Grenades in Naval Warfare of the GAoP

[Gentleman of Fortune]

As to the construction and purpose of grenades, in a book by John Gibbon entitled "Artillerist's Manual" from 1859, he states that "Any kind of shell, unfit for firing either from being defective in form or solidity, may be used for the purpose."

So, basically, that means that any hollow cannon shot that was unfit to be used in a cannon was reworked to be used as a grenade. Kind of killing 2 birds with one stone. The shot was already cast, so instead of wasting it, it was used for a grenade. The average size was from a 6 pounder cannon, since the size was neither too small or too large to use. But, in reality, anything within reasonable diameter and weight could be used.

Is the quote from the 1859 "manual" true fro pre 1730 grenades? While there is a wide variety of sizes of GAoP grenades, I would think that some were so small that it might have been pointless as a cannon round.

For example, we know that there were period grenade launchers with 2.5 inch bores, would "they" have even bothered to make an "exploding" round for such a small caliber cannon? Or would they have made grenade shells for that specific purpose?

Also, a lot of period grenades have a casting seam... would that be counter productive to a cannon shot?

Just asking.

By the way, Kudos to all the replicas out there... I will post some of my own too.

By the way, does anyone have any clue what "shape" the stink pots would have been?

Greg aka GoF

[Story]

PeglegPete,

Can you indulge us with some knowledge on the grenade launchers, both snaphaunce and flintlock, that saw service up until the Seven Years War?

[Pegleg Pete]

Is the quote from the 1859 "manual" true fro pre 1730 grenades?  While there is a wide variety of sizes of GAoP grenades, I would think that some were so small that it might have been pointless as a cannon round.

For example, we know that there were period grenade launchers with 2.5 inch bores, would "they" have even bothered to make an "exploding" round for such a small caliber cannon?  Or would they have made grenade shells for that specific purpose?

Also, a lot of period grenades have a casting seam... would that be counter productive to a cannon shot?

I don't have a solid answer for you about pre 1730 grenades. My best guess would be "probably". I believe as long as hollow shells have been manufactured, they could, and probably would be used as grenades. One thing you can pretty much figure is that even by the time of the Civil War, things were pretty crudely made. It's logical to think that if anything, the manufacture process would have either gone unchanged, or gotten better from the time of the GAoP. So, without any solid references, items from the time of the Revolutionary war to the Civil War are a pretty good place to start.

Now, that doesn't mean that ALL grenades were made from reject cannon shells. I don't believe that 1859 manual is saying that, either. It just states that reject hollow shot was often used. Which makes sense, really. If you went to all the work to make a sand mould, including the central core, it would be a waste to just melt down the rejects. Especially if you had a good secondary use for them

As you pointed out about the 2.5 inch grenades, that's pretty small. Although there are a few examples of hollow cannon shot down to about that size. Some Civil war hollow shells were only 3 inches in diameter. I've always kind of wondered which came first...hollow shot and then grenades, or grenades, which they figured out you could shoot from a cannon. Chicken or the egg, and all that.

As to your question about a casting seam...

One reference I have to casting cannon shot describes making a sand mould from 2 copper halves of a "casting model". Each copper half was placed in a box, sphere side up, and casting sand was packed in around it forming half of the mould. When both halves were complete, they were fitted together and molten metal poured in. The addition of a centeral core complicated things a bit, but basically, that was formed from a better grade of sand molded into a smaller sphere and placed in the center of the two halves. It's kind of hard to follow what they are describing, without seeing illustrations. I can post the description in full if you would like to read it for yourself.

According to this reference, since the 2 halves of the mould are sand, often times, the sharp edges crumbled off, so when the halves were married up, they formed an imperfect fit, which resulted in a raised edge, or seam. Because of that, after casting, the shot was usually polished by putting a bunch of them into a tumbler and the seams are worn off, and the balls polished by their own friction.

So, if we are talking about reject hollow shot, they would probably skip the polishing procedure since there's no need for it. But, it's totally probable that grenades were cast in the same fashion. I guess the reason I brought it all up in the first place was to give a possible explaination as to the different sizes produced. I would assume the 2.5's were made specifically for the grenade launchers.

Also, the manufacturing process I just described may not apply to all castings. There's a good chance that some of the smaller ones could have actually been poured in a hinged mould. I have no proof to back that up, but there is some evidence of moulds being used in other casting, pottery and glass blowing manufacture.

Story...I'm sorry, I can't indulge you with any "solid" information. There is certainly a lack of information out there. My collection, and "knowledge" (if you want to call it that) falls mainly in the timeline following the Civil War up until post WWII. I've only got a few references of things prior to that. This thread just kind of crossed over both of my hobbies, so I figured I would chime in with the little bit of reference I had found.

Geeze, sorry folks. I just read through all of this, and it seems I've written a short novel. My apologies, I'm sorry to have taken up so much space. I will try to keep my answers short in the future.

Cheers.

Brad, aka Pegleg Pete

[Pegleg Pete]

For example, we know that there were period grenade launchers with 2.5 inch bores, would "they" have even bothered to make an "exploding" round for such a small caliber cannon?  Or would they have made grenade shells for that specific purpose?

Shortly after posting my last response, I did some digging around in my references for any further information. I didn't find too much more about grenades of the period, although I did find a small paragraph about wood fuze construction.

But, as I was searching, I remembered a phrase that I was told early in my collecting days. When it comes to munitions, form follows function. There were quite a few times when I wondered why a particular ordnance had a certain feature or shape to it. That phrase soon became cemented in my brain. Always, always, there's a reason an ordnance object is designed the way it is.

GoF, your parting question was "Does anyone have a clue what "shape" the stink pots would have been?"

Interesting question. Which leads to another question...why are grenades of the period spherical? The idea of a ball shaped grenade was seriously pondered in the years prior to WWII. Why? Because they thought that many of the soldiers were familiar with throwing a baseball, so it would feel more natural to them. As can be seen in most every design, even then, they still didn't go with a totally spherical design. In fact, in the last hundred years or so, there have only been a few (3 or 4) designs worldwide that even come close to a perfect sphere. Obviously, baseball came WAY after the GAoP, so it wasn't because people had grown accustomed to throwing that shape.

So, why would they do so in the years of the GAoP? Certainly, a sphere is a very difficult shape to cast. Especially a hollow one. Why not just a can or bottle shape?

Actually, the process it takes to cast a single hollow shell is pretty labor intensive. It's amazing they used the design at all, even for cannon.

I wonder if that doesn't answer the chicken or egg question. Perhaps the first grenades WERE cannon shot rejects. What would be a more logical reason to make them that shape? Maybe it's just because they already had a manufacturing process for the round shot, so they adapted it for grenades, too. Difficult to say for sure. They obviously had other shapes of containers they were making at the time.

Pure speculation...but something to ponder.

Form DOES follow function...at least in ordnance. Maybe not in period clothing.

And, as to the size of the 2.5 inch grenades...you asked why they would bother making an exploding cannon round for a cannon of that size. Well, it must have been effective enough to make a grenade that size. So, it's possible the same effect would be realized in a cannon round. Basically, the cannon is just a means of pitching the grenade a few hundred yards farther.

Just thinking and typing out loud.

Ok, enough for now....

Brad aka Pegleg Pete

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Great stuff!

I agree that it is probable that reject shells were the first to come about....

What was the most common naval cannon shot size during GAoP? 4lb?, 6lb? 8/b?

The most common size of grenadoe found for GAoP seems to be "around" 3".

greg

[Pegleg Pete]

What was the most common naval cannon shot size during GAoP?  4lb?, 6lb?  8/b?

The most common size of grenadoe found for GAoP seems to be "around" 3".

Well, the only source I found for diameters was in that 1859 book again. It lists cannon size, actual shot sizes, and weight of each. Note, these aren't limited to shipboard cannon. It's just a list of diameters and weights.

I'd hate to see the ship carrying 13 inch guns!

A single shot weighing 294 pounds...holy smokes!

gun size - actual diameter of the shot - weight of the shot

13 in - 12.87 in - 294 lbs

12 in - 11.87 in - 231 lbs

10 in - 9.87 in - 128 lbs

8 in - 7.88 in - 65 lbs

42 pdr - 6.84 in - 42.70 lbs

32 pdr - 6.25 in - 32.60 lbs

24 pdr - 5.68 in - 24.40 lbs

18 pdr - 5.17 in - 18.50 lbs

12 pdr - 4.52 in - 12.30 lbs

9 pdr - 4.10 in - 9.25 lbs

6 pdr - 3.58 in - 6.10 lbs

4 pdr - 3.12 in - 4.07 lbs

3 pdr - 2.84 in - 3.05 lbs

1 pdr - 1.95 in - 1.00 lbs

It's odd the 8 pdr isn't listed. I wish the 2 pdr was listed, because that may fall right in the 2 1/2 inch size. So, that could have been a possible source for your 2 1/2 inch grenades. It looks like the "average" 3 inch grenade would have come from a 4 pounder, which would probably have been a fairly common size.

I've never even HEARD of a one pounder. I guess the same goes for the three pounder. I've heard the phrase, but rarely in any real context. It's interesting to note the one pounder is the only one that is spot on in weight. It may have been the "measuring stick" for the pound system.

Common sizes of cannon? Probably as difficult to pin down as it is to ask what the most popular pirate ship was. It would probably turn into a debate about how they found "such and such" on the Whydah, so it must be true of all pirate ships.

Pirates by nature took what they could get. And with all of the nations involved, and all of the various sizes of ships, I'm sure just about any size could be found someplace.

For the average pirate ship, they probably ranged in the 2-4 pound range, though. Maybe 6 pounds would still fall in line there. For the most part, you didn't want to carry anything large enough to SINK the other ship. After all, you are trying to raid it, not destroy it. It would be handy to have one or two larger guns to face warships and pirate hunters and the like.

My question would be, where would one GET these casings to make grenades. I'm sure the military had plenty of access to them, so they put them to use. But, would they be very common on merchant ships? Could anyone go up to the local foundry and buy reject casings? Or even "regular" grenades, for that matter? Pirates mostly looted commercial ships. I doubt the average sailing vessel had a stash of them on board. There wasn't any "Pirate Depot" where your average pirate could go and buy piratical supplies. I would guess that, even in those days, you would draw suspicion to yourself if you walked up to a foundry and asked for a crate of grenade casings.

So, I wonder how common they actually were? Possibly a black market type of thing? If you had the right connections, you could lay your hands on some. They may have been a fairly rare commodity, and you considered yourself a lucky sailor to come across some.

On an interesting side note, have you ever watched "Master and Commander"? Kind of a slow moving show, but they did quite a lot of research there. There's a bit of artistic license here and there, but some of it is spot on. If you've ever noticed the grenades, they are pretty much the same size as the cannon shot the guy picks up when he jumps overboard. Coincidence? Possibly. But, maybe the movie crew did some research. It would make sense to have the same size as the guns you carry. In that case, you could even use actual cannon rounds in a pinch. No need to rely on "rejects". Just refuze them, and you are good to go. From the size of those shot, I'm guessing 12 to 18 pounders?

Brad aka Pegleg Pete

[Story]

1. I've never even HEARD of a one pounder. I guess the same goes for the three pounder. 

2A. Pirates by nature took what they could get. And with all of the nations involved, and all of the various sizes of ships, I'm sure just about any size could be found someplace.

2. My question would be, where would one GET these casings to make grenades. I'm sure the military had plenty of access to them, so they put them to use. But, would they be very common on merchant ships? Could anyone go up to the local foundry and buy reject casings? Or even "regular" grenades, for that matter? Pirates mostly looted commercial ships. I doubt the average sailing vessel had a stash of them on board. There wasn't any "Pirate Depot" where your average pirate could go and buy piratical supplies. I would guess that, even in those days, you would draw suspicion to yourself if you walked up to a foundry and asked for a crate of grenade casings.

So, I wonder how common they actually were? Possibly a black market type of thing? If you had the right connections, you could lay your hands on some. They may have been a fairly rare commodity, and you considered yourself a lucky sailor to come across some.

1. The One Pounder was the mid-size swivel gun bore (2", with the 1/2lber being 1.15" or so). The Three Pounders are battalion-level guns during the 18th century, or the smaller deck guns.

2. I think you answer your own question in part with 2A. Piracy thrives on field expedients - if reject shells aren't available, and good shells are at a premium, then gunpowder-filled bottles would have to suffice.

Remember, the goal is to incapacitate the targetted crew, not destroy the ship - and if you fast-forward to the fight between the Serapis and Bonhome Richard, it was a sailor out on a yardarm dropping a grenade into the bowls of the British ship that ended the fight (loose powder being the guns was ignited by the flash).

*

http://www.historicalimagebank.com/gallery..._circa_1758_psd

Hand grenade, circa 1758

[Pegleg Pete]

1. The One Pounder was the mid-size swivel gun bore (2", with the 1/2lber being 1.15" or so).  The Three Pounders are battalion-level guns during the 18th century, or the smaller deck guns.

2. I think you answer your own question in part with 2A. Piracy thrives on field expedients - if reject shells aren't available, and good shells are at a premium, then gunpowder-filled bottles would have to suffice. 

Story....

I thought about the swivel gun after reading the discussion in the "Plunder" section with the talk about small cannon to buy. But, I'd never heard the phrase "One Pounder" applied to a swivel gun. Makes sense, though...thanks.

As to the answer about where they got grenade cases, I guess the question--and your answer--is what I was getting at. If I were a pirate in those days, I would scavenge any container I could find. Sort of the period equivalent of a pipe bomb. That seems pretty logical. But, it seems historians have associated the spherical casing as the standard "grenadoe".

GoF makes some good points. I agree that somewhere along the line, there probably was a manufacturing process geared towards grenades. I do tend to think they were closely associated with hollow cannon shot. But, at some time, they may have taken on a life of their own, and were produced specifically as such.

But, besides military use, I'm not sure how much public commercial use drove the market for production. That's why, my personal belief (or best guess) is that most manufactured grenades were originally destined for military use. And pirates either acquired them through taking a military vessel, somehow getting military surplus (black market), or by buying reject casings from a foundry that manufactures hollow cannon shot.

In the middle of this century, a farmer could go buy dynamite for various chores around the farm without anyone batting an eye. (Try that THESE days.) But, a person could never order a case of grenades.

Back in our period of the GAoP, I doubt the average man on the street could do so either. Which means, outside of government contracts, I can't see much demand for a grenade manufacturer in a settlement. I would guess they were probably only found in or around major ports or naval bases. So, it was probably pretty rare to stumble across someone that had casings...whether they were specifically for grenades, or just reject shells.

But, somewhere, sometime, people began to associate the round casings with grenades. I would be curious to see if any of the cannon on the shipwreck sites have the same caliber as the "grenadoes" they found. Lacking a fuze, how can you tell if they weren't just hollow shot? Granted, those with fuzes intact would be a pretty good guess. But, considering the idea of home brewing grenades, who's to say some of the bottles, jars and such that were found on a wreck weren't actually "grenade" casings themselves?

I guess it comes down to the question of availability of steel casings, the wealth and strengh of the pirate crew, and what else happened to be available. It does still leave the question of how hollow iron spheres came into use, when so many other options were available. It would be nice if there was an "obvious" answer. I suppose there could be a chance that only a few crews had casings available, and the majority of the pirates of the time used whatever they had on hand. If you are talking about the likes Blackbeard and such, they were very well known and successful pirates. Perhaps in their situations, it was no problem to pick up the top of the line items...even military issue ornance. And along those lines, since most shipwreck salvages are of relatively well known pirate vessels...such as the QAR, it's more "common" to find that type of grenade. Whereas, if they stumbled on to a handful of lesser known pirate wrecks, they may find nothing of the sort. The problem, of course, is how do you verify that the wreck really was a pirate ship? For the most part, the "common" pirates were no more than normal sailor folk, who happened to steal from others. Your average petty thief, if you will...

The more you dig into the subject, the more questions arise. Too bad the grenade relics available to us aren't stamped "Port Royal Grenade Mfg Company." That would make things SO much easier to sort out.

By the way, thanks for the info about the Serapis and Bonhome Richard. I've never read about it. I'll have to dig into that one a little more.

Brad

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Thanks to all the participants in this thread... its really caused me to stretch my brain cavity a bit...

That being said, wouldn't you think that ship outfitters in the GAoP would have been like farmers in the mid 20th century, in regards to the fact that they have guns on their ships and need to procure powder, shot and shell?

The Whydah wreck uncovered some grenadoes as well... so so far it seems that, from the few wrecks we have found, there have been grenadoes present (ok... small sample size I will admit) but they all fall in the 3" range.

the 3" range seems to be about the size of a 3-4 pound gun...

I think that you hit the nail on the head with field expedient grenadoe manufacturing out of shell casings.

At the same time, I can't help to think that grenadoes themselves would have been useful enough in defense and offense to make them worthy of production/sale as well.

So,

Give me 10 Kegs o' powder, 100 4lbder roundshot, and a score of grenadoes for the road...

Greg

[Captain Midnight]

Sure they were manufactured specifically as such. They were no different than the grenades used by your standard infantry of the day, which I highly doubt were issued with glass bottles and home-made pipe bombs and such. Where do you think the term "Grenadier" comes from? They were a specialized kind of soldier who used a specialized weapon. I believe they were certainly manufactured as grenadoes. The wooden fuses alone tell that they were not home made or "field expedient", as they all show common characteristics and features, and would have taken some time to produce.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I hear what your saying midnight....

But

If you notice the fuses on the Whydah site...

Each of those are different types of fuses from the same wreck site. I don't think it would be beyond the skill of a ships carpenter to have made these fuses...

Also, I believe in a conversation I had with K Kinkor (via e-mail), he said that there was a range of sizes for the Whydah's grenadoes.

I don't think that Peg or myself is saying that we don't believe that grenadoes were not made specifically as grenadoes...

I think what we are saying, is that you could make a plausible argument that the folks who were making grenadoes, were probably more interested in making cannon shot casings. And that those shot casings that were not up to standard then became grenadoes.

And of course, anyone (army grenadiers for example) who placed a large order got grenadoes made specifically for them.

Its interesting that such a large variety of sizes of grenadoes appear. Some that would almost be of inhuman size to throw. I have seen some a shows here in Europe that are almost 5 inch in diameter (with fuses).

The only reasonable explanation, besides being made for Conan to throw, would be that it was a hollow shell casing reject put to other purposes.

So we are not saying that all were reject shells, but that some found there way into armouries this way.

Greg

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Been thinking....

Why would a shell be a reject if it wasn't "true". From what I understand, tolerances were slack and there was a lot of windage for muzzle loading guns and cannon of the period.

Even if you could manufacture a perfectly round sphere. The fact that there was a hole in it and some sort of fuse sticking out (even if just a little) would certainly screw up its balistics right?

Greg

[Pegleg Pete]

That being said, wouldn't you think that ship outfitters in the  GAoP would have been like farmers in the mid 20th century, in regards to the fact that they have guns on their ships and need to procure powder, shot and shell?

<snipped>

I think that you hit the nail on the head with field expedient grenadoe manufacturing out of shell casings.

At the same time, I can't help to think that grenadoes themselves would have been useful enough in defense and offense to make them worthy of production/sale as well.

Exactly...I think that gets to the heart of the matter.

Unless you were lucky enough to raid a ship with enough powder and shot to supply your needs, you would need to pick some up when you stopped at port. That's why I brought up the 20th century farmers buying dynamite. A few decades ago, a farmer could walk into just about any hardware store and buy a crate of dynamite. It was considered a "tool" at the time. Very useful for removing stumps, rocks, beaver dams, etc. No big deal to go buy a 50 pound crate. (My grandpa has told me some interesting stories.)

So, I think it was pretty common to find supplies to feed your cannon. Many ships used them, if for no other reason than self defense on the high seas, as you pointed out. It was probably no big deal to walk up and buy a few kegs of powder and a few dozen rounds of shot. They would be considered "tools" of the time.

But, historically...and by that I mean "recent" - within the last 200 years or so... grenades have fallen outside of the realm of public purchase. It's OK to buy a gun to protect your home, town, (ship) etc. but the really "good" items are reserved for the military.

Hollow shot....kind of a grey area. They would fall under the category of cannon supplies, but sort of on the extreme end of the scale. (Probably the same with bar and chain shot.) Nice to have, but are they necessarily NEEDED for self defense? I guess it depends on what the local laws decided. But, there would probably be a better chance of those being available than grenades.

Commonly, you would have the military to guard the town or port, and a harbor patrol out looking for suspicious activity. So, with a military presence, would there be a need for the average civilian to own such things? There are many instances in the recent past where the military has given caches of arms to towns to defend themselves, but they were/are locked away in a town armory...in some cases, the armory just being a back room of City Hall. But, even in those cases, individuals weren't allowed to posess them. They were handed out in times of emergency.

So, the basic question is, how available were grenades and/or hollow shot to the general public? We know the military had them. What would be nice would be an inventory list or sales slips from some local shops. Foxe (and a few others) are usually pretty good with producing period invoices of such things. If we could find a list that showed either of the two either in inventory, for sale, or sold...then we would have the base question answered. We just need some type of evidence that they were available to the general public.

I agree, this is an interesting discussion. For the reenactor, it would be safest to go with the 3" sphere, as you pointed out.

And speaking of the Whydah, do we have any records or accounts of its exploits? Any history of who it attacked, or what ships it raided?

Brad

[Pegleg Pete]

Been thinking....

Why would a shell be a reject if it wasn't "true".  From what I understand, tolerances were slack and there was a lot of windage for muzzle loading guns and cannon of the period.

Even if you could manufacture a perfectly round sphere.  The fact that there was a hole in it and some sort of fuse sticking out (even if just a little) would certainly screw up its balistics right?

Greg

One of the "obvious" situations would be if the two halves don't match up exactly, and it isn't symetrically round. But, you would be able to pick those out of a crowd with no problem.

I think the biggest "hidden" flaw was that the central core was not centered correctly when it was cast. That causes the sphere to be heavier on one side or another. In a gun of any size, THAT can be a problem.

In sport muzzleloader shooting, a few of the purists go so far as to weigh their cast bullets to make sure they are all consistent. A small air pocket in the casting causes an imbalance. As the ball tumbles down range, it tends to curve like a little bowling ball curving into the 1-3 pins. In their case, the loss of accuracy is very small. But, it can mean the difference between a winning shot and a losing one.

Keep in mind, that's just from a tiny air pocket. If you start talking 3, 4, and 6 pound hollow shot with one side heavier than the other, you end up with HUGE problems down range. Accuracy is pretty much nonexistent at that point. Shots can fly wildly off course, causing you to totally miss your target. Not such a big deal if you have 20 guns pointing at the same thing, but possibly a "life or death" situation if you only have one or two guns.

A foundry didn't want to get a reputation of producing flawed cannon shot. Like any business, if you produce poor quality product, people start to talk, and pretty soon, you have no customers. And in the case of the military, it wouldn't take too many of those poor castings before the foundry would lose their "government contract".

Brad

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Cannon shot accuracy...

Yes, I can see that for solid shot. But the exploding shell casing is really a grenadoe stuck in a cannon and shot out instead of thrown.

So the hollow casing is going to have the fuse sticking out of it and be shot through the air. Unless I misunderstand how cannon hollow casing were fused... wouldn't that throw off the accuracy as much as the sphere itself not being true?

for clarity, assuming that the grenadoe shells in the whydah pic above are all the same size used for a 4lb gun.

Lets say the one on the far left is a perfect sphere and the one in the middle is horribly unballanced and is a reject.

Isn't the exploding shell fuse similar to the Grenadoe fuse? In the sense that its a fuse "sticking out" of the metal ball, and wouldn't that mess up the ballistics for the perfect sphere as much as the unbalanced sphere on the right?

And, I would imagine, like chain shot, the exploding rounds had a limited range anyway so it might not have been too big a deal to worry about.

Grenadoe availability

I would imagine that it would be harder to buy grenadoes in a land locked town that it would be in a coastal town. Obviously, its all speculation but I would imagine that if you were in a port town, you could probably buy grenadoes and hollow shells as easily without batting an eye. Maybe it was common practice to protect a ship in any way possible, grenadoe, chain shot etc.

Its late here, I am rambling...

Greg

[Pegleg Pete]

Cannon shot accuracy...

Yes, I can see that for solid shot.  But the exploding shell casing is really a grenadoe stuck in a cannon and shot out instead of thrown.

So the hollow casing is going to have the fuse sticking out of it and be shot through the air.  Unless I misunderstand how cannon hollow casing were fused... wouldn't that throw off the accuracy as much as the sphere itself not being true?

for clarity, assuming that the grenadoe shells in the whydah pic above are all the same size used for a 4lb gun.

Lets say the one on the far left is a perfect sphere and the one in the middle is horribly unballanced and is a reject.

Isn't the exploding shell fuse similar to the Grenadoe fuse?  In the sense that its a fuse "sticking out" of the metal ball, and wouldn't that mess up the ballistics for the perfect sphere as much as the unbalanced sphere on the right?

GOF,

Yes, I see what you are saying about the effects of the fuze...but not as much as you would think. If a hollow shot is used in a cannon, the fuze is usually trimmed quite close to the casing. Yeah, there WOULD be some effects from wind resistance and such, but only to a small degree. Since the ball is tumbling as it travels downrange, the fuze is moving around the outside and can be in any number of positions at any given time. So, it's really more of an "equal opportunity" wind drag, which doesn't throw the ball off course to much degree...although probably a wee bit. But, it DOES have a drag effect that can reduce the distance it will travel. Even then, it's probably not a whole lot. Hollow "exploding" rounds could be shot nearly as far as traditional solid shot. Maybe a bit shorter, but they could reach a few hundred yards without any problem.

The biggest concern of a protruding fuze would be in the barrel. If it's too long, it could catch on the barrel and actually snap off. If you are REALLY unlucky, it could turn and wedge the shot, and you end up turning the whole projectile into a wedged obstruction and burst the barrel. Although, I don't recall ever reading about any real incidences where that happened.

The main factor in the ballistics of our round shot is the mass of the object. It all gets into complicated rotational physics and center of gravity, and centrifugal and gyroscopic forces, and vector forces around the arc of a rotating sphere, etc, etc. Very boring, and your eye's will glaze over. But, if you want to discuss it off board via e-mail, we can do so. I'm sure lurking readers are already saying "Shut up already!"

You can also find the info on the web, I'm sure...if you are REALLY interested.

But, in a nutshell, the biggest problem is the ball spinning around an invisible center of gravity. All projectiles spin, tumble, what have you. The more mass an object has, the less wind resistance is an issue, and the more the mass (weight) is the factor to worry about. Or, more precisely, the balancing of those forces.

Sorry folks...bear with me once again, or just skip my post...

Short Physics 101:

Actually, a solid shot with a small defect inside would be less of a problem than a hollow shell. I was going to mention that in my last post. A small defect in the interior of a solid shot is a very small amount of mass (weight) that is displaced by the air bubble. Even though competition shooters have proven it can have an effect, it's rather small. BUT, if we are talking about a hollow shell, then the problem is magnified significantly.

If the central core isn't close to center when the shell is cast, one side will be thicker than the other. That means, there is going to be more mass on one side than the other. If you are talking about a shell that's on average a quarter inch thick, and the core becomes offset by, say...an eighth of an inch, you now find the large percentage of the metal, or more correctly the large percentage of the overall MASS of the ball being in one side. As much as 2/3's of the actual mass is on one side. (That's not exact, since the metal is all around the sphere, but you get the idea.) That means the mass, or weight if you want to use that term, is grossly off to one side of the actual center of the projectile.

Ideally, with a sphere, the center of gravity should be as close to the "true" center as possible. When the sphere tumbles, it tends to rotate around it's center. But, if the center of gravity is not the same as the true center, those forces tend to fight with each other. Over a short distance, the spinning around the "true center" wins out. But, as the shot travels down range, the forces around the center of mass wins out, so the projectile tends to drift off in a certain direction...

But wait...in the case of the fuze I said it tumbles all over the place...so wouldn't the same be true about the mass? Not really. At first, yes. But the "wobble" tends to favor a particular side, because of the greater mass. (Newton's 3rd law and all that.) Eventually it tends to drift more and more in that direction, and the overall trajectory bends in that direction.

Chain shot is a good example. When it flies through the air, both balls are spinning around an invisible center of gravity (center of mass). Wind resistance has little or no effect on accuracy, but it does slow the thing down more quickly. Now, imagine the same chain shot, but this time one ball weighs 2 pounds, and the other weighs 4.

Since we are talking smoothbore cannon, there is no way to control the initial spin out of the barrel. That's one reason the idea of a rifled barrel was such a huge breakthrough. If a projectile can be forced to spin perpendicular to the flight path, it becomes much more stable. Not enough to overcome an unbalanced object...but a huge benefit to "normal" accuracy.

Well, none of this has anything to do with period grenadoes. (Sorry folks), but it should help to understand why a shot with an offset cavity would be considered a "reject".

Hope that helps GoF.

Brad

[Pegleg Pete]

Grenadoe availability

I would imagine that it would be harder to buy grenadoes in a land locked town that it would be in a coastal town.  Obviously, its all speculation but I would imagine that if you were in a port town, you could probably buy grenadoes and hollow shells  as easily without batting an eye.  Maybe it was common practice to protect a ship in any way possible, grenadoe, chain shot etc.

Could easily be. I have no problem with that. I just wish we had some solid evidence to point one way or the other.

Brad

[Dorian Lasseter]

Gonna resurrect this thread...

Even though there are a dozen (well, half a doz) other grenade/grenadoe threads, this one is the most extensive...

I mainly want to know about the fuse...

"A hollowed out piece of wood, filled with a slow burning powder mixture."

Anyone experiment with this?

Anyone have a reference to the manufacture of said fuses?

I used to do ECW, and we had grenades for some events which were just tennis balls mocked up with a film cannister stuck in them with about 10-20 grains of 1F in them and used that green coated 'cannon' fuse...

I'd just love to have something better/period.

[Littleneckhalfshell]

QAR Arms - Grenades

http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/QAR/artifacts/arms.htm

Picture and description of a Grenade from the QAR, also two grenades - related picture.

From these pictures it seems that the grenade had a raised cast lip where the fuze went into it.

this makes sense, since the word Grenade is from the word for Pomegranate, and a pomegranate has a raised area, like a fuze bump. I would guess that yes, anything could be used and I have seen reports that besides iron, period grenades could be made from glass, and ceramic (fired clay) There was also incendiary and stink grenades. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck........ Just as all pirates are not cut from the same cloth, but show a great deal of variation, so I would guess it would be with grenades. Same for Fuze.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Littleneck

I am not really seeing that raised neck/lip on the grenade. I have a few more pictures of grenadoes on my website http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/weapons.htm

and a lot more on my hard drive, and if the neck exists, I don't think its a common thing.

Some of the fuses have a neck to help them fit, but you can see that yourself from the collection of Whydah grenades above.

There is somebody on eBay selling glass grenades supposedly from the GAoP period.... They kind of look like warped/melted bottles.

GoF

[Captain Midnight]

Littleneck

I am not really seeing that raised neck/lip on the grenade. I have a few more pictures of grenadoes on my website http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/weapons.htm

and a lot more on my hard drive, and if the neck exists, I don't think its a common thing.

Some of the fuses have a neck to help them fit, but you can see that yourself from the collection of Whydah grenades above.

There is somebody on eBay selling glass grenades supposedly from the GAoP period.... They kind of look like warped/melted bottles.

GoF

Aye, I don't see the raised lip or ring either. The only pic of a grenado I see on the QAR site is of the one that appears to be either smashed or exploded, but the point where the fuse would enter the body in this particular grenade is broken away. I haven't seen any of the Whydah examples that appear to have a raised lip either; they all appear to be simple round iron spheres with a hole drilled for the fuse to fit into. I may be missing something in the two collections, though, but I don't recall seeing anything like that.

[blackjohn]

As far as I recall, they were smooth, with a dimple or depression on the bottom to keep them from rolling about freely.

[Dorian Lasseter]

I mainly want to know about the fuse...

"A hollowed out piece of wood, filled with a slow burning powder mixture."

Anyone experiment with this?

Anyone have a reference to the manufacture of said fuses?

I am hoping for more info, if it exists, on the composition of the fuse...

I had thought to experiment at some point if I can get some saltpeter...

Say a mixture if 1F and saltpeter, made into a 'sludge' and put into a hole drilled through a dowel rod fuse... vary the mixture from a 50/50 to whatever mix makes it burn slowly yet effectively...

And how was the fuse timed?

Every example seems to be about the same length...

How much time did you have from lighting it til it exploded?

Modern grenades use about a 3-4 second fuse (after the 'spoon' trigger is released)

[blackjohn]

How to make Hand-Granadoes to be Hove by Hand.

There is good use made of Hand-Granadoes in Assaults and Boarding of Ships; these are made upon a Mould made of Twine, and covered over with Cartridge Paper and Musket Bullets cut in two, put with Past and bits of Paper thick on the out-side. After you have doubled the Shells, past on some at a time, and let it dry, and put some more until it be quite full; then dip it in scalding Rossen or Pitch and hang it up and it is for your use: But you must have the innermost end of the Twine left out, and before you pitch it you must draw out the Twine and stop the hole, and then pitch it.

To Load them, fill these shells with Gun-Powder, then make a Fuze of one pound of Gun-Powder and six Ounces of Salt-Petre and one of Charcoal, and fill the Fuze; then knock it up to the head within one quarter of an inch, which is only to find it by night.

Stop the rest of the holes well with soft Wax; your first Shells must be coated with Pitch and Hurds lest it should break with the fall; and be sure when you have fired the Fuze, suddenly cast it out of your hand, and it will do good execution.

Or so the old-timers tell me.

[Dorian Lasseter]

Right.....

1 pound of powder...

6 ounces of saltpeter...

1 ounce of charcoal...

Not sure I need that much...

I'll have to give that a go... later...

Sounds like the fuse is fast though... "and be sure when you have fired the Fuze, suddenly cast it out of your hand,"

Thankee John... where did you find this, and is there more???