Submitted by JarWrench t3_10iabow in askscience
I'm not sure if this is a history, engineering, or economics question.
Submitted by JarWrench t3_10iabow in askscience
I'm not sure if this is a history, engineering, or economics question.
[removed]
Iron is a much more effective penetrator than lead. Also, cannon balls were often stored for long periods and transported often and needed to be sturdy enough to not deform and become useless. By the time technology had advanced enough to make a hollow iron ball and fill it with lead, they chose to fill it with gunpowder instead and add a fusing mechanism.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[deleted]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Faelwolf t1_j5f90re wrote
You're thinking of round shot. It was made of iron because lead would deform on impact, and not have a tendency to bounce, or would expend it's energy in deformation when hitting a solid structure. Iron shot's biggest advantage was momentum. It would bounce along as basically a wrecking ball, causing massive injuries to anyone/thing caught in it's way, or impart it's energy into the masonry of a fortification or the hull of a ship. The early round shot was actually made of stone, around the 15th century or so.
There were a number of shot available for cannon, some which were made of lead, such as some grape/cannister shot, an antipersonnel round made up of much smaller balls.