Stephen and Kevin,
I wonder if there is a very interesting subtlety in Stephen latest post. He notes that French and British case was constructed differently and that British case had a shorter range. Could this indicate that British case was designed to rupture in the barrel whereas French was not?
I also noted the reference to lead solder as the method for closing the French cannister. Even if the lead did not have time enough to melt in the few milliseconds between ignition of the charge and when the projectile left the muzzle, it would have time to seriously weaken the seams, I would think to the point that when the projectile left the muzzle that the cannister would deform and rupture. I also note the reference to cannisters not bursting at all.
Can either of you provide reasonably detailed descriptions of how the British and French cannisters were constructed during the period? I am starting to wonder if you are BOTH correct, but that we have been speaking of cannister as a general term, when in fact we need to be careful to specify at least by nationality - and possible particular model of munition and/or year of construction. I would like to know if I am going doing a useful track or not.
In short, I think the conversation has rolled several distinct technical discussions into one.
As a minor sidebar, I have never thought much about cannister range since most of my research interests fall well within any possible range, but now that I am pondering Stephen's statement about the British having shorter range it makes me think that every set of wargame rules I remember seeing only had one range for cannister (or at best a light/medium/heavy spread of ranges). This gets me to wondering about the range of howitezer cannister as well by calibre, nationality and system.