Notes about the history of engineering

[greyofk]

Foreword

Hello All,

How often you can find a meaningful history book? And how many of them are exciting? Just a few. Why it is so easy to write a fiction and so hard to compose notes about things that really happened? Let me try to do so. This forum looks a right place to publish results of my study.

I was always fascinated by sudden inventions, visions, revelations: call them as you want. The events that changed history. Some are well known, some forgotten. Why certain things were discovered well before they become practical and others remained unknown for centuries. Think about it: The knowledge about structure of our galaxy will be of no use even for our grandchildren. It was technically possible to produce antibiotics in Roman Empire. It would be quite beneficial, but it took 2000 years to make it happen.

Every time I visit a museum or a library I have a feeling that human history is not an incremental process. It is rather random chain of unpredictable events. Scholars like to explain them, they even invented “the laws of historyâ€. However they can predict nothing.

Let's recall some forgotten nodal points of the history

Notes about the history of engineering

Introduction

Technology and engineering are foundations of our civilization. Nevertheless the history of engineering is the most forgotten portion of human history.

What comes to your mind when you think of ancient Greece? Platon, Aristotle, Diogenes, Socrates. What they had done that we use now? Almost nobody remember Heron of Alexandria, who invented steam turbine, syringe and force pump (fire engine). It is not fair. As we all wish for fair world, I invite you to look at forgotten pages of our culture and history.

The gunpowder was discovered in the 9th century by Chinese alchemists searching for an elixir of immortality. The discovery of gunpowder was probably the product of centuries of alchemical experimentation. Saltpetre was known to the Chinese by the mid-1st century AD, and there is strong evidence of the use of saltpetre and sulfur in various largely medicinal combinations. By the way they first extracted saltpetre from a chicken crap. A Chinese alchemical text from 492 noted that saltpeter gave off a purple flame when ignited, providing for the first time a practical and reliable means of distinguishing it from other inorganic salts, making it possible to evaluate and compare purification techniques.

The first reference to gunpowder is probably a passage in the Zhenyuan Taoist text tentatively dated to the mid-800s. Some have heated together sulfur, charcoal, and saltpetre; smoke and flames result, so that their hands and faces have been burnt, and even the whole house where they were working burned down. This would be just another “bad luck mishap†among many others. However at least one of unlucky alchemists had a vision. He wrote the recipe of the mixture. It was the beginning of the history of firearms

To be continued

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Those first four gentlemen you mentioned brings to mind philosophy.

[leroy]

grey:____________

Thanks for posting this neat forward. I like this stuff too.

leroy

[enfield]

Those first four gentlemen you mentioned brings to mind philosophy.

Not to mention logic. How could you have engineering without logic?

[gregintenn]

Welcome to the forum. Am I going to need to buy a book, or are you going to keep posting here? I'm interested.

[greyofk]

Thanks everybody for encouragement. I'm working on the nest portion

[greyofk]

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } Interesting enough, a rocket was invented before a gun. Building a rocket engine is not as easy as it looks. The main challenge is stability of a propellant. A black power in its powder form burns much faster than it needs in a rocket. Even worse, the speed of burning increases with pressure, that creates even greater pressure. It called volume burning. It is how gunpowder works in a gun. It is how gunpowder can blow up a rocket. We all think about a gunpowder as a mixture of a sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter. Despite common believe it is not burning sulfur that gives majority of an energy. Sulfur mostly contributes to a stink. Majority of the energy comes from oxygenation of a carbon. The carbon can be in the form of a charcoal or can be a sugar, or even dried honey. For some unknown reason, Chinese alchemists used small amount of honey in the mix. So, instead of powder, they made cake-like substance. The dried honey sealed the porous and suppressed volume burning. As a result they had surface burning propellant suitable to build a rocket.

The origin of rocket propulsion as a type of firework was recorded in 1264. The 14th-century text illustrates and describes a Chinese multistage rocket with booster rockets that, when burnt out, ignited a swarm of smaller rockets issuing forth from the front of the missile shaped like a dragon's head. Along with rockets, the Chinese texts also described explosive land mines and naval mines.

It means that in theory, that last Mongolian khans could have first rocket artillery. If so, the history of civilization could be completely different. Or, more likely, it would be neither history not civilization at all. Fortunately Mongolians were ignorant to engineering.

The gunpowder was reinvented by Berthold Schwarz who was a Franciscan monk in Freiburg, Germany. According to legend, he was an alchemist and the first European to discover gunpowder, somewhere between 1313 and 1353, which led directly to the creation of the first firearms. It is sometimes also claimed that he built or developed the first guns or cannon. These claims are highly disputed, as there are records of gunpowder in Europe predating this (such as Roger Bacon), as well as much evidence from the East. Nevertheless the canons became a major factor in western history since then.

To be continued

[Guest Letereat!]

:clap:Right on Bro! This is good stuff! IMHO history kicks ass and is far more compelling a subject than any hollywood B S. The Human Experience as seen through the eyes of those who have lived it, and Engineering/technology; there IS NO MORE COMPELLING STORY IMHO.

History is seen as boring drubbery because it is most often presented as a bunch of Dates, Names and Places in a disjointed and uncompelling manner. Not to mention that what we get in school is a gross and mangled misrepresentation of the facts, and often just outright lies. See "Lies My teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen, and if you think you can handel the truth, read " The Pillars of the Earth" by Ken Follett.

P.S. Brief Rant. The History Channell used to be pretty decent, but IMHO,currently it..... SUX BALLS!!! I do not want to Watch, "Pawn Stars", "Ax Men", "Ice Road Truckers", or a bunch of guys chasing around the Chupacabra, Big Foot, Moth Man, etc. in a new and flashy high tech way.

THAT IS NOT HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ancient Alien theory. That IS history, I WILL watch it.

Stan Lees "Super Humans". Not History but fascinating, very objective, and scientific. I WILL watch that too. DROP THE NAME OR PONY UP WITH SOME REAL DAMN HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!

Edited March 26, 2011 by Letereat!

[Oh Shoot]

...P.S. Brief Rant. The History Channell used to be pretty decent, but IMHO,currently it..... SUX BALLS!!!

History International channel still has mostly actual, well, history. 116 on Knoxville Comcast. Right now, for example, proggie is right up OP's alley: Engineering an Empire series.

- OS

[Guest Letereat!]

History International channel still has mostly actual, well, history. 116 on Knoxville Comcast. Right now, for example, proggie is right up OP's alley: Engineering an Empire series.

- OS

O.K...so, History Channell for basic cable customers....STILL SUX BALLS!!!

"Modern Marvel" gets a thumbs up though.

Those channells aint valible on regular cable...are they? Im tryin to figure a way to pay less for what I want darnit. The Military Channell has taken all the good military history away from us "Basic" subscribers as well.

I guess I need to get aff my arse and start getting serious about all the stuff avialable from almost any channell through my ISP.:-\

Edited March 26, 2011 by Letereat!

[Oh Shoot]

...I guess I need to get aff my arse and start getting serious about all the stuff avialable from almost any channell through my ISP.:-\

One thing about America. You get the best justice, medicine, information, and entertainment in the world -- that you can afford.

- OS

[greyofk]

Medievals

The limiting factor for development of sensible gun was primitive metallurgy rather than chemistry. Once discovered, the gunpowder could be easy made. A bronze did not have enough tensile strength for a gun barrel. An iron had high melting point, that made difficult to cast a barrel.

The earliest device for firing projectiles was “fire-lance'. It was hollowed bamboo pole charged with a gunpowder with a sand. If nothing else it was capable to blind. The first mention of such “fire-lance” dated X century. Eventually expendable bamboo was replaced with hollow tubes of cast iron. Pottery shards and bits of sharp metal was the first deadly projectiles. Later on they were replaced by lead balls. Such predecessor of a gun emerged some time in XI century. A hand held version followed right away.

The honor of the first military application of an “erupter” belongs to Song dynasty of China some time in 13 century. It was 4 wheel trailer with vase-shaped mortar. The speed of projectiles gave it definite advantage over ancient catapult.

The first archaeologically proven metal barrel hand held weapon dated to 1288. There were no provisions for aiming or ignition. It means that a soldier had to keep his eyes and attention on the weapon rather than enemy. What was the tactical effectiveness of such weapon? Probably none. What was the reason to carry heavy slow and imprecise device into a battle? Think about the people who was involved. They had hardy seen anything beyond neighbor villages. Never read a book. New nothing about chemistry. The sound, flame and action of a gun was a black magic for them. If no measurable damage, a gun produced tremendous psychological impact to an enemy.

The advance of mechanical engineering in 13 century China was too slow. Song dynasty was defeated and destroyed by Mongols. But scripts and crafts survived. The guns in different incarnations spread across Asia in medievals. Some of them were captured by crusaders and brought to Europe. They did not constitute any tactical significance yet. They just gave starting point to forgotten scholars and engineers of dark ages. When a gun become a real weapon?

Sultan Mehmed II brought Turkish army under the walls of Constantinople in April 1453. Greeks of Byzantine Empire were well educated. Every Bizantine citizen was also a soldier. And good soldiers they were. Otherwise their empire would not stand over a millennium. The emperor Constantine had support of all the Christendom. He was experience commander and maintained outstanding discipline in Byzantine army. Constantinople was one big fortress. The walls of the city were almost impregnable for any medieval besieger. Turks were just a bunch of barbarians. However Mehmed II hired the best gunsmith of his time to build long range siege canons. Turks managed to breach the section of walls and than the gates. Sultan's elite Janissaries flooded into the city. Constantine reportedly fell leading a charge against the invaders, though his body was never found. Turks outnumbered Greeks. All the defenders were killed and the Turks proceeded to loot the city. This battle marked the end of the Byzantine Empire, an empire which had lasted for over 1,100 years. The city's fall was a massive blow for Christendom. The Fall of Constantinople marked the end of the Middle Ages, the ages of swords and shields. The next period in the history was Renaissance: the era of mechanical engineering and evolution of the firearms.

To be continued

Edited May 12, 2011 by greyofk

[greyofk]

Renaissance

Renaissance began in Florence, Tuscany in 14th century. It was a cultural movement that spanned roughly to the 17th century. It encompassed a resurgence of learning based on classical sources, the development of linear perspective in painting, and gradual but widespread educational reform.

Various theories have been proposed to account for its origins and characteristics, focusing on a variety of factors including the social and civic peculiarities of Florence at the time; its political structure; the patronage of its dominant family, the Medici; and the migration of Greek scholars and texts to Italy following the Fall of Constantinople at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. I would not disagree.

However majority of scholars overlooked engineering portion of Renaissance. The intellectual transformation resulted in the Renaissance created a bridge between the Middle Ages and the Modern era.

It started from the development of a hand cannon (also called a gonne) (Arabic: midfa‎; Russian: пищаль). It was possibly the oldest as well as the simplest type of early firearm, as most examples require direct manual external ignition through a touch hole without any form of firing mechanism. It may also be considered a forerunner of the handgun.

The first hand cannons were no more than scaled down versions of a stationary mortar. Their origination is not clear. Arabic manuscripts dated to the 14th century are the earliest surviving documentary evidence. Keep in mind however that Arabic culture was the most advanced at that time. They just had more educated people and more libraries. Majority of population of Europe simply could nor read or write at that time. Historians agree, that Turks ordered their siege artillery from Dalmatia (nowadays Hungary). Romania, Croatia and Dalmatia had decent quality steel, advanced craftsmanship and urgent need to protect themselves from south-eastern neighbors. It was definitely the major node of firearms traffic in 14th century. I can only speculate that they also made a major contribution to development of first portable firearms. Most likely it was parallel development in Arabic and European world as well as Chinese empire. Anyway the guns become driving force of Renaissance.

Portable firearms obsoleted significance of a knight: trained professional warrior protected by an armor. Fighting a war was not a joke even in the age of swords. However it was not as dangerous for a knight as you see in Hollywood movie. With good quality armor and a horse to escape they endangered a life as much as you riding a bike on a highway, or windsurfing in an ocean. The things changed. No armor of that time could withstand impact of a lead boll. A warfare become a serious business.

Another notable effect of firearms on warfare during this period was the change in conventional fortifications. There is no wall that artillery will not destroy in only a few days. Although castles were still prerogative of aristocracy, their use and importance on the battlefield rapidly declined.

To be continued

[gregintenn]

The mods might consider making this thread a sticky. I'm enjoying your writing so far.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I am, too.

[greyofk]

It was 14th century when European warlords first considered hand cannons as significant factor on a battlefield.

The hand cannon was a simple weapon, effectively consisting of a barrel with some sort of handle, though it came in many different shapes and sizes. Although surviving examples are all completely constructed of metal, evidence suggests that many were attached to some kind of stock, usually wooden.

For firing, the hand cannon could be held in two hands while an assistant applied the means of ignition. These could range from smoldering wood or coal, red-hot iron rods, to slow-burning matches. Alternately, the hand cannon could be placed on a rest and held by one hand while the gunner applied the means of ignition himself. Projectiles used in these weapons were varied. Some fired pebbles found on the ground, while others fired more sophisticated ammunition such as shaped balls of stone or iron or arrows.

A long bow had much faster rate of fire and better accuracy. A crossbow also had superior accuracy and similar power as compared to early hand cannons. But their users were numbered. Why so?

Making an arrow is a craft. Making lead bolls and gunpowder is manufacturing. Once the technology was established it did not require exceptional skill. An archery marksmanship requires months even years of practice. Loading and aiming a primitive gun can be learned in a week. The infantries obtained firepower.

Artillery barrels could be done from junk metal. Portable guns required quality steel.

Human civilization entered Renaissance with 3 major nodes of metallurgy:

Damascus shared by Turks and Arabs produced the steel of exceptional quality

Lusitania (Spain + Portugal) with the center in Toledo and urgent need to hold Mauritanians at bay

Moravia ( roughly nowadays Czech) with easy access to reach oar and coal resources.

By the 1500s, better powder had been developed. Finely ground powder used by the first bombards, was replaced by a "corned" variety of coarse grains. This coarse powder had pockets of air between grains, allowing fire to travel through and ignite the entire charge quickly and uniformly.

And what about Asia? China and India had metallurgy and scholars who possessed extensive knowledge. Weapons were always on high demand in that area. However, for some unknown reason, these countries did not contribute to the development of advanced firearms in Renaissance period.

With one exception. Fathullah Shirazi Indian or Persian mechanical engineer developed a volley gun. This rapid fire machine had multiple gun barrels that fired sequentially. Think of Gatling schematic. For some unknown reason Shirazi sold this predecessor of machine gun to Arabs. The mass production never occurred.

Reading the history of 14 and 15 centuries you will mostly learn that everybody fought everybody at that time.

The hand cannon was widely used until at least the 1520s in Europe and Asia. It had 4 major shortcomings. Hand cannon as long bow and majority of cross bows could not operate under a rain. There was an urgent demand for firepower, accuracy and the rate of fire.

It took 2.5 centuries for best thinkers or Renaissance era to solve these problems

To be continued

[Guest mosinon]

"And what about Asia? China and India had metallurgy and scholars who possessed extensive knowledge. Weapons were always on high demand in that area. However, for some unknown reason, these countries did not contribute to the development of advanced firearms in Renaissance period. "

Actually that answer is pretty well known. At least when it comes to China.

[greyofk]

The first achievement of Renaissance became a matchlock. The matchlock was the first mechanism to facilitate the firing of a hand-held firearm. The classic European matchlock gun held a burning slow match in a clamp at the end of a small curved lever known as the serpentine. Upon the pulling of a lever (or in later models a trigger) protruding from the bottom of the gun and connected to the serpentine, the clamp dropped down, lowering the smoldering match into the flash pan and igniting the priming powder. The flash from the primer traveled through the touch hole igniting the main charge of propellant in the gun barrel. On release of the lever or trigger, the spring-loaded serpentine would move in reverse to clear the pan. For obvious safety reasons the match would be removed before reloading of the gun. Both ends of the match were usually kept alight in case one end should be accidentally extinguished. This design removed the need to lower by hand a lit match into the weapon's flash pan and made it possible to have both hands free to keep a firm grip on the weapon at the moment of firing, and, more importantly, to keep both eyes on the target. The gain of the accuracy significantly increased the effective range of fire. Hand canons were the weapon of unaimed fire on short distance. Matchlock gun started the marksmanship.

The successor of a hand canon was called arquebus. The arquebus was fired by a matchlock mechanism. As low-velocity firearms, the arquebus was used against enemies who were often partially or fully protected by steel-plate armor. At close range, it was possible to pierce even the armor of knights and heavy cavalry, depending highly on the power of the arquebus and the quality of the armor. This led to changes in armor usage, such as the three-quarter plate, and finally the retirement of plate armor.

Arquebuses were a standard weapon of the "Divine Engine Division" 神机营 of the Chinese Ming army in the late 14th century. In campaigns to drive Mongols out of China a strategy combining cavalry and arquebuses was common practice. In 1387, the Chinese army developed a three-line method near the Burma border to destroy elephant formations of rebels. The three-line method allowed two lines to reload while the other would fire. Such tactics allowed a balance of mass firepower to compensate for mediocre accuracy with a reasonable rate of fire.

The first European usage of the arquebus in large ratios was in Hungary under king Matthias Corvinus (r. 1458-1490). Every third soldier in the Black Army of Hungary had an arquebus, which was an unusually high ratio in its era. Arquebusiers were very effective against cavalry and even other infantry, particularly when placed with pikemen in the pike and shot formation, which revolutionized the Spanish military. An example of where this formation was used and succeeded is the decisive Battle of Cerignola (1503), which was one of the first battles to utilize this formation, and was the first battle to be won through the use of gunpowder-based small arms. Arquebuses were successfully used in the Italian Wars of the first half of the 1500s. However they were not sufficient for the next coming challenge.

In 1492, Columbus sailed across the ocean. Western civilization needed something to promote the majesty of engineering in the New World.

To be continued

Edited April 18, 2011 by greyofk

[greyofk]

Columbus was not the first European who traveled to America. Vikings did multiple voyages across Atlantic. In about 986, Bjarni Herjólfsson, Leif Ericson and Þórfinnur Karlsefni from Greenland reached North America and attempted to settle the land they called Vinland. They created a small settlement on the northern peninsula of present-day Newfoundland, near L'Anse aux Meadows. The archaeological remains are now a UN World Heritage Site. Viking's colony did not survived long. Nordic settlers were displaced by hostile locals.

Spaniards had better ships and navigation tools. They first established their presence on Caribbean islands. Cuba became the starting point for first unsuccessful mainland expeditions. Aztecs did not welcome Europeans. What happened next?

Historians speculate about cultural superiority of Europeans, importance of discipline, military genius of Hernando Cortes and success of cavalry on a continent that had not seen a horse.

Think yourself

At his first mainland expedition Cortes lead 500 men and 13 horses. 13 horses do not constitute a cavalry. The greatest luck in his life come with Indian woman La Malinche. Hernando's girlfriend could speak every language of Yucatan peninsula. She fully understood the tensions between Aztec aristocracy and chefs of local nomad tribes. First time in the history, she convinced locals to join Cortes in his voyage across Aztec empire. In 1519 Cortes took over Veracruz. Hernando could speak only Spanish and Portuguese. It means La Malinche also communicated tactical orders to local auxiliaries. The real contribution of Hernando was superior weapon. Every Spaniard in his band had an arquebuse. He also took several small canons, that were brought on the shoulders of his soldiers to the heart of Aztec empire Tenochtitlan. This firepower made a magic. Locals feared Spaniards as divine creatures. In 1521 Cortes captured the last ruler of Aztecs in his citadel. Tenochtitlan was renamed to Mexico city. Spanish and Portuguese explorers moved across North and South America. Their guns became the major factor in the history of 2 new continents. Did they match this challenge?

The main shortcoming of arquebuse was burning match. Anything burning in close proximity to a gunpowder is a potential for a trouble. Troubles are natural environment for a soldier. Arquebuse was an adequate weapon for battles between well organized armies in Europe and Asia. Commanders knew when to attack and when to retreat. Soldiers maintained burning matches on command. The engagements were predictable if anything at war can be predictable.

Nothing was predictable in the New World. In case of a sudden attack matchlock gun had little use for defenders. Arquebuse was not effective even for hunting. Crossbow was still more accurate and instantly ready for a shot.

The technical solution for this problem was known for centuries. How it happened that nobody used it in the design of a firearm?

A flint was used to produce a sparks since an iron was discovered. May be even earlier. It was the only way to start a fire through antient history and medievals. The flint with iron and tinder were used to start a burning match for an arquebuse. It was so logical to apply the sparks directly to a gunpowder. The mechanism to do so was invented in 1500s.

The next step in the firearm's evolution was Musket. A musket is a muzzle-loaded, smooth bore long gun, fired from the shoulder. Muskets were designed for use by infantry. A soldier armed with a musket had the designation musketeer.

The main advantage over arquebus was a flintlock. In a flintlock firing mechanism, the gunpowder in a musket's pan was ignited by a flint suspended on hammer, which struck the pan on pulling the trigger. Sven Ã…derman is credited with advancing the rapidity of firing and was awarded Halltorps estate by the King of Sweden. The flintlock (which succeeded the similar but more complicated snaphance) was a major advance on the matchlock in safety, accuracy, and loading time. It became standard issue for European infantrymen by 1600. Musket calibers ranged from 0.5 inches (13 mm) to 0.8 inches (20 mm). Around the same time came the invention of the bayonet. There was now no need for two types of infantry and the pike disappeared.

The flintlock sparked development of a pistol. At first short version of a musket was intended for cavalry commanders. Soon the beauty of a handgun won unconditional love of entire population of the earth.

Renaissance period is known for its outstanding artists. It was the very time when guns stop to be crude tools of killing and became the pieces of exceptional craftsmanship and art work.

And what happened in America? Spanish and Portuguese marched across Americas. They brought horses and guns, They brought knowledge. Knowledge is power. By the time conquistadors came to Chile, locals already had guns. Chile remained the only country of new world that was not conquered. However so attractive was Western lifestyle, that it was adopted even in Chile. Local Indians learned Spanish, accepted Christianity and became proud members of modern civilisation.

[greyofk]

A typical smooth bore musket firing a lead ball was efficient to at most 60 meters. At this distance the projectile lost most of its energy. Aside from it, the low accuracy of a musket made it useless on bigger distance. Why the bullet losses its energy?

The energy of a projectile is mv² /2. The air drug (responsible for deceleration) is proportional to v² * d². Here m is the mass, v - velocity, d – diameter of the projectile. The obvious way to reduce the energy dissipation is elongated bullet. Such bullet has high m/ d² ratio. However elongated bullet has low air drug if only its axes stays parallel to its trajectory. The projectile fired from smooth barrel behaves quite different. It spins unpredictably. Not only it drains kinetic energy. Uncontrollable spin reduces accuracy.

A sphere has a symmetry around any axes that goes through its center. The ball bullet was a natural choice for centuries. Let's take close look at its behavior. The last contact with the barrel gave the ball a spin at random angle to the direction of flight. The aerodynamics meant that the ball veered off in a random direction from the aiming point. It was the major source of inaccuracy of a musket.

What if a projectile is spinning around the axes parallel to its trajectory? Such spin stabilizes the flight. A bullet imperfection can cause a deviation, however for spinning bullet such deviation is not cumulative. The faster is rotation the more force required for destabilization of the flight.

The best arrows are the spinning arrows. The smiths made them knowing nothing about ballistics or aerodynamics. Thanks to natural shape of the goose feather.

The explorers of America, hunters and assassins around the globe were in desperate need for long range weapon. The scientists of 1500th had sufficient knowledge of mechanics to understand how spinning stabilizes the flight. The gunsmiths had a technology to make it happen even earlier. The first hand cannons were made by forging. The best barrels nowadays also done by forging. It was technically possible to build long range firearm in early medievals. Somebody needed to put desire, theory and crafts together.

The is no for sure documentation of who did it first. Sadly some believe that German criminal named August Kotter in the 1500 hundreds made a gun's barrel with a grooved bore that imparts a spinning motion to the bullet. He used broaching technique. Broaching became standard manufacturing process since then. He also improved the flintlock trigger. The smooth trigger was essential for accurate aiming. The rifle was born.

The rifles first came into widespread practical use in the United States. Because of its manufacturing cost, the rifle remained relatively unused as a military weapon in Europe. Until the middle of the 19th century the musket was the standard small arm.

While military guns like the Brown Bess still employed the smooth barrels of their ancestors, many of the homemade American flintlocks of the same era employed rifling, or a cutting of grooves into the metal of a barrel for the sake of stabilizing a bullet in flight. The disadvantage to this new form of accurizing was that fouling, the byproducts of firing gunpowder, tended to accumulate in the grooves in the barrel, hence making it difficult to load the tight-fitting bullets of the period after five or six shots. As a result, frequent cleaning was the scourge of early rifles. However, while smooth-bore guns like the Brown Bess were only capable of accurate shots out to fifty yards, American riflemen of the era was able to drop a man at three hundred yards with relatively little difficulty. The range at which a rifleman could kill a man was the measure of skill in the Revolutionary era. American flintlocks were also some of the first to employ systems of aiming, hence the resulting high-accuracy.

A rifled barrel was more difficult to produce, and therefore more expensive, especially in mass quantity. Therefore, a large standing army prior to the American Civil War would have found it more cost effective to still use mostly smooth-bore firearms. With the advent of the industrial revolution in America, rifles became easier and cheaper to manufacture, making their desirable advantages outweigh any prohibitive costs, thus allowing it to become the rifle of choice for infantry.

To be continued

[greyofk]

A muzzleloading rifle was powerful and accurate. However it was not all weather weapon. Flintlock mechanism could not work under the rain. Reloading a flintlock gun exposed to a strong wind was also quite challenging. Generals invented “summer†and “winter†campaigns. It means they did not want to fight during spring and fall. Engineers tried to invent ultimate gun: a gun with no exposed gunpowder. The primary reason of low reliability of a flintlock gun was external ignition. Can ignition be internal? Sure it can.

It looks so easy. Take a bit of black powder, put it on an anvil of a wise and hit with hummer. You have pressure activated ignition. You can not do it with smokeless powder. The best chemists of XIX century worked really hard to make it impossible. Why not to use the same mechanism in a gun? People of Renaissance tried. I've seen several monstrous machines in European museums. The design was different, but the idea was the same. A needle coming through the side wall of a barrel chamber and external hummer that hits the needle. This needle puts enough pressure on a gunpowder to ignite it. Most of the time. Sometimes it does not. A flintlock is also a subject for a misfire. However with a flintlock you can cock the flint and add some powder on the gun's pan. With a needle striker you stuck with a gun, loaded with a bullet and powder which you can not ignite. Reliability of a needle striker was insufficient for any practical application in firearms. So thought military man.

Think again. It was not a bad idea. It was just a bad powder. A blackpowder is a mixture of the saltpetre, charcoal and sulfur. Replace sulfur with phosphorus and needle striker will work flawlessly. However such a mixture is far more expensive than traditional gunpowder. It is unavoidably pressure sensitive. Carrying such staff in field can be quite suicidal.

Ideal solution would be a stable gunpowder and internal pressure activated igniter. It is obvious now in XXI century, but it was not intuitive solution for thinkers of Renaissance era.

All components for a gun with internal ignition existed already in medievals. Arabic alchemists discovered potassium chlorate so while ago, that nobody remember exactly when. They knew that it is pressure sensitive primary explosive by itself. The mixture of potassium chlorate and a phosphorus is highly sensitive. Potassium chlorate is a compound containing potassium, chlorine and oxygen atoms, with the molecular formula KClO3. In its pure form, it is a white crystalline substance. It is the most common chlorate in industrial use.

Production of sensitive primary media is not a rocket science. Mix alcohol solution of iodine with water solution of ammonia, filter residue and dry it. You have a lead azide. It is even better primer than potassium chlorate because it is chemically stable, and not hygroscopic. It might be also known to medieval alchemists.

However alchemists were so obsessed by search of philosopher stone and panacea that they overlooked these wonderful properties of primary explosives. Such substance could not make a gold and it could not cure mortal decease. So they thought. In fact it could give a gold and it could make a thing that is superior to a gold. Medieval people loved a gold so much not because of its jewelry properties and not because of its value for microelectronics. They loved its buying power. If gold would be easy reproducible its buying power would vanish. A superior weapon has enormous buying power. It can convince better than gold. It gives a power that never money can give. Mass production of such a weapon does not decrease its value but rather generates a demand for more superior weapon. Alchemists ware great thinkers but apparently were unable to think unconventionally.

Fortunately crusaders brought Arabic scripts to Europe. They were mostly known to educated Christian scholars. Such scientists were experimenting with primary explosives for internal ignition for firearms during entire Renaissance era. Ironically the objective of such design was caseless ammunition with integrated capless primer. Nobody thought about a simple cartridge. Production of reliable caseless ammunition would require knowledge and technology far beyond abilities of Renaissance era.

The real advance happened with invention of percussion cap. It was the pinnacle of Renaissance and the beginning of a new era.

To be continued

[greyofk]

New era

The Renaissance brought all technical solutions that were necessary to make a modern firearm. The Renaissance itself ended with revolutions; industrial and others. Industrial revolution means mass production. Mass production means that the things on high demand beceme the subject of competition between manufacturers and therefore cheap. And what was on high demand in turbulent world of XVIII century? Guns of course. At that point of history a science became a significant contributor to commercial success. The expenses of design and development could be offset by selling of technically advanced weapons.

The new era began in 1805 when Reverend John Forsyth of Aberdeenshire, Scotland invented the percussion system of ignition, receiving a patent in April 1807. As opposed to sparks being flaked into a small powder charge, the percussion cap contains pressure-sensitive explosive, a chemical compound which explodes when it is struck, hence the term "percussion cap".

The percussion cap was a thin metal cup that contained a small quantity of fulminate of mercury. When a hammer fell onto the cap, the cap would explode with a sharp blow and sent flames into the barrel, igniting the powder charge and expelling the bullet from the gun. The percussion cap would be placed on the cone at the breech (back) end of the gun. In the process of firing, the cap generally split open and would fall off when the hammer was moved to half-cock position for loading. The caplock system worked well, and is still the preferred method of ignition for hunters and recreational shooters who use muzzle-loading guns.

Why so small device had such tremendous effect? Percussion gun was not even faster to load than a flintlock. A shooter had to carry percussion cups in addition to the bullets and gunpowder. Percussion cup was the solution for the most important shortcoming of previous firearms: reliability. When a man of Renaissance pulled a trigger of a flintlock gun, a shot was a matter of luck. With caplock gun, the shot became the matter of fact. The cup sealed the ignition hole. Neither wind, not a rain could disturb firing. The firearms became the all weather weapon. A cuplock gun can fire in any position. The guns with multiple barrels were known since midevals. However cuplock system gave a gun designer much more optuons to build multibarrel guns.

Up to the invention of the percussion cap system, where the ignition charge was self-contained and only required a sharp strike, gunpowder pistols were direct relatives of their rifle parents. Elisha Collier patented a flintlock revolver in Britain in 1818, however insufficient reliability of this and similar guns prevented them from being the weapon of shoice. The revolver mechanism was sometimes used in rifle design. The difficulty of this approach is that the hot gas that leaks from the gap between the cylinder and barrel can burn the shooter's forward hand.

Samuel Colt did not invent a revolver. In 1836, he patented a revolver mechanism that really worked. It had cuplocks and had to be loaded a bit like muskets: the user poured powder into a chamber, rammed down a bullet, then placed percussion cups into the cylinder. The main advantage of Colt's design was location of the percussion cups. After firing a shot, the fragments of the percussion cap could not jam the mechanism. Revolvers proliferated partially due to Colt's ability as a salesman. But his influence spread in other way as well; the build quality of his company's guns became famous. The performance and reliability led to the widespread use of the revolver.

To be continued

[greyofk]

Breech loading

We all tried black powder muzzle loaders. How much staff have you had on a table to load such a gun? Propellant, bullets, ram, wad, brush. After every shot you have to retract a gun and turn it vertically for loading. Rifling does not help to load close tolerance bullets neither it helps to clean the barrel. Now imagine you have to do so without the table and under the fire. Somehow soldiers managed it until the middle of XIX century. Was there easy way? Yes it was. Loading from the breech.

It is much quicker to load the projectile and charge into the breech than to force them down a barrel, especially when one has spiral ridges from rifling. Breech loading allows the shooter to reload the weapon without exposing himself to enemy fire by repositioning the gun (as was required for muzzle-loaders). Open breech allows easy cleaning and inspection of the gun.

Breech-loading firearms are known from the 16th century. The king Henry VIII of France possessed one, which he apparently used as a hunting gun to shoot birds. More breech-loading firearms were made in the early 18th century. One such weapon is known to have belonged to king Philip of Spain and was manufactured circa 1715. Those were royal guns. They had royal price due to exceptionally close tolerances of locking parts.

The gunpowder gas escaping from the muzzle does no harm. The gas escaping from the rear of a gun is quite dangerous. To understand the power of the hot gas supersonic stream I suggest you a simple test. Take a pumpkin (hope you still have one after Halloween), take a blank cartridge, do not use any blank fire adapter. Shoot the pumpkin from 2â€. Post your admiration of the level of destruction in separate thread please. The distance from the gun's breech to the shooter's face is about 2â€. The tolerances of the breech lock is not just design intent but rather the safety requirement.

Fortunately XVIII century was the century of mechanical engineering. Newly developed precision bearings made possible to build large precision lathe. Precision lathe made possible to produce mechanical parts of unprecedented accuracy in large quantities. Patrick Ferguson, a British Army officer developed his breech loading rifle in 1772. It was the first military firearm loaded from the rear. Some of Ferguson rifles even sow American Revolutionary war. Fortunately they were made in hundreds, not thousands. Americans were not outgunned.

Aside from increased loading speed, new weapons could use better bullets. The outer diameter of the bullet could be equal to the diameter of the grooves. There is no need to run such a bullet down the barrel and the bullet can be elongated for less air drag. Expanding gunrowder gas moves the bullet from the chamber to the rifled portion of the barrel. The bullet completely seals the barrel. The energy of the expanding gas used more efficiently than in a muzzle loader.

Transition to the breechloader brought the effective range of the firearms to 400m. Related innovations in tactics included tranches and designated marksmans for hunting the enemy's officers. The main shortcoming of the rifles in late XVIII was the time necessary for reloading the weapon.

To be continued

[greyofk]

Rocket propelled grenade

Certain inventions come ahead of their time and can not display their full potential until required technology got developed. Sometimes when the technology finally arrives, original idea become unpopular. With no dedicated supporters even a great idea can be compromised, misused, or even forgotten. This was the case with rocket propelled grenade.

At the end of XVIII century British East India Company was repeatedly assaulted by Islamic extremists in Mysore (what lately became Pakistan). The king George dispatched elite troops to suppress the riot. However British confronted unexpectedly well armed enemy. The ruler of the land Tipu Sultan, had rocket artillery brigades known as Cushoon. Rockets could be of various sizes, but usually consisted of a tube of soft hammered iron about 200 mm long and 38 to 76 mm diameter, closed at one end and strapped to a shaft of bamboo about 1meter long. The iron tube acted as a combustion chamber and contained well packed black powder propellant. A rocket carrying about one pound of powder could travel almost 900 m. The rocket men were trained to launch their rockets at an angle calculated from the diameter of the cylinder and the distance of the target. In addition, wheeled rocket launchers capable of launching five to ten rockets almost simultaneously were used in war. At some point the Rocket Corps ultimately reached a strength of about 5000 fighters in Tipu Sultan 's army.

Mysore's rockets did not posses the accuracy and firepower of British artillery. They had another advantage: The ratio of the missile to launcher mass for artillery gun is around 0.01. The respective ratio for the rocket weapon can be as high as 10. Which means the rocket is highly portable. It is the weapon of the infantry, (I do not want to say the weapon of single fanatic fighters).

How British got out of trouble in Mysore? On 22 April 1799, twelve days before the main battle, rocketeers worked their way around to the rear of the British encampment, then 'threw a great number of rockets at the same instant' to signal the beginning of an assault by 6,000 infantry directed by Mir Golam Hussain and Mohomed Hulleen Mir Mirans. The rockets had a range of about 900 m. Some burst in the air like shells. Others called ground rockets, on striking the ground, would rise again and bound along in a serpentine motion until their force was spent. Only famous English discipline hold the British army together.

According to one British observer, a young English officer named Bayly:

"So pestered were we with the rocket boys that there was no moving without danger from the destructive missiles ...". He continued: "The rockets and musketry from 20,000 of the enemy were incessant. No hail could be thicker. Every illumination of blue lights was accompanied by a shower of rockets, some of which entered the head of the column, passing through to the rear, causing death, wounds, and dreadful lacerations from the long bamboos of twenty or thirty feet, which are invariably attached to them'."

Despite of the rocket hale British advanced. They had suffered more from the rockets than from the shells or any other weapon used by the enemy. During the conclusive attack on Seringapatam on 2 May 1799, a British shot struck a magazine of rockets within the Tipu Sultan's fort causing it to explode and send a towering cloud of black smoke, with cascades of exploding white light, rising up from the battlements. On the afternoon of 4 May Tipu had been shot and the war was effectively over.

After the fall of Seringapatam, 600 launchers, 700 serviceable rockets and 9,000 empty rockets were found. Some of the rockets had pierced cylinders, to allow them to act like incendiaries, while some had iron points or steel blades bound to the bamboo. By attaching these blades to rockets they became very unstable towards the end of their flight causing the blades to spin around like flying scythes, cutting down all in their path.

The Indian rocket experiences eventually led to the Royal Arsenal beginning a military rocket R&D program in 1801. Multiple rocket cases were collected from Mysore and sent to Britain for analysis. The research was chiefly the work of Col. William Congreve, who was later knighted for development of rocket artillery. After development work was complete, the rockets were manufactured in quantity near Waltham, Essex. Sir Congreve prepared a new propellant mixture, and developed a rocket motor with a strong iron tube with conical nose, weighing about 32 pounds (15 kg). Congreve published three books on rocketry: unthinkable disclosure of advanced military technology.

The Royal Arsenal's first demonstration of solid fuel rockets was in 1805. The rockets came just it time for Napoleonic wars. These rockets were used at Copenhagen in 1807 and they set most of the town on fire. However rockets lacked both range and accuracy and after the Napoleonic Wars they fell from favor.

It is true, that Congreve's rockets did not employ rotation around longitudinal axes for stabilisation. It is also true, that back in 1812 no reasonable explosive was available to constitute a warhead. However the main reason of the rocket failure was archaic tactic doctrine of English generals. They still thought about a battle as a line of infantry approaching an enemy line after massaging the enemy with long range high accuracy artillery. Another tactic already emerged in Mexico, Bolivia, Paraguay, Japan: Strong unexpected impact on the weakest point of the enemy, immediate retreat and waiting for the next weak point to be exposed and then again and again. 15 kg rockets were ideal for such tactic, but Japan, Bolivia and Paraguay did not have the necessary technology. Mexico for some reason just ignored British experience and missed its chance.

Rocket propelled grenade was excluded from the military mainstream until development of highly efficient Pnzerfaust in 1940^th.

To be continued

[greyofk]

Introduction of cartridge

A battlefield is not a place where one can comfortably measure a gunpowder or operate with loose wads and bullets. The idea to prepare everything needed for a shot in advance is much older than primers and breech loaders. The first cartridges were nothing more than measured amount of a gunpowder and a bullet wrapped in a paper that later would serve as a wad. A shooter had to tear the paper, release the powder into the muzzle, send the paper and the bullet next, ram everything with a rod and also put priming powder into the ignition cavity.

Locking breech made it more convenient. One hunting gun that belonged to king Philip of Spain was manufactured circa 1715. It was a breech loading weapon that accepted metal reloadable cartridges. It still used a flint ignition

Invention of a primer gave a new possibilities to design of a cartridge. Striker ignition made possible self-containing cartridge where primer, bullet and a powder were hold together by some kind of a shell. The main challenge was to design reliable “kind of a shellâ€. Gunsmiths tried every imaginable configuration of a shell early in XIX century.

You can see a lot of oddly designed guns in European museums. For some reason majority of engineers tried to put a primer inside the gun's chamber and strike it with a needle. There were attempts to integrate the primer with the bullet. And there were percussion cups big enough to hold enough gunpowder for a shot. Some cartridges somehow worked, but none worked reliably. It looks like inventors solved the problem of sure ignition but overlooked the task of cleaning the chamber after the shot. The blast drives the bullet from the gun, but not necessarily remnants of a cartridge and primer. A piece of paper left in a barrel could not do much harm. A primer left on the way of a next bullet could destroy entire gun.

The second common design error was usage of paper cartridge. Paper could not support a primer for reliable ignition. Paper cartridge could not keep integrity after the shot.

The obvious solution was a metal shell with axial symmetry and ignition layout with a striker behind the chamber. Apparently it was not so obvious in the age of guns with side mounted hummers and ignition holes across the barrels.

French gunsmiths Francois Prelat and Jean Samuel Pauli created first real self-content cartridge in Paris in 1808. The cartridges incorporated a copper base with integrated mercury fulminate primer powder (the major innovation of Pauly), a paper casing and a round bullet. The cartridge was loaded through the breech and fired with a needle. The needle-activated central-fire breech-loading gun would become a major feature of firearms thereafter. The corresponding firearm was also developed by Pauly. Pauly made an improved version which was protected by a patent on 29 September 1812. The cartridge was further improved by the French gunsmith Casimir Lefaucheux in 1836.

Prussian baron Johann von Dreyse combied the charge of gunpowder and the detonator in a single cartridge in 1827. In 1836 von Dreyse invented the breech-loading firearm for his new cartridge. It was adopted by the Prussian army in 1841. Dreyse needle gun, was a single-shot breech-loader rifle using a rotating bolt to seal the breech. It was so called because of its .5-inch needle-like firing pin which passed through a paper cartridge case to impact a percussion cap at the bullet base. The paper cartridge and the gun had numerous deficiencies; specifically, serious problems with gas leaking. However, the rifle was used to great success in the Prussian army, eventually caused much interest in Europe for breech loaders and the Prussian military system in general.

Breech-loading cartridge fed guns greatly increased the rate of fire. Cartridge was to have a major impact on warfare, as breech-loading rifles can be fired at a rate many times higher than muzzle loaded rifles and significantly can be loaded from a prone rather than standing position. Firing prone (i.e., lying down) is more accurate than firing from a standing position, while a prone rifleman presents a much smaller target than a standing soldier. The higher accuracy and range, combined with reduced vulnerability generally benefited the defense while making the traditional battle between lines of standing and volleying infantry men obsolete. The tactic of a mass cavalry charge was also outdated. Hence, technological changes and out-dated tactics led to a very high casualty rate in the war with attacking armies being decimated by defending forces.

The advantages of breech loading cartridge fed rifles were obvious for everybody but old-fashioned generals. It took one bloody war to introduce new tactics and obsolete old weapons. It was the war between the country capable to build modern firearms and another stuck with archaic technology. It happened in 1853.

Tula armory in Russia started manufacturing of cartridge fed rifles in early 40-th of XIX century. These were custom rifles used by aristocracy for hunting. Russian army still used muzzle-loading rifled muskets. Russian generals did not express any interest for modern firearms. These first cartridges had high production price. Even in XX century field grade single shot rifle cost rawly 300 rounds for the same rifle. I did not find corresponding data for 1840. but the ratio was even worse. 100 cartridges could easy buy another gun. Soldiers were cheap (in general's mind). Rifle and cartridges were expensive. Remember that only things of mass production at that time were nails and matches. A cartridge was an object of superior complexity. It took innovative thinking to put such product into mass production. Such innovated thinking was employed by Turkish sultan Abdülmecid I. Ottoman Empire did not have technology and production potential to build any modern firearms. However Turks made a treaty with Britain France and Prussia. Prussia supplied Turks with Dreyse rifles. France provided instructors and dispatched some elite troops. British Royal navy picked up elite Turkish troops and transported the Allied expeditionary forces to Crimean Peninsula. Crimea was the jewel of Russian empire and arguably the most beautiful land around Black sea. Russia had navy base in Sevastopol and significant troops to protect Crimean Peninsula. Ottomans were outnumbered. It did not help Russians.

A train soldier armed with cartridge fed gun is equivalent to 4 to 8 soldiers armed with muzzle-loaders.

Ottomans landed expeditionary forces at Eupatoria, north of Sevastopol and Balaclava east of the city. They drove Russian army to retreat. Every attempt of counter-attack was suppressed by the rifle's fire. Russian muskets were no match for Dreyse rifles. Whatever remained of Russian infantry retreated to Sevastopol. Turks laid the siege on the city. On November 5, 1854, the Russians attempted to raise the siege at Sevastopol with an attack against Ottomans. They were severely bitten by outnumbered Turks. Sevastopol fall. Small expeditionary forces marched across Russian land threatening the great empire. At that point of the war Russian generals recognised technological inferiority of their weapons and tactics. The corrections were made. Russian soldiers did not attempt to reload their muskets. After a single shot by each trooper they charged with bayonets. Russian infantry was decimated but it stopped Turkish advance.

Then Russian tsar Nicholas I summoned Cossack cavalry. Cossacks did not have any better weapon then infantry man. They charged Turks with swards in swift cavalry attacks. Cossacks suffered significant casualties, but they had driven Ottomans back to the Black sea.

Crimean campaign saw the introduction of the cartridge fed rifle. Approximately 100,000 were killed in action or dead from their battle wounds. The Crimean War witnessed the infantry soldier become more important that the dashing cavalryman due to improvements in the range and firing speed of both artillery and small arms fire. The war is remembered best for the decimation of cavalry attacks such as the infamous 'Charge of the Light Brigade'. The improvements in cartridge rifles had spelled the end of muzzle-loaders.

In 1842, The Norwegian Armed Forces adopted the breechloading caplock, the Kammerlader, one of the first instances in which a modern army widely adopted a breechloading rifle as its main infantry firearm. The British army began using breech loading guns in 1865.

During the American Civil War many breech loaders would be fielded. The Sharps rifle used a successful dropping block design. The Greene Rifle used rotating bolt-action, and was fed from the breech.

The French adopted the new Chassepot rifle in 1866, which was much improved over the Needle gun as it had dramatically fewer gas leaks due to its de Bange sealing system. The British adopted existing Enfield and fitted it with a Snider breech-action (solid block, hinged parallel to the barrel) firing the Boxer cartridge.

Single-shot breech-loaders would be used throughout the latter half of 19th century.

To be continued