Those Pesky Little X's

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete,
 Do you have an explaination with regard to my last post?
Best Regards,
John

[alwion]

This is a side view of the Mullane shell with wood absorber and tie ring. for more detail, you had to read all three auction, the tags were messed up and he had two Antietam tags and a South Mountian tag, same collection dates of 1887 bt JB Cones, and battle times and locations are close together

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
>  So this renders down to the field caliber Mullane which is at question and the Dyer using base cup type sabot.
> Why only two types of projectiles that may or may not have been fixed ammunition out of the entire inventory
> of U.S. and C.S. projectiles.   
> Why only these two [types]??

  Actually there were four types.  Perhaps you overlooked some of the info in lengthy previous posts in this discussion.  In one of mine, I said that there are two Field-calibers of Archer shell (3" and 3.3") which have a tie-ring at their iron base.  In one of Treadhead/Doug's posts, he says he has seen ACW period documentation that some James shells were used as Fixed ammunition ...and I do not doubt his word.

  So, the actual list is Archer, Mullane, Dyer, and James.  Now, answering the question "Why only those four types?"  Note that all four of those types are strictly 1862-or-earlier manufacture.  (Yes, some of them did get used in 1863-65 battles, but it seems none were manufactured after the end of 1862.)  Apparently, both the US and CS Ordnance Departments had issued an order to discontinue the manufacture of Fixed iron-body ammunition by the end of 1862.

  I can think of a good reason why many of the other types in your general list would not be issued as Fixed ammunition, even if it was possible to tie a powderbag onto their base.  Their body was too lengthy -- meaning, the addition of a Fixed powderbag would make them too tall to fit into the Limber-chest in the proper orientation.  (For any readers who don't already know... artillery ammunition was specified to be stored in the Limber-chest vertically, in an upside-down position.)  Note that all four types of Fixed shells are comparatively short-bodied.

  Here's a scan of a diagram showing the Orgnance Department's specification for ammo-storage in the Limber-chest.

  Also, here's a photo showing a 3.3" Archer Tie-ring Base shell.  Sorry, I don't have a digital photo of a 3" Archer Tie-ring shell ...but one is shown on page 82 of the Dickey-&-George 1993 book.  Also on page 45 of the Melton-&-Pawl paperback.

Regards,
Pete

[alwion]

I believe this is page 78, a 3" archer with short 1" sabot. picture is of the bad side of the sabot, but good side is pushed down over groove from firing. leaves the bottom ring exposed. Tie ring or rebs short of lead? If its not for a tie ring, why make the whole thing tappered with the lower ring alot smaller. taper wouldn't help hold the sabot on.  from Top of Allegheny, WV  one of my favorite shells

[alwion]

and before I get beat up, yes its a bolt, not a shell. aside from the picture , I have nothing to add to this discussion, have no idea, but am watching with interest

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thank you Pete,
   What reference indicates that these three shells were fixed ammo?  with regard to the James with the metal cup, there is no provision to tie a bag onto in.   I noticed your limber chest shows spherical shells.

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> What reference indicates that these three shells were fixed ammo?

  There is no better reference than original civil war period on-paper documentation of Field-caliber "Fixed" artillery shell ammo -- if it was written by Artillery and Ordnance Officers, not by Infantrymen or civilians.  Prompted by your request, I did some additional research among some stuff I hadn't looked at in a very long time.  I suddenly remembered I'd saved some digital images of original civil war Ordnance Receipts which were for sale on Ebay.  Unfortunately the images from those auctions are small ...but here are two of them which forum-members with good eyesight should be able to read.  They are 1863 and1864-dated Ordnance Receipts for Fixed Schenkl and Fixed Hotchkiss shells, issued to various batteries in the Army of the Potomac.  Looks like I'll have to cancel my posted theory that "Apparently, both the US and CS Ordnance Departments had issued an order to discontinue the manufacture of Fixed iron-body [cylindrical shells] ammunition by the end of 1862."

For people who cannot read the writing in those two 1863 and 1864 yankee Ordnance Receipts, here is a transcription.
Document 1:
"Invoice of Ordnance and Ordnance Stores, turned over by Chas. T. Shaw ord[nance] off[icer] 3d A[rmy] C[orps] to Capt. Rickets Battery F, 1st Pa. Arty at Camp in the Field on the 2d day of May 1863.
121 [Rounds] Hotchkiss Case Shot - Fixed
11 Percussion Schenkl
11 Cartridges

  Please notice, in that document the 121 Hotchkiss rounds were stated "Fixed" and the 11 Percussion Schenkl has no Fixed notation, but they were accompanied by an equal number of separate Cartridges (filled powderbags).  Therefore, Fixed and non-Fixed projectiles were clearly designated as such in Ordnance Invoices and Receipts.

Document 2:
"Received at Fredericksburgh Va. on this 22d day of May 1864 of Capt. Rob't. A. Stanton the following Ordnance and Ordnance Stores, as per invoice dated the 22d day of May 1864.
20 R[oun]ds 3 in Schenkl Perc Shell Fixed
260   "   "   "   Shrapnel   "
160   "   "   Hotchkiss   "   "
368   "   12 Pdr.  Solid Shot   "
422   "    "   "   Sph. Case   "

  Unfortunately, similar Confederate ordnance-receipts are quite rare ...but based on the details given in these yankee ones, I think it's very likely that Confederate ones will also show that Fixed cylindrical shells were issued.

  Again I find myself posting late at night and running out of energy.  I'll post about the James Tie-ring shells tomorrow.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Dear Pete,
   Now that is some interesting data.  I guess now we need to apply our knowledge and common sense and explain how powder bags were attached to the base of the smooth base cap of the Hotchkiss and the small knob protruding from the sabot of the Schenkl.  It is beyond my comprehension.  Thank you.
Best Regards,
John

[Treadhead]

I appreciate the change in approach on this post.    The posted receipts are exactly what I what & need to see to help understand a fragmented collage of period references, contemporary ideas, and projectile images.   With written reference being used for points and counter points, not only does a subject’s general understanding become clearer, they spring up all kinds of new and interesting areas to explore in the future.   How did that dome on the James shell work, more on the Mullane shell and several other areas that came up and we can explore on new posts.    But I’d like to stay on target with this post and see it through.  At issue is the straps on a Dyer sabot.    If you don’t mind, I’d like to see evidence that directly addresses the straps as a tie off point.  I’ve always seen the possibility of this as an answer since it was first stated it, but I still see and awful lot modifications on these sabots that raise other possibilities as well.  The momentum is yours: 

To clean up one point:  (James Tie Ring) my statement was  <“I have contemporary sources that state the tie ring base was for a powder bag.”>  Contemporary meaning modern sources.   I have no mention of any tie rings in any Civil War (1860’s) period reference on the James in my reference collections.   

Doug

[alwion]

Tie ring I think is a clarifier, maybe "modern coined" to explain process just assumed but not detailed in general period literature, unless in patent info. We would need to also look for similar idea, IE:groove, retainer, slot, etc. this was mentioned before, and to a point I agree, maybe Tie ring is NOT the correct ID, but it does allow us to discuss the idea , and when we say it we all know what we are discussing, better than mystery groove on sabot bases unless absolute proof makes us settle on a correct name. . I try and keep all info with every artifact, but even hard as I try its a daunting task, sometimes I lose, and we are looking for very old records, not valued at the time . I think we are lucky to have what we have:)

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Allen,
This thread is about the "X" straps on the Dyer.   What "tie ring" are you referring to on the Hotchkiss and Schenkl, there are none.
With Regards,
John

[alwion]

John, Just a possible noun clarifier from Threadbares post on James shells just before yours, suggesting on all possible attachments ideas we need to search historic records for other names which may be similar to add references to what we are discussing:
he posted
To clean up one point:  (James Tie Ring) my statement was  <“I have contemporary sources that state the tie ring base was for a powder bag.”>  Contemporary meaning modern sources.   I have no mention of any tie rings in any Civil War (1860’s) period reference on the James in my reference collections.   

looked at that way, maybe I'm just posting unclear. It would apply to this discussion, if any the last 4 posts apply. I see no reference in any of my posts about tie rings on schenkles or hotchkiss, but if I did once again I appologize, and would clarify that mistake as looking for a way to "fix ammunition", as no tie ring is seen on many shells unless its on a unknown shell we haven't seen. I could engineer one for the schenkle, can't see it on a hotchkiss . This nomenclature isn't ingrained into me yet, and we don't all agrre what things should be called, so I make posting mistakes.

What I'm trying to suggest is a research approach. Maybe when searching records for Dyer straps (and any other shell part information), we need to substitute the noun name; IE strap for retainer, holder, or whatever might sound like it might be similar to our research, and ID that 1860 recorded name so we know what it is. , and in addition also remember all the unknown things we see on shells could have been for function or for a step in manufacture.

Don't get too hung up on a specific name, they change meaning as time goes on. In 1860 a "gay fellow" was just a "happy man", and now its meaning is something generally considered inappropriate.

If "throwing out possible ideas for speculation" isn't wanted, I'll quit, but since very few hard facts are available, this is going to eliminate alot of all forum posts. Usually I can envision several ways a thing can work, it doesn't mean it's practical or the way it was done, but if we "ignore speculation" or " possible ideas" we may miss the truth. I'm thinking a rosetta stone isn't soon to appear and reveal all the answers to us

I think i'm offending several people and feeling a little beat up, think I'll take awhile off cu

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Allen,
Please don't feel beat up.  your question keep people thinking.   Lets keep the James out of the Dyer post. thainks get too confusing.
I cannont anwere the Dyer "X" what ever you want to call the, I have no further evidence to submit for member consideration or thought.
  Even though I have been studying Civil War projectiles and fuzes since 1958, I still have to use "appears" and "perhaps" because there is not a period reference to be found at this time.  So I will end my input to the Dyer threads.
Best Regards,
John

[alwion]

We had worn this conversation down to nothing, but a really nice picture of a groundburst shell is in this listing. I thought it was a pair of crossing straps, but this had more of the X left than other pictures I had seen, and it looks like its made in 1 piece? I can't really tell if there is any part of this going through the sabot to the cast shell. also shows definite "ears" on the straps. almost makes it look like a stand to set it on? anyway wanted to share in cace there was more left of this than normally seen  auction #390431536961

[alwion]

Decided to leave a pic. This is smaller than I saved, so will leave the auction number in case someone wants a larger picture. This X almost looks cast rather than thin tin, and there is a crack between it and the shell. any chance the X piece went through the sabot and touched the actual shell?