Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • We are both delighted and excited that

    2018-10-22

    We are both delighted and excited that this is the second time has published scientific papers presented at an International Symposium on Ballistics (ISB). This particular issue publishes papers presented at the 29th ISB, co-chaired by Ian Cullis and Clive Woodley, QinetiQ, and supported by the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA, ) under the auspices of the International Ballistics Society (IBS, ).
    Introduction As one of the larger and well documented surviving medieval cannons, Mons Meg stands in pride of place at Edinburgh Castle and in its history (Fig. 1). Constructed around 1449 in Mons, part of what is now modern day Belgium, at the request of Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy [2], the bombard was intended as a wedding present to King James II of Scotland, who, in 1457 married Duke Philips\' great niece, Mary of Gueldres. Customs records date Mons Meg\'s first arrival on Scottish shores around 1457 [3], seemingly first taking place in battle at the siege of Roxburgh Castle in 1460, although this is not yet backed up in any way other than stories from the time [3]. The earliest written record of her active role in service is during the 10 day bombardment of Norham Castle in 1513 [4] during which she is reported to have destroyed both the castle\'s inner and outer wall. Her last use as a defensive weapon was during the Lang Siege 1571–73, after which she was only used for ceremonial duties.
    The cannon Mons Meg is constructed of wrought iron, sometimes called charcoal iron, a highly variable iron, both in chemical composition and slag content. However it scd1 is a very ductile metal and the levels of slag have made the iron extremely resistant to corrosion [5]. It measures over 4 m in length, with a bore of 50 cm and weighing over 6000 kg [3], easily making it one of the largest (by calibre) stone firing cannons in history. It is divided into 2 distinct parts, the powder chamber, and the barrel. The powder chamber measures 1.16 m in length, and varies from 0.59 to 0.53 m in diameter (Fig. 2). It is likely that the powder chamber is constructed from one billet of scd1 iron which has been hammer-beaten on a mandrel to achieve the correct inner dimensions. The barrel measures 2.88 m in length externally, and varies from 0.63–0.75 m in diameter. It is constructed from 25 staves running the length of the barrel which are covered and held in place by 33 hoops. These would have been heated in a furnace and placed over the staves, as these cooled phototropism would tighten to hold the barrel together and fasten the staves to the powder chamber. Mons Meg fired cannonballs roughly 490 mm in diameter. During Mons Meg\'s operation lifetime in the 15th and 16th centuries, iron shot was not available and the cannonballs were made from local stone. There are records [7] which indicate both sandstone and granite shot was used to give mass ranges of 130–140 kg and 160–170 kg for the different stone, respectively. Black powder was used as the propellant charge for the bombard but there is no specific data about the amount used for Mons Meg. A minimum and maximum likely propellant mass [7] of 29.5 kg and 34 kg, respectively, was assumed.
    Internal ballistics
    External ballistics
    Terminal ballistics
    Conclusions and recommendations
    Introduction The U.S. military has a need for more powerful propellants with balanced/stoichiometric amounts of fuel and oxidants to provide an advantage to its warfighters. The useful life of each gun is limited either by the effects of barrel erosion on its performance or metal fatigue. The enlargement of the origin of rifling or the down bore area can affect ammunition performance resulting in range and accuracy loss, fuze malfunctions, excessive torsional impulse and excessive muzzle flash and blast overpressure. With increased demands for guns that fire faster, farther, and more accurately, barrel erosion has worsened and become a major limitation in developing better guns [1–3]. For example, with advanced propellants 155 mm artillery barrels may only survive a couple hundred rounds before they must be replaced at a cost of over $70,000 [4].