<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Shouldn't the Napoleon have a significantly more powerful effect at point blank range compared to a 3" rifle? I didn't think the 3" had as effective a canister round as the Napoleon<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi, General Lynn,
You are correct. But the Napoleon 1 hex modifier is 22 and the 3" rifle is 9. That is about 2.5 times more effective, and I think that is way too much. In Vicksburg it is 8 for 3" rifle and 12 for
Napoleon, which makes the Napoleon half again as effective. That makes more sense, as the bore size for a 3" rifle is 3" (doh!)and for the Napoleon 4.62, which is a ratio of 1:1.54. I am no physics
expert, though. Maybe they did a study and found a Napoleon cannister round was 2.5 times more effective under 125 yds than the 3". Anybody know?
MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I believe that is probably the case - I seem to remember reading about the difference between a Napoleon canister round and a 3" canister round - the 3" held a significantly smaller number of projectiles and dispersed them in a much tighter area than the Napoleon. But perhaps you are right about the ratio being a bit too high in comparison in Chick.
Regards,
Major Gen. Alan Lynn
CSA Chief of Staff
3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA
God Bless <><
|