That's true but Lt. Henry Shrapnel's invention changed that. He saw the great uses of the case shot and endeavoured to invent something that allowed it's use at longer ranges. Thus he invented a thin hollowed out cannon ball with a timed fuse on it. The explosives inside the ball was just enough to penetrate the cannon shall and send the balls inside spraying outward. If the fuse was set properply the shells could be very useful and increased the range of case shot from 300m to 1100m. He first called it "Spherical Case shot". But people called it shrapnel after him instead and that's where shrapnel came from. The British adopted it in 1803 and Wellington even used it against Napoleon, most notably at Waterloo.
Yupp it's true that the British began to use such rounds in 1808 and definitely put them into use at Waterloo. However they weren't standard in armies until decades later. My comment was merely that you can't claim that explosive shells were standard (or even used very often in relation to the other types of ammo) in the period of the game. Neither fans nor the devs should have any misconceptions that roundshot and canister (along with Grapeshot) were
thetypes of artillery ammunition used in the timeframe of our game.
The British were introducing many new technologies into the Napoleonic battlefields, however it should be noted that their involvment in the conflict, troopwise was very small compared to the other great powers involved. Even Wellingtons famous "British" army at Waterloo had relatively few Brits in it. The British had a relatively small army compared to the major continental powers. This must also be taken into concideration. Had the British gone for a mass conscription army the way France did the quality of their troops would have been very different for example. The same thing applies with technology in a sense. If you have a huge army it's harder to supply all your troops with the best and/or latest weapons.
And you're still forgetting that howitzers did fire exploding shells.
Yes but this discussion is about cannons, no?
But seriously I'd really like to know how a large scale battle played out. Does anyone here know the ratio of cannon/howitzers on the field? I know mortars where relatively few and where pretty hard to use against fast moving targets (however if one shell exploded over enemy troops there'd be alot of hurt). My preconception from all I've read is that there where definitely more cannon that howizers. Most armies also used 6pdr howizers who couldn't really be said to pack that much of a punch since the rounds did more concussion than shrapnell damage (except for maybe the Russians who used their famed 12pdr 'Unicorn' Howitzers).
My buttom line is, yes - there where definitely explosive shells in the timeframe but they were seldom fired from cannon and never did the kind of shrapnell pwnage Roy posed about
. Why would Wellingtons troops have ducked (or any troops bothered to build redoubts or take cover in dikes) if armies of the day fielded that kind of killing power? Most cannons fired roundshot or canister and those where the two types of ammuniton who affected the Napoleonic battlefield the most. If you fast forward 50 years however the picture is very different. Just ask Pickett.
Sincerely yours,
.
