Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum
Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: callicles on July 26, 2012, 05:42:22 PM
-
Here is my cancerous case shot I had cut by a nice gentleman in Virginia. Looks like he did a great job. Just wanted to share it.
Thanks to emike and CW for the advice and for the helpful information.
-
Looks good. Is that a rebate I see under the fuse in the corners? If so, it is CS! Is the black pitch still sticky? I don't know how to arrest that other than freezing it!
-
Thanks emike. Once again, I learn something every day because I do not know what a "rebate" is as concerns shells. Could you expound? I can only say that the fuse has a 90 degree pie slice -- like the one Jine posted. But any theory making it CS would be great! ;D
Also notice the rust penetration on the outer rim. It definitely needed cutting. Now, the picture posted was taken by the guy who cut it. He mailed it to me today. I suspect the pitch is still sticky. So, what do you mean about freezing?
Anyway, thanks for your help in me getting this done.
-
The Confederacy had issues with their Bormann fused cannon balls. An interim remedy they tried was to put a rebated area under the fuse for a gasket. I have highlighted what looks to be such a rebate with this orange circle. US shells did not have these rebates as far as I know.
-
It appears the gasket space is there. It is most clear on the bottom left side of each fuse half as an indentation into the iron. Here is a zoom in on the fuses:
-
CW and MIke,
I post below pictures I took of the shell a few years ago --the same shell that has been cut above. They are bad pictures, but if you look hard you can see that it has a 90 degree wedge. Also, notice the fuse has been pushed up as a result of moisture inside the shell freezing off-and-on since the ACW (it was found in an area that often floods and that always holds moisture).
Could the rebate somehow be related to the fuze being slowly pushed up and out over the decades? Don't think I wouldn't love to have some shell that changes the understanding of US and CS Boremann fuses. I would love, too, to say it is a CS case-shot (who wouldn't?). I can't wait to learn more about the rebate idea.
Again, the pictures of the cut shell were taken by the gentleman who cut them. I should be receiving the shell tomorrow. I will take better pictures of the supposed rebate area and post them for review.
Until then, perhaps Pete will chime in and give us some help.
-
Here is a cut from a half section shell on civilwartillery.com showing the fuse opening without the rebated area. Note the threads go down to a 90 degree turn toward the underplug opening. With the CS rebate there is a groove around the bottom of that threaded area that accepted the gasket. It seems to be visible in yours as seen in the 2nd image. The arrow is pointing at the possible rebate at the bottom of the threads.
-
At Callicles request, here is my analysis.
More than 30 years ago, when I was doing my studies about distinguishing CS-made Bormann fuzes from US-made ones, I noticed the big "gasket rebate" (groove) at the bottom of CS-made Bormann shells, and began to distribute my theory that its presence was a way to tell CS-made Bormann shells from US-made ones. Full confirmation came via the flood of cut-in-half Augusta GA cache CS Bormanns. Every one of those that I've ever seen has the gasket-rebate.
So, the "guideline" I formulated is, the gasket rebate means CS-made, and no gasket rebate means it's either yankee-made or 1861 CS-made (before the gasket-as-premature-detonation-remedy was adopted).
That "guideline" has held true through all the following years, for every sawed-in-half Bormann shell with an identifiably CS-made or US-made fuze in it. Callicles' sawed Bormann is the first I've seen which doesn't match up with the guideline. So, I have to think the simplest answer is that his shell is a CS-made Bormann with a captured US-made Bormann fuze in it. EDIT: Or, a captured CS-made shell fired by the yankees with a US-made fuze in it. (There is documented proof that the yanks used captured CS ordnance during the Vicksburg Campaign.)
Background info:
As is already known, the Confederates had bad troubles with their Bormann fuzes detonating the shell prematurely ...often in the barrel or muzzle of the cannon upon firing. (After the battle of Fredericksburh, that problem caused Col. E.P. Alexander, Lee's Chief of Reserve Artillery, to ban their use by the Army of Northern Virginia. (Nonetheless, some still got used at Gettysburg ...and much later in the Western Theater, due to desperation.)
One remedy the Confederates tried for overcoming the premature-detonation problem was to manufacture their Bormann-fuzed shells with a deep groove (which Machinists and Engineers call a rebate) encircling the bottom of the shell's "main" fuzehole. The rebate's purpose was to accept a wider-than-normal leather gasket underneath the Bormann fuze. The theory was that the prematures were caused by firing-blast flame geting past the fuze's short threaded section and going underneath the fuze, thereby getting access to the shell's bursting-charge. You could say that the oversize gasket is a "headgasket," to seal the bottom of the main fuzehole from intrusion by firing-blast flame.
Important note:
US-made Bormann fuzes also had a leather or rubber gasket underneath the fuze. But the US gasket was no wider than the fuze's body. Thus there is no gasket rebaye in US Bormann fuzeholes.
Here are some close-up photos which show the difference I noticed long ago between a CS-made Bormann fuzehole and a US-made one.
Regards,
Pete
-
I too have such a shell in my collection. It's a 6lb sectioned case shot with a rebate and a Federal 90 degree Bormann.
Dan
-
Awesome find!!!!!
-
Okay Guys,
First off, I want to thank emike and CW for identifying the rebate. Also, thanks Pete for coming in and giving us that expert's "punch." Look, if there is ever an example of why this site is as good as it gets, it is this thread. I have never heard of "rebate." If I had not posted that thing on this site, it would have rested on my mantle for years, labeled as a Yankee shell! Again, thanks emike and CW (and, of course, Pete "the God Father" George).
All I did was send off a cancerous, Yankee made case-shot. I promised emike that I would post it for the benifit of this community after it was cut. And now, I have something more than I would have ever dreamed!! By the way, Pete has proffered that my item might have been captured by Yankess, who removed the CS fuse, then replaced it with there own.
Alright, here is the question for you guys: how do I best preserve this thing to stop the cancer? I'm hoping it will arrive via UPS tomorrow.
One other query: how unique should I regard this shell? I don't sell any of my artifacts, but I'd like to get ideas on how the value might be evaluated based on these facts.
Thanks Guys,
Callicles
-
Thanks for the kind words. Glad it worked out. I would like to get lucky one day myself and find that I have cut a ratty shell only to find it has bullets inside for the case shot. Hasn't happened yet...
I think the intrinsic value of this story is a lot higher than the extrinsic value of your halves. There is no question, however, that this is worth more "Dead" (eg, cut) "than Alive" (eg., whole). Its worth more both extrinsically and as an aide to understanding. My guess is each half is worth $195 and before this operation , the whole shell was essentially unsellable but may have been worth $175.
Preservation will have to be answered by someone else. I was told that the Chesterton's Rust Transformer I sometimes use for similar situations will not work on shells found in swampy ground. Electrolysis may be better, but it would've been easier to do before it was cut and a lot of the "cancerous" iron will go away so it may not be an option either. I'd also be interested in knowing if anyone has an answer for the black "tar" matrix because often it remains stick and has a nasty tendency to flow. Maybe now that it is exposed to air it will solidify.
-
To All Interested,
Bormann fuses are installed at an arsenal using a very special tool to fit the tool indentation. Being of a soft metal, the Bormann can't be removed without it without causing much damage.
Using the below image as an example of a U.S. shell, you can see that any flame cannot pass the leather gasket and enter the fuse support plug. So why would an extra gasket stop the flame. The U.s. did not have this premature detonations so why would the C.S.
The Bormann fuse bears against its gasket 360 derees on the gasket, the gasket in turn bears against the bottom of the fuse hole.
I doubt if a gunner would attempt the removal of a U.s. Bormann so as to re-install it in his shell nor return the shell to one of their arsenals for a re-fit. But I guess perhaps anything is possible.
Best Regards,
John
P.S. Does anyone have a 12 pdr C.s. shell having a side loading plug and a Bormann fuse installed in it?
-
John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> So why would an extra gasket stop the flame.
As my previous post made clear, it is not an "extra" gasket, because US Bormann shells also have a gasket. The difference is that the post-1861 Confederate gasket is wider and thicker than the US Bormann gasket.
> The U.S. did not have this premature detonations so why would the C.S.
Artillery reports in the Official Records show that the US did have the premature-detonation Bormann fuze problem ...but not nearly as frequently as CS-made Bormann fuzes. During the war, the difference was attributed to inferior manufacturing quality of the CS-made fuzes. That is why yankees would sometimes fire a captured CS Bormann shell but would replace its fuze with a US-made one. It is also why Confederate gunners would definitely use a captured US-Made Bormann fuze when any were available.
> Bormann fuses are installed at an arsenal using a very special tool to fit the tool indentation.
> Being of a soft metal, the Bormann can't be removed without it without causing much damage.
Pardon me please, but both of those statements are incorrect. Bormann fuzes were definitely NOT installed in the shell at the arsenal. Bormann fuzes CAN be unscrewed from the shell (if not left in place "too" long. Here are SIX pieces of proof:
1- Yankee 12-pounder Limber-chest "contents diagrams" show a separate compartment for the fuzes. The yankees very rarely used paper timefuzes in 12-pdr. shells, so the diagram MUST be referring to storing Bormann fuzes in a separate compartment if the Limber-chest.
2- Various caches of unfired Bormann shells have been dug, and in some of the caches the shells' Bormann fuzes were absent.
3- Bormann fuze-wrenches have been dug at cannon-positions and in artillery camps. Why would the artillerymen be issued those Bormann fuze-wrenches if the fuzes were already installed in the shells at the arsenal?
4- One version of US-made Bormann fuze has a feathered arrow on its face, pointing in a counterclockwise direction (the "unscrew" direction). If the Bormann fuze cannot be unscrewed after installation, what is the purpose of the arrow on the fuze?
5- Some "dropped" (unfired) Bormann fuzes have been dug which show slight damage from the Bormann fuze-wrench twisting the fuze in the UNSCREW direction.
6- ALL Bormann fuzes have a thin sheetmetal disc at the center of the fuze's underside. The thin metal disc's purpose is to prevent water or "humidity" from entering the fuze's flame-hole while the fuze is in storage, awaiting use. To prepare the fuze for use, the artillerymen had to pierce one or more tiny holes through the sheetmetal disc, to allow flame from the fuze to enter the shell's bursting-charge cavity. That would be impossible to do if the fuze was installed at the arsenal and could not be unscrewed later.
Regards,
Pete
-
As most readers already know, my posts tend to be uncommonly "lengthy." So, I try to self-edit my posts' lengthiness, by not including every last detail I know about the subject -- unless doing so is absolutely neccessary.
In my prior post, in the part about why the Confederates "evolved" their Bormann shells' fuzehole to accommodate a wider gasket under the fuze, and WHY they did that, I excluded an additional detail, for the sake of shortening my long-windedness.
As I mentioned in that post, the Confederates were trying to figure out the causes of their Bormann fuzes detonating prematurely, inside the cannon's bore upon firing. Here is the detail I excluded. In addition to firing-blast flame intrusion past the fuze's threads (which I did mention), the Confederates thought the premature-detonation problem might be due to "firing shock" causing a seam INSIDE the fuze to split, allowing flame from the fuze's powder-train to prematurely enter the shell's bursting-charge cavity.
The Confederates thought the wider, thicker gasket would prevent premature detonation in the cannon's bore or at its muzzle ...which caused casualties among Confederate troops who were stationed out in front of the cannons to protect the battery's position from capture.
On that subject:
Long ago, I read a battle-report involving CS casualties caused by defective CS Bormann-fuzed shells. The commander of the battery-protection CS infantry sent a message up the hill to the battery's commander. The note said, "If you fire one more round of that defective ammunition over our heads, I shall order my troops to turn around and give you a volley."
Regards,
Pete
-
The War of Rebellion, O.R.A., Series I, Vol. XXV, Part II, 151
Special Orders, Headquarters Army of the Potomac,
NO. 79. March 21, 1863
"........ In the batteries of light 12-pounders, it is very important that the the fuse be screwed down tightly, so that the horseshoe on the bottom may be supported by the shoulder of the fuse-hole. If this is not done, a premature explosion may result. The fuse-wrench furnished with the battery stores, is used for this purpose, and, when practicable, the fuse should always be screwed down just before firing.
By Command of Major-General Hooker
S. Williams
Assistant Adjutant-General"
-
Sir:
An excellant reference. Thank you. Were there any orders relating to unscrewing enemy fuses.
Regards,
John
-
That Official Records eport is excellent info, 6lbgun! Thank you for posting it so everybody here will know about it. Among other interesting information, it provides proof-beyond-doubt that the yankees were indeed experiencing premature detonations when firing Bormann-fuzed shells. (Obviously, the yankees felt the order needed to be issued to prevent the premature detonations from continuing to happen.)
And of coure, the order also proves that Bormann fuze-wrenches were issued to cannon-crews.
Regards,
Pete
-
Dear Pete,
I meant to type "extra wide" gasket! Perhaps their 'thicker" gaskets is causing the fuses to protrude.
I was unaware of Hooker's orders to tighten the Bormann fuse before loading.
a box of 12 pdrs were recovered from the USS Cario (sp) which had Bormanns installed and were transported down rivfer and intended for delivery to a shore battery. The ship did not have a 12 pdr.
Pete, how were the shells kept moisture proof without the fuse installed?
As for your remaining comments, thank you for the posts and I will have to yield to your years of experience.
Any idea on my last question about finding a Bormann in a shell with a side loading plug?
Regards,
John
-
John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> Does anyone have a 12 pdr C.S. shell having a side loading plug and a Bormann fuse installed in it?
Yes. A photo of a CS-Bormann-fuzed 12-pounder Sideloader Case-Shot will appear in the soon-to-be-published book "Lee's Thunderbolts", which I am writing with Keith Kenerly.
Regards,
Pete
-
This is referring to my previous post concerning Hookers order.
This quote is found in the after action report of Col Charles H. Tompkins, 1st Rhode Island Artillery, commanding the Right Center Division.
Dated December 21, 1862
Opposite Fredericksburg
This may be the reason behind Hookers order.
" I would respectfully call your attention to the fact that no reliance can be placed upon the Bormann fuse. Many of them burst immediately after leaving the gun. I would suggest the immediate inspection of all ammunition using this fuse be ordered, that it may be ascertained whether the fault is in the construction of the fuse or in the manner in which it is placed in the projectile."
Dan
-
Dear 6lbGun,
Now that is the sort of references I enjoy reading about. I guess Pete's Positive I.d. for a C.S. Bormann is the rebate section of the fuse hole, however a bad I.d. feature unless you have a radiograph machine or cut all your finds in half.
Regardss
John
-
As I said in a previous post, a significant number of Bormann roundshells have been dug with no fuze in them. I've been distributing the gasket rebate/groove clue to diggers and collectors for decades in order to help them accurately ID their missing-fuze Bormann shells as being US-made or CS-made. Until recent years, you'd see a lot more missing-fuze Bormann shells than sawed-in-half Bormann shells.
The gasket-rebate/groove ID clue works as long as the CS-made Bormann shell isn't from 1861.
Regards,
Pete
-
Going through some notes I've made on fuses, Bormanns etc. Not to organized. Post them when I find, if relevant.
This one's about removing a Bormann.
This from a report by Major General M. L. Smith a CS divisional commander at Vicksburg. They were trying to make incendiary shells for their water batteries.
".......My Ordnance Officer was directed to prepare shells as above (incendiary composition), but found it impossible to extract the Bormann fuse without destroying it so much that could not be replaced"
Looks like he came across a tight one or was using a screw driver.
Dan
-
Pee, touche' on the fuse Wrench being in the battery.
Dan, Were trhere any follow ups on what the U.s. War Dept. discovered about the Bormann prematures?
Thanks,
John
-
John,
Nothing "official" but i did find some complaints from the field.
This is from a report by Capt. Peter Simonson, Chief of Artillery, 1st Div, 4th Corps, Army of the Cumberland, Atlanta campaign.
".....No attention appears to have been paid to putting Rubber gaskets under the Bormann fuse, and many of them exploded prematurely....."
I read another early war report but can't find just now, so I can't give you a reference. He was complaining that when the Bormann was punched for 5sec it was going off at 1/2 sec or less. He attributed this to bad milled powder in the powder train, thin internal channel walls burning through, or the base plate burning through.
This one probably doesn't belong in this thread, but here it is.
I read a lengthy letter from Col. Ambrosio Jose Gonzales to President Davis on Sept 4, 1861. Gonzales was in command at Edisto Island in NC.
In the letter he requests shells for his 24lb rifled guns. He wanted a percussion fuse at the apex and a Bormann fuse on the side so that he could quickly us it against naval vessels or attack by troops. I wonder if they made him any.
That's all for now
Dan
-
6lbgun,
Thanks for all this information -- well done!!!
-
I am confused which probably won't surprise many who know me but riddle me this.....
If the fuse had firing shock which cracked the fuse and allowed the flame to bypass the threads resulting in the belief that a "thicker gasket would prevent premature detonation in the cannon's bore or at its muzzle " then how did they get away with firing the Bormann shells with no fuse as a substitute for case shot canister as shown by historical quotes in the "Requesting Bormann Fuse Interpretation" thread? Those two situations seem at odds to each other to me but I'm probably missing the obvious.
-
CW,
You bring up a very good point. I read and re-read your post, then went to the other thread. Question: did you mean to write . . . as a substitute for "canister," instead of "case shot"? You said case shot. I think the process was used to replace "canister." But I don't want to muddy up the topic, and Lord knows I do not have the experience to even speak here.
Is it possible that the point is that when gunners were desperate, firing a no-fused shell to mimick canister, was a risk worth taking, regardless of the consequences? Wasn't there a risk of firing "double" canister? I'm not sure, but I suspect that the regulations did not recommend the firing of "double" canister in a normal manner, as there was a risk of blowing the barrel. Perhaps, though, double canister was suggested as a "last result." I guess what I'm suggesting is that "firing shock" was a fact that had to be dealt with within the normal confines of artillery operations, but when it came -- excuse my language -- to the nut-cutting, then chunking a shell towards the enemy with no fuse was a risk worth taking as weighed against an artillery position being captured.
Anyway, just uneducated thoughts that I dare to share!!
-
Callicles,
Good catch! Canister was correct and I have corrected it above.
That could be. Given the references mentioned having fired fuseless and, at least in the quotes provided in this forum, there was no mention of it being an issue so it seems to have worked and not caused detonation within the tube.
-
Congratulations, callicles! That's got to be a thunderbolt of a pleasant surprise. In the past week, between your query and mine, my understanding of the Bormann fuse has increased a hundredfold, thanks to those here who freely share their hard(er)-earned wisdom and knowledge on this board.
We've both learned about rebates now, the best rebate I've ever heard of. It's interesting to me how inanimate, obsolete objects can "fire" so much passion, and also how much there is to know, and that I need to learn. ???
-
sure beats the '" beanie babies collectors " forums !!
-
Thanks for the kind words Jine. Yes, it's amazing how much there is to learn. What I do is print out all the incredible posts. I think I'm up to 45 print outs of Pete George's posts alone. emike and CW and others have made the file, as have others.
Dave the Plumber, I had just taken a sip of Coke when I read your post. A let out an uncontrollable laugh and sprayed my computer screen -- thanks ;D
-
Dave the Plumber, I had just taken a sip of Coke when I read your post. A let out an uncontrollable laugh and sprayed my computer screen -- thanks ;D
+1, in my case- sweet tea!
Beanie Babies are obsolete now, aren't they? I know for most sane people they are also inanimate.
-
On July 28th Pete wrote:
"Bormann fuse were definitely Not installed in the shell at the arsenal"
I would respectfully disagree with that.
On page 275 of the 1863 Ordnance Manual it reads:
To charge the shot: Fill the chamber with musket -powder, ramming it softly with a wooden drift and light mallet; screw in the iron plug, leaving it's top flush with the bottom of the large portion of the fuse-hole, and lay over it a thin leather washer with hole in the center; fill the hole in the plug and the washer with rifle-powder; punch 4 or 5 small holes in the tin disk in the bottom of the fuse; put a little white lead on the threads of the fuse, and screw the fuse firmly into the shell."
The white lead, washer, and firm tightening was considered sufficient to seal the shell.
This quote is found in the section of the manual concerning filling and fixing ammunition. These would be Arsenal instructions not field instructions. I think the pictures of the Cairo salvage in John's post showing fixed ammunition in their shipping crates, fused, would support this.
Concerning the caches of shells found with the Bormanns missing. If these caches were made to abandon the projectiles, what better to disarm them than by pulling the fuse and opening the interior of the shell to the elements. The fact that some fuses were intact may be due to the fact that they couldn't get them out.
This may be premature, but I have a line on 12lb shell or case shot from an Arsenal's abandoned stores. There is absolutely no doubt about where it came from. It is reportedly Bormann fused, with the fuse being arsenal marked. Been chasing it quite a while, haven't caught it yet.
Best regards to all,
Dan
-
6lbgun,
Great observations reasoned on solid historical evidence. I hope Pete posts a response. I see your point, this manual seems to indicate a process to be followed. However, what should you and I conclude about our case shots (yours a 6-pounder, mine a 12-pounder) that evidently are CS manufactured iron with Yankee-made/manufactured fuses? I know this does not reflect specifically to procedures prescribed by the manual you cited, but would seem to indicate (if the rebate theory and the 90 degree wedge theory are correct) that fuses were either removed or absent. Also, I'd like to know whether the arsenals were operated by private corporations who simply contracted with the government, or were they government owned? I would suspect they were private firms. I doubt Halliburtan (sp?) follows military manual regulations to a "T."
Just meager thoughts to a well posted factual observation by you.
-
callicles,
Arsenals were government owned and operated. In the case of the Allegheny Arsenal it was staffed by a commandant and a small staff of Ordnance officers and inspectors. At the time of the explosion in 1862, it had 950 civilian employees, mostly women and children. Superintendents of the various departments were also civilians some having seen prior service with the Ordnance department. Woman and children were used because they could be paid less wages and the male employees were subject to the draft.
Hope this helps.
Dan
Sorry, you got me talking about Arsenals, Allegheny in particular, I forgot about the fuse question.
I feel that there were spare fuses issued as a matter of course. In the case of CS case shot with US fuses I can think of two sinerios. Either a CS gunner removed his crappy fuse and replaced it with a captured fuse, or it was fired at US troops, didn't explode, re-fused and sent back to the Rebs via air mail.
Regards
Dan
-
Nice comment Dan.
Somewhere I have read that it was a standing order NOT to remove Bormann Fuses as a detonation had occurred at an arsenal killing the person attempting to remove one.
One of my question has yet to be addressed.
Where and how did the C.S. obtain the intricate casting machine for the Borman?
With regard to "tick marks" before the 1 and after the 5? Could U.s. arsenals received requests from the field to add shorter and longer burn times for their Bormanns? Are we just seeing a wider variety of U.S. Bormann fuses Would not the 45 degree fuse face have been changed from 90 degrees in order to add shorter buring times?
My mind is racing with unanswered, documented replies.
All the Best,
John
-
To All Interested;
The Bormann was invented by a Belgium Army officer and gave it his name.
I don't know how the U.S. obtained it but it was sold all over Europe..
In 1863 George Wright received his patent No. 38352 on the apparattus to cast the Borman fuse for the U.s. Wright is the same person who designed the combo time and percussion fuse for the flat nose Hotchkiss projectile. This was long after the fuse had been in use.
You can look up his patent on Google Patent search by typing in the patent number and you can also download it in PDF.
Regards,
John
-
John,
How the CS got the Bormann machine? They bought it off of the Federal government.
This is from a letter to Secretary of War Floyd from Virginia's Adjutant General Wm. H. Richardson from Richmond on December 6, 1860.
"Sir: I am instructed by the Governor to request that the impliments and machinery for manufacturing the Bormann fuse may be made for the State at one of the Government arsenals, say Washington, to be paid for by the state commissioners having charge of this subject....."
This letter was then sent to the Ordnance Dept where it was indorsed by Capt. W.M. Maynadier, Ordnance Dept.
Finaly it was indorsed by Floyd on December 10th.
"The impliments, &c, for making the fuse may be made on the terms within stated, at the Washington arsenal.
J. B. Floyd
Secretary of War
Hope this helps
Dan
-
Dan,
Hosw do you find these references so fast or did you already have it? Thank you.
I sent you an email when you get home.
Regards
John
-
Callicles wrote:
> Great observations reasoned on solid historical evidence. I hope Pete posts a response.
I do have more info and more field-recovered historical evidence to contribute to the discussion. But yesterday I had a kidney stone. Went to the Urology hospital today for X-ray, which was inconclusive, and thus was followed by a CAT-scan. Two more stones (blessedly small) are lurking in there. I'll post again when I am on less potent medication. ;-)
-
Excellent post, guys! Thanks to all that contributed to this thread. I definitely learned something today.
-
Pete,
Hope you're feeling better soon.
God bless,
Dan
-
Keep you in my prayers, Pete.
-
John, I don't know what 6lbgun's resource may be but this is a mighty fine place to start:
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/search/searchMore.cfm?more=1&typeOfSearch=or&keywords=Bormann (http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/search/searchMore.cfm?more=1&typeOfSearch=or&keywords=Bormann)
I hope you're resting well, Pete. We look forward to your rebound, or perhaps recoil?
-
John,
You asked how I come up with this stuff so fast? A lot of it from notes I have taken while reading or scanning the internet.
Most of the notes are the old fashion paper variety not on my computer, and I'm lucky if I find it guickly. The OSU sight that Jine mentioned is a great source for the ORs. Another great search engine for the ORs is Cornell University Library's site
Making of America http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/m/moa/. What is great about this sight is that it allows you to search other period sources at the same time. The National Archives are good too, but they don't make it easy.
Another source of information on CW artillery that I think is much neglected by us are the notes and bibliographys listed in the reference books and books on the CW in general. Artillery unit histories and personnel recollections are a treasure trove of information.
One word of caution; Once you get "hooked" on research by pepared to spend a lot of time in doing it. I have spent hours and hours, and days and days in finding what I was looking for. I'm retired, so I guess I have more time than most.
Dan
-
Pete,
I have had stones so know how it feels, hurts like all get out.
Mind the doc and take your meds.
Best Regards,
John
-
Take Care Pete!!!
-
Update: Had a second kidney stone hit me at 2:50 AM this morning. (First one was on Sunday). According to the Urologist, there's only one more left. Could hit anytime between tonight and 6 months from now. If it delays, I'll be back to posting "on topic" later this week.
Speaking of "on topic" ...I very much appreciate y'all's good wishes, but please, I don't want the excellent relic-discussion which was happening in this thread to be derailed. It's not over. I felt obligated to (briefly) explain my silence, lest anybody assume I had dropped out of the discussion. I'll be back.
Again, my thatnks to each of you who has expressed concern and get-well-soon wishes.
Regards,
Pete
-
Thank you, 6lbgun, for your research insights and that Cornell link, most interesting! I hope to make it to retirement one day, and if successful I'll be walking in your tracks, no doubt. There's something both rewarding and addictive in such pursuits.
I considered starting a new thread with the quote below, as there is no Bormann reference, but hopefully the discussion of defective fusing warrants its inclusion here. This comes from Fighting for the Confederacy, a compilation of 1st Corps Chief of Artillery E.P. Alexander's memoirs that many here are likely familiar with, and I'm finding to be a great read and offering insights into the CS "long arm".
The subject here is the third day at Gettysburg, and I offer my apologies in advance if, unknown to me, this quote has already seen use on this forum:
"The proposition of Gen. Longstreet's critics is that a considerable force of his artillery should have charged along with his infantry. But that general suggestion does not go into detail, & there are many important details to be considered. First it must be borne in mind that our Confederate artillery could only sparingly, & in great emergency, be allowed to fire over the heads of our infantry. We were always liable to premature explosions of shell & shrapnel, & our infantry knew it by sad experience, & I have known of their threatening to fire back at our guns if we opened over their heads. Of course, solid shot could be safely used, but that is the least effective ammunition, & the infantry would not know the difference & would be demoralized & angry all the same."
Brief aside- I'm glad you've made more progress, Pete, although it comes with great displeasure.
-
Been rather busy lately, but thought I'd give an update. I received the sectioned case shot Tuesday. The pitch/tar/matrix (I'm not sure the proper term to use) was extremely sticky. After all, it had travelled from Virginia to Mississippi in extreme heat via UPS. However, after about 2 hours of being uncovered in an air conditioned (room tempature) environment, it set up very well. The pitch/tar is now turned into a hardened substance, which I was glad to see. The case shot appears to be lead and the rebate is very obvious.
I'm not sure, but it appears that some remnants of the gasket is present. Let me rephrase that: there MIGHT be remnants of the gasket because, frankly, I don't know what I'm looking at with confidence, it could be something else entirely. (Hell, just the other day I though rebates were something you got at Wal-Mart.) When I get time I might post more pictures if it seems relevant.
Thanks to everyone who has posted such great information on this thread. I can't tell you how much I've learned. Also, I hope Pete gets well and back into the saddle!!!!! For, although damn-near every post contains incredible knowledge, there appears to be differing opinions about the Boremann fuse, whether it was installed at arsenals or not, whether you could really remove one and place another, etc, etc.