Evolution of the British Naval Gun - World Naval Ships Forums Archive (Page 2)

Naval History by Country :

ROYAL
NAVY

US
NAVY

GERMAN
NAVY

FRENCH
NAVY

*VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE*
NAVAL ART	AVIATION ART	MILITARY ART	SPORT ART

ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :

20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS

BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS

FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Evolution of the British Naval Gun - World Naval Ships Forums Archive (Page 2)

Evolution of the British Naval Gun (Page 2)

Posts 51 to 56

Thoroughly enjoying this Clive...more to come I hope....Regards Brian

[QUOTE=Dreadnought;10118132][FONT=Verdana]Thanks for that. As previously mentioned, by the beginning of 1781, 429 ships in the Royal Navy mounted a total of 604 carronades. Also, as referred to previously, it was HMS[I] Cherub[/I], along with HMS [I]Phoebe[/I], that put USS [I]Essex[/I] out of action in February 1812, but with their long guns at a range of half a mile. As you say though, [I]Cherub[/I] carried mainly carronades - six 32-pounders on her Upper Deck, six 18-pounders on her Quarterdeck, and two 18-pounders on her forecastle. I suspect that it was [I]Phoebe[/I] that did the most damage to [I]Essex[/I] using her thirteen long 18-pounders. [I]Cherub[/I] only had the two long 9-pounders.[/FONT][/QUOTE] CHERUB's armament was 16 x 32pdr carronades on the upper deck, 6 x 18pdr carronades on the quarterdeck and 2 x 18pdr carronades on the forecastle plus 2 x 6pdr long guns as chasers. She attempted to get in close to the ESSEX but was knocked about by the latter ship's six long 12pdrs. The PHOEBE carried 14 x 32pdr carronades on her quarterdeck and forecastle in addition to her 26 x 18pdr and 4 x 9pdr long guns. The USS ESSEX-JUNIOR (10 x 6pdrs and 10 x 18pdr carronades), a captured whaler, was also present and taken. She was subsequently used by the British as a cartel and, as such, was the only one of the ships captured by the ESSEX to reach an American port. Carronades galore, you might say.:) It is easy to understand Porter's wish to carry a long gun main armament, particularly given the nature of this long voyage. Thank you for a very useful article on the carronade.

[QUOTE=Dreadnought;10118132][FONT=Verdana] ...as referred to previously, it was HMS[I] Cherub[/I], along with HMS [I]Phoebe[/I], that put USS [I]Essex[/I] out of action in February 1812, but with their long guns at a range of half a mile. As you say though, [I]Cherub[/I] carried mainly carronades - six 32-pounders on her Upper Deck, six 18-pounders on her Quarterdeck, and two 18-pounders on her forecastle. I suspect that it was [I]Phoebe[/I] that did the most damage to [I]Essex[/I] using her thirteen long 18-pounders. [I]Cherub[/I] only had the two long 9-pounders.[/FONT][/QUOTE] The attached pages from 'Treatise on Naval Gunnery' support that. The book is a fascinating read & mentions that due to the fire risk in the rigging, chains were sometimes used instead of rope. It also points out the necessity of using lower 'weight of powder' when at point blank range, to increase the ravages provided by the numerous splinters (excess powder just makes a hole straight through the enemy vessel & doesn't kill as many people as the splinters). Pete
Attachments :

[FONT=Verdana]Yes Pete, and thanks for that. Douglas’s Treatise of 1855 is a reference source I refer to a lot, and as you say, a fascinating read. The significance of the brief appearance of the carronade in the evolution of naval ordnance, in my view, is somewhat underrated; it was so much the opposite of the long gun, and hence regarded with suspicion by the notaries at the Admiralty. The comparably small caliber of the long guns was rendering them less and less effective as offensive armament as ship’s sides were made thicker and stronger, and it became increasingly difficult to sink ships by gunfire. The round hole made near the waterline of an enemy ship was insufficiently small to have a decisive effect; the fibres of the timber closed round the entering shot and, swelled by seawater, half closed the hole, leaving the carpenter an easy task to plug the inboard end of it. The large and irregular hole made by a carronade, on the other hand, left a ragged and splintered opening caused by the crashing of the large ball against the frames and timbers, and was quite likely to be the cause of a foundering. Again, the high velocity of the long gun's ball, while giving it range and considerable penetrative power, was actually a disadvantage when at close quarters with an enemy. The maximum effect was gained, as every gunner knew, when the ball had just sufficient momentum to enable it to penetrate an opponent's timbers. The result of a high velocity was often to make a clean hole through a ship without making a splinter or causing her to heel at all. Hence the practice of doubleshotting, although this was less likely to prove as effective as the larger single shot. As for the relative powder charges, that of the long gun was wastefully large and inefficient, while that of the carronade was small and very effective. It was in this respect, perhaps, that the carronade showed itself to the greatest advantage. I will be looking at the shell gun and rifled barrels in the subsequent submissions.[/FONT]

I forgot to add in my post #53 what an informative & interesting read this thread is. [QUOTE=Dreadnought;10118273][FONT=Verdana] Douglas’s Treatise of 1855 is a reference source I refer to a lot....[/FONT][/QUOTE] As well as having a printed copy of the 1820 edition I have downloads (pdf I chose) of the 1829 (same as the 1820, but with longer Preface), 1855 & 1860 versions which I have made searchable (by adding a background OCR version underneath the page images). This is useful when looking (say) for a particular ship. If anyone else is interested (& can't find them) I could dig out the links & post them here. Pete

Following a PM I'm supplying links mentioned in my previous post. I can't find where I got the 1829 version from, but I could upload if necessary. A general search on 'Naval Gunnery' at The Internet Archive produces:- [url]https://archive.org/search.php?query=naval%20gunnery%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts[/url] ... and includes the Howard Douglas book for 1855 & 1860 viz:- 1855 [url]https://archive.org/details/atreatiseonnava01douggoog[/url] 1860 [url]https://archive.org/details/atreatiseonnava00douggoog[/url] 1860 postscript on 'Iron Defences' [url]https://archive.org/details/postscripttosect00dougrich[/url] If you click on 'All Files: HTTPS' you can choose the format ([url]https://ia600209.us.archive.org/10/items/atreatiseonnava00douggoog/atreatiseonnava00douggoog.pdf[/url] if you want the .pdf) The text versions are not usually worth bothering with as they are full of corruptions produced by the attempted OCR) Pete

Previous Posts

Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts. Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269. Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Return to Home Page