Community hub
0 subscribers8 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Palliser shot and shell.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Palliser shot and shell
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
 |
Palliser shot is an early British armour-piercing artillery projectile, intended to pierce the armour protection of warships being developed in the second half of the 19th century. It was invented by Sir William Palliser, after whom it is named.
History
[edit]Major Palliser's shot, approved 21 October 1867, was an improvement over the ordinary elongated shot of the time.
It was adopted for the larger types of rifled muzzle-loading guns rifled on the Woolwich principle (with three rifling grooves). Palliser shot in many calibres stayed in service in the armour-piercing role until phased out of (British) service in 1909 for naval and fortress use, and 1921 for land service.[1]
At the Battle of Angamos (8 October 1879) the Chilean ironclad warships fired twenty 250-pound Palliser gunshots against the Peruvian monitor Huáscar, with devastating results. It was the first time that such piercing shells were used in combat.[2]
Design
[edit]
Studded Palliser shot for RML 7 inch gun, 1877
Palliser shot for BL 12 inch naval gun Mk I - VII, 1886
Studded Palliser shell for RML 7 inch gun, 1877
Studless Palliser shell for RML 10 inch 18 ton gun, 1886
Palliser shot was made of cast iron, the head being chilled in casting to harden it, using composite moulds with a metal, water-cooled portion for the head. At times there were defects that led to cracking in the projectiles, but these were overcome with time. Bronze studs were installed into the outside of the projectile so as to engage the rifling grooves in the gun barrel. The base had a hollow pocket but was not filled with powder or explosive: the cavity was necessitated by difficulties in casting large solid projectiles without them cracking when they cooled, because the nose and base of the projectiles cooled at different rates, and in fact a larger cavity facilitated a better-quality casting.[3] The hole at the base was threaded to accept a copper gas check. This prevented propellant gases from blowing around the projectile, providing obturation as the driving band had yet to be perfected. Later designs did away with the studs on the projectile body, with the gas checks being set with grooves to impart spin to the projectile.
Britain also deployed Palliser shells in the 1870s–1880s. In the shell the cavity was slightly larger than in the shot and was filled with gunpowder instead of being empty, to provide a small explosive effect after penetrating armour plating. The shell was correspondingly slightly longer than the shot to compensate for the lighter cavity. The powder filling was ignited by the shock of impact and hence did not require a fuze. While these Palliser shells were effective against unhardened iron, British doctrine held that only shot (i.e. non-explosive projectiles) were suitable for penetrating the new hardened armour being developed in the 1880s; hence the gunpowder filling was discontinued.[4]
References
[edit]- ^ Textbook of Ammunition 1936 The War Office pp 282
- ^ "Naval Battle of Angamos Part 2". Archived from the original on 2002-11-26.
- ^ "Treatise on Ammunition" 4th Edition 1887, page 236.
- ^ "Treatise on Ammunition" 4th Edition 1887, page 237.
Bibliography
[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Palliser shot and shell.
- "Treatise on Ammunition" 2nd Edition, 1877. War Office, UK
- "Treatise on Ammunition" 4th Edition, 1887. War Office, UK
Palliser shot and shell
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Historical Context
Emergence of Ironclad Warships
The mid-19th century witnessed a transformative shift in naval warfare with the advent of ironclad warships, which prioritized armored protection against the growing destructive power of explosive shells and rifled artillery. France pioneered this innovation by launching Gloire on November 24, 1859, at the Mourillon Arsenal in Toulon, creating the world's first ocean-going ironclad. This steam-powered vessel retained a traditional wooden hull but was sheathed in wrought-iron plates up to 4.7 inches (12 cm) thick, dramatically enhancing its resilience compared to unarmored wooden ships of the line.[7] Britain responded rapidly to maintain naval supremacy, laying down HMS Warrior in May 1859 and launching her in December 1860 at the Thames Ironworks. As the first all-iron-hulled warship with comprehensive armor, Warrior featured wrought-iron plating up to 4.5 inches thick over her battery and waterline, backed by teak to absorb shock from impacts. This design not only matched Gloire's protective qualities but introduced greater speed and seaworthiness, signaling the rapid obsolescence of wooden navies worldwide.[7] The decisive advantages of ironclads over wooden vessels were starkly illustrated in the Battle of Hampton Roads during the American Civil War on March 8–9, 1862, near Norfolk, Virginia. The Confederate casemate ironclad CSS Virginia (rebuilt from the scuttled USS Merrimack) easily destroyed two Union wooden frigates, USS Cumberland and USS Congress, by ramming and shelling, suffering negligible damage in return due to its 4-inch iron armor. The subsequent duel with the Union's revolutionary turreted ironclad USS Monitor lasted hours without either penetrating the other's plating, yet it neutralized Virginia's threat to the Union blockade and confirmed ironclads' dominance in combat. This engagement, resulting in 261 Union deaths but no clear victor between the ironclads, propelled international navies to prioritize armored construction.[8] Concurrently, naval ordnance advanced with the adoption of rifled muzzle-loading (RML) guns under the Woolwich system, developed by the Royal Gun Factory in the 1860s to arm these new ironclads effectively. This system employed a simplified rifling of three broad, shallow grooves with a uniform twist rate of one turn in 35 calibers (approximately 245 inches for a 7-inch gun), which engaged studs on projectiles to provide stabilizing spin while easing production and loading. By enhancing projectile accuracy and velocity over smoothbore predecessors, Woolwich RML guns became the standard for British ironclads, though they highlighted the emerging challenge of penetrating thick wrought-iron armor with conventional ammunition.[9]Limitations of Contemporary Ammunition
Prior to the development of specialized armor-piercing projectiles, naval ammunition primarily consisted of solid wrought-iron shot and explosive common shells, both of which exhibited severe limitations when engaging ironclad warships protected by wrought-iron plates typically 4 to 5 inches thick backed by timber.[10] Solid wrought-iron shot, intended for kinetic impact, often deformed or flattened upon striking the hard armor surface, dissipating much of its energy without achieving penetration and resulting in only superficial indentations.[11] Meanwhile, common shells, filled with black powder and designed to explode on or near impact, typically detonated prematurely against the armor's exterior, fragmenting harmlessly and failing to breach the plates due to the inability to deliver internal explosive force.[12] Elongated shot fired from smoothbore guns, such as the British 68-pounder, suffered from instability in flight and insufficient velocity, leading to erratic trajectories and negligible penetration against iron armor at combat ranges beyond 200 yards.[10] The transition to early rifled muzzle-loading (RML) guns in the 1860s introduced elongated projectiles made of soft wrought iron, but these too were hampered by poor material quality and inadequate surface hardening, causing them to mushroom or shatter on impact rather than pierce the armor.[13] This softness stemmed from manufacturing constraints, where the projectiles' ductility prevented the necessary rigidity for deforming the armor without self-destruction, limiting their effectiveness to mere surface damage even at close range.[11] British trials in the 1860s, particularly at Shoeburyness, underscored these deficiencies; for instance, in 1862 experiments, 68-pounder wrought-iron shot fired at 200 yards against 4.5-inch plates deformed without penetration, while cast-iron variants shattered into fragments scattered over 100-150 yards.[14] Similar pre-1867 tests demonstrated that even heavier 100-pounder projectiles from rifled breech-loading guns like the Armstrong rifle failed to breach comparable armor thicknesses at practical naval distances, prompting urgent calls for improved ordnance in parliamentary debates.[15] These results highlighted a critical imbalance, where ironclad defenses rendered contemporary ammunition largely obsolete for decisive engagements.[16]Development
William Palliser's Invention
Sir William Palliser (1830–1882) was an Irish-born British Army officer and prolific inventor whose work focused on military engineering during the mid-19th century. Born in Dublin on 18 June 1830, he was educated at Rugby School, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Hall Cambridge, and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. Palliser entered the British Army in 1855 as an ensign in the Rifle Brigade, advancing to lieutenant later that year; he exchanged into the 18th Hussars in 1858 and was promoted to captain in 1859. He served in staff roles, including aide-de-camp to Sir William Knollys at Aldershot and brigade-major of cavalry in Dublin from 1860 to 1864, before retiring on half-pay in December 1871 as a major. Prior to his work on ordnance, Palliser held patents for innovations in naval construction, notably screw-bolts designed to secure armor plates more effectively by distributing strain along the shank rather than the threads, patented on 6 December 1862.[2] Palliser's invention of the chilled shot and shell, known as the Palliser projectile, emerged in the early 1860s. Conceived around 1863, the projectile addressed the need for ammunition capable of penetrating thick wrought-iron armor plating, which had proven resistant to standard cast-iron shot that often deformed or shattered on impact. Palliser patented the design on 27 May 1863, introducing a method to produce elongated, ogival-headed projectiles from cast iron with a hardened nose achieved through rapid chilling during casting, enhancing penetration without requiring expensive steel. Initial experiments, conducted as early as November 1863 at the Shoeburyness artillery range, demonstrated the projectile's superior hardness and armor-piercing potential compared to contemporary alternatives.[3] By 1865, further refinements extended the concept to shell variants, maintaining the chilled head for impact resistance while allowing explosive filling in the body. In November 1866, Palliser secured an exclusive licensing agreement with leading armament manufacturers, including Armstrong's, for the production and sale of his compound cast and wrought metal projectiles, enabling commercial exploitation while he continued independent development.[17] This arrangement marked a pivotal step in transitioning his conceptual innovation from personal experimentation to widespread military application.[17]Patenting and Initial Trials
William Palliser obtained a key British patent on 27 May 1863 for the chill-casting process to produce hardened projectiles from iron or steel, either wholly or partially, which addressed the brittleness of cast iron while enabling effective armour penetration at a fraction of the cost of steel alternatives.[2] This patent laid the foundation for the Palliser shot, with the hardened cast-iron variant entering service in 1867 following official approval, after further refinements including developments for shell designs that allowed explosive filling behind the hardened nose.[2] Subsequent patent extensions covered related features, though these were formalized as production scaled. Initial private trials of the Palliser shot occurred between 1866 and 1867, primarily at Shoeburyness and nearby sites like Porchester Creek, to validate its performance against iron armour. In a notable December 1866 test aboard HMS Thunderer, a 7-inch muzzle-loading wrought-iron rifled gun fired chilled elongated shot with charges up to 22 pounds of powder, achieving penetration of up to 7.45 inches into a 7-inch-thick John Brown & Co. iron plate at close range (25 feet), though the shot fragmented on impact; similar results were seen against 6-inch Cammell plates backed by timber, demonstrating superior piercing over standard cast-iron projectiles without cracking the targets excessively.[18] These experiments, conducted under Ordnance Select Committee oversight, highlighted the shot's reliability in early validations, paving the way for broader evaluation. The promising outcomes prompted official scrutiny, culminating in endorsement by the British Government on 21 October 1867, with joint approval from the Admiralty and War Office through the Ordnance Select Committee.[17][19] This milestone mandated production of the Palliser shot and shell at the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich, shifting from private experimentation to standardized military supply and integrating the design into service for heavy rifled muzzle-loaders.[20]Design and Construction
Materials and Manufacturing
Palliser shot and shell were primarily constructed from cast iron, selected for its availability and suitability in producing durable armor-piercing projectiles. The core material consisted of a special white cast iron composition, which allowed for differential hardening to balance penetration capability with structural integrity.[21] The manufacturing process began with pouring molten iron into composite molds designed to achieve a chilled head for enhanced hardness. The projectile's nose was cast point-downward in a water-cooled metal chill mold, enabling rapid cooling that formed a martensitic structure in the head, achieving a hardness equivalent to up to 500 Brinell—far exceeding the typical 150-250 Brinell of ordinary cast iron.[22][23] In contrast, the body was formed in a sand mold for slower cooling, which was followed by annealing to promote ductility and toughness, preventing brittle failure upon impact.[22][21] Completed projectiles underwent rigorous testing, including hydrostatic pressure checks at 100 pounds per square inch and hammer impact tests, to ensure integrity.[21] Early designs incorporated bronze driving studs—made from a copper-tin alloy and pressed into undercut holes along the projectile's exterior—to engage the rifling grooves in the gun barrel, imparting spin for stability.[24] These studs were arranged in two or three circumferential rings, with 6 to 8 per ring depending on caliber, but they weakened the shell and contributed to bore erosion from gas escape.[21] By the late 1860s, production evolved to a studless design to address these issues and lower costs. This variant featured threaded copper gas checks—discs of copper-zinc alloy screwed into the base—that provided obturation by sealing propellant gases, while shallow polygroove rifling in the barrel ensured rotation without studs.[21] The shift reduced manufacturing complexity, minimized material waste, and extended gun barrel life by limiting wear.[5]Shot and Shell Variants
The Palliser shot was a solid, non-explosive armor-piercing projectile constructed from cast iron, with the nose hardened through a chilling process during manufacture to enhance penetration capability. It featured a hollow base designed to house a gas check, which expanded upon firing to seal escaping gases and engage the rifling for stability. Devoid of any explosive filling, the shot relied entirely on kinetic energy for armor breach, exemplified by the 250-pound variant for 9-inch rifled muzzle-loading (RML) guns.[22] In contrast, the Palliser shell incorporated an explosive element for post-penetration destruction, introduced around 1870 as an adaptation of the solid shot design. This variant maintained the chilled iron nose and hollow base for gas check accommodation but included a central cavity filled with black powder, ignited solely by the shock of impact without a dedicated fuze—a feature that rendered it vulnerable to premature detonation under stress. Available in calibers of 7-inch, 9-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch for RML guns, the shell was phased out by the 1880s owing to its tendency to shatter against advanced hardened armor plating.[1]Performance and Testing
Experimental Trials
Experimental trials of Palliser shot and shell were primarily conducted at the Shoeburyness artillery proving ground from 1867 to 1870, with supplementary testing at the Woolwich Arsenal. These controlled experiments focused on firing the projectiles against wrought iron plates backed by teak or other materials to replicate ironclad warship armor, evaluating penetration depth, structural integrity, and comparative performance against standard ammunition.[11][18] In a key 1867 trial at Shoeburyness, a Palliser chilled shot weighing 115 pounds, propelled by a 12-pound powder charge from a rifled gun, penetrated a 4.5-inch-thick wrought iron plate by 5 to 6 inches before deforming and falling back, demonstrating significant improvement over common cast-iron shot, which typically achieved only partial or superficial damage under similar conditions. For the 9-inch Palliser shot fired from a 12-ton muzzle-loading gun, results showed penetration of approximately 6 inches into laminated iron plates, highlighting the projectile's ability to maintain form during impact. The hardened, chilled nose of the Palliser design prevented mushrooming and fragmentation upon striking, enabling better velocity retention—often around 1,200 to 1,400 feet per second at impact—and deeper penetration compared to unmodified common shot, which deformed readily and lost kinetic energy.[18][25][26] Trials in the 1870s at Shoeburyness and Woolwich revealed critical limitations, as Palliser projectiles proved effective solely against unhardened wrought iron armor but shattered on impact with emerging compound armor plates, often breaking into fragments without achieving full penetration. This vulnerability contributed to the phase-out of Palliser shells by the late 1870s, as they failed to adapt to the transition toward steel-faced and compound armors in naval construction.[11][11]Combat Effectiveness
The Palliser shot and shell made its combat debut during the Battle of Angamos on 8 October 1879, when Chilean ironclads Almirante Cochrane and Blanco Encalada engaged the Peruvian monitor Huáscar off the coast of Punta Angamos. The Chilean ships fired a total of 77 projectiles from their 9-inch Armstrong guns, with 24 hits landing on the target; all effective rounds were Palliser shells that penetrated the Huáscar's armor plating—measuring 4.5 inches on the belt and 5.5 inches on the turret—before bursting inside, causing devastating internal damage. One such shell struck the turret, killing Admiral Miguel Grau and several crew members, while overall the impacts disabled the monitor's armament and mobility, leading to its capture after approximately 90 minutes of fighting.[27] This engagement marked the first confirmed instance of ironclad warships being decisively defeated by armor-piercing shot, demonstrating the practical superiority of Palliser projectiles over earlier common shells in breaching wrought-iron armor at close ranges under 1,000 yards. The shells' chilled cast-iron heads maintained integrity on impact to punch through 4-6 inches of plating, as corroborated by prior experimental trials, but their effectiveness diminished at longer distances due to velocity loss and increased ricochet risk against angled surfaces. In the battle, the close-quarters nature—often under 600 yards—allowed the Palliser rounds to exploit these strengths, shattering internal structures and igniting ammunition stores, which underscored their role in shifting naval tactics toward precision targeting of vital areas like turrets and engines.[27][11] Subsequent combat use of Palliser ammunition was limited, particularly in major conflicts like the Sino-French War of 1884, as navies began phasing it out in favor of forged steel alternatives better suited to emerging compound armor. While some vessels retained stocks for secondary roles, the projectiles' brittle nature against improved defenses reduced their tactical value beyond short-range engagements, influencing gunnery doctrines to emphasize faster-firing guns and explosive fillers over pure penetration. The Angamos success, however, provided seminal evidence for armor-piercing designs, validating the need for projectiles that combined penetration with post-breach fragmentation to maximize crew and system casualties.[28]Adoption and Use
Royal Navy Service
Following the successful trials and approval by the Ordnance Select Committee on 21 October 1867,[17] Palliser shot and shell were integrated into Royal Navy service as the primary armour-piercing ammunition for rifled muzzle-loading (RML) guns. These projectiles were designed to enhance penetration against ironclad armour, replacing earlier spherical shot with elongated, chilled-head designs optimized for high-velocity impacts. Post-approval retrofits began immediately on existing warships, involving the conversion of smooth-bore guns into RML configurations by lining cast-iron barrels with coiled wrought-iron tubes secured by hoops and plugs, allowing the firing of Palliser ammunition without major hull modifications. This process was applied to a range of vessels, including wooden frigates and corvettes, to extend the service life of older ordnance while adapting to the threats posed by armoured ships.[29] Production of Palliser shot and shell commenced following approval, scaling up to equip the standard RML guns across the fleet. The Arsenal handled conversions such as the 68-pounder (95 cwt) to an 80-pounder RML (5 tons), the 8-inch (66 cwt) to a 9-inch RML firing 50-pound shells, and the 32-pounder (68 cwt) to a 64-pounder RML (58 cwt), all compatible with Palliser projectiles.[29] By the 1870s, these munitions were standard issue for ironclads, notably arming the turret-mounted 25-ton guns of HMS Devastation, the lead ship of her class commissioned in 1873, which represented a shift to mastless, ocean-going capital ships reliant on heavy RML ordnance for anti-armour roles. Woolwich's output ensured a steady supply, with manufacturing emphasizing the chilled casting process to harden the projectile noses for superior armour penetration. Palliser shot and shell served as the Royal Navy's primary armour-piercing ammunition through the 1890s, remaining in active use aboard older battleships even as breech-loading guns proliferated. Production ceased in the late 19th century, with existing shells repurposed by filling them with sand to serve as solid shot, but stockpiles persisted for naval and fortress guns until their phase-out in 1909. Operational doctrines emphasized accuracy and penetration, with training focused on the 3-groove Woolwich rifling system—a uniform twist of one turn in 35 calibres—to stabilize the elongated projectiles during flight. Crews were drilled in handling large "battering" charges, such as 70 pounds for 10-inch guns, to maximize velocity against armoured targets, though incidents like the 1879 burst of HMS Thunderer's 38-ton gun underscored the risks of over-pressurization.[29] These doctrines influenced international perceptions.International Adoption
The Chilean Navy emerged as one of the primary international adopters of Palliser shot and shell during the 1870s, integrating the technology into its ironclad warships amid escalating regional tensions leading to the War of the Pacific (1879–1884). Chilean vessels, such as the ironclad frigate Blanco Encalada, were equipped with British-manufactured 9-inch rifled muzzle-loading (RML) guns capable of firing Palliser projectiles by 1879. This adoption proved decisive in combat, as demonstrated at the Battle of Angamos on October 8, 1879, where Chilean ironclads Blanco Encalada and Almirante Cochrane fired approximately twenty 250-pound Palliser shots against the Peruvian monitor Huáscar; the hardened chilled-iron heads penetrated the target's armored turret and hull, causing critical damage and leading to the ship's capture after just 45 minutes of engagement. In the United States Navy, interest in Palliser technology was limited to experimental trials around 1870, but it ultimately favored domestic Parrott rifle designs and projectiles for its ironclads and coastal defenses. No widespread adoption followed, as American ordnance development shifted toward experimental steel-cased ammunition by the mid-1870s. Russian and French navies conducted limited experiments with armour-piercing projectiles in the late 1860s and 1870s, focusing on performance against emerging compound plates, though neither pursued full-scale integration of Palliser designs. French naval tests in 1880-1881 at Gavres compared plates from Cammell and Schneider, leading to a preference for indigenous designs like the Canet gun system. Similarly, Russian Imperial Navy trials around 1868–1870 assessed armour-piercing options for ironclads, but opted for locally produced Obukhov steel shells by the 1880s due to supply chain preferences.[11] Export and licensed production under Palliser's patents facilitated these adoptions, with UK firms like Armstrong and Woolwich Arsenal supplying or authorizing fabrication for foreign clients; for instance, Chile obtained RML guns pre-fitted for Palliser ammunition, while some nations adapted the gas-check rings—obturation devices to seal rifled bores—for compatibility with non-British artillery.[30] By the 1880s, however, international interest waned as global navies transitioned to forged-steel breech-loading guns and high-explosive shells, rendering cast-iron Palliser designs obsolete for frontline service. The Italian Navy also adopted Palliser conversions for battleships like Duilio and Dandolo in the 1870s.[29]Decline and Legacy
Reasons for Obsolescence
The primary reasons for the obsolescence of Palliser shot and shell stemmed from evolving armor technologies that outpaced the capabilities of chilled iron projectiles. In the 1870s and 1880s, the development of hardened steel and compound armor plates dramatically increased resistance to penetration, as these materials were designed to withstand the brittle nature of chilled iron designs like the Palliser shot.[11] Face-hardened armors, such as the Harvey armor introduced in the 1890s, exacerbated this issue by causing the hardened noses of Palliser projectiles to shatter upon impact, distributing the kinetic energy across fragments rather than allowing deep penetration.[31] This failure mode rendered Palliser ammunition practically useless against modern hard-faced armor, prompting the need for more ductile alternatives like capped steel shells.[32] Concurrent advancements in gun technology further accelerated the decline of Palliser designs. The Royal Navy's shift to breech-loading guns in the 1890s eliminated the necessity for the integral gas-check features originally incorporated into Palliser projectiles for rifled muzzle-loaders, simplifying projectile construction but highlighting the limitations of the older cast-iron composition.[33] Moreover, the higher muzzle velocities achieved with these breech-loaders frequently deformed or fragmented the rigid chilled iron structure during firing or upon target impact, compromising accuracy and reliability. By the early 20th century, Palliser shot and shell had been largely superseded by forged steel-cased armor-piercing shells, which offered superior strength, ductility, and explosive filling options compatible with high-velocity guns.[32] They were retained for practice in naval service, while land service use continued until guns were withdrawn or ammunition expended, after which all variants were retired in favor of advanced steel projectiles.[32]Influence on Later Technologies
The Palliser shot's innovation of a chilled-hardened head, achieved by rapid cooling in a cast-iron mold during casting, represented a foundational advancement in armor-piercing projectile design. This technique produced an intensely hard nose capable of penetrating wrought-iron armor without shattering, influencing subsequent developments in hardened-point steel projectiles. By the late 19th century, as steel armor proliferated, the chilled-iron approach evolved into forged-steel rounds with water-hardened points, and later into capped designs such as the 1883 Inglis cap and the 1896 Johnson cap, which used softer outer layers to prevent deformation upon impact while maintaining a hardened core for penetration. Modern armor-piercing capped (APC) shells in the 20th century, including those employed in World War I and II naval guns, trace their conceptual lineage to this hardening method, prioritizing deep penetration over explosive effects with small bursting charges comprising 2.1% to 2.6% of the projectile volume.[34][21] The gas-check mechanism integrated into Palliser shells, consisting of a copper disc at the projectile base to seal propulsion gases and engage rifling grooves for rotation, addressed early challenges in muzzle-loading rifled guns by reducing windage and bore erosion. This design eliminated the need for protruding studs on projectiles, enabling shallower rifling grooves and higher muzzle velocities. As artillery transitioned to breech-loading systems in the 1880s, the gas-check concept evolved into more advanced obturators, such as the De Bange and Elswick systems, which used expandable pads and cups to seal the breech against gas escape. These developments directly informed modern obturator designs in quick-firing and self-loading artillery, enhancing gas containment, accuracy, and gun longevity across 20th-century naval and field ordnance.[21][34] Palliser innovations established armor-piercing ammunition as the doctrinal standard for engaging ironclad warships, shifting naval gunnery emphasis from explosive shells to projectiles optimized for armor defeat. This focus on penetration drove widespread adoption of rifled muzzle-loaders and conversions of smooth-bore guns, with over 1,200 British pieces retrofitted by the 1870s, influencing U.S. Navy conversions of 11-inch smooth-bores to 8-inch rifles. The resulting emphasis on heavy, accurate AP fire at extended ranges laid the groundwork for battleship-era tactics, exemplified by HMS Dreadnought in 1906, which integrated all-big-gun armament with fire-control systems predicated on reliable armor penetration.[5][34] Historically, the Palliser shot and shell marked a pivotal transition in naval warfare from explosive-focused ordnance, reliant on common shell to shatter armor, to penetration-oriented designs that burster after breaching hulls, a paradigm that dominated through the pre-dreadnought and dreadnought eras. Despite obsolescence against compound steel armor by the 1890s, these projectiles are recognized in ordnance histories as a seminal milestone in AP technology, underscoring the iterative arms race between naval guns and protective plating.[34][22]References
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography%2C_1885-1900/Palliser%2C_William_%281830-1882%29