Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum
Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: callicles on February 02, 2015, 11:59:38 AM
-
This topic was brought up here before but it became sidetracked and subsumed by related but tangential issues. So I want to ask it as a centerpiece for discussion.
Among the knowledgable artillery folks here, is there a diversity of opinion regarding the Bormann fuze with a 90 degree "pie slice" on its face as being strictly Yankee made or manufactured? In other words, is there disagreement among the experts here as to whether this particular type Bormann was strictly Union, or is there a consensus that it is?
I'm not sure if just one person can answer this or not (maybe so), but if not, I hope many of our big hitters would chime in to give me an idea. (I know Pete is still recovering -- God Bless him -- so he might not be ready or able yet. But I respect and admire all of the others here.)
The reason I ask: Over the years I have been doing research regarding a little known or studied-about skirmish/battle here in Mississippi. I hope one day to put my findings in book form. The land owner has allowed me to metal detect the site to compliment my research. Both Union and Confederate artillery was used here. Historical sources, both primary and secondary, do not reveal a complete list of artillery types used that day. I am using fragments and actual projectiles found at the site to compliment those written documents to help identify artillery types used. Over the past several years I have found blown Bormann fuzes, and the ones identifiable show the 90 degree wedge. As a consequence, I used that as support to consider that the Yankees were in possession of at least one smoothbore (though my documents beforehand had led me to think that most, if not all, Yankee guns used there were rifled). Well, I found a complete 12 pounder case-shot with complete Boremann
fuze with the 90 degree wedge. This seemed to further my thinking. However, I had that shell sectioned (and posted it here a couple of years ago) and it was revealed that the shell was Confederate manufactured (rebate). So for the last several years I've been in limbo as to asserting whether the Yankees had one or more smoothbores. Well, yesterday, I dug up another 12 pound shell with a boremann fuze with the 90 degree wedge (punched at 5).
So now I'm completely torn as what to do. My relic hunting side (and my buddies who go with me) says "No! Don't cut it in half! You already have one sectioned, leave this one as is!" But my researcher side says, "You know what you have to do -- you have to section it, for if there is no rebate, combined with the 90 degree wedge, you could better theorize that the Yanks had at least one smoothbore. So, do it for history, not for selfish collecting!!!"
As y'all can see, I'm whining and don't know what to do. I come to this community to get as much knowledge about the 90 degree wedge theory as possible, hoping that with some collective wisdom I can much better come to a conclusion as what to do. My brain says "cut," my heart says "No way!"
Sorry for the long post. I hope to get some good advice and the latest up-to-date thinking on the 90 degree. Thanks!
-
Mississippi ordered cannon and ammunition from Tredegar shortly before the was began in April 1861. This included as many as 5,000 cannonballs with Bormann fuzes. At the time Tredegar was purchasing most of their Bormanns from Cooper & Pond, a New York City military supply firm that acted as a middle-man for an unnamed Northern manufactory. Maybe this explains your variations.
-
Before you cut it, why not send me a photo of the Bormann fuze and I'll see if it matches any of the early war Bormanns I have photographed in Virginia. There are many variations.
-
Thanks for your help. Here is a picture of the fuse. I Have had no time to clean the shell or have it drilled but it should be clear enough (let me know if not).
That is very interesting regarding Mississippi's purchase of projectiles with Bormann fuses. However, if my previous shell (the one with a 90-degree wedge on the fuse, and that I had sectioned and which revealed the rebate) fell into that category, would it not have revealed the rebate? In otherwords, isn't it safe to assume that 12 pounder shells made just prior to the war did not contain the modified gasket rebate? Or am I misinformed? Again thanks for your help.
-
Picture of sectioned 12 pound shell with gasket rebate and Bormann Fuse with 90 degree wedge.
-
I read all I could on the previous discussions, and am now confused. I understand the rebate, and what it is, but do we know it is ONLY a CS idea, and was it beginning of the war to the end, or did it appear mid war, late war or when? Could it have been used late was by the union?
i've been watching this thread, because I have not examined enough Boreman fuses to tell US from CS, and would like to learn, but as mentioned above, seems to be alot of different subtypes, Other than the marked US, how sure are we about the rest?
-
Selma
-
Trying to post
-
Selma
-
I have several Bormann fuzes but I don't claim to know much about them except Selma. The fuze in the projectile is from end of war Selma made in a 24 pounder case shot marked with O not G. I found several of these. The photos with a single fuze is a Selma fuze never in a shell. The group photo shows on top row a couple fuzes modified to hold a paper time fuze. Center row are all marked different, one depressed star, one raised star, one arrow and one U with backwards S. Bottom row all CS. Any info is appreciated. The Selma stuff is end of war and made in Selma...
-
All the fuzes look to pie slice to me because I don't know what that means.
-
Callicles
When did the skirmish associated with this case shot take place? Where in Mississippi?
Thanks
Dan
-
callicles,
Now I am geting confused concerning your questoin. Perhaps a consise question would help Dan and I. I wished Pete would chime in.
The1863 inventor of the Bormann fuse casting machine shows the "pie shaped" part the fuse head beneath the #1. Every imageI have of U.S. make has the "pie" beneath the #1 position.
The inventor, George Wright, states that there were various fuses cast by pouring into individual moulds with differences. It was Wright's intention to speed up and standardize the process.
Perhaps Pete can shed some light on a reference of thenew casting machine being sold to the best bidder?
I would hazard a mere hunch that the fuse leather gaset rebate was a U.S. modification.
Unfortunately Mr. Wright goeson and on, as do most patents confusing the reader. He also fails to describe filling and sealing the fuse.
Wheather you cut or not is your choice. What will you really learn?
Regards,
John
-
Steve, middle row, second fuse from the left in your group photo appears to show the 90 degree wedge on the face of the fuse.
6lbgun, Vicksburg campaign, 1863
John, the lack of a precice question is due to my ignorance, but I'll try again:
1. I was under the impression that ONLY Confederates manufactured the gasket rebate modification;
2. I was under the impression that Bormann fuses with the 90 degree wedge were ONLY manufactured by Yankees;
3. Therefore, I was confused why I would find a Confederate manufactured case-shot shell with a Yankee manufactured fuse;
4. What will I learn? Based on 1-3 above, if I section the shell and see no rebate, combined with a 90 degree wedged Bormann, I might can assume it was fired by Yankees.
I was told a couple years back that it is possible that the Confederate shell was captured by Yanks, then inserted with their own fuses, or Rebs inserting captured Yankee Bormann fuses into their own shells.
However, my "assumptions" about all this may be wrong, therefore leading to a flawed question that demands an impossible answer. But that's why I'm posting here. I want to know what better educated folks know about this topic, and if that means I'm wrong -- well
that's what I need to know. Thanks all.
-
Here is an unfired 12 pdr Bormann from a fort around Richmond. Is it the same as your fuze? Its wedge or "pie slice" appears to be 90 degrees or more. Most are less than 90 but there are so many varieties.
One thing about the "gasket rebate modification." I'm not sure that was the reason for adding the extra space underneath. The first critical problem the South faced with the Bormann fuzes was their tendency to burn thru the top. Apparently, it wasn't just occasionally but Archer complained in an April 1, 1861, letter to U.S. Ordnance officer Ripley at the Washington Arsenal that every round he tested burned thru the top and failed to explode. About one week later, Dr. Archer (Tredegar partner responsible for fuzes and projectiles) wrote an angry letter to his New York suppliers, Cooper & Pond, complaining again about the Bormanns and insisting they speak to the manufacturer about it. The war began shortly after and within a couple of weeks Tredegar was making their own Bormanns that were thicker than originally planned to stop them from burning thru the top. That is why the lip of so many CS Bormanns rises above the surface. The issue of supporting the bottom E. P. Alexander brings up in his 1866 article occurred later during the winter of 1861-62 when they packed white lead or some other material under all the Bormann fuzes is backed up by others and might have been a factor. But the initial, and probably the primary, problem was South's manufacture of thicker Bormanns beginning in May 1861.
-
woodenheads question( and callicles) are my confusion. to me woodenheads looks like less than 90 degrees. I figured it was measured from the 6 o'clock position to the 9 oclock position, , his looks to be about 80. I originally read the CS ones had an extra time mark, and were closer to 45 degrees, but so many I looked at were not 90 ( right angle), but couldn't quite see the extra mark( corrosion sometimes) but were not 45 degree either. wheres the cutoff line. Liked the answer on the height being thicker for the burn thru, makes sense
so where does variation end and CS start?
the leftover usage by the CS definitely confuses the issue
if this started me collecting fuses, someone will be in trouble!!!!!!!!!
-
Sorry for the confusion. I thought the wedge included the raised areas on both sides of the slot. Here are two good documented Virginia Bormanns where the entire raised area appears to be less than 90 degrees. The first is in a 24 pounder fired across the Rappahannock River during Chancellorsville. The other was part of a cache buried near Centreville as the Confederates withdrew in March 1862.
There remain many questions about all aspects of the South's shells and fuzes. Unlike the Federals, the CS War Department building containing most of their ordnance records was burned in April 1865. Our modern reconstruction of that information is evolving and still a matter for passionate debate. If we had all the answers, you could just look everything up in a book and there would be no need for this blog.
-
Steve, middle row, second fuse from the left in your group photo appears to show the 90 degree wedge on the face of the fuse.
6lbgun, Vicksburg campaign, 1863
John, the lack of a precice question is due to my ignorance, but I'll try again:
Ans. I certainly did not mean to imply that you are ignorance, my poor memory just lost the central question. I apologize.
1. I was under the impression that ONLY Confederates manufactured the gasket rebate modification;
Ans. I believe both sides would have seen the need to secure the gasket in the bottom fuse well rebate to keep the gasket in position and keep it out of the fuse threads.
2. I was under the impression that Bormann fuses with the 90 degree wedge were ONLY manufactured by Yankees;
Ans. From what I have seen in the images I have that the ‘wedge’ was cast on both U.S. and C.S.
3. Therefore, I was confused why I would find a Confederate manufactured case-shot shell with a Yankee manufactured fuse;
Ans. How do you know that it isn’t a U.S. fuse?
4. What will I learn? Based on 1-3 above, if I section the shell and see no rebate, combined with a 90 degree wedged Bormann, I might can assume it was fired by Yankees.
Ans. I think that Woodenhead has really found the way to Identify a C.S.-by its thicker fuse. You can measure by radiograph or cut the shell and fuse in half and measure. The only I have – did the U.S. also determine they had a fuse problem and also cast theirs thicker?
I was told a couple years back that it is possible that the Confederate shell was captured by Yanks, then inserted with their own fuses, or Rebs inserting captured Yankee Bormann fuses into their own shells.
However, my "assumptions" about all this may be wrong, therefore leading to a flawed question that demands an impossible answer. But that's why I'm posting here. I want to know what better educated folks know about this topic, and if that means I'm wrong -- well
that's what I need to know. Thanks all
Comment: Like my replies, all theory with little documentation.
If you look at the condition of fired fuses they are so deformed to make it impossible to apply a fuse wrench. U.S. Bormanns are set with white lead in its threads also making it difficult to remove, let alone the danger of unscrewing the fuse.
If the C.S. had bought Wright’s fuse casting machine and used it, then there would be no difference in fuse design after 1863.
Woodenhead’s references appear to ‘checkmate’ all our assumptions.
Regards,
John
-60-
-
Attention: I wrote this while John, Woodenhead and Alwion were posting theirs.
Woodenhead,
Thanks for posting. Lord knows I'm not good in things mathy, but the wedge there looks more like something around 65-70 degrees, not 90 degrees.
As regards the rebate, I was under the impression that the reason for creating it was because the Confederates were trying to figure out why so many
shells were exploding prematurily. One theory (I was told) was that they thought the the firing blast flame was intruding past
the fuze's threads, or that the firing shock was causing a seam inside the fuse to split, allowing the flame to ignite the powder cavity prematurely.
The creation of the gasket rebate was an attempt to thwart this (though I don't think it stopped the problem). Only CS manufactured shells
made after 1861 have this modification. It has not been noticed in any Yankee manufactured Bormanns. This research was conducted by
Pete George (and Dickey, I believe) and based largely on the Augusta GA cache (back in the 80s).
All this is based on well educated guesses, I suppose, for nothing is 100%. Yet, a strong corellation seems to exist. The problem with
this topic (Yankee Bormann fuse in CS Bormann shell) is that it is so closely related to the rebate issue and, eventually, whether
or not Bormann fuses were installed into the shell at the arsenal. And it may be that it is impossible to discuss the 90-degree wedged
Bormann fuze without resolving those other issues. And that's okay, I want to hear every conceivable theory and idea. Again,
it is important to my research, and may help me decide whether or not I need to section my shell. I certainly did not want to cut the thing
in half if there was newly developed theories or findings about this type fuse. I'm trying to become educated on the front end!
-
Thanks John, but I'm not here to argue with Woodenhead -- or you for that matter. I'm a self proclaimed uneducated person in regards to this topic and am looking for honest, educated opinions to help me figure something out, not to "checkmate" or be "checkmated." If I were "checkmated" then I'm no better off than before posting -- but, then again, maybe I'm unable to see the issue correctly (which is highly probable).
-
callicles ,
I am running out of thoughts on thi fuse. We have discussed and presented our thoughts on just about every aspect of this simpe little fuse.
I suggest that members so interested on the subject should 'search' all our preious posts on the Bormann, copy and paste them into a Word document so you can see and compare ALL comments.
Respectfully,
John
-
John, Welcome back. I hope your recovery is going well.
-
Thankyou jonpatterson,
I least I am our of the hospital andoff the blood thinner. I am still fighting the CML Lekemia ananemia. I am doing okay and enjoying being back o the Forum.
Ascollectors and would be historians, we delve into ACW that our Federal governmnt has long since laid to rest.
Kind Regrds,
Joh
P.S. Is anyone having problems with time lag and lost letters while typing?
-
To all concerned parties,
Did not the 1862 CS Ordnance Manual call for leather washers under the Bormann fuzes. And as I recall, Col. Broun who compiled the publication said that he copied the 1861 U.S. Ordnance Manual. Has anyone looked there? I would think the use of washers during the entire war under Federal Bormann fuzes is well documented. I haven't looked into that aspect but maybe some of you'all have. It seems the washers would be thin enough to not require a change to the fuze well. Maybe we should be paying more attention to the extra thickness of the CS Bormanns themselves. Was there a regulation thickness for the Federal Bormanns? No doubt the Rebel fuzes vary considerably but I have photographic proof that an effort was made to add material to the top shortly after the early 1861 problem with the powder trains burning thru the tops.
The two attached Bormanns are in CS 2.9 inch Parrotts (probably case) made by Tredegar for the state of Virginia during the spring of 1861. Virginia contracted with the Ironworks for 5,000 Parrott shells including these with Bormann fuzes for the 13 Parrott Rifles the purchased in New York during 1860. The powder trains of both burned thru the top. I have seen others. I believe these are examples of the fuzes made in the North and supplied to Tredegar by Cooper & Pond. It is well documented. Thousands came from this source. By May 1, 1861, Tredegar was making their own Bormann fuzes with extra material piled up on the top grotesquely distorting the numbers. They are also found in the noses of these 2.9 inch CS Parrotts made as part of the same order.
-
WH, I can confirm that the C.s. OrdnanceManual was copied from the U.s. one.
If the U.s. used Wright's fuse casting machine then the thickness was fixed.
Jn
-
To Callicles,
Your effort to use excavated artifacts to reveal the details of forgotten history is commendable. It has been my life's work with the books I've been involved with. Having said that, please don't cut anymore shells unless they are in horrible condition. The artifact itself is a document. Is it not possible to plot your finds on a map and thereby determine who fired what? The truth is - I know of no absolute experts among the collecting community. Everybody still learning. I happen to know a lot about field artillery projectiles from the Virginia theater but next to nothing about the big shells. Like the question of whether Lee or Longstreet lost Gettysburg, there are disagreements in this hobby about some of the basics. The shells and fuzes in question were made by many different contractors and government arsenals. Maybe some of the CS Bormanns look like the Federal. Perhaps some of the Federal shells had the extra recessed area. The best we can do is to listen to the opinions of those who have studied and handled these things, and go from there.
To Everyone else,
Enclosed is another 2.9 inch CS Parrott shell believed to be among the 5,000 made by Tredegar for the state of Virginia during the spring of 1861. This is well documented. Unlike the two examples I presented earlier that burned thru the top, this Bormann has obviously had the top built up in response. During March and April, Tredegar was telling some customers they would have to wait for the fuzes to arrive from the North. It is obvious from their Sales Book that Tredegar was making their own Bormann's by May 1st as they shipped out thousands during that month and there was no longer any delay. The pictured item was not a one-of-a-kind fuze. I have photographed a couple of others in the same CS Parrotts. I assume they also went in 6, 12, 24 pdr., etc., sphericals. It appears that the Ordnance Bureau soon had new Bormann molds or dies made with flat surfaces but thicker than before. This is why they project from the shells and might explain deepening the fuze well.
I hope this discussion isn't giving anyone a headache.
WH
-
Woodenhead,
Thank you for such a thorough research and posting. I had a 9" case shot with a Bormann in use.
Regards,
John
-
Woodenhead,
Thank you so much for your advice and learned opinions. You have given me a lot to think about. Your level of knowledge and ability to communicate that
knowledge is very commendable. I will take your advice and not section the shell. I hope to be able to call on you again for more opinions when I get
stumped (which is rather often)! Again, thanks. You will make a great contributor to this forum. Keep up your research!
-
sold from a dealer site, thought it pertained to this discussion, Boreman gasket which appears to be made from a coated cloth. additional pictures and the fuse at http://www.virginiarelics.com/pc5334.htm
-
90 degree pie slice, but either a thicker fuse, shallower well in the shell, or not seated well.. raised why up like a CS, maybe there is no way to tell for sure with all the variations. I'm enjoying the ideas of this thread, but there seems too many variations for me to absorb
-
Good afternoon Gentlemen, Great topic,
Here are some observation on the Bormann.
Pictured below are some pics of a cut case shot. It too has a rebate and a 90 degree pie slice. Federal fuze? CS fuze?
Can we be sure? I think we have to remember that the south was producing Bormanns not only at Tredegar. Was what we call the "high lip" the standard design or the type made by a certain laboratory? Virginia purchased the press, forms, dies etc for producing the Bormann from the Washington Arsenal in late 1860. The form of this fuze would be a standard type not a high lip. The only difference between the high lip and the standard Bormann is the absence of a couple of threads. There is no difference in the thickness. The absence of the top threads does not prevent the fuze front being screwed until it bottoms out no mater what the depth of the fuze well.
Woodenhead: I feel what you are seeing on the parrot shells is not a build up but the lifting of the center of the fuse due gas from the deterioration of the powder charge. Adding material to cast fuze body of the fuze would be difficult with the technology of the time. I can't recall the particular name of the gas, Pete would know. The pic of the cut 6lb illustrates this quit well. I have added three more pic of a fuze that has been distorted by gas pressure.
Post more Bormann stuff later. Hungry, gotta eat.
God Bless
Da
-
More Pics
Dan
-
Great photos, 6lbgun. In regards to the 90-degree wedge fuze shown in your first group of pictures:
Not to put words in Pete George's mouth, but I believe he was the first to determine an alternative method by which to aid people in
discerning Yankee made fuzes from CS made (and I pray I'm not about to butcher his theory). The Yankee made Bormann
fuze had a high percentage of zinc, whereas the CS ones contained more lead and less zinc. What this means is that Yankee Bormanns
(because of the high levels of zinc), when in contact with iron over time, tend to corrode very badly -- or if not that, at least corrrodes at a
sharper or higher rate than CS fuses. This often means that US Bormanns are in such bad condition that the numbers and hash marks
are barely visible and often the fuze itself is nearly crumbling apart. So this is one indicator of identifying a US fuze. When I saw the picture
you posted, I thought that it was a good candidate for Pete's school of thought. Conversely, because CS fuzes contain less zinc, they
are often found in very good condition as compared to US fuzes found in the same soil environment. I only assume that this finding is still
considered valid by Pete. Nonetheless, if the corroded Bormann fuze that is being held in the hand by someone in your first group photo is the same fuze
in the sectioned shell photo in the same group, it would POSSIBLY support the "Yankee Bormann fuze in a CS manufactured shell" idea. But, again,
as has been stated here, this thing is a puzzle that's has yet to be put together. But the ideas and facts put forth here have been very
informative and thought provoking!
-
Callicles,
Yes it is the same fuze. The fuze in the last three pics that is pushed and some what corroded is a CS high lip with CS timing hashes.
Dan
-
Callicles, did the Confederates, or the North for that matter, ever use zinc in the manufacture of their Bormann fuzes? Where is the proof? And all this talk of more or less zinc. Me thinks this is a modern day analysis of what they might have, or should have done. The pre-war U.S. regulations for making their Bormann fuzes was 50% lead and 50% tin. This was included in a highly detailed one page copy of the specs used by the Allegheny Arsenal to make Bormanns. I found it misplaced in Tredegar's Contract Book. It looks like some of the information gathered in late 1860 when Burton, J. R. Anderson and other Southern agents were allowed access to the U.S. Arsenals and Armories. I copied it and will post it as soon as I locate it. In all the discussions about the Bormann fuzes in the Confederates' correspondence, I have never come across any mention of zinc being used or even the idea that the material they were made of was responsible for their failure.
To 6lbgun, thanks for posting those fuze photos. Your point is valid. Nonetheless, if you look closely at the Bormann in the 10 pdr Parrott I posted previously, you will note the rise is a perfect bevel all the way around, and the top is flat. It looks very intentional without any of the irregularities one would expect from a pressure rise. Also, I am posting a second built-up Bormann in the nose of another 10 pounder I believe was made during the same period (i.e, spring 1861) by Tredegar as part of their order from Virginia for 5,000 - 10 pounder Parrotts. None of these CS Parrots had lathe dimples and they don't appear to have been turned on a lathe by any other method. Evidently, this was when most of the Bormann-fuzed Parrotts were made. The CS Ord. Bureau took possession of the shells (are they all case?) during July 1861. Afterwards, the monthly production records of Tredegar only reported an additional 100 produced for the CS Army. (They made a lot of 3 inch Parrotts with Bormanns for the Navy during the first half of 1862.) I suppose the Army realized that a fuze with a maximum range of one mile had no place in such long-range projectiles.
I don't mean to bore anybody but the following is documentation for the fact that Tredegar purchased thousands of Bormann fuzes in the North, and they could not understand why most were burning through the top.
In a Feb. 15, 1861, letter to Gen. Van Dorn, Army of Mississippi, Tredegar offered to provide shells with the cheaper old wooden plugs, adding "but perhaps you are aware that, by present Army regulations, the Bormann fuze is used in all field ammunition."
Unfortunately, the only source of Bormann fuzes available to Tredegar was through their Northern friend and partner in the sale of Virginia's old flintlock muskets, Cooper & Pond of New York City. Complaints soon came to Tredegar from recipients of their ammo like Col. Manigault, Ordnance Chief in Charleston, SC. On March 22, 1861, the Ironworks responded: "We are sorry that any of the fuzes shipped you are objectionable, but as we wrote you heretofore, we had to get them made outside of our shops & consequently could not pay that attention to their..." quality as they would like to have done.
It becomes clear that Tredegar's current supply of Bormann fuzes were "objectionable" when Robert Archer writes his old Army friend, Maj. Geo. Ramsey stationed at the Washington Arsenal on April 1, 1861. If you don't mind, I'll include this revealing letter in its entirety.
My Dear Major,
Excuse me for bothering you, but I won't detain you long.
Mr. Smith formerly under your command, and now at our Armory here, tells me that the Bormann Fuze is now perforated through the thin plate below the magazine so as to insure the ignition of the charge in the shell & that they are now made so in the Navy, with the plate so perforated. Is this so, and are they perforated at the Arsenals? One thing is certain. I saw several tried, that were made in New York and not perforated, and not one gave way at the bottom, but burst through the upper plate. Please enlighten me - what size hole do you drill through the iron or brass plug upon which the Fuze is secured?
The following day, Dr. Archer (signed "J. R. Anderson & Co.") penned an angry note to Cooper & Pond.
Gentlemen: The Bormann Fuzes you sent us are entirely worthless. They appear to be improperly made, as the metal covering to the magazine, which is intended to be blown off by the explosion, is made of ordinary plate tin instead of some thin soft metal - the consequence is that in several we have tried, not one exploded at the bottom, or burnt this thin plate, but all immediately exploded through the top, which seems to be the weakest part of the Fuze.
It will be well for you to get an explanation of this matter from the manufacturer & we will thank you to communicate to us what he says.
As Ft. Sumter was fired on days later, we can safely assume that no response to Archer's inquiry was had. Tredegar was clearly in the process of setting up their own production line whose output was soon apparent by the thousands of Bormanns they began distributing on May 1st according to their Sales Book and vouchers. This was the period when the 10 pounders were being manufactured with Bormanns in the nose. It appears that the first of these regularly burned through the top, as Archer complained, and the later ones had extra material piled on top as seen in the two examples I have presented photos of to the Forum. Obviously, Richmond's ordnance establishment did not know the proper way to fashion a reliable Bormann fuze at that time. I think the dramatic build-up was done out of desperation and for a brief period. They soon made new molds producing thicker fuzes with flat tops.
I realize the above information brings up additional points worthy of discussion, so please keep it coming.
Regards, WH
-
Great info WoodenHead. Thanks for sharing.
Also to join the information from prior discussions on the Bormann fuse for convenience, please see:
http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=628
http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=650
Some good discussion and images on those two threads concerning the Bormann fuse.
-
AMEN Carl, we have really beat the Bormann to death Now I believe I am starting to repeat myself. WH, I think the use of zinc is a mis-nomer, further the two letters posted y WH really explains why some fuses blew out at top cente and not due to being too thin. Another factor not yet mentiond is if the person mixing the lead and tin used a higher % of lead would soften and weaken the fuse. Addthis to an iron disk instead of the required tin and or it not being punhed prior to assembly with the shell all add up to a dud.
John
-
I wasn't meaning it was beat to death by any means. The other links that I posted covered the tin/brass patch under the fuse as well as some markings, etc. so for people reading this thread that hadn't seen the prior ones I wanted to provide links to those related discussions. This discussion on the thickness of the top and the blow through is different and Woodenhead's letters are a great contribution.
-
Thanks for the links to the threads, Carl. That was a lot of very good information. I see now that they had problems with the little discs on the underside. Alas, I've got no more to say about burning thru the top.
WH
-
Gentlemen,
Carl, thank you for posting the older threads concerning the Bormann. These threads are from 2 1/2 years ago and many newer members have not seen them. They also refresh the old memory of those of us who have seen them. They are a great asset when a subject is revisited after such a long time.
I feel that no subject is ever "beaten to death" on our forum. New information is discovered, theories on the unknown
are discussed, all contributing to our growth of knowledge. That is why we are a part of this forum, our thirst for knowledge.
This especially true concerning CS ordnance. Records are sparse or nonexistent. Only by discussion, observation and a relentless search for period documents can we shed light on CS ordnance. Woodenhead's observation coupled with written material is heart of this site. You may not agree with his conclusion, but the exchange of ideas is why we are here.
Discussion of the Bormann is not dead. There is more to come.
With all respect,
Dan
-
Woodenhead,
Thanks for your posts. Regarding the use of "zinc:" No, I have no documented evidence. That information I posted is from D&G (1993 ed.) p. 440. I simply thought
it would be of interest to others. It seems Mr. George put a lot of years and field work into developing that theory -- thus my reason for posting it.
I appreciate all the responses, and I am glad most don't think it is a "dead issue." My reason for posting anew, was to see if, in the past
couple years, there has been new findings or observations regarding the 90-degree wedge issue. And though it appears not much has been settled,
at least 6lbgun and Woodenhead and others have contributed greatly to this thread, and thus to history. So I thank you guys for allowing me
(admittedly ignorant about this) to freely ask questions without being too ostrocized. Thanks!
-
To All,
First my apology for using the term “beat to death” when I should have said “greatly expanded upon”. To Dan, I no better and get drawn up short each time.
Callicles, I should have replied to your very first question “I know nothing about the pie shape being an I.D. feature. I suggested from the start that one should go to “search” and look up Bormann for previous posts on it. Thanks to Carl the links will not have to be searched.
Fortunately from our remaining Federal references a host of information is there for those who seek it. There are numerous questions on previous post that have never been answered, passed by and on with a new one.
We may never know why Mr. Bormann designed the face of the Belgium Bormann fuse to appear as it does, see below.
Any way if I seemed short it’s because I was, and as Dan said on with more queries into the Bormann. When complete, callicles will have much data for his book.
Kind Regards,
John
-
To all,
If one really wans to study the external features of a Federal Bormann, here is a fine speciman.
John
-
the Belgium one is confusing or should I say "cluttered" glad the US ones are better:}
-
Woodenhead
Your quotes of the correspondence from Tredeger to the Washington Arsenal and Cooper & Pond provide the answer to the burn through of the Bormanns in question. The simple fact that they were not aware of the necessity of perforating the sealing disk on the magazine would insure that the flame from the ignition of the musket powder in the magazine would not detonate the bursting charge. As the fuse was screwed down tight the sealing plug would have no where to go. The charge in the magazine had no where to go but up through the fuse, thus creating the burn through on the top. John mentions the necessity of the holes in post #36. I am very surprised that the folks at Tredeger did not know this.
Gibbon's Manual, penned August 1859, mentions this necessity. If Virginia would have purchased completed shells from the arsenal with the arsenal installed fuzes instead of using the incorrectly installed, but good quality fuzes they had purchased from Cooper & Pond, the shells would have performed flawlessly.
It seems that there never was a problem with thin tops or the need to build up the top of the fuze.
Perhaps they should have read the users manual. :)
God Bless
Dan
-
do we have any pictures of a "punched or drilled" perforated borman fuse vs a non perforated "dud" fuse. seen lots of top pictures, never seen a bottom picture at all
-
Look at this link:
http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=650
Mike and Pete posted some excellent images of some with various hole punches on the back.
-
Here are threads from a couple years back. It is these from which I drew my conclusions about rebates as CS and 90-degree wedged
Bormanns as US. Since I'm the OP, it should give others an idea where I was coming from when originating this thread. I also felt it should be
incorporated here to help round out the issues and bridge then and now so that we can see the progress in ideas to date.
http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=586.0
http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=578.msg4079#msg4079
-
Alwion wrote:
> Since the pie shape no longer confirms CS vs US, except the 90 degree being US,
> does the number of ticks before #1 also not confirm a CS fuse, if its a US with the smaller wedge shape?
The number of ticks (raised lines) BEFORE the number 1 ALWAYS confirms whether the fuze is CS-made, or is US-made.
If CS-made, there are two ticks/hashmarks/raised-lines before the number 1. If there isn't two lines before the number 1, the fuze is US-made.
Regards,
Pete
Is this still a valid ID for a us/cs fuse identification?
-
I was looking for something else and coincidentally ran across this humorous snippit from the Richmond Dispatch:
Borman fuse.
--This new military contrivance, for exploding shells at given times, is now being manufactured in great quantities, at the Virginia Armory, for use in case of emergency. They are made of a substance a trifle harder than lead, and when used are screwed on the shell. The concussion, when powder in the piece is fired, causes the fuse to ignite, which is timed to explode the shell at the proper moment. The Borman fuse is about the size of an old fashioned dollar, is half an inch thick, is numbered from 1 to 5, on the face, and is applied somewhat on the principle of the top of a self-sealing preserve can. We heard an intimation that they were to be tried at the Armory on Saturday.
The Daily Dispatch: March 4, 1861. Richmond Dispatch. 4 pages. by Cowardin & Hammersley. Richmond.
Report to moderator Logged
Best,
Carl
These last two posts are from the earlier discussions, which I added here rather than bring the threads to the front. Does anyone know what the metal composition of the fuses was? I also study some Pewter, which is a mixture . Typical composition of pewter tends to be in the range of 74 to 89 percent tin, 0 to 20 percent lead, 0 to 7.6 percent antimony, 0 to 3.5 percent copper with trace levels of zinc. Arsenic and iron may also be present as impurities.
Pewter tends to a higher lead content, but is very soft, while later britannia ware dropped most of the lead, and had a much higher antimony content, which was safer, harder, but more brittle like pure tin and had a higher melting point
curious if these are pewter fuses, or some other alloy
-
Here is the document that made me think the Bormanns consist of equal parts of lead and tin. It was apparently copied from the Watervliet Arsenal files, dated January 1854, and I found it in Tredegar's Contract Book. To make 1,000 Bormann fuzes required 125 pounds of lead and 125 pounds of tin. Maybe they changed the composition by 1861 but I've never read anything to that effect. I thought the Ordnance Manual backed up this lead/tin mixture but haven't seen it lately.
WH
-
Sorry, I forgot to attach this original document.
-
alwion,
Sorry I am a little late on your question about bottom views of Bormann. I borrowed one of Carl's images and captioned the parts for you.
Regards,
John
P.s. The right caption is "remains of magazine", sorry I could not use photo bucket.
-
alwion,
Bormann fuze composition was 50% lead and 50% tin. ((Gibbon's, and ordnance manuals)
Dan
-
thanks guys. by that mix, it is actually its own compound, not really pewter, but even back then they knew eating lead was bad, but wouldn't have mattered much for a fuse. Only thing I see is that compound would have been REALLY soft, surprised they didn't ruin half screwing them in.
Thanks for the breakdown on the fuse John, helps alot. looking at the link's and the group of fuse backs, not all showed the " horse shoe", which looks part of the mold. al least one looks like a full circle. does that have any significance?
-
Post the image with a full circle horseshoe, I have not seen one.
John
-
Were all of the Bormanns' powder chambers sealed with metal horse shoes? I saw where Samson & Pae billed the Bureau for making a die to punch out "horse shoes" for the fuzes. Another bill listed 100 Bormann fuzes plus 100 horse shoes plus and extra 20 horse shoes. Is this well known to have been an integral part of all Bormanns or only used periodically?
WH
-
http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=650
John in this previous thread are a few in the 9 fuse picture which I can't see the "horseshoe" . specifically the ctr fuse, and lower right. they look like full circle. the lower left looks like a pristine horseshoe, and it looks like the horseshoe area is cast a little lower than the base. maybe the horseshoe is not always visible on the bottom until it burns and discolors or distorts. Thats why I asked if all were horseshoes, or if some were full circle
-
WH,
During the assembly instructions, stated in an earlier post, the mealed powder is mechanically driven in order to produce the desired overall time then mechanically the horseshoe is pressed in the circular groove of powder by a press. I don't believe the magazine is loose powder but also pressed in and closed with the tin disk which is also criimped and sealed into position.
Regards,
John
alwion,
I can't see them clearly due to my low vision.
Pete,
Would you email me the full size image of that group of 9 fuses? Thank you.
-
sent you the pic john. when I enlarged it, I "think" I can see the horseshoe on the two I could not before, but is VERY faint, so maybe they were all the same and the seating of the horseshoe wasn't always perfect,maybe thats why they needed extras