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

  • Technus@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    185
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      5 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.

    • andrew_bidlaw
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 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.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

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

      • SSTF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          5 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.

        • merc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 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.