this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024

275 points (98.2% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6788 readers

669 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be nice

Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.

Join our Matrix chatroom

Other communities you may be interested in

Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

verity_kindle

[email protected]

275

Okay, let’s try this again. (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In 1862, Georgia dentist, builder, and mechanic John Gilleland raised money from a coterie of Confederate citizens in Athens, Georgia to build the chain-shot gun for a cost of $350. Cast in one piece, the gun featured side-by-side bores, each a little over 3 inches in diameter and splayed slightly outward so the shots would diverge and stretch the chain taut. The two barrels have a divergence of 3 degrees, and the cannon was designed to shoot simultaneously two cannonballs connected with a chain to "mow down the enemy somewhat as a scythe cuts wheat". During tests, the Gilleland cannon effectively mowed down trees, tore up a cornfield, knocked down a chimney, and killed a cow. These experiments took place along Newton Bridge Road northwest of downtown Athens. None of the previously mentioned items were anywhere near the gun's intended target.
r*ddit

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 184 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The only reason we know the right answers are because people like this weren't afraid to try new things and find out what doesn't work.

If you're gonna dunk on the man, do it because he was a Confederate.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago

I find myself repeating some version this sentiment every now end then: There are good reasons to hate (whoever the conversation is about), but this ain't one. We don't need to grasp at straws when there are solid branches.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago

Or that he failed at convincing them to get funded more. I feel like a fleet of Virginia-like ironclads with twin-guns could've sank their pockets for good.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. He wasn't dumb, he just didn't know the right people. Investment in innovation like this could have been devastating.

[–] setsneedtofeed 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Experimentation is good, but I don't think this idea was destined to go anywhere.

The design is a more complicated way of firing chainshot. While chainshot is certainly going to be devastating to a person it hits, the primary historical use was for taking out masts and rigging on ships. That's what it was best at.

To take on infantry, canister of grape shot is more ideal and practical.

This idea is like in the modern day if somebody proposed an APFSDS firing gun to use against infantry, but also it has a slower rate of fire than current tank guns. Sure, it will kill the infantry it hits, but there isn't really a reason to pursue it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Fun fact, modern anti-aircraft charges are just an unfolding wire version of chainshot.

I wonder if this actually would have been more effective than the usual in naval combat. It's more complicated than a single-bore cannon, but only slightly, and you guarantee the chain spreads out horizontally.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

To take on infantry, canister of grape shot is more ideal and practical.

The down side of grape / canister shot is that the firing pattern is a circle. That means when shooting at a line of enemy soldiers a lot of the stuff is going to miss high or miss low.

The idea behind this invention was good -- basically turn a field gun into something that fired a line of death rather than a single point or a circle. If it had worked, it could have been much more devastating than a solid ball or a bunch of smaller balls with a circular firing pattern. But, I don't think 1800s tech was up to building a device that could reliably do what they wanted.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

He couldn't visualise his invention very well without computers or Orbs to ponder.

[–] [email protected] 98 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I’m guessing the main problem is the two barrels never detonate at the same instant, so the chain flings the shot wildly somewhere in the forward field of fire.

Regular chain shot packs the projectile in a single barrel.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 5 months ago (3 children)

If I recall I don't think barrels and balls were precision machined so there would always be "windage" or some sort of gap between the ball and barrel. So not only the timings as you identify, but also differences in force between the balls due to windage and charge.

[–] psycho_driver 44 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Those are the same issues that led to my third child being conceived.

[–] baldingpudenda 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fuck, sights are off!

[–] NABDad 6 points 4 months ago

Fuck sights?

[–] Im_old 9 points 5 months ago

I need more details please

[–] Warl0k3 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I remember that with some cannons the fit was so sloppy you had to wrap the ball in rags or pack it in straw to get it to go any distance at all. This was just a spectacularly goofy idea from start to finish, and I love every inch of it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

In Patrick O'Brian's novels some/many of the cannons had sizing hoops. Incoming balls would be sorted by size because not every ball would fit every barrel.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago

It says the barrel was cast, which is definitely not precise machining

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Isnt this a super easy fix? Just make one detonation chamber connected to 2 barrels. Or make a longer barrel holding 2 balls with the chain between them.

[–] setsneedtofeed 6 points 4 months ago

The even easier fix is one barrel firing chain or bar shot. The method that had been done for at least 100 years at that point.

The only real reason for two barrels is to try and get a longer chain to be more effective against infantry formations, but at that point just load grape or canister shot and it works better and the cannon crew has an easier time of reloading.

[–] warbond 1 points 4 months ago

I think one chamber with two barrels would propel the projectiles unevenly, wouldn't it?

[–] Aqarius 1 points 4 months ago

In theory, yes. But in practice, option 2 is how it usually is done, and option 1 would still require scrapping the gun and casting a new one, assuming it would work and not throw the shot off based on the weight difference of the balls.

[–] _stranger_ 32 points 4 months ago

I want one of those slow motion youtube channel people to test this thing so bad right now.

[–] NineMileTower 25 points 5 months ago (5 children)

During tests, the Gilleland cannon effectively mowed down trees, tore up a cornfield, knocked down a chimney, and killed a cow

So, it worked?

[–] YarHarSuperstar 56 points 5 months ago (5 children)

None of the previously mentioned items were anywhere near the gun's intended target.

Reading is hard.

[–] colonelp4nic 25 points 5 months ago

Kindness is also hard (and takes practice). I believe in both of our abilities to keep improving!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Which isn't necessarily an issue if your goal is to hit somewhere in a line of charging infantry. Why you wouldn't just use canister shot is beyond me, but accuracy isn't much of an issue if your target is an entire enemy formation.

[–] YarHarSuperstar 7 points 4 months ago

It's an issue if you need the chain to be stretched across parallel to the side by side group of soldiers charging at you.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

I don't think you realize how much they missed by:

"On its second firing, the chain shot across the horizon and into a thicket of pine."

So, you'd miss the entire army you were shooting at, and hit a nearby forest.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Hey, it hit what was in front of it. The solution to the being "randomly inaccurate" problem is more of them!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

Solution: aim the Gilleland cannon at what you don't want to hit, then fire!

[–] NABDad 5 points 4 months ago

Unless one barrel misfires, then it hits whatever is standing next to it.

[–] setsneedtofeed 3 points 4 months ago

The key to victory is surprise. So. Surprise.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

Poor cow

[–] NineMileTower 1 points 5 months ago

That's, like, the joke.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The cow was a yankee sympathizer.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Moo!

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Gilleland's invention was a failure. When it was first tested on 22 April 1862, it was aimed at a target of two upright poles. Uneven combustion of the powder and casting imperfections in the barrels gave the connected balls a spinning movement in an off-center direction, with witnesses reporting that on its first firing it "plowed up about an acre of ground, tore up a cornfield, mowed down saplings, and then the chain broke, the two balls going in different directions".

On its second firing, the chain shot across the horizon and into a thicket of pine. "[The] thicket of young pines at which it was aimed looked as if a narrow cyclone or a giant mowing machine had passed through," reported another witness.

On its third firing, the chain snapped immediately and one ball tore into a nearby cabin, knocking down its chimney; the other spun off erratically and struck a nearby cow, killing it instantly. Gilleland considered the test-firings a success.

The inventor seemed to think so.

The wikipedia article about it.

[–] njm1314 3 points 4 months ago

Yeah well he was a confederate so who gives a fuck what he thinks?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Not as intended.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Read the rest of the text

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

3° divergence...

So, you could basically stand in front of it a few feet away and never get hit.

[–] setsneedtofeed 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Missed the part where the cannon balls are connected by a chain?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Ah, I thought that meant to feed, like a machine gun. Read it wrong

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Chain-fed black powder cannon

The real noncredibility is in the comments.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Did y'all just invent something? That sounds badass

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Chain feed the orbs into the orb chamber. Chain feed the orb launching powder into the orb launcher.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

I shall ponder upon this idea

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

Side by side shotguns kind of do the same thing where they kick slightly to one side or the other. That's why over/under is the more common double barrel configuration anymore.

The movement is a lot easier to compensate for with a shotgun since it's easier to control and fires shot shells instead of cannonballs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Fill it with grapeshot, I want to see what happens.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

People who never invented or succeeded in anything: haha look at that idiot.