My point was that those that hadn't exploded wouldn't and would still look like solid shot. The would weigh considerably less than solid shot and would be even less likely than solid shot to create craters at the end of their flight.. Historically Russian shells were notoriously unreliable. (In an age when all shells were unreliable that's saying something). I guess you have to spell everything out.
John Sessoms wrote: > From: "P. J. Alling" > > >> If you read the article a quote from the photographer about a fuse >> would imply at least some were exploding shells, >> > > > Some, but not all, > > ... and exploding shells of that day often did not explode (or exploded > too soon). Fused shells were not reliable. For one thing, there was a > good chance the fuse would just get pulled out if the shell hadn't > exploded by the time it hit the ground. > > But you can see that most of what's in the photos is solid shot. Any > exploding shells that had actually exploded wouldn't look like solid > shot, although the ones that didn't might. > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- 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.
