Re: Grapeshot

[Jonathan Davies]

Dear All,
I wrote 'The King's Ships', a history of henry VIII's Navy some time go.
This was the section on artillery ammunition which may be of some use.

The *Mary Rose* was found to carry *lanthorn* shot, made as the name
suggests of stave-built canisters filled with flints held together with weak
mortar. Anti-rigging ammunition known as ?cross bar shot? was also
available.  This consisted of an iron shot with a longitudinal bar through
the centre.   Stocks of this type of ammunition in the Tower of London range
from those suitable for a demi-cannon to the falcon.  Lead ammunition varied
from simple circular shot to wire-linked shot for anti-rigging or
anti-personnel use.   From evidence found at the *Mary Rose* lead ammunition
could be cast in moulds aboard ship, and even stone shot could be finished
off on board if necessary.




The evidence from the Loshult gun, striations in the barrel were probably
the result of firing iron dice.  The Danish Middle Ages Cebntre reproduced
similar 'damage' to the barrel when they conducted their own experiments.

I wrote up their activities for Skirmish the UK re-enactors' magazine.  The
relevant section follows.


A cast was made of the interior of the barrel of the original and a number
of striations or scratches were found.  These were found to be almost
identical to similar striations found in the test gun after firing iron
shrapnel. The tests used the full range of wooden and iron arrows, and
anti-personnel small shot.  A lead ball weighing 184 gms (six ounces) was
also fired.

The iron dice and flint shrapnel proved remarkably effective but only at
very short range.  Without grass wadding placed in front of the projectiles
they were blown gently out of the barrel traveling only one or two metres in
front of the gun.  When properly loaded they would have proved lethal to
anyone twenty metres away if either in front or one or two metres to the
left and right of the line of fire. However at forty metres shot spread ten
metres to either side of the line of fire.  The iron dice were slightly more
predictable in their flight but the overall effect of the fire at longer
ranges was pretty random.



The effect of the different projectiles was assessed again at a range of
targets.  Firstly, a 1.5mm steel plate was used, equivalent to the plate
armour available in the late fourteenth century.  A padded arming doublet
also provided an authentic target, as was a reproduction of the leather
jerkin reinforced with steel plates, a copy of one found in the grave pit
from the battle of Visby 1369.  The wooden quarrels and the lead ball
penetrated all the targets with ease.  The iron dice shot proved lethal to
the doublet and severely damaged but failed to penetrate the plate and Visby
armour.



The Loshult gun would have proved to be an excellent addition to the late
medieval armoury.  It could be used with either wooden quarrels or lead
balls to hit small groups of enemy at about 200 metres with a good chance of
doing serious damage to anything it struck.  At up to twenty yards and
shooting grapeshot it could be used to sweep a passageway or control an
entrance.  Small and manageable, using only a small quantity of powder, it
would have been an ideal replacement for the springald as a weapon of
defence.  It would have been of marginal use in a field engagement but as a
ship board weapon it might well have proved of great use for sweeping enemy
decks before the bloody business of boarding began.



I hope this is of some use.



best wishes

Jonathan Davies





On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Patrik Djurfeldt wrote:

> Hello
>
> Patrik (not Patrice) here... :)
>
> Well then Wikipedia seems to be wrong.
> Balls (of stone) packed in bags are described and illustrated on at least
> two pages in Mariano di Jacopo's (Taccola) "De rebus militaribus" of 1449.
>
> Codex Latinus Monacensis 28800, fol. 18v:
> "saccus lapillis plenus in tuba"
> Although the text describes stones in a "tube" or "pipe", the accompanying
> illustration looks like a roughly cylindrical sack tied at the top, and
> probably at the bottom as well (not completely clear on my grainy
> photocopy). Next to it is the front end of a bombard, close by a "bombard
> stone" etc.
>
> Codex Latinus Monacensis 28800, fol. 19r:
> A bag of stones, which seems to be illustrated at the moment it bursts open
> in front of a bombard. The sack has a closed opening at its rear end.
> Unfortunately, my photocopy of the CLM28800 picture doesn't show the front
> of the sack. But the Codex Parisinus Latinus 7239, fol. 23r (a good copy of
> CLM28800) shows the stones "bursting" out. The accompanying text says
> "saccus lapillis plenus".
>
> Regards,
> Patrik Djurfeldt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Keel" 
> To: "livin-history" 
>  Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:08 AM
> Subject: Grapeshot
>
>
> Hello
>
> We've had some bags of grapeshot (canister/case; tough these are
> obviously 18/19th century words, where it referred to fine-grained
> shots as opposed to grapeshot which then consisted of big balls),
> or in german perhaps "Kartätsche" at our siege-engineer-display.
>
> There was some commotion as somebody referred to them as Shrapnel,
> which it obviously wasn't, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Shrapnel
> Henry Shrapnel not born then, and not explosive either.
>
> Wikipedia now claims "Kartätsche" (the balls or whatever packed
> in bags) was only invented around 1600, in the 15th century only
> "Hagel" was used, essentially the same without the packing.
> The source wikipedia quotes is dubious at best ("Militair-
> conversations-lexikon, 1834") Ospreys "Tudor Warships" mentions
> grapeshot for 1545; no idea about heir source. My Books, among
> them http://openlibrary.org/b/OL6719429M/Geschu%CC%88tz_im_Mittelalter
> don't seem to say anything about it. The above one covers only
> the period up until about 1440, and it's not exactly easy to find
> something in 14/15th century accounts if you don't know how it might
> be called..
>
> So the question is:
> - Are there any sources for grapeshot/Kartätsche (not "Hagel")
>  for the 15th century? Perhaps Patrice knows pictorial evidence?
> - How was that thing called? In english, french or german.
>
> Cheers
> Seegras
> --
> "Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
> neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
> "It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are
> likely to end up with neither." -- Bruce Schneier
>
>
>
>