Peter Skelton
>Jets Moore (je...@kos.net) was seen to write:
>> of a long supply line. Anything that could help ease the supply
>> requirements and speed construction was used. I would suspect that a
>> tiller would be easier to construct and use only local procurable
>> materials.
>
>Skipping the wheel would really make no difference to the supply
>situation. In that era a wheel simply turned a large wooden drum/spool,
>around which a line (rope) was wound; the rope in turn was connected to
>the ship's tiller. Turning the wheel & drum wound or unwound the
>rope,thereby pulling the tiller to one side or another, thus steering the
>ship.
>
>A wheel, wooden cylinder and a couple lengths of line would not have been
>hard to procure.
>
>And tiller-steering any large vessel must have been an absolute bitch...
Even large ships had to be tiller steered if the weather got bad enough.
They fastened block and tackle from the tiller on each side (relieveing
tackles) and passed orders down from the wheel, to the men manning them.
In ships of that era, the tiller had to be reasonably high out of the water
(a submerged rudder head meant a fair amouint of water coming in). There
are drawings of the rudder head arrangement in "The 74 Gun Ship." The
arrangement makes good use of availabel materials but it is obviously not
water-tight. To have a rudder, the ship would need more height than
Niagara.
Jets Moore
<6uedp3$lgq$4...@noc1.gwi.net>...
> situation. In that era a wheel simply turned a large wooden drum/spool,
> around which a line (rope) was wound; the rope in turn was connected to
> the ship's tiller. Turning the wheel & drum wound or unwound the
> rope,thereby pulling the tiller to one side or another, thus steering the
> ship.
>
> A wheel, wooden cylinder and a couple lengths of line would not have been
> hard to procure.
>
are wood. It may well have been simpler to go with just a tiller. The
ships were also designed to have a very shallow draft to be able to get
over the harbour bar (Much less than 10 feet). Normally the tiller resides
below the gun decks and has a large footprint. It may well be that
becuause space and stability issues that just a tiller was simpler.
Another possible explanation could be that naval architect was from the
Upper Lakes and chose something that he was familur with (doubtful but
there is a chance).
--
John Moore
je...@kos.net