Dear kimmbel-ga;
Thank you for allowing me to answer your interesting question?and what
a cool question it is too!
The answer depends on how many men were in this single file line and
how great the distance was. Let?s assume we have ten men in single
file and the distance is some reasonable number of years away so that
the velocity of the load is powerful enough not only to reach them but
also to penetrate them:
Cannonballs were designed for deep penetration when fired directly at
an object and were also used secondarily to fling debris (rocks, wood,
etc) at nearby infantrymen in hopes of scoring a higher collateral
damage. Though there were definitely larger ones, it was not uncommon
for a cannonball to be about the size of a regulation softball and to
weigh about 4 lbs. If fired directly at a group of men in single file
(rather than being used as collateral artillery) it would most
assuredly kill the majority of them (a couple of men at the end of the
line might survive their injuries).
Loose shot or chain-link was the forerunner of non-bursting rounds
(such as Zimmerman?s Hail Shot in 1573 and later known as ?Case-Shot?,
perfected by none other than Major-General Henry Shrapnel in 1784). In
medieval times it was only one of the many types of loads that were
used primarily as anti-personnel shot and were intended to target an
opposing rank during battles and skirmishes as opposed to a single
file of men (cannons weren?t reliably accurate enough to target a
single file anyway). Nails, pellets, bolts, scrap metal and other such
loads were also used. In the days of cannons, chains were not nearly
as strong as they are today. When fired from a cannon the links tended
to break and the result was an enormous shotgun-like blast that
sprayed a field of fire with shot. So to envision a cannon
successfully firing a chain down range and the chain remaining intact
and acting as a kind of killer weedeater is not realistic. It
effectively exploded in every direction meaning that no single thing
down range sustained the full force of the entire blast. One of the
reasons chain was used specifically was because it could be picked up
all at one time and loaded into a cannon quickly. Aside from the
resulting multi-projectile blast, that was about it. The same result
could be achieved by loading a cannon with a bucket full of loose
chain links, only that would take a bit longer between shots. Other
than that, there isn?t much difference. The chain was simply
convenient, and it worked nicely. If fired directly at a group of men
in single file, provided the men were some distance away, if would
certainly kill, or terribly wound the first several and possibly
injure many others. Because of the likely spread and subsequent miss
of at least a portion of the chain shot, it is more likely in this
scenario for the last few men in this line to survive.
On the other hand, depending on the powder load, if all ten men were
standing directly in front of the cannon, lined up in single file, and
took the full force of the blast at point-blank range, they'd all
likley be killed even if the cannon was loaded with coconuts. The
powder blast alone would probably send bone shrapnel through all of
them.
I hope you find that my research exceeds your expectations. If you
have any questions about my research please post a clarification
request prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating
and your final comments and I look forward to working with you again
in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.
Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher
INFORMATION SOURCES
TIN CASE SHOT IN THE 18TH CENTURY
http://www.militaryheritage.com/caseshot.htm
HENRY SHRAPNEL
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blshrapnel.htm
SEARCH STRATEGY
SEARCH ENGINE USED:
Google ://www.google.com
SEARCH TERMS USED:
Chain
Case shot
Shrapnel
Cannon
Cannonball
Penetrate
Projectile
Velocity
Power |
