How practical were 2 pound cannons?

I was not climbing over fence into Belfoured's patch. I have a memorized history of the 1841 model history presentation for visitors.
The interesting point raised by yours is that it illustrates the US commitment primarily to iron post-AWI due in large part to the fact that at the time the US had a much greater supply of iron ore than copper or tin and "brass"/bronze cost 5-6 times more. As time went on, in the late 1830's there was an internal "war" in Ordnance that was resolved when the Board recommended bronze in early 1841 and Poinsett approved.
 
The interesting point raised by yours is that it illustrates the US commitment primarily to iron post-AWI due in large part to the fact that at the time the US had a much greater supply of iron ore than copper or tin and "brass"/bronze cost 5-6 times more. As time went on, in the late 1830's there was an internal "war" in Ordnance that was resolved when the Board recommended bronze in early 1841 and Poinsett approved.

I wonder if the choice of bronze coincided with the discovery of the vast copper deposit in Upper Michigan?

People had known about the Kennesaw deposit for 3,000 years. However, it wasn't exploited industrially until the 1830-40's.

Up until that point, like Roman times, copper came from Britain. The metallurgical deposit in the U.P. was like nothing the world had ever seen.

Makes me wonder if the availability of a ready supply of copper was a factor in choosing bronze guns?

Read more here.


Llink

 
This discussion of three pounders does beg the evolution leading to the Hotchkiss designed in 1875.
View attachment 581586

Ideally suited to the highly mobile rough terrain of the Indian Wars, the Hotchkiss replaced muzzle loading artillery. For a history read more here.

Link


•

View attachment 581585
16 ounce shells were in accordance with prohibition on less than 14 ounce exploding ammunition fired at white people… the 19th Century, gotta love it.

Hotchkiss went on to invent a five barrel revolving 37 mm cannon. Unlike the Gatling gun, the single block Hotchkiss design was more robust. I was not satisfied with the links I found. This one provides the basics. Anyone who the a better one please post it. See more here.

Link


•

Today the 30mm automatic antiaircraft machine gun has been revived for a whole new type of warfare. Read more here.

Link

There are a pair of Hotchkiss revolving cannons in the lobby of the Bradford County Courthouse in Towanda Pennsylvania. If you google it, I'm almost certain there are photos of the guns. They really are impressive.
 
I wonder if the choice of bronze coincided with the discovery of the vast copper deposit in Upper Michigan?

People had known about the Kennesaw deposit for 3,000 years. However, it wasn't exploited industrially until the 1830-40's.

Up until that point, like Roman times, copper came from Britain. The metallurgical deposit in the U.P. was like nothing the world had ever seen.

Makes me wonder if the availability of a ready supply of copper was a factor in choosing bronze guns?

Read more here.


Llink

I've always assumed that the discovery of more copper deposits and the ability to mine them played a role - as did growing dissatisfaction with cast iron. The irony (pun intended) is that advances in rifling and iron manufacture relatively quickly forced a switch back to iron guns - both cast iron (the Parrott tube, with the wrought iron breech wrap) and wrought iron (the 3" Ordnance tube) - so that after 1865 bronze was on its way to becoming a dead letter.
 
I've always assumed that the discovery of more copper deposits and the ability to mine them played a role - as did growing dissatisfaction with cast iron. The irony (pun intended) is that advances in rifling and iron manufacture relatively quickly forced a switch back to iron guns - both cast iron (the Parrott tube, with the wrought iron breech wrap) and wrought iron (the 3" Ordnance tube) - so that after 1865 bronze was on its way to becoming a dead letter.

And then immediately steel breechloaders. No wonder the Parrott's at Ft Sumpter were just dumped out the gun ports.
 
They are in a couple of the references I checked out. That is a singular thing, that is for sure.
Getting a pair of them to display must have been a real score for Bradford County. If you're not familiar with Pennsylvania topography, Bradford County is a very rural, mountainous and poor county. Towanda itself isn't exactly the garden spot of the Western Hemisphere, either. There is a very impressive Civil War monument in front of the courthouse, too.
 
The Regular Army experimented with many light field guns in the post-war years. This included the Hotchkiss (single shot and revolving) and Gatling guns, as well as a few other oddities that were never adopted. As standard field guns, they would be considered lemons; as mountain guns, they were much better suited. Typically, the employment of such a small field gun would be specific to mountain batteries and units accompanying cavalry in the field. However, practiced artillerists at the time preferred the M1841 mountain howitzers.

There were accounts from Mexico of American batteries utilizing captured French-pattern cannons of unusual sizes--and then being glad to be rid of them. I expect the employment of a two-pounder in the ACW would be similar: a matter of necessity and availability.
 
This discussion of three pounders does beg the evolution leading to the Hotchkiss designed in 1875.
View attachment 581586

Ideally suited to the highly mobile rough terrain of the Indian Wars, the Hotchkiss replaced muzzle loading artillery. For a history read more here.

Link

Hotchkiss is of course, naturally an outgrowth of both the steel, rifled built-up guns that were being developed from ~1855 onwards that directly influence the later Civil War guns, the Armstrong coming to mind in places but especially the Krupp influence directly visible in design. If I remember correctly, Lawrence Bruff's Textbook of Ordnance and Gunnery, 1902 directly refers to the M1875 Hotchkiss as having the Krupp mechanism - good enough for me as fact knowing what the mechanism looks like, which itself is very notable directly contemporary to the Civil War; the C/57 being the first practical, used design and the system further tested and widely reported in newspapers during the directly relevant 1864 2nd Schelswig War (or Dano-Prussian War) and less impressive Austro-Prussian War use, in which we see the C/64 in the former and C/67 in the latter's postwar improvements respectively, with its use being perfected by the combat of 1870's Franco-Prussian War, largely decided by Sedan in September, only 5 years, 4 months for context beyond the last real engagements of the Civil War.

Bruff's Ordnance & Gunnery, '02

1790360284791.webp

Good view of a specimen of a Hotchkiss M1875 sold by Rock Island Auction Company I've zoomed in on - good view here.


Perhaps worth noting then; it isn't exactly highly advanced, new technology of 1875.. it ultimately stems from a fielded breechloader being used the same years the Civil War was being fought and much of its construction is technology already existent in 1861-65. Having also said that, the Krupp mechanism improves a lot throughout its many iterations predating and post-Civil War, as to not claim it is not still among the best technology in 1875 available. Having said that, still - less than 60 examples are known to have been purchased in almost a quarter-century by the US Army; it is perhaps an interesting comparison, that more orders are known to have been made of Ager guns by the same said Army in the span of a couple years during the Civil War. It was (by the numbers) about as used, or less, that the Ager was. Certainly less produced, and over exponentially the timespan. There is famously Middleburg's effective use and various smaller accounts of the Ager fired in anger, while the fewer in number Hotchkiss M1875s definitely served against the Indians at least in two conflicts, and indeed against Filipino rebels and Spaniards - so ultimately, more heavily used for longer even if an ultimately obscure, manual machine gun of the Civil War had more production than it.

As a side-note; cannot recall if the Hotchkiss M1875 originally used metallic cased cartridges. I know that by 1884 new guns and conversions were being made, but the vast majority of anything in 1875 is firing paper-cartridges or separate charges to shot loaded individually. Something of course, not gone from modern artillery; many big gun designs (in the opposite size direction), both at sea and on land use separate combustible powder charges, and the job of the rammer is far from gone. He simply stands near the breech now.

As another thought.. it is truly impressive what Benjamin B. Hotchkiss influenced and made (-and his company) in this era. Both infamous guns you have discussed are, of course, from the same man who made the Hotchkiss projectiles of all kinds in the Civil War (which, while I will need to return to research, (it's been a long time) I remember hearing long ago that were the most produced shot brands in the war.. almost believable, but as with all you hear of course, always "trust but verify" - as you should do with this post, too!)
 
Last edited:

Learn About Us
►About CivilWarTalk
►Contact the Webmaster
►Meet the Staff
►Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
►Register
►Browse Forums
►View Today's Discussions
►Search the Forum
Get Help
►FAQ
►Student Guide
►Forum Rules & Etiquette
►Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top