Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: "Spalling"  (Read 1953 times)

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
"Spalling"
« on: January 21, 2019, 05:02:48 PM »
"Spalling" was the technical wartime term for what we naturally call "base chipping." As every digger and collector knows, it was a major problem with CS projectiles. Below, is a fascinating 3-page letter dated April 20, 1862, from Frank Jarvis, a top workman for Mobile's Skates & Co., written to then Capt. Olandowski, a up and coming ordnance officer who took special interest in the new Read projectiles under development for the Deep South foundries. He would soon be the Army of Tennessee's Chief of Ordnance. The letter was written just weeks after the battle of Shiloh. It includes seldom seen hand drawings of a 3.3 inch (which he also calls "4-pounders) Read rifle shell damaged by spalling. It clearly shows the overall low convex shape of the copper cup and the two holes to help secure the sabot. They report successfully adjusting the shape of the cups (lower convex top - almost flat). The letter also discusses the quality of the fuses as they were employing both percussion (West Point style) and paper time fuzes. They highly recommend to paper time fuses which might explain why Reads with those early brass percussion fuses are so rare. They describe extensive testing of their projectiles.

Copies of all of this info were forwarded to Richmond and ignored. The Army of Northern VA was receiving worthless Mullane shells by the thousands while the most excellent Reads designed and set up for production by Dr. Read himself were issued to the Army of Tennessee. I have found no evidence of early war projectile testing in Virginia. A shortage of black powder caused the Richmond Ordnance Bureau to ban all practice firing and field tests of artillery. They did study the shell's performance when they proofed new guns. That meant a maximum of five shells were fired. And so, don't think they abandoned the Archer design because of its poor performance. It was strictly the shortage of lead. And I don't think they had any problem with the Mullane. After about seven months of production, they finally realized it wasn't a "Read." As long as the infantry was sweeping the fields, they paid little attention to the actual performance of the artillery shells. Believe me, it made a difference. Sad! Sad! Sad!

Look at the 3-inch 1864 Read shell below. The extensive spalling exposed a die-struck copper sabot with notches around the central opening. As far as I can tell, this is the closest any Virginia Read came to using Dr. Read's actual sabot design. Most are thick cast brass affairs. I believe this not too common style was produced by Samson & Pae, Richmond's premier foundry that would be most likely to have paid attention to the actual Read design as they were made in the Deep South. But there is still much to learn. It is also possible that shells of this pattern were sent north from Alabama or Mississippi along with some Parrotts and sphericals in early 1864. There remains much to learn.

Woodenhead