Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: Fuse Manufacturer Question  (Read 7294 times)

callicles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
    • Email
Fuse Manufacturer Question
« on: August 26, 2017, 09:58:51 PM »
Emike,

In your fuses section, you have a Bormann fuse along with its corresponding under plug, both modified (drilled through) to accept a papertime fuse. The link is below.

My question is: do you think the Bormann fuse is actually Confederate-manufactured, or do you think it was US manufactured but ended up at a Confederate arsenal?

The reason I ask is because the fuse has the 90 degree "pie-slice" on its face. It has sometimes been asserted that only Union Bormanns have this particular feature. I don't think anyone knows for certain, but I thought that maybe if yours was positively known to have been manufactured by the Confederacy, it might shed some light on this.

Anyway, I just wanted to get your thoughts on it to see if new insights have come to light in the past several years regarding that obscure issue. Thanks!

http://www.bulletandshell.com/Items/item.php?id=U00482
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 01:31:16 PM by callicles »

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2017, 12:28:03 PM »
I really have no idea.  The fuse looks to be in nice shape beneath the baked on red clay, but I do not know how to get the brickwork off.  We could see the face better but it may take a lot of work to do.  It does have the "high lip" edge.  I know who dug it and where, but I don't know how to be certain of where the original fuse was manufactured.

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2017, 01:01:30 PM »
As the Bormann fuse was invented by Capt. Charles Bormann of Belgium and adapted by other countries including the US government around 1852, there were probably a good number of places in the world that made them.  Do we know if the ever resourceful Confederates imported any of them?  Did some come from England or Belgium?
Best,
Carl

callicles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2017, 01:22:05 PM »
Thanks.

Certainly interesting, Carl. And Thanks, emike.

I didn't think of the "high lip."  Has Pete been able to examine it? I wonder if the "Pipe Hump" is visible enough to his, or others', trained eyes to determine if it fits within the "Confederate-manufactured" category based on that single observation? If not, I hope Pete will chime in on the issue. It's all very interesting to me, and I think the hump might be visible enough for an expert to make such a determination.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 01:25:03 PM by callicles »

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2017, 12:08:11 AM »
"Good eye" there, Callicles! :)  That Bormann fuze does indeed have the 90-degree pie slice. It also has the "large pipehump."  So it is definitely a Federal form.  I think there are two possible answers to the apparent contradiction in a yankee Bormann fuze being drilled out Confederate-style for conversion to paper timefuze.
1- First, just for certainty, if that fuze belonged to me I would carefully remove the red clay in the "apparent" drillhole, to determine with certainty that it IS a drillhole and not just a "blowout."
2- If the cleaning proves it to be an actual drillhole, the answer to the apparent contradiction is the fact that just before the war started, several Southern states ordered Bormann fuzes and/or machines for manufacturing them from Northern manufacturers... and a good quantity did get delivered before combat canceled the deliveries.  Giving credit where it is due... Mike "Woodenhead" O'Donnell has found online digital copies of original documents proving those pre-war Southern state orders and deliveries did occur.

  By the way... the photos show its threads run all the way to the top... it does NOT have the "high lip" (threadless at the top) form.

Regards,
Pete
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 12:11:16 AM by Pete George »

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2017, 11:05:05 AM »
Here are pics with the clay earth mostly removed from the hole:


callicles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2017, 11:22:11 PM »
Thanks Pete,

I would be interested in seeing documents regarding the South's purchasing Bormann fuses and/ or equipment from the North before  hostilities began. Are those online or in a book?

My curiosity began after posting a picture on this website about 5 years ago of a 12-pound case-shot I found.  I had it sectioned and posted the pictures on this site.

I learned from comments posted that it exhibited the same contradictions mentioned above in your (Pete's) post. The main indicator was due to the projectile containing a gasket rebate (a corrective manufacturing procedure used only by the Confederates) but having a Yankee-made Bormann fuse (90-degree Pie Slice). That halved projectile can be seen here:

http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=586.0

At that time (2012), it was uncertain whether or not such fuses were purchased by the south or whether it was captured. Such uncertainty raised doubts (in some peoples' mind) as to whether
Or not the 90-degree pie-slice fuse was only Union-made.

So this is why I'm rather excited to see that there is evidence indicating just how my Confederate projectile ended up with a Yankee fuse. I know that I'm probably not the only detectorist who has such an item in their collection.

Having access to the information Mr. O'Donnell found would be helpful to me (and maybe others) in preparing a proper provenance of such an item.

Anyway, thanks to all who responded. I just feel like I'm closer to now better understanding my particular case-shot I've struggled to understand for 5 years now.

Any further thoughts would also be welcomed!
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 11:24:44 PM by callicles »

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2017, 01:01:08 AM »
  Callicles, apparently Mike "Woodenhead" O'Donnell does not read this forum every day, so I've sent him an email heads-up about your request.

  Emike, thanks for cleaning the dirt out of the central hole on that fuze, and for making and posting the very good closeup photos.  The third one appears to confirm that the hole is indeed a drilled hole, not a "blow-out."  Also, the fuze appears to not have been punched in its time-index plate ifor activation.

  It is indeed quite a curiosity.  Confederate-made Bormann fuzes were condemned as dangerously defective, and got salvaged by central drilling for conversion to a timefuze adapter. Why the Confederates would do that to an unfired yankee-made Bormann fuze is a mystery.  Maybe this is an 1860/61 Southern purchase (or made on purchased Northern equipment), and it was judged as being too old to trust, so it got converted by drilling.

Regards,
Pete
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 02:01:52 AM by Pete George »

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2017, 07:59:36 PM »
Many shops, North and South, made Bormann fuzes which explains some of the confusing variations. Southern craftsmen produced molds and dies based upon ordnance drawings and samples sent out by the Richmond Arsenal. It appears they prescribed a single wrench slot and 5 1/2 seconds maximum range. Otherwise, they took liberties with the smaller details such as the size and shape of the numbers, thickness of the lips, and shape of the "pie slice." Similar variations are seen in the artillery projectiles made at different locations while working from a single set of drawings.

There were few Southern sources during the first 6 months of 1861. A March 1861 Richmond newspaper claimed that Bormann fuzes were being made locally by the Virginia Arsenal. At that time Tredegar, a private company, was widely recognized as the 'king' of Southern ordnance. They received numerous large orders for cannon balls of all calibers from states like Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina and others. Just about everyone requested the modern Bormann fuzes. Those white metal igniters were not all that difficult to make, but with its workforce stretched to the limit, Tredegar found it easier to purchase quantities from a New York military supplier, Cooper & Pond. This firm had partnered with the Richmond ironworks in 1860 to sell about 10,000 of Virginia's obsolete muskets to the northern market. Cooper & Pond did not actually make the fuzes, but subcontracted the work to a local manufactory. Field reports of their performance were very unsatisfactory. About two weeks after Fort Sumter was attacked, Tredegar began making and marketing their own version of the Bormann fuze. You can find examples of these, as well as some of the earlier Cooper & Pond Bormann fuzes, in many of the 10 pounder Read-Parrott shells dug from the 1862 Peninsula and 2nd Manassas campaigns. Only the Confederates made these. Parrott never put a Bormann fuze with a maximum range of about one mile in any of his rifle shells capable of travelling more than two miles.

I'm digging out my documents now and will post absolute proof of the above accompanied by photos in the near future.

Woodenhead

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2017, 11:15:28 PM »
Woodenhead:  Wow.  What great information!
Best,
Carl

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2017, 12:25:11 PM »
Here is a more detailed answer to the questions about the Northern manufacture of Bormann fuzes found in Southern shells. It primarily focuses on Tredegar's role because I have been studying CS artillery associated items from the Virginia theater for Thunderbolts. As tensions mounted during late 1860, a number of ordnance experts from Richmond, including Robert Archer and James Burton, were allowed to visit Northern arsenals and armories to study their output and production methods. The first photo below is a page of information about the Bormann fuze copied at the Watervilet Arsenal by a Virginia officer. I found it in the wartime state records. A March 4, 1861, article in the Daily Richmond Dispatch reported: "This new military contrivance for exploding shells at given times is now being manufactured in great quantities at the Virginia Armory.

Meanwhile, there was considerable munitions trade with Northern manufactories. This had been a traditional practice by the agrarian Southern states that continued up until the day Fort Sumter was fired on. On Nov. 23, 1860, the Daily Dispatch quoted the New York Journal of Commerce, "The only people gathering any advantage from the present crisis are the manufacturers and sellers of arms." The article mentions specific shipments of rifles, revolvers, cannon carriages, etc., and concluded "A firm in New York receives from 20 to 50 orders daily from South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia."

This brings us to Tredegar's fuze production as things heated up in early 1861. A flood of orders for 6, 12 and 24 pounder cannonballs for several Southern states and individual militia organizations began to arrive in December 1860. Most wanted Bormann fuzes. Tredegar had never manufactured those items and getting them from the Virginia Armory was not an option. Relations between Dimmock's state ordnance department and the Ironworks were frosty at best in 1861. Virginia mostly avoided doing business with Tredegar, instead contracting with other local foundries for their cannon and extra projectiles. This latent hostility was a primary reason for the early development of two different 3 inch shells and bolts, the beloved Archer and Burton, which we can discuss in detail in a future posting.

So, Tredegar turned to their New York associates, Cooper & Pond, a military supplier who acquired many items like port fires, friction primers, U.S Navy watercap and Bormann fuzes for Tredegar. All went well for a couple of months as the great ironworks dispatched as many as 10,000 Bormann-fuzed projectiles to Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and others. Then complaints arrived from Charleston. The second photo below shows Tredegar's response dated March 22, 1861. The second paragraph is revealing. "We are sorry that any of the fuzes shipped you are objectionable, but as we wrote you heretofore, we had to get them made outside our shop & consequently could not pay that attention to their functioning(?) as would like to have done." Robert Archer, a full partner in the company, almost certainly wrote this letter. As the 'primary' for all projectile related matters, he obviously proceeded to field test the northern Bormann fuzes. One after another they burned thru the top. On April 2, 1861, he fired off an angry note to Cooper and Pond (3rd photo below). The former Navy officer got right to the point. "The Bormann fuzes you sent us are entirely worthless. They appear to be improperly made, as the metal covering the magazine, which is intended to be blown off by the explosion, is made of ordinary plate tin instead of some thin soft metal. The consequence is that in several we have tried, not one exploded at the bottom, or burnt thru the thin plate, but all invariably exploded thru the top, which seems to be the weakest part of the fuze." Outraged to the end, Archer closed with this advice: "It will be wise for you to get an explanation of this matter from the manufacturer."

Two days after he penned the previous missive to Cooper & Pond, Archer sent the fourth letter pictured below to his prewar Army friend, Maj. George Ramsey, a leading authority with the U.S. Ordnance Dept. His complaint about the Northern Bormanns is clearly stated and his questions suggest he was in the process of deciding to have the ironworks manufacture its own version of the popular white metal time fuzes. He first asked "if the Bormann fuze is now perforated thru the thin plate below the magazine so as to ensure the ignition of the charge in the shell?" Archer explained the problem, "I saw several tested that were made in N. York & not perforated and not one gave way at the bottom, but burst through the upper plate." The close of Archers letter suggests he is seeking additional info to launch his own fuze shop. "What size hole do you drill through the brass plug upon which the fuze is seated?"

There is no record of a reply by Maj. Ramsey. With the attack on Ft. Sumter days away, it is unlikely. Starting around May 1, 1861, Tredegar began producing thousands of their own Bormann fuzes. Example of both versions can be found in the noses of the 10 pounder Read-Parrotts made by Tredegar for the state of Virginia during the spring of 1861.

Woodenhead

 

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2017, 05:43:10 PM »
I recall many passionate arguments with Pete and others about the origin of the Bormann-fuzed Parrotts until revealing records were discovered. It is now apparent that Robert Parrott, who made all of the northern Parrott shells, never put a Bormann fuze in any of the rifle shells manufactured by his West Point Foundry. He considered as much, promising to supply the state of Georgia with 3,500 "Dyer" bolts and "4,000 'Dyer' case or shrapnel shot to be filled with Bormann fuses," in a contract for sixteen 3.3 inch Parrott Rifles signed in New York City on Dec. 22, 1860. The guns had 12 lands and grooves suitable for a soft lead sabot. The Virginia Arsenal's decision a few months later to use Bormann fuzes to explode many of their new 2.9 inch Parrott shells and 3 inch Burton (aka, "long Archers) shells was influenced by this thinking. So too, was the state's decision to rely upon lead sabots, put 12 grooves in their 3 inch Rifles, and 'fix' the cartridge bags on all their rifled field ammunition (not sure about their Read-Parrotts) during the first half of 1861. The first of the many 3 inch Dyer shells (copying the English Britten pattern) produced for the U.S. Army around this time had cartridge bags fixed to the bottom of the lead (or white metal) sabots. Gorgas and the CS Ordnance Bureau ended this practice in Virginia when they took over in Richmond during June 1861. By the way, the quotation marks around "Dyer" were added by Robert Parrott because his foundry was making these shells employing his own patented cast-on sabot. He said as much during the postwar corruption trial of Gen. Dyer. The shady Ord. Dept. officer ordered that particular version of Parrott's design to be manufactured while arranging for the government to purchase thousands. Yes, it was a rigged deal. Dyer later marketed copies of the Britten shell and the Absterdam shell to the U.S. Ord. Dept. Both Dickey/George (1993 edition) and Col. Beimeck call these shells "Burtons."

Secession in December 1860 caused Parrott to halt delivery of the 3.3 inch Rifles to Georgia. The same guns and ammunition was probably among those sold to the Union Committee of New York City in April 1861. In a May 11, 1861, letter, Parrott discussed the deal with Col. Ripley commanding the U.S. Ordnance Department. The inventor acknowledged his foundry "have made for them a large number of projectiles of the kind known as Captain Dyer's." Of particular interest: "The agreement which these gentlemen assumed contemplated the use of the Bormann fuse - but in consequence of this fuse being only arranged for 5 seconds & under, it is not applicable to projectiles of so great range as to require fuses of 10 or more seconds."

At the same time Parrott wrote this letter, Tredegar was busy completing an order from Virginia for 5,000 Parrott projectiles. This quantity was based on the belief that, during a long campaign, it was necessary to have 400 projectiles ready for each of the 13 (2.9 inch) Parrott Rifles the state had purchased from the West Point Foundry in 1860. One hundred shells had been initially included by the manufacturer for each gun. Most of Tredegar's Parrotts were wood-fuzed shells with 500 to 1,000 Bormann-fuzed and several hundred solid iron bolts. The first image below is a early July note from Tredegar to Col. Gorgas and the new CS Ordnance Bureau informing them that Col. Dimmock, Virginia's Ordnance chief, had previously ordered "5,000 Parrott shell" which they will "transfer to you." Of course, this included many fitted with Bormann fuzes. We know these had already been manufactured and issued because they were used in a minor engagement at Big Bethel on June 10, 1861. On the Peninsula, east of Richmond, a Virginia militia battery led by Maj. George Randolph, future CS Sec. of War, and some infantry blunted a Federal advance. Randolph had 5 smoothbore 12 pounder Dahlgren Guns (purchased privately by the Richmond Howitzers before the war) and a single 10 pounder Parrott Rifle - one of the original 13. He reported firing 80 rounds from the Parrott and complained about their passing thru the enemy lines without exploding. Visiting the battlefield just days after leading his 5th New York in the battle, Col. Gouvernor Warren examined some of these Rebel Parrott shells. "The enemy had a rifled gun or two," he wrote a few days later, "shooting bolts of about the caliber of 4 pounders and eight inches long, with soft metal bases. Some of them were hollow, with a Bormann fuze at the point, and all did not burst."

The Confederate Ordnance Bureau, which assumed control of ammunition production around mid-June, 1861, did not order additional Parrotts with Bormann fuzes. In early 1862, the CS Navy ordered several hundred of 3 inch caliber from Tredegar and Samson & Pae for their new Parrott boat guns. The last of these projectiles had lathe dimples. Afterwards, the CS Navy made their own. None of the earlier Bormann-fuzed Read-Parrotts made in Richmond had lathe dimples. In fact, none of the Parrott, Read, Archer, Burton or any other CS rifle shells made prior to around mid February or March 1862 had lathe dimples or show any obvious signs of having been turned. [If any of you collectors have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.] The only Parrott shells I've seen from early sites with deep-cut lathe lines on the bearing surface were made by the West Point Foundry. Robert Parrott was turning most of his rifle shells during 1860 and early 1861. Quite a few of his 3.3 inch "Dyers" have obvious lathe lines. This helps explain the insistence by some earlier collectors that many or all of the Bormann-fuzed Parrott shells were Federal.           

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2017, 06:01:02 PM »
Sorry, I meant to click "Preview" and instead hit "Post." Here are the accompanying images.
1) Early July note from Tredegar informing the new CS Ordnance Bureau that the ironworks has already made 5,000 Parrott shells for the state of Virginia.
2) Blown-out Bormann fuze believed to be one of those made in New York and supplied by Cooper & Pond during spring 1861. Tredegar put thousands of these in their new shells. Many of these 2.9 inch Read-Parrotts have been note with similarly damaged fuzes.
3) In better condition is this Bormann fuze that burned thru the top of a 2.9 inch Read-Parrott dug by Dick Hammond along the 2nd Manassas campaign. I believe this is the faulty design supplied by Cooper & Pond.
4) Totally different Bormann fuze in the nose of a 2.9 inch Read-Parrott dug by Tom McLaughlin around Freeman's Ford from the start of the 2nd Manassas campaign. I have photographed a few of this style with the top intentionally built-up as if to ensure it did not burn thru. None did. The numbers are distorted. I strongly suspect this was the style Tredegar began producing by the thousands starting around May 1, 1861.

I am completely open to challenges or questions about anything previously stated. It is a very interesting period in CS shell production with some unresolved issues.

Woodenhead 

callicles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2017, 09:53:58 PM »
Woodenhead,

Thank you so very much for the great information. It will be very useful to me in writing a provenance for my 12-pound case-shot.

I know the conversation will likely turn to the issue dealing with Parrots. But I hope you will take time to answer another quick question.

In your first response, you stated that Southern craftsmen of the Bormann fuses "took liberties . . . with the shape of the 'pie slice.'"  In your expert opinion, would you put the 90-degree "pie slice" feature of Bormann fuses within this context, or is the 90-degree "pie-slice" a feature only found in Federal-made Bormann fuses?

I hope my question makes sense. Anyway, thanks again for the valuable information!

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: Fuse Manufacturer Question
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2017, 11:02:15 AM »
I can give my current opinion, but I have to admit that I've paid little attention to the Federal artillery ammunition. There is so much to learn about the Confederate's, and I've primarily focused on field projectiles from the Virginia theater. Molds and dies for those fuzes were made in so many different locations like Nashville, Memphis, Mobile, Georgia, etc., that a minor variation in the pie slice would not be unexpected. Also, the South imported thousands of Bormann fuzes. Nonetheless, if the 90 degree pie slice was part of the U.S. Ord. Dept's official pattern, I would lean in that direction anytime one turned up - even if it was in a shell that appears to be Confederate. In the 30 years since I began photographing CS projectiles, I have amassed a study collection of more than 1,000 documented shells (multiple views of each) enabling me to compare them side-by-side and come up with conclusions. Something similar needs to be done with the Federal ammunition. Right now I would go with Pete George's opinion and run the question by Jack Melton.

W.H.