Page 364 of 1500
LOG!
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:14 pm
by Nikademus
want one....but i'll have to settle for serving wood.
[:D]
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:47 pm
by BrucePowers
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Bricks'r'us? [;)]
According to the National Park Service, there are 16 million bricks in Fort Jefferson.
What protection (if any) wold bricks provide?
Leo "Apollo11"
These forts were designed during the age of round shot, prior to the advent of rifled artillery and shells. The bricks would have held up fairly well. Also the fort had 10" Columbiads and 15" Rodmans. The ship mounted guns would have been 24 and 32 pounders. The 10" columbiads fired 128 pound rounds out to almost 5000 yards. They would have out-ranged the naval guns and were mounted on land.
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:44 am
by Dixie
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Hi guys. I see this place has changed little. [:D]
Change is bad.
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:03 am
by DuckofTindalos
Welp, burn in hell Jerry Sandusky, you piece of shit.
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:23 am
by Grollub
Good morning friends.
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:08 pm
by Treetop64
ORIGINAL: Dixie
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Hi guys. I see this place has changed little. [:D]
Change is bad.
There's an old sea story in the Navy about a ship's captain who inspected his sailors, and afterward told the chief boson's mate that his men smelled bad.
The captain suggested perhaps it would help if the sailors would change their underwear occasionally.
The chief responded, "Aye, aye sir, I'll see to it immediately!"
The chief went straight to the sailors berth deck and announced, "The captain thinks you guys smell bad and wants you to change your underwear. "Pittman, you change with Jones; McCarthy, you change with Witkowski; and Brown, you change with Schultz. Now get to it!!!
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:23 pm
by Apollo11
Hi all,
Good day!
Leo "Apollo11"
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:27 pm
by Apollo11
Hi all,
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
According to the National Park Service, there are 16 million bricks in Fort Jefferson.
What protection (if any) wold bricks provide?
These forts were designed during the age of round shot, prior to the advent of rifled artillery and shells. The bricks would have held up fairly well. Also the fort had 10" Columbiads and 15" Rodmans. The ship mounted guns would have been 24 and 32 pounders. The 10" columbiads fired 128 pound rounds out to almost 5000 yards. They would have out-ranged the naval guns and were mounted on land.
OK!
BTW, in Europe in the time past 18th century the fort walls were made at "angles" (i.e. star shaped and such) - was this the case here as well?
Leo "Apollo11"
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:27 pm
by USSAmerica
Good morning - Tithe. [&o][&o][&o]
RE: The Thread!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:31 pm
by JWE
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
Ok Smart aleck[:D]. What was the purpose of this structure?
Can't believe nobody got it yet. That's where they heated the shot.
RE: The Thread!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:18 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
Ok Smart aleck[:D]. What was the purpose of this structure?
Can't believe nobody got it yet. That's where they heated the shot.
Warspite1
See post 7242
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:22 pm
by BrucePowers
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
What protection (if any) wold bricks provide?
These forts were designed during the age of round shot, prior to the advent of rifled artillery and shells. The bricks would have held up fairly well. Also the fort had 10" Columbiads and 15" Rodmans. The ship mounted guns would have been 24 and 32 pounders. The 10" columbiads fired 128 pound rounds out to almost 5000 yards. They would have out-ranged the naval guns and were mounted on land.
OK!
BTW, in Europe in the time past 18th century the fort walls were made at "angles" (i.e. star shaped and such) - was this the case here as well?
Leo "Apollo11"
Yes.
RE: The Thread!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:22 pm
by JWE
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
Ok Smart aleck[:D]. What was the purpose of this structure?
Can't believe nobody got it yet. That's where they heated the shot.
Warspite1
See post 7242
Aaarggh! that was 28 posts ago. You actually expect people to read all this stuff??
Woof !! [8D]
RE: The Thread!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:36 pm
by BrucePowers
Well no. Actually I don't[:D][8D]
RE: The Thread!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:03 pm
by Don Bowen
My lips got tired just reading this page.
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:05 pm
by JWE
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
These forts were designed during the age of round shot, prior to the advent of rifled artillery and shells. The bricks would have held up fairly well. Also the fort had 10" Columbiads and 15" Rodmans. The ship mounted guns would have been 24 and 32 pounders. The 10" columbiads fired 128 pound rounds out to almost 5000 yards. They would have out-ranged the naval guns and were mounted on land.
OK!
BTW, in Europe in the time past 18th century the fort walls were made at "angles" (i.e. star shaped and such) - was this the case here as well?
Leo "Apollo11"
Yes.
The Vauban star pattern European forts were set up to define flanking and cross fire against folks trying to assault the works. Kinda different thing for harbor defenses. Most were just big blocks of brick. But 6 feet of brick was a skoosh better that 2 feet of oak, so ...
The deal with harbor forts was the gunners (ok, I'm assuming a modicum of smarts, here) had range marks, and range tables, and a stable gun platform, and could 'relatively' repeatably shoot 'accurately' at a target. At least that was the theory. For the most part it worked. Sumter was operational till almost the very end.
It wasn't till the US Civil War era that harbor forts became marginalized. Naval weapons became more powerful and their platforms became more locally maneuverable. A real bitch for a gunner; a lot harder to hit, and the counter-battery tends to hurt. Soon as somebody figured out this thing called penetration, and put some beefy Naval Rifles on a warship, that was pretty much the end of the Brick-and-Mortar Harbor Defense Fort.
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:12 pm
by Apollo11
Hi all,
Zssssssssss time... [>:][>:][>:]
Leo "Apollo11"
RE: The Thread!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:29 pm
by BrucePowers
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
My lips got tired just reading this page.
[:D][:D]
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:31 pm
by BrucePowers
ORIGINAL: JWE
The Vauban star pattern European forts were set up to define flanking and cross fire against folks trying to assault the works. Kinda different thing for harbor defenses. Most were just big blocks of brick. But 6 feet of brick was a skoosh better that 2 feet of oak, so ...
The deal with harbor forts was the gunners (ok, I'm assuming a modicum of smarts, here) had range marks, and range tables, and a stable gun platform, and could 'relatively' repeatably shoot 'accurately' at a target. At least that was the theory. For the most part it worked. Sumter was operational till almost the very end.
It wasn't till the US Civil War era that harbor forts became marginalized. Naval weapons became more powerful and their platforms became more locally maneuverable. A real bitch for a gunner; a lot harder to hit, and the counter-battery tends to hurt. Soon as somebody figured out this thing called penetration, and put some beefy Naval Rifles on a warship, that was pretty much the end of the Brick-and-Mortar Harbor Defense Fort.
Quite True
RE: THE THREAD!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:35 pm
by BrucePowers
The bastions on the ends of each wall in the US harbor forts had howitzers to provide flanking fire if the walls were being assaulted.