Hubbry Logo
Rifled muzzle loaderRifled muzzle loaderMain
Open search
Rifled muzzle loader
Community hub
Rifled muzzle loader
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Rifled muzzle loader
Rifled muzzle loader
Rifled muzzle loader
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A rifled muzzle loader in the forecastle of HMS Gannet (1878)

A rifled muzzle loader (RML) is a type of artillery piece invented in the mid-19th century. In contrast to smooth bore cannon which preceded it, the rifling of the gun barrel allowed much greater range, accuracy and penetration as the spin induced to the shell gave it directional stability. During the 1860s and 1870s, Rifled Muzzle Loaders were used as field guns, naval guns, and fortress guns, until they were superseded by effective and reliable breech-loading weapons.

In naval service, the rifled muzzle loader and the concurrent rifled breech loader (RBL) generated a huge arms race in the late 19th century, with rapid advances in fortifications and ironclad warships.

Service History

[edit]

The first RML to enter active service was the La Hitte canon de 4 rayé (4kg cannon - rifled), which made its debut with the French Army in Italy in the spring of 1859. The new gun demonstrated a massive improvement in range and accuracy compared to the Austrian smoothbore weapons, and so in the decade which followed, all western armies began to adopt rifled artillery.

The armies and navies of the American Civil War used a wide variety of rifled artillery throughout the conflict, alongside traditional smoothbores. The most common rifles were the 3-inch ordnance rifle and the 10-pounder Parrott rifle. The Union navy made extensive use of Dahlgren guns, many of which were rifled.

Rifled Muzzle Loaders remained in service with the French Army into the 1870s, with the La Hitte providing the main artillery piece during the Franco-Prussian War, in contrast to the Prussian breech-loading Krupp guns.

The British Army did not initially adopt RML weapons, instead pursuing the breech-loading Armstrong gun. However, concerns about cost and the effectiveness of the Armstrong guns led to them being replaced in 1871 by the technically simpler (and therefore cheaper) RML 9-pounder, which remained the army's primary field gun until the adoption of the BL 12-pounder 7 cwt in 1885.

During the 1870s, advances were made in gun metallurgy and design which made breech loaders more effective and reliable, leading to the eventual abandonment of muzzle loaders by most armies. In particular, the development of practical steel gun-founding by the Krupp company increased the strength of the breech area, and the perfection of the Obturating ring by Charles Ragon de Bange increased ranges by reducing gas leakage from around the breech block.

Royal Navy experience

[edit]

The largest rifled muzzle-loader carried on a warship was the 17.7-inch, 100-ton Elswick of the 1870s, four of which were installed in each of the Italian battleships Duilio and Enrico Dandolo (launched in 1872). The Royal Navy at the time was restricted to the weapons produced by Woolwich Arsenal, so that the heaviest guns that could be shipped were the 80-ton 16-inch guns of HMS Inflexible.

Introduction of the Armstrong rifled breechloaders (RBL) into the Royal Navy in 1860 was not very successful. The action of Kagoshima on 14 August 1863 led to 28 accidents in 365 rounds fired. Following this experience, the Royal Navy reverted to the muzzle-loader until the early 1880s. Other navies, notably France, continued to develop and deploy RBLs, but they were hardly superior in rate of fire or muzzle energy to their British counterparts.

During this period rapid burning black powder was used as the propellant, and the guns had a stubby, 'soda bottle' shape giving easy access to either end for loading. The RBLs of the time were notably weaker in the breech region, and more prone to failure.

A catastrophic accident on board HMS Thunderer in January 1879, in which a 35-ton 12-inch muzzle-loader hung fire (misfired) and was subsequently double-loaded, killing eleven sailors, motivated the Admiralty to re-consider the RBL.

Improvements in breech mechanisms in the period 1860 to 1880, together with the introduction of large-grain powder, caused the Navy to re-adopt the RBL as the new powder required longer barrels which could not be withdrawn into the turret for loading. A new 12-inch gun was developed for HMS Edinburgh in 1879, but burst during trials. Following modifications the new weapon proved reliable.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Rifled muzzle loader

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A rifled muzzle loader (RML) is a type of large piece invented in the mid-19th century, characterized by a rifled bore that imparts spin to the for enhanced accuracy, range, and stability, while retaining the traditional muzzle-loading mechanism for charging and shot from the barrel's front end. Unlike earlier cannons, which relied on spherical shot and offered limited precision, RMLs employed elongated shells or bolts, often with explosive fillings or armor-piercing designs, making them suitable for engaging ironclad warships and fortified positions. The development of RMLs stemmed from rapid advancements in naval and during the 1850s and 1860s, driven by the need to counter emerging armored ships and rifled infantry weapons. In Britain, initial experiments with rifled breech-loaders by Sir William Armstrong in 1859 proved innovative but suffered from sealing issues in larger calibers, leading the Royal Navy to revert to muzzle-loading designs by the mid-1860s; key innovations included the Palliser process, patented in 1863 by William Palliser, which converted existing guns by inserting a rifled liner and reinforcing the breech with hoops. In the United States, Robert Parrott designed his famous RMLs starting in 1861, with the 100-pounder becoming iconic during the (1861–1865) for its use in sieges like that of in 1863. These guns ranged from light 10-pounder field pieces to massive 12-inch naval calibers weighing up to 38 tons, and were produced in or , often with three or six grooves to stabilize projectiles weighing from 6 to 300 kg. RMLs offered significant advantages, including ranges exceeding 5,000 yards and the ability to penetrate iron armor with shot, but they were plagued by safety concerns such as barrel bursts due to high pressures from black powder charges—incidents like the of a 100-pounder Parrott on USS Juniata in 1864 and a on HMS Thunderer in 1879, which killed 11 sailors, highlighted these risks. By the late 1870s, improvements in breech-loading mechanisms and rendered RMLs obsolete, leading to their phased withdrawal from service in favor of more reliable rifled breech-loaders; nonetheless, they represented a crucial transitional technology in the evolution of modern , influencing designs in conflicts from the to colonial campaigns.

History

Origins and Early Development

The rifled muzzle loader originated in mid-19th-century as a response to the shortcomings of artillery revealed during the (1853–1856), where limited range and accuracy hampered effectiveness against fortified positions and evolving infantry tactics. General Jean Ernest Ducos de La Hitte, president of the French artillery committee, spearheaded the development of the in the 1850s to address these deficiencies by incorporating into muzzle-loading guns, enabling greater stability and extended reach without shifting to more complex breech mechanisms. Building on earlier experiments with rifled designs dating back to the 1840s, including those by Captain Tamisier and concepts from Italian engineer Cavalli, La Hitte's innovations focused on practical implementation using studded projectiles that engaged shallow barrel grooves for rotation. The cornerstone of the system was the Canon de 4 rayé de campagne modèle 1858, the first practical , which debuted with a barrel of 86.5 mm calibre designed to fire 4 kg projectiles. This gun featured six grooves, with projectiles equipped with studs—typically two rows of six—to ensure stable engagement and flight without relying on expansion, resolving prior issues with inconsistent rotation seen in experimental designs. Adopted in March 1858 following rigorous trials that validated its superiority over smoothbores, the system marked a foundational shift in engineering. Early testing in 1858–1859 included field evaluations in and preparations for the Kabylie expedition in , where modifications refined loading procedures and projectile fit to enhance reliability under combat conditions. The rifled muzzle loaders saw their first major combat use during the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859, with French batteries deploying the Canon de 4 rayé against Austrian forces equipped with outdated smoothbores. The French guns' enhanced precision and range provided a decisive edge in engagements like the , contributing to Allied victories and demonstrating the system's battlefield viability. This muzzle-loading approach would transition to breech-loaders in subsequent decades as demands intensified.

Adoption and Global Use

Following the French introduction of rifled muzzle-loading artillery in the late 1850s under the , other nations rapidly adopted similar technologies to enhance projectile accuracy and range against emerging ironclad defenses. In Britain, initial enthusiasm for breech-loading designs by William Armstrong, introduced in the early , waned due to operational challenges including precise loading requirements and limitations on propellant charges, which conservative officers criticized as unreliable. This led to a reversion to rifled muzzle-loaders in the late to accommodate larger calibers for penetrating ironclad armor, culminating in the adoption of the RML 9-pounder gun in 1871 for service. These guns remained in use until 1885, serving as a transitional design before full breech-loading dominance. The extensively deployed rifled muzzle-loaders during the from 1861 to 1865, particularly the Union forces' , a wrought-iron piece weighing 820 pounds that fired 9-pound projectiles with improved accuracy over smoothbores. Complementing this was the , Model 1861, which used wrought-iron construction reinforced with a cast-iron band and was produced in significant quantities for roles, enabling effective long-range fire in battles like Antietam. Both guns exemplified the tactical advantages of in mobile warfare, with the Ordnance Rifle becoming the most common light rifled piece of the conflict. During the of 1870–1871, French forces relied on rifled muzzle-loaders, including 4-pounder field guns, which suffered from slower reloading compared to Prussian innovations. Prussian artillery, equipped with C/64 steel breech-loaders, achieved superior mobility and firing rates, contributing decisively to victories like Sedan by outpacing French muzzle-loaders in sustained barrages and revealing tactical vulnerabilities in mixed loading systems. Other nations pursued limited but notable adoptions; armed its ironclad battleships Duilio and Dandolo, launched in the early 1870s, with large-caliber Elswick (Armstrong) 17.7-inch muzzle-loaders, the 100-ton guns representing the pinnacle of such designs for naval penetration against armored hulls. experimented with the French rifling system by 1864 before shifting to breech-loaders in 1867, while converted existing smoothbores to muzzle-loaders using French plans and Armstrong shunt grooves in the , though these remained experimental and did not see widespread combat deployment.

Design and Technology

Barrel and Rifling Features

The barrel of a rifled muzzle loader was designed to impart rotational stability to projectiles through helical grooves cut into the bore, known as . These grooves typically featured progressive depth to facilitate engagement with expanding or studded projectiles, allowing the shell to conform to the rifling during firing. In the French , introduced in 1858, the rifling consisted of three grooves that matched lugs or studs on the projectile for guidance and spin. Twist rates varied but commonly ranged from 1:30 to 1:50 calibers to optimize stability for elongated shells without excessive . Barrels adopted a stubby, bulbous profile—often described as soda-bottle shaped—with a reinforced breech tapering toward the muzzle to manage the stresses from black powder combustion. Construction materials included coils or cast steel, selected for their and strength to endure internal pressures up to approximately 15,000 psi generated by black powder charges. For instance, British RML designs post-1870, such as the 64-pounder, utilized a coiled inner tube inserted into a cast-iron exterior and secured with shrunk-on iron bands for reinforcement. Caliber sizes spanned a wide range to suit field, , and naval roles, from compact 3-inch field guns weighing around 1 to massive 17.7-inch naval pieces like the British 100-ton gun, which tipped the scales at over 100 tons. Manufacturing techniques emphasized multiple wrought-iron layers or coils, followed by heat-shrinking additional bands around the breech for hoop stress containment, as exemplified in Armstrong-pattern RML guns. These methods ensured under repeated firing, with the 100-ton gun's barrel comprising a thick A-tube enveloped by successive wrought-iron coils, totaling 27 grooves with a progressive twist from 1:150 to 1:45 calibers.

Ammunition and Propellants

Rifled muzzle loaders primarily utilized designed to engage the barrel's grooves for stability and accuracy, with featuring mechanisms to expand or attach in ways that prevented slippage during firing. In artillery applications, elongated shells replaced spherical shot, often incorporating sabots to center the and ensure engagement; the Parrott shell, for instance, employed a wrought-iron ring sabot at the base to drive the shell forward while the body followed the grooves, enabling effective use in guns like the . Propellants for rifled muzzle loaders consisted of black powder charges, typically measured in cloth bags or cartridges to facilitate loading and minimize residue buildup in the rifled bore. For pieces, charges ranged from 1 pound in lighter guns like the 10-pounder Parrott to 2 pounds in the 20-pounder variant, with heavier field or siege guns using up to 5-20 pounds depending on and desired . These silk or flannel bags contained granular black powder, which burned rapidly to generate gas pressure, propelling the while the bag's reduced compared to loose powder. Key innovations in enhanced the rifled muzzle loader's versatility against fortifications and armor. The French developed percussion-fused shells in the 1860s, such as early impact-detonated designs that burst on contact for anti-personnel or structural damage, improving over time fuses by ensuring reliability at rifled velocities. The British Palliser chilled-shot, patented in , featured a hardened cast-iron head chilled during molding for penetration, paired with a ductile body to withstand rifling stresses; this armor-piercing projectile proved effective in rifled guns against ironclad ships, achieving perforations up to several inches thick. To ensure safety and compatibility with rifled bores, wooden sabots were sometimes employed in early or experimental designs to projectiles and avoid metal-on-metal contact, which could damage grooves or cause erratic flight; these wooden bases, often layered or reinforced, expanded slightly under to seal the bore while protecting the from wear.

Operation and Performance

Loading and Firing Procedures

The operation of a rifled muzzle loader required a coordinated team effort, typically involving a of 5 to 8 members for pieces, with larger naval or guns employing up to 35 personnel. The process began with the gun positioned , allowing access to the muzzle for safe loading. A designated powder handler, often called the powder monkey in field units, retrieved a pre-measured black powder charge encased in a fabric bag (such as , , or ) from the limber chest or caisson. This charge was inserted into the muzzle by the loader (crew position No. 2), followed by ramming it firmly to the breech using a wooden rammer staff by the sponger/rammer (No. 1). Next, the projectile—typically a cylindrical shell or bolt with a wooden or metal sabot to engage the grooves—was placed atop the powder charge and rammed home, ensuring tight contact without excessive force to avoid damaging the . The then ran the gun forward into battery using handspikes and ropes, aligning it for firing. Firing commenced after priming the vent hole at the breech. The gunner (crew chief) or assistant (No. 3) used a priming wire to pierce the powder bag through the vent, exposing the charge to ignition. A friction primer—a small copper tube filled with black powder and fitted with a rough wire—was inserted into the vent and attached to a . Alternatively, percussion locks were used on some pieces, where a struck a to ignite the primer. The gunner sighted along the barrel or used rear sights for and traverse, adjusted via handspikes and elevating screws on the . Upon command, the assistant pulled the sharply, detonating the primer and igniting the main charge to propel the . For heavy guns, such as 100-ton naval pieces, this cycle allowed trained crews to achieve reload times of 1 to 2 minutes per shot, though field guns could sustain faster rates under ideal conditions. Crew roles were strictly defined to maximize efficiency and safety. The gunner oversaw aiming, commanded actions like "Load" and "Fire," and often sealed the vent with a thumbstall during loading to prevent premature ignition. The sponger/rammer (No. 1) handled bore cleaning and , while the loader (No. 2) managed charge insertion. The vent tender/primer (No. 3) covered the vent, pricked the charge, and prepared the primer. The firer (No. 4) pulled the , and additional members (Nos. 5–8) handled supply, gun movement with handspikes, and positioning. In smaller detachments, roles overlapped to maintain . Post-firing maintenance was essential to clear residue and prevent misfires, especially given the fouling from black powder and the tight rifling that could accumulate debris. Immediately after recoil, which naturally drew the gun out of battery, the sponger dipped a sheepskin-covered staff in water and swabbed the bore with several full strokes to quench embers and remove unburnt powder. A worm—a screw-like tool on the staff's opposite end—was then used to extract any remnants of the fabric bag or wadding. For rifled bores, additional scraping of grooves might be needed after every 6 to 10 shots, particularly with lead-sheathed projectiles, to ensure subsequent loads seated properly. The vent was cleared with the priming wire, and the entire process repeated, emphasizing the labor-intensive nature of muzzle-loading operations.

Range, Accuracy, and Limitations

Rifled muzzle loaders markedly enhanced the ballistic performance of 19th-century artillery over designs, primarily through the gyroscopic stabilization of projectiles imparted by barrel . Maximum ranges for field guns reached 4,000–6,000 yards, with effective ranges of 1,500–2,500 yards at typical elevations, compared to about 1,000–1,500 yards for equivalent . This improvement stemmed from the that prevented tumbling, enabling elongated shells to maintain stability in flight and achieve flatter trajectories. Accuracy likewise increased by a factor of 2–3 times, as the stabilized projectiles experienced reduced dispersion, permitting precise fire against fortifications or troop formations beyond the capabilities of . Performance varied by design; for example, the American 10-pounder Parrott achieved effective ranges of about 2,000 yards, while British 9-pounders reached up to 3,500 yards maximum. Key performance metrics underscored these advantages. Muzzle velocities typically ranged from 1,200 to 1,500 feet per second when using black powder charges, providing sufficient energy for long-range delivery while accommodating the heavier, aerodynamically efficient projectiles. Penetration capabilities were particularly notable with specialized ammunition like Palliser chilled-iron shells, which could penetrate several inches of armor depending on range and conditions. The rifling features enabling this accuracy involved a progressive or uniform twist in the grooves, which imparted rotational motion to the shell upon firing. Despite these gains, rifled muzzle loaders faced inherent limitations tied to their design and propellants. Initial rates of fire could reach 1–2 rounds per minute, but sustained rates were typically 10–20 rounds per hour due to the challenges of reloading elongated projectiles and clearing . Black powder accumulated rapidly in the rifled bore after just 3–4 shots, hardening residue that increased friction, complicated ramming, and degraded accuracy by altering the projectile's engagement with the grooves. Additionally, repeated firing led to barrel overheating, risking structural stress in the wrought-iron construction and further exacerbating , which necessitated frequent swabbing and cooling periods. The physics of stabilization can be quantified through the spin rate equation. The ω\omega (in radians per second) of the is derived as ω=2πvt\omega = \frac{2\pi v}{t}, where vv is the and tt is the twist length (distance for one full ). This arises because the forces the to rotate at a rate of v/tv / t s per second, multiplied by 2π2\pi for angular measure. The resulting gyroscopic resists aerodynamic perturbations, maintaining orientation and enhancing stability for the flight duration.

Military Applications

Land-Based Artillery

Rifled muzzle loaders played a pivotal tactical role in land-based during mid-19th-century ground warfare, enabling extended-range for advances and defensive positions while emphasizing mobility in field engagements and precision in sieges. Their imparted spin to projectiles, enhancing accuracy and range over smoothbores, which allowed batteries to engage enemy formations from positions less exposed to counterfire. In field applications, these guns facilitated counter-battery duels and indirect support, transforming from close-range adjuncts to standoff weapons that could influence battles at distances up to several thousand yards. During the , Union forces employed 3-inch Ordnance Rifles extensively for counter-battery fire at the in 1863, deploying 28 such guns from positions on and to neutralize Confederate batteries on Benner's Hill. This engagement inflicted significant casualties—9 killed and 30 wounded—on the Confederates after 90 minutes of converging fire, forcing their withdrawal and demonstrating the rifles' effectiveness in long-range duels. The lightweight design of these wrought-iron guns, weighing around 820 pounds, provided mobile long-range support, allowing rapid repositioning to bolster lines across the battlefield, where 141 of the Union's 360 guns were 3-inch Rifles. In the of 1870–1871, French 4-pounder La Hitte rifled muzzle loaders were positioned in defensive roles, such as around Sedan at Givonne and Floing, to shield against Prussian advances. However, these bronze guns proved inferior to the Prussian steel breech-loaders, which outranged them and delivered higher rates of fire, systematically silencing French batteries—for instance, neutralizing 8 French batteries at Floing with 72 Prussian guns. The La Hitte system's limitations in range and reloading speed hampered French tactics, contributing to defensive collapses despite static emplacements intended to maximize their flat-trajectory fire. Rifled muzzle loaders also excelled in siege operations, echoing their use in the Crimean War's bombardment of (1854–1855), where British 68-pounder Lancaster rifled guns fired 68-pound shells from batteries to breach Russian fortifications over extended periods. Similar applications appeared in Italian unification campaigns, including the 1859 , where Sardinian forces utilized La Hitte rifled guns for field and siege support against Austrian positions. By the Siege of (1860–1861), Piedmontese , incorporating rifled systems like the Cavalli and La Hitte, methodically shelled Bourbon defenses, with guns capable of bombarding fortifications at ranges up to 4,000 yards to weaken walls and disrupt supply lines without close exposure. The adoption of rifled muzzle loaders prompted significant organizational shifts in , transitioning from brigade-attached batteries to divisional structures that enhanced support at greater distances. In the U.S. Army during the Civil War, this led to General McClellan's implementation of four batteries per division under Major Barry's plan, reducing reliance on centralized reserves and allowing rifled guns' extended ranges—such as the 3-inch Rifle's 3,972 yards—to provide coordinated fire from defilade positions. European armies followed suit, with Prussian reforms emphasizing divisional batteries for mobile support, as seen in the , where increased ranges necessitated integrated command to avoid overextension while amplifying close-support capabilities. By the late , this evolution solidified as a divisional asset, enabling sustained fire at 1,500–3,000 yards to protect advancing troops. The Royal Navy initially experimented with rifled breech-loading guns developed by Sir William Armstrong in the late 1850s, but persistent mechanical failures, including frequent blowouts of the vent pieces and erratic performance, led to a rapid reversion to rifled muzzle loaders by the early 1860s. During the in August 1863, Armstrong 40-pounder and 110-pounder breech-loaders on ships like HMS Euryalus demonstrated severe unreliability, with one accident occurring for every 13 rounds fired and projectiles landing unpredictably far from targets, prompting their withdrawal from frontline service. This shift back to muzzle loaders, which were simpler and more robust for naval use, dominated armament until the late 1870s, as seen in the construction of ironclads armed with progressively larger RMLs. However, the system faced its own catastrophic setbacks, such as the explosion of a 38-ton 12-inch RML on HMS Thunderer during gunnery practice in the on January 2, 1879, which killed 11 crew members and injured 34 others due to accidental double-loading, underscoring the vulnerabilities of loading procedures in confined turret spaces. This incident, described as a pivotal catalyst, accelerated the Navy's return to breech-loaders by 1881, coinciding with advancements in sealing technology. One of the largest RMLs deployed by the Royal Navy was the 80-ton 16-inch gun, introduced in the 1880s to match foreign naval developments and mounted in twin hydraulically powered turrets on HMS Inflexible, an ironclad commissioned in 1881. These guns, weighing approximately 80 tons each and firing 1,700-pound projectiles with black powder charges, represented the pinnacle of muzzle-loading naval artillery, providing significant penetrating power against armored targets but at the cost of slow reloading times of about two minutes per round. Similarly, adopted massive RMLs through the Elswick Ordnance Company (part of Armstrong's works), equipping the Duilio-class battleships Duilio and Dandolo, laid down in 1873 and completed by 1876, with four 100-ton 17.7-inch guns each in echelon turrets. These Armstrong-designed weapons, with a bore length of 30 feet 6 inches, fired 2,000-pound shells at muzzle velocities around 1,400 feet per second during trials at Spezia in 1877, where they shattered thick iron plates, demonstrating their role in ironclad warfare but also highlighting logistical challenges in handling such immense projectiles on deck. Shipboard adaptations for RMLs addressed the unique demands of maritime operations, including vessel motion, corrosion from saltwater, and the need for protected mounting in turrets or broadside batteries. Trunnions—protruding journals on the —were heavily reinforced with additional wrought-iron hoops and bands to support the extreme weights (up to 100 tons) and absorb forces without deforming, allowing secure attachment to hydraulic slides or systems that absorbed up to 50% of the energy by sliding the gun rearward along the deck. These mechanisms, often powered by hydraulic cylinders, prevented structural damage to the ship during firing and enabled faster repositioning amid rolling seas, as employed in ironclad engagements like those envisioned for the . Coastal batteries occasionally paralleled these naval designs for fixed defenses, adapting similar trunnion-supported mountings for stability. Despite these innovations, RMLs suffered from operational hazards, particularly obturation issues where hot propellant gases escaped through the priming vent if not fully cleared by the rammer-sponge, leading to flashovers that ignited premature powder loads and caused severe crew injuries from burns and explosions during reloading. Such incidents, exacerbated by the confined spaces of naval turrets and the rapid firing cycles demanded in battle, contributed to mounting safety concerns and the ultimate transition away from muzzle loaders. By the , the Royal Navy re-adopted breech-loaders, incorporating the French-invented de Bange system—which used an expanding pad to seal the breech against gas escape—on new guns like the 6-inch and 12-inch BL marks, resolving obturation flaws and enabling safer, quicker loading from within protected enclosures.

References

  1. https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-6152
  2. https://www.military-history.org/back-to-the-drawing-board/back-to-the-drawing-board-rifled-muzzle-loading-artillery-rml.htm
  3. https://www.artilleryhistory.org/artillery_register_new/nsw/gun_georges_heights_mosman_rml_64pdr_sn436.html
  4. https://www.gibmuseum.gi/our-history/military-history/development-of-artillery
  5. https://artillerie.asso.fr/basart/article.php3?id_article=357
  6. http://www.wehrtechnikmuseum.de/Exponate/La_Hitte/hauptteil_la_hitte.html
  7. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1877/december/development-rifled-ordnance
  8. https://www.nps.gov/anti/learn/historyculture/arty.htm
  9. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/civil-war-weapons-in-the-shenandoah-valley.htm
  10. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/iusburj/article/download/19818/25895
  11. https://oaji.net/pdf.html?n=2020/2146-1608306859.pdf
  12. https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-2766
  13. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1876/july/100-ton-gun
  14. https://npshistory.com/publications/fosu/brochures/cannon.pdf
  15. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA419942.pdf
  16. https://npshistory.com/publications/battlefield/hwp/19th-century-artillery-manual-2018.pdf
  17. https://www.historynet.com/13745139/
  18. https://www.historicalpublicationsllc.com/civilwarartillery/cannon-range-tables/article_7ee8ee08-e5c8-11ec-b9d9-47f11bf7d21f.html
  19. https://npshistory.com/series/interpretive/3/is3a7.htm
  20. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1937/may/some-notes-old-guns
  21. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0702228.pdf
  22. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1890/january/armor-ships-its-uses-and-its-nature
  23. https://www.quora.com/How-much-time-was-required-to-reload-a-muzzle-loading-cannon-in-the-mid-and-late-Victorian-era
  24. https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p15766coll4/id/2/download
  25. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/john-griffens-ordnance-rifle-at-the-battle-of-gettysburg/
  26. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA212478.pdf
  27. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/snared-in-a-prussian-trap/
  28. https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-6767
  29. https://www.dokumen.pub/the-second-war-of-italian-unification-185961-essential-histories-9781472895578-9781849087872.html
  30. https://warhistory.org/%40msw/article/castelfidardo-the-volturno-and-the-siege-of-gaeta
  31. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADB023625.pdf
  32. https://emergingcivilwar.com/2019/09/05/notes-on-artillery-organization/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.