Callicles wrote:
> I noticed in the D&G (1993) work it states that there were 4 evolutions of the Parrott sabot, the wrought-iron ring sabot being the 1st of that evolution.
The form of wrought-iron ring/cup sabot which was used by Mr. Parrott on the earliest projectiles he manufactured was actually designed (and patented) by Dr. John B. Read, in 1856. Mr. Parrott himself says so, in his application for US Patent #33,100 (dated August 20, 1861). Parrott did not change the basic form of Dr. Read's sabot -- he merely "improved" it by making its outer edge thicker, and using a metal-crimper machine to "swage" pre-rifling-grooves into the sabot's outer edge. It is NOT a Parrott-designed sabot, and therefore it isn't included in the book's naming of Parrott sabots (Type 1, 2, and 3 -- each of which is brass). Each of those three versions was designed by Mr. Parrott himself. Very importantly, their BASIC FORM differs from Dr. Read's sabot.
Also, Mr. Parrott's sabots are a ring (or band) which was cast ONTO the side of an already-manufactured projectile's body, instead of the sabot being made first and then embedded inside the projectile's flat iron base while the projectile's iron body was being cast.
Callicles wrote:
> How did this particular sabot (the wrought-iron ring) rank in success among the other 3 on the battlefield?
Mr. Parrott's thickened and pre-rifled "improved" version of Dr. Read's wrought-iron ring sabot is properly called a Read-Parrott sabot. (Dr. Read gets primary credit as the designer/inventor of its form, and Parrott is given secondary credit for improving it with pre-rifling.) It actually performed better than Mr. Parrott's brass ring/band sabots. Unlike those sabots, the thick pre-rifled iron Read-Parrott sabot:
1- ALWAYS engaged the cannon's rifling excellently, and
2- very nearly NEVER broke off upon firing -- highly important because it therefore did not endanger friendly troops stationed in front of the artillery battery's position to protect it from being captured.
Callicles wrote:
> I just wonder because it is often said that even the Yanks in the West received inferior products compared to their compatriots in the Eastern theater.
Reason #2 (above) is why the US Army Of The Potomac insisted (successfully) on continuing to be supplied with iron-sabot ones for its Parrott Rifles all the way to the war's end in 1865. That army, being the one which protected the nation's capital, had enough political power to nearly always get its equipment preferences approved by the US War Department. Whatever equipment the Army Of The Potomac disliked tended to get shipped off to the "western" armies, which were viewed as less important than the AotP. That is why the "western" yankee armies got the great majority of brass-saboted Parrott 10-pounder and 20-pounder caliber projectiles. (Other examples are the James projectiles and cannons, and Austrian rifles.)
Unlike the Army's artillery commanders, the US Navy had no major objection to Mr. Parrott's three designs of sabot endangering friendly troops by frequently detaching from the projectile upon firing... because the Navy was always firing over water -- there were no friendly support-troops out in front of the Navy's cannons.
Callicles wrote:
> Just because it is the 1st evolution, does that mean it might have been the least successful, or "perceived"
> to have been the least successful? Is this why it required further development -- giving rise to the later 3 evolutions?
As explained above, the iron sabot actually performed better than any of Mr. Parrott's own design of sabot. He came up with his own designs for two reasons:
1- the iron sabot caused the cannon's rifling grooves to wear out much faster than a softer-metal sabot, such as brass.
2- the iron sabot, being made of wrought-iron (not cast-iron), and being pre-rifled, required a lot of intensive labor to manufacture... and was thus significantly more expensive to manufacture than the simple cast-on brass sabots he designed. Unlike some other artillery projectile inventors, Mr. Parrott personally profited from the US Ordnance Department's purchases of projectiles designed and patented by him. He had powerful financial reasons to produce his own versions.
Regards,
Pete
