Musket Test

[archangel1]

I found this interesting clip over on Flintlock and Tomahawk.  Doesn't look like some of those early FIW forts would provide much protection against musket-armed enemies.  Arrows, maybe.  Mind you, the results may be slightly skewed as a result of the test being done with modern powder.  Still...

[Viper]

Pretty crazy stuff.
Seems like the stockade was more visual cover than actual solid protection.

You're right it would probably stop arrows, but then arrows can be fired over the stockade into the fort.

The bit about the weather was pretty remarkable, you would think that having some kind of shelter or basic rain cover where your defenders are going to be placed would be a good idea.

[Gluteus Maximus]

The effects of rounds hitting cover are often ignored. Wood splinters, as shown here, or shards of rock can easily disable or even kill people not otherwise harmed by the rounds themselves.

The recreation of the section of fort itself was quite surprising to me. I'd always assumed the logs were big, thick and straight as telegraph poles. These look quite small, crokked and puny, but as they used archaeological evidence to construct it it must be right 

Great video, though and stuff like this makes YouTube well worth having 

[Silent Invader]

Ooooh that's a really good video!   

Looking at the Fort Necessity website...... "During the last two days of May and the first three days of June, he built a circular palisaded fort, which he called Fort Necessity."

Given how speedily the fort was constructed, and assuming limited tools such as tomahawks, working with small dia timber was probably all they could do.  That they failed to install overhead protection from rain (there was a small cabin in the centre but that was it) with the obvious implications this had for wet powder, suggested that they were prioritising against time pressure (they expected imminent attack from a much larger force).

It's purely hypothesis as I haven't visited the site but removing the small dia trees from the woodland which surrounded the fort could have pushed back the boundary of cover available to the attackers, meaning longer range and ..... perhaps, as I really don't know..... lesser impact force of ball against timber.

Also, I think most of the defenders were actually in (rain-filled!) ditches / behind mounds of earth in front of the palisade, which would have provided better protection (albeit a rain-soaked, mud-covered demoralising experience!).

Does make me wonder if the defenders had expected rain?!

By the by, and it's no comparison, one summer I lived in woodland for two weeks and thought I'd be able to build myself a small 6 x 4 cabin using only hand tools .... it didn't happen as I ran out of time (and that was without the threat of attack!!!!).  I did manage a shelter though.

[Aaron]

Fort Necessity is about an hour from my house and I have been there a few times. SI is correct in that it was built hurriedly. In addition to not having any real engineers with him, the regulars with Washington (one of the independent companies) refused to do any of the labor! The pallisade consisted of split logs instead of whole logs that would normally been used and they are not butted right up against one another so there are many gaps a keen marksman could exploit.

On the other hand, from all accounts the French and their Indian allies remained in the woodline, so the tests that were performed were at considerably shorter range than the real thing. Indians also tended to favor smaller caliber weapons as they conserved powder and lead. I'm no expert, but I'd guess the test weapons are mostly in the .58+ caliber range (the Brown Bess is .75). I also wonder how much protection the thick wool uniforms and multiple layers of clothing would have given from the splinters.

Necessity has a great visitor's center even if the fort itself is a bit of a disappointment fort necessity. On the plus side the much more impressive Fort Ligonier http://www.fortligonier.org/ is about a 30 minute drive away.

[Silent Invader]

Thanks for that additional info Aaron, as it really adds to the video clip. 

<envy>And living only an hour from such sites!</envy>

[archangel1]

The closest to me is just downtown.  Fort York, from the 1812 period, is less than an hour away by transit.  Burnt by the Yanks in 1813 and rebuilt later that year, it contains the largest collection of buildings from the period in Canada.  Haven't been there in decades, though, which is stupid when you think of it.

[Silent Invader]

One day I shall make a trip to those forts!

A small point about the split poles that Aaron mentioned.  As the timber has lost its structural integrity (ie, thee poles aren't in the round as they've been split!) I would say that they are more likely to throw off splinters (and potentially quite hefty ones too) from the impact of the musket balls.

[archangel1]

At least it gives us an option for a different look if modelling a fort from the period.  Bit of a change from the usual full log palisade.

[Aaron]

A lot of the "forts" in the F&I period were actually just fortified cabins with no pallisade at all. This site http://usgwarchives.net/pa/1pa/1picts/frontierforts/frontierforts.htm has some very useful plans and images. The images take some imagination as they are usually of the building as it appeared when the work was written circa 1895, but if you imagine firing slits or thick shutters in place of windows you're probably not far off.

[Silent Invader]

That's a most useful link as well,  Aaron, thanks.

I was intending to build something similar to Fort Necessity but I also wanted something a litle more sophisticated (but not too big) and I now have a lot of choices. 

[Aaron]

It is a pleasure to be able to contribute something after enjoying your magnificient 18th century harbor build thread so much!