Comments on: Sergeant Milton Humphreys' Concept of Indirect Fire http://www.historynet.com/sergeant-milton-humphreys-concept-of-indirect-fire.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Sat, 18 May 2013 23:40:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: hunter http://www.historynet.com/sergeant-milton-humphreys-concept-of-indirect-fire.htm#comment-816475 hunter Sat, 25 Aug 2012 23:43:13 +0000 #comment-816475 QUOTE "Tubes with cylindrical chamber, in service at the beginning of the wars with the Gribeauval system (the chamber was designed for a 1 to 2 kilos propelling charge!). With this system, the bomb weight was irregularly distributed in the mortar bore, leaving a gap of about 3 to 4mm with the inner tube, "the wind". One can easily figure out that, in these conditions, the bomb knocked against the inner tube when fired, and that, as a consequence, the tubes were quickly damaged. One artillery piece could fire 48 bombs within 24 hours, but it was wise to limit this rate to 30 to avoid damaging the mortar even more quickly. To alleviate this disadvantage, the Knight of Gomer, artilleryman and friend of Gribeauval, had conceived truncated cone alike chambers. Therefore, the bomb was laid on a circular fulcrum and was centred. It was also boosted with a more regular thrust around its surface, which provided a fire power enhancement. " These modern mortars were built and available from 1791 on and used all through the napoleonic wars. I am guessing that these guys put a lot more thougth into how these operated and could be used to best effect than the young confederate. He could read that is certain, maybe he had read about the napoleanic wars. He certainly had no part in the 'first' mortars. French designed mortars formed part of the defences of Louisbourg during the british siege of 1758. ahose could propel a 60kg shell up to 4km away. One hit could shatter a ship. So mortars were not new in 1863 that is most certain. QUOTE "Tubes with cylindrical chamber, in service at the beginning of the wars with the Gribeauval system (the chamber was designed for a 1 to 2 kilos propelling charge!). With this system, the bomb weight was irregularly distributed in the mortar bore, leaving a gap of about 3 to 4mm with the inner tube, "the wind". One can easily figure out that, in these conditions, the bomb knocked against the inner tube when fired, and that, as a consequence, the tubes were quickly damaged. One artillery piece could fire 48 bombs within 24 hours, but it was wise to limit this rate to 30 to avoid damaging the mortar even more quickly.

To alleviate this disadvantage, the Knight of Gomer, artilleryman and friend of Gribeauval, had conceived truncated cone alike chambers. Therefore, the bomb was laid on a circular fulcrum and was centred. It was also boosted with a more regular thrust around its surface, which provided a fire power enhancement. "

These modern mortars were built and available from 1791 on and used all through the napoleonic wars. I am guessing that these guys put a lot more thougth into how these operated and could be used to best effect than the young confederate. He could read that is certain, maybe he had read about the napoleanic wars. He certainly had no part in the 'first' mortars.
French designed mortars formed part of the defences of Louisbourg during the british siege of 1758. ahose could propel a 60kg shell up to 4km away. One hit could shatter a ship. So mortars were not new in 1863 that is most certain.

]]> By: Nigel evans http://www.historynet.com/sergeant-milton-humphreys-concept-of-indirect-fire.htm#comment-15135 Nigel evans Sun, 26 Oct 2008 07:46:54 +0000 #comment-15135 Sorry to have to give you the bad news but the claim of 'inventing indirect fire' is nonsense, although Humphreys may have been the first to use the term, which is not the same thing at all. Before explaining a bit more I'd also note that the statement "Once the shell expended its momentum, it would drop to earth" is utter balderdash, it's scientific and mathamatical nonsense. A projectile follows an elliptic trajectory, it has forward momentum until it hits the ground. Furthermore the elevation angle cannot be deduced by trigonometry, not least because the relationship between range and elevation angle is not linear. As the elevation angle increases the effect of a change in elevation angle (eg of 1 degree) becomes an ever smaller distance on the ground at the target. Hence the elliptic trajectory. A little bit of research would reveal that Gunners had simple tables that related elevation angle to range for a given amount of powder for a very long time. Various authorites have referred to engaging targets out of sight of the guns going back several centuries. One of the reasons for the invention of howitzers in the 17th century or thereabouts was to deliver plunging fire on targets behind cover. One example is the Russian use of indirect fire. Contemporary maps of the battle of Paltsig in Poland in 1759 show the Russian guns firing over trees. Sorry to have to give you the bad news but the claim
of 'inventing indirect fire' is nonsense, although Humphreys may
have been the first to use the term, which is not the same thing at
all.

Before explaining a bit more I'd also note that the statement "Once
the shell expended its momentum, it would drop to earth" is utter
balderdash, it's scientific and mathamatical nonsense. A
projectile follows an elliptic trajectory, it has forward momentum
until it hits the ground. Furthermore the elevation angle cannot
be deduced by trigonometry, not least because the relationship
between range and elevation angle is not linear. As the elevation
angle increases the effect of a change in elevation angle (eg of 1
degree) becomes an ever smaller distance on the ground at the
target. Hence the elliptic trajectory.

A little bit of research would reveal that Gunners had simple
tables that related elevation angle to range for a given amount of
powder for a very long time. Various authorites have referred to
engaging targets out of sight of the guns going back several
centuries. One of the reasons for the invention of howitzers in the
17th century or thereabouts was to deliver plunging fire on
targets behind cover.

One example is the Russian use of indirect fire. Contemporary
maps of the battle of Paltsig in Poland in 1759 show the Russian
guns firing over trees.

]]>