From: "Tom C" > I thought it was an interesting study in human nature, photography > aside. > > We make assumptions and draw conclusions from what we see, or we > parrot what we hear or read, and make statements as if they are > indisputable, yet thinking a little harder... > > To your question... Where then are the craters from the canon balls > that must have landed *off* the road, in the likely softer soil? >
It doesn't look like soft soil; looks like hard rocky dirt. Cannon balls would bounce and roll until their momentum was spent. Artillery didn't do much indirect fire in those days. Craters usually come from exploding shells. That looks like all solid shot. > I would guess they don't really weigh THAT much and were moving at a > relatively low velocity. > > Another alternate explanation could possibly be that the road, being > relatively high, slightly sloped and comparatively smooth (less > friction), allowed the canon balls to roll to the low point when they > hit the road. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. Since > they were likely all shot from the same direction and I would guess, > at a relatively oblique angle, their momentum might be such to propel > them off the road. I think the most likely explanation is the photograph of the cleared road is the later one. There are two military reasons for clearing the cannon balls from the road. First, the cannon balls may have been picked up by British soldiers and fired back at the Russians by British artillery. The author cites reports from other correspondents that the British did just that. Muzzle loading cannons don't require precisely fitted shells; the wadding holds the ball in place until the cannon is fired. And the British picked up the ones lying on the road because, soldiers being soldiers, it required less work than digging 'em out of whatever muck might have been in the ditches. That's also an argument for the photo of the cannon balls in the road being the first one, since it's unlikely the soldiers would have cooperated in such an unnecessary task of moving cannon balls into the road so he could take a photograph of them, especially since they'd just have to remove them again. Because the road would have to be cleared. That's the second military reason. If you want to be able to move horse drawn artillery (or cavalry, or any horse drawn equipment) down that road you've got to move those cannon balls. Cannon balls in the road wouldn't be much danger to the wagon wheels, but a horse could break a leg. And whether the British planned to move down that road or not, a good officer would be prepared for that possibility. I understand that at the company level at least the British did have some good officers. Good sergeants anyway. But you wouldn't need to move the cannon balls that were already off the road. Again, Tommy ain't gonna' do any unnecessary work. Hence photo number two showing the cleared road with all those cannon balls in the ditches. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
