Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum
Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: John D. Bartleson Jr. on March 14, 2013, 08:48:16 PM
-
To All Interested;
For many years now collectors, historians and authors, incuding myself, have referred to the unique six flanged (ribs) projectile as the Blakely. Tom Dickey called it a Preston (Fawcett-Preston Manufacturing co.). That is called identification by association. The six flanged shells were found with or shot by a Blakely rifle, hence it must be a Blakely shell. It has a brass percussion fuze in it so the fuze must be a Blakely or Preston fuze, when in fact the fuze was invented and patented by Bashley Britten.
I was given a copy of Britten's patent so we know that is the correct indentification. No one has produced a patent by Alexander Blakely to show that the six flanged shell was invented and or patented by Blakely.
I recently found and have downloaded a 74 page research paper on Capt. Alexander Blakely, RA, written by author/historian Steven Roberts of London, England. In Mr. Roberts paper he gives evidence of a six flanged shell,invented, but not patented by Cdr. Robert Scott, Rn and made by the British and sold to France with a French powder train time fuse installed. The only major differnce between the Port Hudson 'Blakelys' and the French shell is that the French model is sleeved for right hand threads, other characteristics are the same.
Below I am presenting my findings in order for members to draw their own conclusions as to the inventor of this projectile.
Please comment.
Regards,
John
(http://i1069.photobucket.com/albums/u465/jbart2/French--Scottmodel_zps00c396e1.jpg)
-
Was Scott employed by Blakely or was he a private engineer or inventor? Which came first, the projectile or the gun/rifle? I see your point but what do you want to do? Rename the projectile? How bout Preston-Bakely-Scott-Fawcett-Britten Shell?
Why didn't Scott patent his design? Did he work for someone else when he designed it? My father and his supervisor while working for General Electric invented a new electrical fuse and process for testing fuses. Other than a handshake, backslap or a way to go, they get no credit for it; General Electric's name is on the patent.
-
Scott was a commander in the Royal Navy and invented two known patterns of bolts and shells for the Blakely rifles, the rifles came first. Our craft will normally name a projectile and or fuze by its inventor or who has received a patent for his invention.
Steven Roberts did the research on Blakely and his rifles and his associates who invented, but not necessarily patented their projectiles. It is documented in Robert's paper that Blakely was content to let others provide shells for his rifles. Blakely is known to have invented two projectiles.
One was a copper disk sabot and the other was co-invented by Vavasseur.
Scott did not patent his design probably for the same reasons as did Schenkl, Dyer, Alger and others. When I wrote my book about field artillery ammunition I did not have it copy righted nor did I receive renumeration for my work. Why you say? It was done on government time and at government expense.
Do I want to see the name of the projectile, having six flanges, changed? Why, no more so than if one of your inventions was given credit to another who didn't deserve it or was named in error.
Why do we collect and not do research? Do we just want to call them cannonballs?, or by their proper names.
I am really producing information for a thinking person to ponder, not just to accept everything at face value.
Thanks for your questioning mind. It is questions such as yours that spark good conversation and ideas.
All the Best,
John
-
In his testimony before the House of Commons in 1861 (I think), Blakely stated that He used Scott's projectile as it placed a smaller strain on the guns of larger caliber than one with an expanding lead sabot.
-
Thanks for the reply. Please do not think I am trying to argue with you or anything like that. It's not the case. I've just noticed that this particular subject obviously means something to you.
Of course I would want someone to get the credit they deserve for their invention.
Good job bringing this information to light.
Thanks
-
Not to put too fine a point on it, I think Blakely is probably appropriate. It is obviously highly influenced by Scott's design, but is a distinct improvement. Scott's projectile hade five flanges, a copper stud at the lead of each flange, and the flanges were coated in zinc. Scott liked his design because he could recover and refire his projectiles, the rifling would allow for thr firing of standard round-ball that he deemed essential for naval warfare (after all he was rifling standard smooth-bore guns), and had a large amount of windage for reduced pressure on the breech (at the loss of range).
Respectfully,
Joe Vann
-
Joe and All,
Scott had numerous patterns including three, five, six and more ribs or flanges for his shells: This might beat the subject to death but here goes:
The following are highlights from Steven Roberts paper on Blakely:
References to Cdr. Robert Scott, RN in Steven Roberts paper on Blakely:
“In addition to the “square” rifling of Britten, Blakely also used the ratchet or triangular, the so-called “centrical”, rifling devised by Commander Robert Scott RN between 1860 and 1862.”
“The 9 pounder mountain gun barrels were short, as with a howitzer, with a 3 inch bore, a 36 inch length, 6½ inch maximum tube diameter, with a slender steel sleeve, a pierced cascabel, a massive trunnion ring and weighed 208 pounds. They were rifled with six Scott “centrical” grooves. The barrels of the 4 pounders were 41 inches long, weighing 226 pounds, with the same thin steel sleeve but lacked a cascabel at the breech. These also had six Scott-pattern rifle grooves.”
“ Blakely was continually improving the specification and materials used in his cannon. His use of “steel” in making the reinforcing breech-hoops on the cast-iron barrel tubes of his muzzle-loading rifles before 1864 might be better interpreted, more accurately as using “wrought-iron”. These hoops were made from spiral wound bars hammered into a cylinder and applied when hot on to the breech end of the inner tube. The early rifling was commonly of saw-tooth or “ratchet” form, as devised by Blakely’s early collaborator, Commander Robert Scott RN, he also used in larger pieces the “square” rifling of Bashley Britten, who designed shot and shell for his ordnance."
“ In addition, at least one battery of “full size” 3.5 inch Blakely rifles was provided in 1862, having a heavier and longer 66 inch sleeved barrel, with the latest 6 groove ratchet rifling, and notably without a cascabel knob at the breech.
Originally rifled on Royal Navy Commander R A E Scott’s principle with six or seven “centrical” grooves, from 1862 the 3.5 inch guns had six of Blakely’s patented “ratchet” grooves (also used by Commander J M Brooke of the Confederate States Navy). All of these field pieces commonly fired Bashley Britten’s patent projectiles. These cannon, though not their projectiles, were chiefly, if not entirely, manufactured for the Con-federacy by Fawcett, Preston & Company of Liverpool. At least eight batteries of four 3.5 inch Blakely pieces had been provided to the south by 1862.”
“From 1863 the earthworks of Fort Fisher, defending the vital port of Wilmington, North Carolina, had an 8 inch cast-iron, steel-banded Blakely rifle in its North East Bastion. It had three groove rifling to Scott’s “centrical” pattern, throwing flanged iron bolts up to 130 pounds weight.”
“Loading and firing was elaborate and slow, just once every fifteen minutes, requiring the man-handling of massive shot, difficult even with the novel muzzle-mounted crane, as well as the elevating and the travers-ing of a 48 ton barrel and carriage. The 20 inch long cylindrical iron bolts were cast with four diagonal flanges to fit the rifling cut to Scott’s pattern; the flanges had to be carefully eased spirally down the barrel to avoid jamming. The original 22 inch long round-nosed, hollow shells of 470 pounds weight had similar flanges. Despite these difficulties it was claimed that each piece could throw one of the 650 pound armour-piercing bolts up to seven miles.” (Bart’s note – these large shells with three to four raised ribs are also called by modern day authors as ‘Blakely’.
“Blakely was primarily concerned with the construction of ordnance. The detail of rifling and projectiles for such ordnance he was initially ready to leave to others. As regards rifling he originally utilised the system of Commander Robert Scott, RN, the so-called “centrical” or ratchet rifling, as well as, in larger pieces, the “square rifling” of his other close associate, Bashley Britten.”
“Blakely Gun “No 1”, 1860
The first gun that Captain Blakely demonstrated publically was a large 6.4 inch calibre piece made by Fawcett, Preston & Company in Liverpool. It had a long cast-iron tube, 160 inches long overall, 140 inches in the bore, which was rifled with twenty of Scott’s “ratchets”.”
“Fawcett Preston also provided the south in 1861 with a long 3.5 inch field gun to another Blakely design; this is almost identical, except in size, to the one provided in 1860 and used against Sumter. It had 66 inch barrel and was rifled with six Scott “centrical” or triangular grooves. The steel breech-sleeve was long and was oval-curved at the end, lacking a cascabel knob, with a maximum diameter of 12¼ inches.”
“Recently (2011¬), a 3½ inch calibre Scott-pattern, six-flanged shell fitted with a French fuse has been discovered in France, indicating that the acquired Blakely battery was made up of his unique 3½ inch light field guns, as made for Peru and America between 1860 and 1865, the tube rifled with six of Scott’s “centrical” or triangular grooves. The use of Scott flanged shells would be necessitated as Bashley Britten, Blakely’s usual supplier, had left the projectile business by 1870, and that the Captain’s own works were then extinct.” -end reference notes.
Note from Joen - You may ask why the British government didn't extend contracts to Blakely for use by their Army and Navy? Simple politics. Sir William Armstrong and his cannon manufacturing company had won ALL the contrracts, eliminating such other gun makers as Blakely, Whitworth, Jeffery, Haddad and all others.
Oddly enough, Armstrong was also a member of the Ordnance Select Committe and to avoid having a conflict of interest established the Elswick Ordnance Company (EOC) to produce all the rifles and ammunition that was not being made at the Royal Laboratories of the Woolwich Arsenal.
I truly hope that I haven't bored anyone with all this but I felt it necessary to bring to light, for the record, little known facts about Cdr. Scott and his designs for the Blakely rifles.
Best Regards,
John
-
John,
Must say that you didn't bore me with that info as a matter of fact your post was very informative. Thanks.
-
My thanks to Joe Van, Pipedreamer and Selma for their posts and comments.
My question boils down to why has no one found this information before. Steven Roberts paper is not the only reference to Commander Robert Sctt, Royal Navy. His shell design competed with Britten, Jeffery and others in trials supervised by the Select committee on Ordnance amd although Britten won out on all categories of tests, none of the participants were given consideration to be awarded a contract.
Best Regards,
John
-
John, as you know, I am never bored in a conversation with you. I am willing to give Commander Scott full credit for the sawtooth pattern rifling. The angle of each groove conforms precisely with those prescribed by Scott in his own submission that I sent you. However, other than having flanges to conform to Scott's system of rifling, the projectiles shown above don't bear much resemblence to the ones that Scott himself used in trials. I'm tied up at the moment transfering some files, but will post some drawings of Scott's projectiles in a few.
-
Scott's projectile
-
Joe,
will you give the members the reference where the drawings came from?
The second image is the rifling that applies to the Port Hudson shells. It may not look exactly like the production piece but ilustrates the design idea.
The other images represent the large three and four ribbed shells referred to as Blakely shells.
Regards,
John
P.S. Joe look at the second image. Jack Bell calls it a 8 Inch Preston-Blakely Blind Shell.
Look at the overall profile it fits the drawing you posted above to a tee.
-
Certainly, Honored Mentor: The 1st and 4th illustrations are from "The Report of the Ordnance Select Committee" as published in Volume 34 of the Accounts and Papers of the House of Commons in 1863. The 2nd and 3rd are from "A Treatise on Ordnance and Armor" by Alexander L. Holley, New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1865. Actually, who first had a thought is not as important to me as who perfected it and made it a reality. The gun in trial rifled on Scott's plan and using his projectiles burst very early in trials. He blamed a poor job of rifling at Woolwich, they denied it. Personally, I think it had more to do with the construction of the gun. Blakely's of the CW were much stronger.
-
Dear Pete,
When Tom Dickey wrote his first volume he referred to the six flanged shells found at Port Hudson as Preston. Presumablly after Fawvett-Preston Co.
I noticed that when you and he co-authored the 1993 book that you called them Blakely shells.
May I ask what documentation or patents that you saw that caused you to change the name from Preston to Blakely?
Would you share your data with our members?
Best Regards,
John
-
After comparing notes and exhaustive research, John Bartelson has convinced me. The flanged "Blakelys" should properly be called "Scott" Projectiles. Good work. I'm hard-headed.
-
Well I wanted to hear from Pete before I presented my next bit of study which will lend more to the Blakely- Scott query.
I recently did some reading in Author Jack Bell’s book on “Heavy Projectiles of the Civil War”, and was especially interested in his two chapters – Blakely projectiles and the next- Preston-Blakely projectiles. I have email Jack asking for his references he used to obtain names for these two patterns of projectiles, but haven’t heard yet.
As I looked at the 8 inch Blakely shell I noticed the profile of the nose view and thought to myself how like the 4 inch Preston-Blakely it resembles. ( the 4 inch is exactly like the 3.5 inch six flanged Blakely.
Previous evidence found in Holley’s book “Ordnance and Armor” explains Commander Scott’s projectile design as consisting of three raised flanges (ribs) which he used in the tests along with Lancaster, Hadden, Britten and others. Gosh, just like the 8 inch Blakely shell in Bell’s book.
So I decided to run an experiment.
I imported the 8 inch Blakely nose view into my draw program and carefully traced the profile, including the three flanges (ribs) and colored it grey.
I then copied and pasted an exact replica of the original drawing and laid it on top of the original drawing then rotated the top drawing so its ribs were half way between the ribs of the first drawing then locked the two together.
I then reduced the size of this now six ribbed profile and reduced it down to overlay the 4 inch Preston-Blakely base view, flipped it because it was a nose view, then rotated my drawing to align all ribs and the now six flanged Blakely (Scott) matched perfectly.
This tells me that the shell everyone has referred to as either a Blakely or Preston or Preston-Blakely is, in reality, a design invented, but not patented, by Commander Robert Scott, Royal Navy who designed projectiles for the Blakely rifled cannon. Blakely is known to have manufactured rifled cannons having different rifling systems.
Others may call these projectiles by whatever they feel is correct.
When I see and read a Blakely patent to prove that I have wasted my time they will be Scott’s design in my mind.
Regards,
John
(http://i1069.photobucket.com/albums/u465/jbart2/Blakely-ScottDesignisScott_zps022f258b.jpg)
-
Hmmm. I just found this tonight, and it does seem to muddy the issue.
-
I wish I could find the drawing. British patents are a real pain to search.
-
Joe,
It's muddy to me, can you copy and paste rather than scan a paragraph. From what I can read it is not clear to me. :)
Regards,
John
-
A.D. 1863, May 22-No. 1286.
BLAKELY, THEOPHILUS ALEXANDER.-:”A new method of
" rifling guns. and of forming projectiles to correspond there-
" with."
Guns are rifled by forming the bore in section of an irregular
curvilinear shape. It is .first decided "at what distance from the
“centre of the projectile the turning force shall act; the smaller
“ the bore the nearer the centre should this force act. "A circle
is drawn 'from a centre in the axis of the piece at this fixed dis-
tance, and the piece is then rifled with "rifling of such a shape
“ that a line perpendicular to any point of its surface shall also
“be a tangent to this circle." The projectile is formed of
corresponding shape to fit the bore.
[Printed, 6d. Drawing]
SOURCE: Patents for Inventions: Abridgement of Specifications relating to Fire-Arms and other Weapons, Ammunition, and Accoutrements, Part II-A.D. 1858-1866, Commissioners of Patents, London: George, E. Eyre and William Spottiswoode, 1870 Page 285
-
I'm changing my mind again.
-
The difference between the Blakely and the Scott (As I see it) In the Blakely pattern, regardless of the number of flanges, each flange begins where the last ends, they are perpendicular and form a tangent of the bore. In the Scott pattern, each flange would be disctict regardless of the number as the flanges are perpendicular but ARE NOT tangent to the bore.
-
I'd be very interested in the opinions of other contributors, too.
-
Before everyone gets confused.
First, Blakely did not design the three flanged projectile.
Second, Commander Robert Scott invented the three flanged projetile and this is verified by Holley's Ordnance and Armor by description and illustration of the scott pattern at the Shoeburyness trials.
Third, by my experiment above, I think I illustrated that when Scotts 8 inch, three flanged projectile doubles its flanges to six and then reduced from 8 to 4 inches in diameter, the flanges from both shells match and if further reduced to 3.5 inches all four projectiles will have matching flanges with regard to position and shape.
This indicates to me that all four projectiles were designed by the same person - SCOTT, not BLAKELY.
They are Sctott projectiles made for a Blakely rifled cannon. ::)
Regards,
John
-
Okay guys, I will get off my soap box and stop beating my drum in an empty room.. ::)
Regards,
John
-
Scott is given credit by Gen. Henry Abbot in his book:
Siege artillery in the campaigns against Richmond: with notes on the 15-inch
By Henry L. Abbot
Page 107
"The eighth system consists of the three deep grooves in the gun and corresponding flanges on the projectile devised by Scott and adopted by Blakely for his largo calibres. These projectiles (Figs. 11 and 12, Plate III) were captured at Fort Fisher, North Carolina, where the gun to which they belonged was the most efficient of the confederate armament, and was taken marked by our shot and stained with the blood of its cannoniers. Fig. 10, Plate III, was evidently designed for close quarters, where the rifled motion is unnecessary. There were several Blakely guns of smaller calibre found in and about Richmond, and one in Fort Clifton, on the Appomattox river; but they were designed for his lead-coated projectiles, and were very little used."
Regards,
John
-
This is the BIG difference between the flanges on a Scott and Blakely: On the Scott there is a noticable shoulder on BOTH sides of the flanges but is smaller on the counter-rotational side just as in the rifling pattern there is a radius on both sides of the groove. On the Blakely, there is a shoulder ONLY on the rotational side to conform with the so-called 'saw-tooth' pattern. While Blakely was undoubtably influenced by Scott, there is a distinct and patentable difference in the geometry used to achieve the same end: a self-centering projectile.
-
Joe,
scott shells are self centering.
John
-
John, I'm not arguing that point. Of course Scott projectiles are self- centering. So are Whitworth's, French studs, British studs, and Armstrong shunts. They all just go about it in a slightly different manner.
-
No one is contributing to this post but you. I have produced what evidence I have and believe it warrants a change.
I presume everone is content in naming them the same old thing. So I give this one the big -30-
-
John,
I have been reading this post with keen interest. But I have been traveling and not had time to study it and come to any hard conclusions. At this point I'm not really ready to change the name as I believe it will take strong evidence to do that. It may be there and I'll look closely when I have a chance. But I'm slow to change my habits. You can ask Jack and Mike: I still call 3-inch Dyers a Burton shell more often than not. :)
-
OK, this is not a flanged Blakely, But it is a rare 3.67 Type II Blakely on one of my shelves. My question is this: does anyone know the gentleman holding the shell?
-
Scott,
Yes, he lives locally (Marietta, Ga.) and hung with Jack a good bit. His name is Henry. I know that shell well and saw it a number of times before he sold it. :)
-
Thanks. I must have bought the shell from Jack Melton at some point, probably at the Richmond show. Henry was probably working the table.
-
Burton/Dyer, Tennessee/Mullane, and now Preston Blakley/Scott.......
-
OK, this is not a flanged Blakely, But it is a rare 3.67 Type II Blakely on one of my shelves. My question is this: does anyone know the gentleman holding the shell?
Looks like Henry Higgins to me. Don't know him personally.
-
Scott, the full name for that shell is a Type 2 Confederate Blakely Plate Sabot shell. Several of those sabots have been found with the identifying name "Blakely" stamped or cast into the copper sabot's flat top (which faces the shell's iron base). See remarks at the top of page 95 in the D&G-1993 book and photos of the Type 1 and Type 2 Confederate Blakely Plate sabots on page 96.
-
Pete,
Who cast the word on the sabot, how was it spelled, WHY was it required to be cast there and what make cannon used it. Any references at all???
Regards,
John
-
I've grown very weary of being expected to repeatedly re-answer questions which I have already answered in previous discussions in this forum. So, earlier this year, I've declined to respond to already-answered questions here. The following post will be the single exception to that rule.
In addition to previous posts in this forum, the answers are also in Jack Bell's book and my book.
1- As I've said previously in this forum: Because the marking is on the plate-sabot's flat top, which is permanently connected entirely flush with the flat base of the shell's iron body, the marking absolutely has to have been put there by the manufacturer -- who is suspected to be the Selma Arsenal complex.
2- As I've said previously in this forum: The spelling is exactly the same as Blakely's name. See photo of a specimen with the name "Blakely" marked into its flat top on page 521 of Jack Bell's book.
3- As I've said previously in this forum: I believe Blakely's name was marked into this sabot-type by its Confedeate manufacturer to give credit to the inventor of its BASIC form (a disc/plate attached to the projectile's base by means of an "angular post"). Jack Bell agrees with me. In his book, regarding the Blakely marking on the sabot Bell says "In a strange note of professional ethics, the name Blakely was stamped into the top of many of these sabots facing the projectile base."
4- As I've said previously in this forum: The perhaps-Selma-made CS Blakely Plate Sabots with the name Blakely marked into their top are 3.67-inch caliber. As there seems to be no record of Blakely ever having manufactured a 3.67" Rifle, that cannot be the cannon used to fire this projectile, unless the Confederates re-rifled a worn-out 3.5" or 3.6" Blakely Rifle. The sabot shown in Bell's book has 8-groove rifling, which indicates it was fired from either a Rifled 6-pounder Smoothbore or a re-rifled worn-out 3.5" or 3.6" Blakely Rifle. Important note: the lightest of the various forms of 3.67"-caliber Type 2 CS Blakely Plate-Sabot projectiles weighs slightly under 16 pounds -- meaning it was very unlikely to be fired from a Rifled 6-pouner Smoothbore, due to that type of cannon's strength limits. Others have been found with 5-groove rifling, indicating use in a 20-pounder Parrott Rifle.
-
Prior dicussions on Blakeley/Blakely/Selma here:
http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=355.0
And here:
http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=362.0
-
Dear Pete,
I think most of my foregoing questions were new ones and not a repeat from the previous postings that Carl just posted for all to catch up.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my boring questions.
1. So these dovetail sabots were not made especially for Blakely cannons.
2. The word 'Blakely" really had no meaning and were cast at the Selma Arsenal.
3. The word 'Blakely" could not be read by the gunner as a guide to match shell with any cannon. (can't be seen externally).
Now for the reasons for my questions:
When I made my drawing of the Blakely shell design I copied it from Roberts web site and not straight from the patent.
I later found out that his drawing was made from Holley or Gibbons or both.
Your mentioning of the Blakely design in the above shell caused me to again look at the drawings from Blakely's patent #3087
and I owe you a big apology for not making my drawing direct from the patent.
Here is what I found
1. two designs were shown, one did show a dove tail sabot fastening but the dove tail was on the shell body and not the sabot but did pass through the sabot .
2. The second diesign was a brass or copper cup held on by two threaded bolts which naturally held the sabot from rotating.
I have read the complete patent and Blakely makes no mention of the dove tail (my wording) or any other discriptions of how either of the sabots were to be attached by any means.
For members who do not have the patent below is Blakely's claim:
"Various contrivances have been suggested for causing projectiles to take the rifling in the barrels of ordnance. Now my present Invention consists in fitting
10 a cupped ring of copper or other similar metal round the base of the projectile, as shewn at a in Figure 1 of the accompanying Drawings, in such manner that on its being fired the outer edge of the ring shall be expanded beyond the circumference of the projectile. Or instead of the cupped ring I some-times fix on to the rear end of the projectile a concave disc of copper or other
15 similar metal, as represented at b, Figure 9, the edge of which is expanded on the explosion of the charge beyond the circumference of the projectile."
I recall I sent you the patent by email but never received your reply. I sincerely hope that we both have learned something from this posting whether the members did or not.
Bet Regards,
Sincerely,
John
-
Dear Pete;
" So, earlier this year, I've declined to respond to already-answered questions here. The following post will be the single exception to that rule"
I am sorry I missed your postings on the Copper Studded shells and the Blakely- Scott discussions. I even envited your comments so you woujldn't feel left out.
All the Best,
John
-
The questions weren't boring the first time they were brought up. I've declined to laboriously type out detailed answers a second or third time. Once should be sufficient, because all posts at this website are retained on it permanently, not deleted after a few days or weeks (as at some other websites).
You've said publicly that you have trouble seeing photos (and text) unless they are extra-enlarged. For a similar old-age-related reason, typing a "detailed" answer is quite laborious for me to do. Therefore, I will ignore questions which I've already answered. Also, questions which are essentially a re-wording or re-hash of the previously answered question.
Reply to your newest post's questions/statements directed to me:
> 1. So these dovetail sabots were not made especially for Blakely cannons.
Some calibers (2.5" and 3.6"-caliber) of the Type 2 CS Blakely Plate-Sabot (which has the "dovetailed" angular post) were made for use in Blakely rifles. Others, such as the 2.9" and 3.67"-caliber sabots, were not.
> 2. The word 'Blakely" really had no meaning and were cast at the Selma Arsenal.
No, on two counts. Please go re-read what I wrote. I said SOME of the sabots are "suspected" (by me and others) to have been made at the Selma Arsenal complex. Second point: I've been saying, repeatedly, that the marking on these sabot's flat top DOES have meaning. How on earth do you interpret my posts as saying "The word Blakely really had no meaning." ??? That is an example why I have been decline to answer you.
Sidenote:
Some of the 3.67"-caliber Type 2 CS Blakely Plate-Sabots are marked with an incorrect spelling of Blakely's name, as "Blakeley" (see photo in a previous discussion, linked by CWArtillery). Some are spelled correctly,"Blakely" (see photo on page 521 of Jack Bell's book). Some have no marking.
> 3. The word 'Blakely" could not be read by the gunner as a guide to match shell with any cannon. (can't be seen externally).
Yes.
-
Dear Pete,
Well I tried to be nice.
when I said the word "Blakely" had no meaning, I menat to the members of this Forum and all other collectors.
If it was not cast in England and shipped over here, if the gunner coujld not read it to ensure shell to cannon match, If it din't tell the foundry to cast a shell for the Balakely cannon onto "Blakely" sabots then what good was it.
Oh, and thank you for acknowledging my apology concening me error in making my initial drawing of the Holley plate and the presence of the sjell base dove tail.
Just, John :'(
-
In the previous discussion (linked by CWArtillery), you already stated you were in error about that -- so I let it go. You've apparently forgotten doing so, but I haven't forgotten your concession that you wre in error about the dovetailed/angular post in the drawing. Why are you bringing it up again? Why expect me to say a public thank you for doing again something you already did in the previous discussion?
As I said, my policy now about re-plowing the same ground over and over is to ignore the repetition.
-
Pete you are so kind, I guess my memory fails me.
Rest assured I shall not repeat it again.
Bart
-
Glad we got that out of the way.
I might just have to rip off the sabot on my shell to see if there is any writing on the top.
-
What a tiring topic to read through..... whew!
You gentlemen want pistols at 30 paces @ dawn?