Submitted by ExpertPreference8481 t3_11bru51 in todayilearned
Why not just put the two cannon ball attached by chain down the bore of one cannon?
Because that is way too sensible and effective. Navies had been doing that for a long time. The failure here is so predictable, you can't get the split second synchronization you need between the two barrels, so one fires first, snapping the chain.
They could have had one big chamber behind the two bores. The force would still be uneven but at least on time.
Any slight frictional difference between the bores will doom it. That is the real Achilles heel.
probably really hard to forge that
If they had just put a set of ball-chain down each of the bore, they might have won the war. On second thought, maybe it was for the best they were a bunch of dummies.
It did work, but they were too frightened by the results. Which, thinking of it, proves even more that they were dummies.
it sounds like it actually fired fine, and the chain snapped in it's flight
No you don’t understand, the very bad is of their idea had the potential to change war in a way far greater than the nuclear bomb. The war gods thus deemed it unusable and snapped its chain in their bovicidal show of power.
> bovicidal
I learned a new word today, but will not likely ever see another chance to use it.
And meanwhile there's such a powerful moment/torque that the trajectories are completely unpredictable as stated in the title.
Exactly why The two canons in downtown Nanaimo were forcibly removed by Canada's gang leader Trudeau...
But how do you get the rapid acceleration in a single barrel to not snap the chain?
Similar to dieseling a pellet gun with petroleum jelly YouTube that...
While that was practiced regularly in the past, the double barrel cannon was supposed to make it so the two balls were stretched out and the chain could cut down advancing soldiers. Stuffing both balls down one barrel causes the shot to spin around wildly and it loses some accuracy.
Are mini uzi's accurate ?
The confederates weren't too bright.
The union won by sheer numbers and then resorting to terrorism.
The Confederates killed way many more yankees than the other way around.
So what if the traitors killed more patriots? They still lost and killing more makes them worse
Lincoln started the war and resorted to rape and terrorism. He is responsible for that. And most of those fighting for the Union did so because Lincoln would fucking arrest or kill them if they didn't.
There was no good side. The Confederate states left for the wrong reason, but they made EVERY attempt to leave peacefully as was their absolute, legally documented, right to do so (right to secession was a condition of ratifying the Constitution). Lincoln refused all diplomacy and started the war, and he didn't give a flying fuck about slavery. He killed those people and shredded the Constitution for power and power alone. That makes him worse by orders of magnitude.
Put the fairy tales down.
[deleted]
From a simple google search, neither of those claims are true.
Ironclads were invented by the French navy and submarines have been designed multiple times since the 16th century. And even if you stretch it to only include metal submarines, there is the Brandtaucher which predates the confederacy by 10 years.
Why do you enjoy spreading misinformation?
Lmao as if those idiots could actually invent anything useful
Liar
Increasing the weight of the payload without extra force reduces the range. Also the chain doesn’t really help against infantry.
Oh it most definitely would. Chain shot was already a thing long before, you would just use smaller caliber balls or half balls for it.
Yeah but it wasn’t for infantry, it’s primary use was for destroying rigging. Grapeshot was used for infantry
It used to be used against infantry and fortress garrisons, but the carnage it created was so nasty a treaty was signed to ban it's use on land.
All I can find is that it was used a handful of times on land. What treaty are you talking about?
The instance I'm thinking of was the 1631 destruction of Magdeburg. I was mistaken on the attackers using it as it was actually the defenders using it instead. The Wikipedia page for chain-shot has a brief mention that the use of chain on land against infantry angered the attackers, but isn't specific on exactly why or how. Edit: Here is the bit that was written containing mention of the use of chain on the attackers.
After some googling, this is the closest thing referencing what I remember, that the use of chain on land was seen as especially nasty, and connects those sentiments to Magdeburg. As for a treaty, the treaty signed after the war ended made no mention on weapon or munition bans, so I must be mistaken on that front too. Not to mention that use of chain against infantry in a few instances in the 19th century suggests that no recognized bans were in place.
>The Wikipedia page for chain-shot has a brief mention that the use of chain on land against infantry angered the attackers, but isn't specific on exactly why or how.
Angering the attackers is an amusing choice of words.
this is in comparison to two shots. a chain shot can only spread itself out about 2 feet wide. dont get me wrong, it was nasty, but there's a reason it was primarily used for naval combat, and never was consistently used on land.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments