16th/17th century chain shot

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

I know you are a busy chap, Michael,

But are the indentations in the split shot there to recieve musket balls,...to hold the two halves 'square' 'til they leave the muzzle?

I am a little surprised at the early date for this, having only seen 18th century types, joined with chain as here, or with the bars.

Though designed for taking out rigging, one flying a bit low would certainly take out one's personal 'rigging' in a rather horrendous manner!


Best wishes,

R.
On looking again, I think the 'holes' in one side are in fact studs protruding. Makes much more sense, and answers my dumb question!

Hi Richard,

Please forgive my not answering back any earlier.

Your question was not dumb in any way. Your first guess was correct: there are holes and studs respectively to hold the two halves 'square'.

These have been in use since at least the 16th thru the 19th century. They are hard to date but as nothing has been added to the Hohensalzburg armory after the 17th century we have a terminus ante quem.



Best wishes,
m

[Matchlock]

Mark,

I sent you a private message.

Michael

[M ELEY]

Thanks, Michael!

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting stuff here!! I had heard of all manner of assorted items being fired out of cannon in naval melee's in early battles, and of the chain shot as well. It is interesting to see actual examples as shown by Michael, and those by Kisak.
I am always astounded by the severe damage done by low velocity shot and material, as my limited exposure to understanding ballistics always assumes that the high velocity was essential to carry out the end result. To see an object moving at a speed it could actually be seen moving through the air is surprising that it could sever bodies and so on. Obviously, that was the case, except perhaps when the projectile was well spent.
Many years ago, I found an old account from a grandfather who had fought in the Civil War, when asked if he was ever wounded, as he fought in a well actioned unit in many battles and campaigns. His dry and folksy reply, "..well I got hit by a cannon ball once, but didnt hurt me none". !!

All best regards,
Jim

[Matchlock]

I cannot but bow down before that really cool and grand grandfather, Jim!

m

[Matchlock]

Retaining its original blackened surface.

Michael

[M ELEY]

Nice piece, Michael. I'm surprised at the relatively small size of these pieces. I guess I always assumed they had much longer chains and were of a heavier weight. There were much later variations of chain shot created in the mid-19th century that were larger and made for more of an "anti-personnel" effect. It was shot out of a double cannon barrel (think shotgun) at troops. Apparently, it had very mixed effects. Anyway, thanks for posting. Do you have any barshot close-ups. It would be interesting to compare...

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...
I am always astounded by the severe damage done by low velocity shot and material, as my limited exposure to understanding ballistics always assumes that the high velocity was essential to carry out the end result. To see an object moving at a speed it could actually be seen moving through the air is surprising that it could sever bodies and so on. Obviously, that was the case, except perhaps when the projectile was well spent.
...

i've read many accounts of battles where the writer described seeing the 'low' velocity roundshot cannon balls destroying a whole file of troops, removing limbs, cutting them in half, etc., and even descriptions of new recruits thinking they could catch one as it seemed to be going slow (and losing an arm or a hand) and people losing legs when they tried to stop a slow ball with their foot. i seem to recall a crimean description of similar instances where troops were warned not to try this foolishness, and photos of hundreds of cannon balls that had rolled back down the hill. at waterloo wellington lost a few generals, one lost a leg next to wellington to a cannonball, and said 'excuse me sir, i seem to have lost my leg'. another had his horse cut in half by one.

roundshot was deliberately aimed to strike before advancing troops so it would skip and take out the whole file. troops prayed for soft ground that would absorb the shot without skipping.

along with grape, cannister, and langridge, as well as the thousands of musket balls flying about, i'm surprised at how few actually were wounded or killed, even tho it was in the thousands at such battles, many more made it, and in most cases disease actually killed more than firearms.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kronckew

i've read many accounts of battles where the writer described seeing the 'low' velocity roundshot cannon balls destroying a whole file of troops, removing limbs, cutting them in half, etc., and even descriptions of new recruits thinking they could catch one as it seemed to be going slow (and losing an arm or a hand) and people losing legs when they tried to stop a slow ball with their foot. i seem to recall a crimean description of similar instances where troops were warned not to try this foolishness, and photos of hundreds of cannon balls that had rolled back down the hill. at waterloo wellington lost a few generals, one lost a leg next to wellington to a cannonball, and said 'excuse me sir, i seem to have lost my leg'. another had his horse cut in half by one.

roundshot was deliberately aimed to strike before advancing troops so it would skip and take out the whole file. troops prayed for soft ground that would absorb the shot without skipping.

along with grape, cannister, and langridge, as well as the thousands of musket balls flying about, i'm surprised at how few actually were wounded or killed, even tho it was in the thousands at such battles, many more made it, and in most cases disease actually killed more than firearms.

Michael thank you for that stunning photo and shown with the open book to set wonderful context, its great to see this thread revived and on such a fascinating topic.

Kronckew, thank you for this dynamic perspective and it is great to get a more realistic picture, though gruesome, of how warfare was in those times. I think one of the best books I ever read on the subject was "The Face of Battle" by the late John Keegan of Sandhurst. He truly showed the nature of human reaction in terrible combat situations, and it is so interesting to better understand how people thought and responded in these circumstances.

I think I mentioned before in this thread or elsewhere, my great grandfather who was a Civil War veteran in reading one of his accounts in a newspaper article recounting his memoirs, when asked if he was ever wounded responded, "..nah, got hit by a cannonball at St.Petersburg but didn't hurt me none!". Naturally thoughts were was this simply embellished hyperbole of an extremely old soldier? or might this have been an extraordinarily 'spent' ball bouncing along as described. I always thought it was a curious tale
Much better perspective on it now .

All very best,
Jim