Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: Blakely or Scott?  (Read 25606 times)

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Blakely or Scott?
« on: March 14, 2013, 08:48:16 PM »
To All Interested;
     For many years now collectors, historians and authors, incuding myself, have referred to the unique six flanged (ribs) projectile as the Blakely.  Tom Dickey called it a Preston (Fawcett-Preston Manufacturing co.).  That is called identification by association.  The six flanged shells were found with or shot by a Blakely rifle, hence it must be a Blakely shell.  It has a brass percussion fuze in it so the fuze must be a Blakely or Preston fuze, when in fact the fuze was invented and patented by Bashley Britten.
      I was given a copy of Britten's patent so we know that is the correct indentification.  No one has produced a patent by Alexander Blakely to show that the six flanged shell was invented and or patented by Blakely.
      I recently found and have downloaded a 74 page research paper on Capt. Alexander Blakely, RA, written by author/historian Steven Roberts of London, England.  In Mr. Roberts paper he gives evidence of a six flanged shell,invented, but not patented by Cdr. Robert Scott, Rn and  made by the British and sold to France with a French powder train time fuse installed.  The only major differnce between the Port Hudson 'Blakelys' and the French shell is that the French model is sleeved for right hand threads, other characteristics are the same.
      Below I am presenting my findings in order for members to draw their own conclusions as to the inventor of this projectile.
Please comment.
Regards,
John


« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 08:57:05 PM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

pipedreamer65

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2013, 09:40:53 AM »
Was Scott employed by Blakely or was he a private engineer or inventor?  Which came first, the projectile or the gun/rifle?  I see your point but what do you want to do?  Rename the projectile?  How bout Preston-Bakely-Scott-Fawcett-Britten Shell? 

Why didn't Scott patent his design?  Did he work for someone else when he designed it?  My father and his supervisor while working for General Electric invented a new electrical fuse and process for testing fuses.  Other than a handshake, backslap or a way to go, they get no credit for it; General Electric's name is on the patent.

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2013, 10:47:57 AM »
      Scott was a commander in the Royal Navy and invented two known patterns of bolts and shells for the Blakely rifles, the rifles came first. Our craft will normally name a projectile and or fuze by its inventor or who has received a patent for his invention.
Steven Roberts did the research on Blakely and his rifles and his associates who invented, but not necessarily patented their projectiles.  It is documented in Robert's paper that Blakely was content to let others provide shells for his rifles.  Blakely is known to have invented two projectiles.
One was a copper disk sabot and the other was co-invented by Vavasseur.
   Scott did not patent his design probably for the same reasons as did Schenkl, Dyer, Alger and others. When I wrote my book about field artillery ammunition I did not have it copy righted nor did I receive renumeration for my work. Why you say? It was done on government time and at government expense.
    Do I want to see the name of the projectile, having six flanges, changed?  Why, no more so than if one of your inventions was given credit to another who didn't deserve it or was named in error.
     Why do we collect and not do research?  Do we just want to call them cannonballs?, or by their proper names. 
I am really producing information for a thinking person to ponder, not just to accept everything at face value.
     Thanks for your questioning mind. It is questions such as yours that spark good conversation and ideas.
All the Best,
John
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 10:54:38 AM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

joevann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2013, 03:47:33 PM »
In his testimony before the House of Commons in 1861 (I think),  Blakely stated that He used Scott's projectile as it placed a smaller strain on the guns of larger caliber than one with an expanding lead sabot.

pipedreamer65

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2013, 09:14:41 AM »
Thanks for the reply.  Please do not think I am trying to argue with you or anything like that.  It's not the case.  I've just noticed that this particular subject obviously means something to you. 

Of course I would want someone to get the credit they deserve for their invention.

Good job bringing this information to light.

Thanks

joevann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2013, 09:49:36 AM »
Not to put too fine a point on it, I think Blakely is probably appropriate.  It is obviously highly influenced by Scott's design, but is a distinct improvement.  Scott's projectile hade five flanges, a copper stud at the lead of each flange, and the flanges were coated in zinc.  Scott liked his design because he could recover and refire his projectiles, the rifling would allow for thr firing of standard round-ball that he deemed essential for naval warfare (after all he was rifling standard smooth-bore guns), and had a large amount of windage for reduced pressure on the breech (at the loss of range).

Respectfully,

Joe Vann

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2013, 10:05:57 AM »
Joe and All,
    Scott had numerous patterns including three, five, six and more ribs or flanges for his shells:  This might beat the subject to death but here goes:
The following are highlights from Steven Roberts paper on Blakely:

     References to Cdr. Robert Scott,  RN in Steven Roberts paper on Blakely:      

“In addition to the “square” rifling of Britten, Blakely also used the ratchet or triangular, the so-called “centrical”, rifling devised by Commander Robert Scott RN between 1860 and 1862.”
   
     “The 9 pounder mountain gun barrels were short, as with a howitzer, with a 3 inch bore, a 36 inch length, 6½ inch maximum tube diameter, with a slender steel sleeve, a pierced cascabel, a massive trunnion ring and weighed 208 pounds. They were rifled with six Scott “centrical” grooves. The barrels of the 4 pounders were 41 inches long, weighing 226 pounds, with the same thin steel sleeve but lacked a cascabel at the breech. These also had six Scott-pattern rifle grooves.”
 
   “ Blakely was continually improving the specification and materials used in his cannon. His use of “steel” in making the reinforcing breech-hoops on the cast-iron barrel tubes of his muzzle-loading rifles before 1864 might be better interpreted, more accurately as using “wrought-iron”. These hoops were made from spiral wound bars hammered into a cylinder and applied when hot on to the breech end of the inner tube. The early rifling was commonly of saw-tooth or “ratchet” form, as devised by Blakely’s early collaborator, Commander Robert Scott RN, he also used in larger pieces the “square” rifling of Bashley Britten, who designed shot and shell for his ordnance."

    “ In addition, at least one battery of “full size” 3.5 inch Blakely rifles was provided in 1862, having a heavier and longer 66 inch sleeved barrel, with the latest 6 groove ratchet rifling, and notably without a cascabel knob at the breech.
Originally rifled on Royal Navy Commander R A E Scott’s principle with six or seven “centrical” grooves, from 1862 the 3.5 inch guns had six of Blakely’s patented “ratchet” grooves (also used by Commander J M Brooke of the Confederate States Navy). All of these field pieces commonly fired Bashley Britten’s patent projectiles. These cannon, though not their projectiles, were chiefly, if not entirely, manufactured for the Con-federacy by Fawcett, Preston & Company of Liverpool. At least eight batteries of four 3.5 inch Blakely pieces had been provided to the south by 1862.”

     “From 1863 the earthworks of Fort Fisher, defending the vital port of Wilmington, North Carolina, had an 8 inch cast-iron, steel-banded Blakely rifle in its North East Bastion. It had three groove rifling to Scott’s “centrical” pattern, throwing flanged iron bolts up to 130 pounds weight.”

      “Loading and firing was elaborate and slow, just once every fifteen minutes, requiring the man-handling of massive shot, difficult even with the novel muzzle-mounted crane, as well as the elevating and the travers-ing of a 48 ton barrel and carriage. The 20 inch long cylindrical iron bolts were cast with four diagonal flanges to fit the rifling cut to Scott’s pattern; the flanges had to be carefully eased spirally down the barrel to avoid jamming. The original 22 inch long round-nosed, hollow shells of 470 pounds weight had similar flanges. Despite these difficulties it was claimed that each piece could throw one of the 650 pound armour-piercing bolts up to seven miles.” (Bart’s note – these large shells with three to four raised ribs are also called by modern day authors as ‘Blakely’.
   “Blakely was primarily concerned with the construction of ordnance. The detail of rifling and projectiles for such ordnance he was initially ready to leave to others. As regards rifling he originally utilised the system of Commander Robert Scott, RN, the so-called “centrical” or ratchet rifling, as well as, in larger pieces, the “square rifling” of his other close associate, Bashley Britten.”

   “Blakely Gun “No 1”, 1860
The first gun that Captain Blakely demonstrated publically was a large 6.4 inch calibre piece made by Fawcett, Preston & Company in Liverpool. It had a long cast-iron tube, 160 inches long overall, 140 inches in the bore, which was rifled with twenty of Scott’s “ratchets”.”

   “Fawcett Preston also provided the south in 1861 with a long 3.5 inch field gun to another Blakely design; this is almost identical, except in size, to the one provided in 1860 and used against Sumter. It had 66 inch barrel and was rifled with six Scott “centrical” or triangular grooves. The steel breech-sleeve was long and was oval-curved at the end, lacking a cascabel knob, with a maximum diameter of 12¼ inches.”

   “Recently (2011¬), a 3½ inch calibre Scott-pattern, six-flanged shell fitted with a French fuse has been discovered in France, indicating that the acquired Blakely battery was made up of his unique 3½ inch light field guns, as made for Peru and America between 1860 and 1865, the tube rifled with six of Scott’s “centrical” or triangular grooves. The use of Scott flanged shells would be necessitated as Bashley Britten, Blakely’s usual supplier, had left the projectile business by 1870, and that the Captain’s own works were then extinct.”  -end reference notes.

Note from Joen - You may ask why the British government didn't extend contracts to Blakely for use by their Army and Navy?  Simple politics. Sir William Armstrong  and his cannon manufacturing company had won ALL the contrracts, eliminating such other gun makers as Blakely, Whitworth, Jeffery, Haddad and all others.
    Oddly enough, Armstrong was also a member of the Ordnance Select Committe and to avoid having a conflict of interest established  the Elswick Ordnance Company (EOC) to produce all the rifles and ammunition that was not being made at the Royal Laboratories of the Woolwich Arsenal.

I truly hope that I haven't bored anyone with all this but I felt it necessary to bring to light, for the record, little known facts about Cdr. Scott and his designs for the Blakely rifles.


Best Regards,
John
« Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 10:33:56 AM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

Selma Brooke Gunner

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2013, 11:32:16 AM »
John,
     Must say that you didn't bore me with that info as a matter of fact your post was very informative. Thanks.
Gordon Thrasher
Selma Brooke Study
Kinston, Al
selmabrookestudy@yahoo.com

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2013, 01:48:17 PM »
My thanks to Joe Van, Pipedreamer and Selma for their posts and comments.
My question boils down to why has no one found this information before.  Steven Roberts paper is not the only reference to Commander Robert Sctt, Royal Navy.  His shell design competed with Britten, Jeffery and others in trials supervised by the Select committee on Ordnance amd although Britten won out on all categories of tests, none of the participants were given consideration to be awarded a contract.
Best Regards,
John

joevann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2013, 03:03:22 PM »
John, as you know, I am never bored in a conversation with you.  I am willing to give Commander Scott full credit for the sawtooth pattern rifling.  The angle of each groove conforms precisely with those prescribed by Scott in his own submission that I sent you.  However, other than having flanges to conform to Scott's system of rifling, the projectiles shown above don't bear much resemblence to the ones that Scott himself used in trials.  I'm tied up at the moment transfering some files, but will post some drawings of Scott's projectiles in a few.

joevann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2013, 04:34:01 PM »
Scott's projectile

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2013, 05:14:28 PM »
Joe,
  will you give the members the reference where the drawings came from?
The second image is the rifling that applies to the Port Hudson shells.  It may not look exactly like the production piece but ilustrates the design idea.
   The other images represent the large three and four ribbed shells referred to as Blakely shells.
Regards,
John

P.S. Joe look at the second image.  Jack Bell calls it a 8 Inch Preston-Blakely Blind Shell.
  Look at the overall profile it fits the drawing you posted above to a tee.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 10:28:57 PM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

joevann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2013, 06:32:39 PM »
Certainly, Honored Mentor:  The 1st and 4th illustrations are from "The Report of the Ordnance Select Committee" as published in Volume 34 of the Accounts and Papers of the House of Commons in 1863.  The 2nd and 3rd are from "A Treatise on Ordnance and Armor" by Alexander L. Holley, New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1865.  Actually, who first had a thought is not as important to me as who perfected it and made it a reality.  The gun in trial rifled on Scott's plan and using his projectiles burst very early in trials.  He blamed a poor job of rifling at Woolwich, they denied it.  Personally, I think it had more to do with the construction of the gun.  Blakely's of the CW were much stronger.

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2013, 07:21:35 PM »
Dear Pete,
   When Tom Dickey wrote his first volume he referred to the six flanged shells found at Port Hudson as Preston.  Presumablly after Fawvett-Preston Co.
   I noticed that when you and he co-authored the 1993 book that you called them Blakely shells.
    May I ask what documentation or patents that you saw that caused you to change the name from Preston to Blakely?
Would you share your data with our members?
Best Regards,
John

joevann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
    • Email
Re: Blakely or Scott?
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2013, 06:52:20 PM »
After comparing notes and exhaustive research, John Bartelson has convinced me.  The flanged "Blakelys" should properly be called "Scott" Projectiles.  Good work.  I'm hard-headed.