Need info on this old artillery ammo

kronckew · 19th January 2013, 05:34 PM

not a portugese, but an italian anecdote, i visited rome one new years with my wife & son and another couple and their son. had a work colleague who was also italian from the etruscan regions outside rome. he met us in rome one day & we drove up to his family home & vineyards. we stopped for lunch at a random restaurant our friend had never been to. we ordered lunch and of course were rather obvious foreigners. we wound up talking with the owner of the restaurant, who then decided we should try everything on his menu, including the wine & spirits. all gratis. we wound up staying there all afternoon. he then took us home, down to the cellar where he opened a huge cask of 100 year old wine. he apparently opens it once a year to test it. anyhow, he gave us each a bottle with the vineyards label, signed it, corked it with a hand machine & sealed the cork in red sealing wax himself. it was wonderful.

we spent the weekend with my friend's family, drinking their wine (they supplied the table wine for the area's restaurants) & eating home made pasta. sat. nite we went to their hunting lodge & ate wild boar sausages cooked over an open fire in the lodge, drank more wine. his father, a retired bersagliari colonel and i told each other war stories, got roaring drunk and had a great time. he didn't speak english and i don't speak italian, but it didn't matter. the col. shot the wild boar when it raided his vineyards, by the way. he was about 80 years old, 5 ft 6in. tall, skinny as a rail, tough as an old boot and probably could have killed the boar with his bare hands.

next day i have never had such a hang over in my life before or since, but it was a darn good trip all in all.

adrian · 21st January 2013, 09:00 AM

Hi Fernando, that fuze hole is too small to act as a loading hole, as you correctly say, so it is not a "case" or "shrapnel" shell, but could be a "common shell" - filled with powder only. 5 1/2 inch shells were fired from 5 1/2 in Howitzers, Royal Mortars (5 1/2 in calibre) & of course also 24 pr guns, so do not worry about there being only a few howitzers. At approx 1 cm the fuze hole is small & does begin to make one wonder if it is a shell. Little really useful is written about Napoleonic era British fuzes, there were a variety of sizes & diameters differed. It is concievable that some could be as small as 1 cm, but at this diameter we are perhaps moving away from wood (beech) time fuzes that were tapered to fit the fuze hole firmly & towards a simple fuze of match, rather like earlier fuzes & like grenade fuzes, that simply burned their entire length & were not quite as scientific as an early 1800s wood time fuze that was cut to length or bored to a specific depth from the bottom end.
Colonel Boxer transformed time fuzes, his first pattern was adopted in 1850, then there were almost constant changes until 1854 when the design of his wood time fuzes settled down for over a decade - at the time known as "large cone" fuzes to distinguish against his earlier designs.
I am concerned that your shell appears to be partially filled with some substance. Shot Put, used for sport, often have a small hole in which molten lead is poured to get the weight exactly right - I have seen quite a few of these, though not as aged as your shell. Are you able to ascertain with more certainty what is inside your shell? Its unlikely to be a Shot Put but am curious about what is inside.....
Kind regards, Adrian.

fernando · 21st January 2013, 04:11 PM

Hi Adrian,
Thank you for coming in with your input in the subject, which i know you are familiar with.
I still admit that this shell might date to a prior period, in this case consistent with the 'primitive' fuze hole width, but am not in a position for a solid conclusion. So let's remain with the Peninsular war probability.
I have strongly scratched the interior contents and not much came out of it. It looks a bit darker than local earth ... and rather fine. I heated it with a lighter flame for some twenty seconds and nothing happened. At this stage i wouldn't feel like taking a more violent measure towards the contents ... not for fear of deflagration but for risking to take the 'patina' from the hole and similar damage.
Also i wouldn't go for the shot put hypothesis; a bit too old, a bit too wide, a bit overweight ...with its 13 cms and 7,8 Kgs.
I have emailed a Portuguese Colonel who is known for his expertize in Artillery mathers. I hope he reverts with some answers.
Attached i show a close up of the hole, some interior contents, before and after failed combustion atempt.
... And an overview of my cannon balls, the two largest ones in stone; probably not so large as the one you once got ... was it in Malacca ?

,

kronckew · 21st January 2013, 07:00 PM

casting sand for comparison: sand next to the metal gets burnt black, yours does appear to have some black specks. the bigger pebbles are atypical in casting material. may have dropped in for visit later & stayed.

adrian · 22nd January 2013, 10:21 AM

Hi Fernando, most likely it is dirt with rust particles, baked hard with heat & dryness. I once emptied a loaded cannon in which the powder had set like concrete from decades in the extreme heat of the Middle East - I had to chisel it out - it still flashed (weakly) when a small piece was lit. I agree its not likely to be a Shot Put & is perhaps a pre 1800s early shell. The British had a shell wall thickness of approx 1/6 the diameter, this was considered to be quite thick, whereas the French had a much thinner shell wall - I don't recall the French thickness to diameter ratio. What does your example's wall thickness measure?
Yes, good memory, my stone ball is from the Malacca Straits, a Portuguese shipwreck I am given to understand. Its diameter is 6 inch (15 cm) weight 10.5 lbs. Yours look to be close to this size?

fernando · 22nd January 2013, 01:13 PM

Thank you Wayne.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

casting sand for comparison: sand next to the metal gets burnt black, yours does appear to have some black specks. the bigger pebbles are atypical in casting material. may have dropped in for visit later & stayed.

This material is thinner than sand and lighter than earth. Dark tone achieved after burning atempts gets darker, but not black. Only one minuscle pebble showed up after four samplings, not enough to be representative, i guess.

fernando · 22nd January 2013, 02:00 PM

Hi Adrian,
I see your point. I have scratched hard again with a stiletto like, sharp pointed blade and again only residual contents came out. So probably only the chiseling opearation would result.
It is rather hard to measure or estimate the shell wall thickness, as part of the whatever contents is stuck to the walls right up to most of the hole aperture. Although easy to discern that, the small part that is not continued by the shell contents, measures some 5 m/m, so much thinner than the British ratio you mention, this is no reliable evidence, as the hole entrance looks completely uncharacterized by age elements. But again judging with no scientific basis, the (heavy) weight of this shell seems to denounce a thick wall.

My stone balls specs;
The limestone one measures 19 cms and weighs 7,8 Ks (17 pfund ). Apparently from Germany, as announced by the German auctionner.
The granite one mesaures 18 cms and weighs 8 Kgs. (18 arratels). Apparently Portuguese, as acquired on the Lisbon area.

.

19th January 2013, 05:34 PM	#1
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,239	not a portugese, but an italian anecdote, i visited rome one new years with my wife & son and another couple and their son. had a work colleague who was also italian from the etruscan regions outside rome. he met us in rome one day & we drove up to his family home & vineyards. we stopped for lunch at a random restaurant our friend had never been to. we ordered lunch and of course were rather obvious foreigners. we wound up talking with the owner of the restaurant, who then decided we should try everything on his menu, including the wine & spirits. all gratis. we wound up staying there all afternoon. he then took us home, down to the cellar where he opened a huge cask of 100 year old wine. he apparently opens it once a year to test it. anyhow, he gave us each a bottle with the vineyards label, signed it, corked it with a hand machine & sealed the cork in red sealing wax himself. it was wonderful. we spent the weekend with my friend's family, drinking their wine (they supplied the table wine for the area's restaurants) & eating home made pasta. sat. nite we went to their hunting lodge & ate wild boar sausages cooked over an open fire in the lodge, drank more wine. his father, a retired bersagliari colonel and i told each other war stories, got roaring drunk and had a great time. he didn't speak english and i don't speak italian, but it didn't matter. the col. shot the wild boar when it raided his vineyards, by the way. he was about 80 years old, 5 ft 6in. tall, skinny as a rail, tough as an old boot and probably could have killed the boar with his bare hands. next day i have never had such a hang over in my life before or since, but it was a darn good trip all in all. Last edited by kronckew; 19th January 2013 at 05:47 PM.

21st January 2013, 04:11 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Adrian, Thank you for coming in with your input in the subject, which i know you are familiar with. I still admit that this shell might date to a prior period, in this case consistent with the 'primitive' fuze hole width, but am not in a position for a solid conclusion. So let's remain with the Peninsular war probability. I have strongly scratched the interior contents and not much came out of it. It looks a bit darker than local earth ... and rather fine. I heated it with a lighter flame for some twenty seconds and nothing happened. At this stage i wouldn't feel like taking a more violent measure towards the contents ... not for fear of deflagration but for risking to take the 'patina' from the hole and similar damage. Also i wouldn't go for the shot put hypothesis; a bit too old, a bit too wide, a bit overweight ...with its 13 cms and 7,8 Kgs. I have emailed a Portuguese Colonel who is known for his expertize in Artillery mathers. I hope he reverts with some answers. Attached i show a close up of the hole, some interior contents, before and after failed combustion atempt. ... And an overview of my cannon balls, the two largest ones in stone; probably not so large as the one you once got ... was it in Malacca ? , Attached Images

21st January 2013, 07:00 PM	#4
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,239	casting sand for comparison: sand next to the metal gets burnt black, yours does appear to have some black specks. the bigger pebbles are atypical in casting material. may have dropped in for visit later & stayed. Attached Images

22nd January 2013, 02:00 PM	#7
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Adrian, I see your point. I have scratched hard again with a stiletto like, sharp pointed blade and again only residual contents came out. So probably only the chiseling opearation would result. It is rather hard to measure or estimate the shell wall thickness, as part of the whatever contents is stuck to the walls right up to most of the hole aperture. Although easy to discern that, the small part that is not continued by the shell contents, measures some 5 m/m, so much thinner than the British ratio you mention, this is no reliable evidence, as the hole entrance looks completely uncharacterized by age elements. But again judging with no scientific basis, the (heavy) weight of this shell seems to denounce a thick wall. My stone balls specs; The limestone one measures 19 cms and weighs 7,8 Ks (17 pfund ). Apparently from Germany, as announced by the German auctionner. The granite one mesaures 18 cms and weighs 8 Kgs. (18 arratels). Apparently Portuguese, as acquired on the Lisbon area. . Attached Images

21st January 2013, 09:00 AM	#2
adrian Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 133	Hi Fernando, that fuze hole is too small to act as a loading hole, as you correctly say, so it is not a "case" or "shrapnel" shell, but could be a "common shell" - filled with powder only. 5 1/2 inch shells were fired from 5 1/2 in Howitzers, Royal Mortars (5 1/2 in calibre) & of course also 24 pr guns, so do not worry about there being only a few howitzers. At approx 1 cm the fuze hole is small & does begin to make one wonder if it is a shell. Little really useful is written about Napoleonic era British fuzes, there were a variety of sizes & diameters differed. It is concievable that some could be as small as 1 cm, but at this diameter we are perhaps moving away from wood (beech) time fuzes that were tapered to fit the fuze hole firmly & towards a simple fuze of match, rather like earlier fuzes & like grenade fuzes, that simply burned their entire length & were not quite as scientific as an early 1800s wood time fuze that was cut to length or bored to a specific depth from the bottom end. Colonel Boxer transformed time fuzes, his first pattern was adopted in 1850, then there were almost constant changes until 1854 when the design of his wood time fuzes settled down for over a decade - at the time known as "large cone" fuzes to distinguish against his earlier designs. I am concerned that your shell appears to be partially filled with some substance. Shot Put, used for sport, often have a small hole in which molten lead is poured to get the weight exactly right - I have seen quite a few of these, though not as aged as your shell. Are you able to ascertain with more certainty what is inside your shell? Its unlikely to be a Shot Put but am curious about what is inside..... Kind regards, Adrian.

22nd January 2013, 10:21 AM	#5
adrian Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 133	Hi Fernando, most likely it is dirt with rust particles, baked hard with heat & dryness. I once emptied a loaded cannon in which the powder had set like concrete from decades in the extreme heat of the Middle East - I had to chisel it out - it still flashed (weakly) when a small piece was lit. I agree its not likely to be a Shot Put & is perhaps a pre 1800s early shell. The British had a shell wall thickness of approx 1/6 the diameter, this was considered to be quite thick, whereas the French had a much thinner shell wall - I don't recall the French thickness to diameter ratio. What does your example's wall thickness measure? Yes, good memory, my stone ball is from the Malacca Straits, a Portuguese shipwreck I am given to understand. Its diameter is 6 inch (15 cm) weight 10.5 lbs. Yours look to be close to this size?