Land vs Naval guns

[Leatherneck]

I hope this to be a historical discussion. The theme is the lopsided sophistication of cannon carriages (used on land) vs the simplified and sometimes rudimentary look of the naval guns.
 
I need people's toughts on this.
There must be more to naval gun and their carriages, because I hear very little about innovation and sophistication when it comes to naval pieces.
 
The wheeled gun carriage of a cannon was as important as the barrel itself. Gun crews on land had the elevating screw when naval crews still had the triangular quoin. Once again, user friendliness of those carriages on land was mission important. Whether the crew was man handling the piece into action or laying it on target and re-checking elevation using a quadrant sight.
 
 
I study the 1740s through 1840s and this is re-occuring theme.
During ship duels, it makes sense that the enemy ship presents a very wide and tall target. Wherever you hit (hull, masts, sails) you'll do damage. Then the other fact is that ammo was usually abundant and you fired by broadside, not by single gun.
 
Is there anything else Im missing?

[GGaskill]

Don't forget the ship would be rocking and that would more or less negate any fine adjustment of the elevation.

[jeeper1]

On land the 3 point ground contact is more stable than the 4 point contact which makes the elevating screw better than a quoin.

[Leatherneck]

Interesting observations gents.

[JeffG]

My understanding is that land artillery trajectory is calculated at level, then fine-tuned for point of impact with the screw. Naval guns, in the systems of 1700-1800, were basically skip-fired into the waterline or on to the beach head of a fort or harbor; high trajectories for distance were from anchor.  Guns like the Dahlgren were used both on land and ship, so they featured the long screw, for maximum adjustment wherever they were deployed. Correct me if I am in error.

[gunsonwheels]

Just a coment on function of "elevating"... try to rapidly make a large elevation change with a elevation screw and then do it with a quoin.  If I were fine tuning a long shot (as with a rifle in the field) I'd like a screw but with a rocking ship and orders being given to "shoot the waterline" followed by "chain-shot to his rigging"... well I think I'd like the quoin.
 
As you make your observations consider the variables in their firing missions...  Maybe some of what is perceived as more sophisticated and innovative in the field guns was dictated by their functions.  Just the terrain and distance traveled differences are immense...
 
GOW/George 

[lthardman]

This may sound pretty simple, but I'm a pretty simple guy.  I always thought some of the major differences in field carriages versus naval carriages had to do with their environment during use.  When I was on the gun deck of the USS Constitution, I was struck by the cramped quarters and lack of vertical clearance.  You need a low carriage.  Further, the naval carriage needs to be securef very well, as we all know the origin of the term "loose cannon."  The naval carriage spends its life in the same confined twentu square feet, while the field gun is always on the move.  And given the close quarters combat prevalent in the 1700's and 1800's, a quoin seems more expedient than an elevation screw.  As I said, I'm pretty simple.

[Leatherneck]

I took away alot from this.
 

An important factor for naval guns aboard war ships was timing not accuracy. And here is exactly were the 24lber long gun compensates for its simplicity. As it was decided earlier, traversing L-R isnt a problem of the naval gunner but elevation..and not elevation of the barrel either so much.
The angle of the gun deck below his entire piece. The left-right rocking of the ship will be creating an elevating and depressing motion from the viewpoint of the gunners manning broadside batteries.
 

Flintlock mechanisms were installed on usually all broadside guns aboard frigates and ships of the line in the US and Royal Navies around the 1800-1810s period. Long story short, it was mechanical and for the first time it took the human element out of setting a gun off. It gave the British a huge advantage over the French who still used the linstock and fuse for ignition.
The guns of the Constitution no longer have these but it is speculated that the Captain Hull himself bought enough locks before putting to sea in 1812.
I've been thinking about making a 1/5 scale flintlock mech for one of my own guns, so I can fire it off using a pull string, far enough away.
 

[little seacoast]

If you make a scale flintlock mechanism I sure would like to see it. Sounds very neat and shouldn't need a lot of pull force to make it work, the flaw that most of the slap hammer designs seem to suffer from most.

[Leatherneck]

I taught a wheel-lock mech. would be the easiest. I'd just need zippo wheel and piece of flint.
If the flintlock idea fails me, I can always make a cocked hammer which hits a small pistol primer seated inside the flash hole.