I can tell you don't have "Boarders Away II" by Gilkerson. It is the most thorough work that's been done on naval swivel guns, lots of pix of real ones and drawings, and archival stuff, I think he has 25 pages or so on swivel guns and swivel howitzers. The 2.75" King howitzer was used aloft, and there's hard-copy prime source documentation that shows UNITED STATES had 6-pounder howitzers aloft (if I remember correctly what I read.) Or it may have been Spencer Tucker who had that in his book ARMING THE FLEET. Since I wasn't around when these events took place all I can do is read and those two works have all the info., I can't claim to know anything about the events by direct knowledge except what I can infer from surviving specimens.
“Since I wasn’t around when these events took place all I can do is read and those two works have all the info., I can’t claim to know anything about the events by direct knowledge except what I can infer from surviving specimens.”
I don’t know what it is that I wrote that may have given you the impression that I think only people that have witnessed historical events or occurrences first hand should be the only individuals allowed to elaborate or expound about these observations in writing. If this were the case, I think you’ll agree that our libraries would be missing some great books, in fact there probably wouldn’t be many books in any library. All I simply meant by the question (Is the statement about the placement of large swivel guns in or on the masts, yard arms or any of the rigging of a ship an original supposition from you or did you obtain this information from another source?) was, did you utilize your own creative imagination in explaining that the dent in the carronade may have been caused by a swivel gun in the rigging or did you actually read a written account of swivel guns being fired from the masts of ships.
cannonmn, I’m sure you’ll agree with my following statement, seeing that you at times use the phrase “hard-copy prime source documentation” (I think you may also agree with me that some historians with the intention of impressing their readers sometimes show a tendency to over use that phrase): While I think it would be foolish to be a total skeptic I would also consider it equally foolish for a person not to have a healthy sense of skepticism when considering any purported facts that are presented to them.
I do not have access to either William Gilkerson’s, Boarders Away II or Spencer Tucker’s, Arming of the Fleet at this time (I am now in the process of trying to get both books): Would you be kind enough to post a couple of quotes from these two sources that describe swivel guns being fired from the tops of a ship’s masts.
Your statement that a Daniel King Howitzer was used ‘aloft’ has really aroused my interest; I’ve been curious about these little howitzers ever since I first had the opportunity to read about them and then later see photos of some of the surviving originals. Was the King Howitzer fired from the mast of a vessel from the First Continental Navy, and what is the source of this information?
The fact that there exists a written document from an eye witness that observed the use of 6 pdr howitzers that were somehow mounted in the rigging or on the fighting tops of the masts of a U.S. (Navy?) ship is indeed intriguing information; what is the time frame of this document and what exactly did this first hand witness report?
While it would be in my opinion idiotic to presume that it is an impossibility that swivel guns were at some time in history placed on the fighting tops of a war ship’s masts, I’m still going to make what might be called an informed guess that it may be improbable that this in fact ever did occur; in other words I’m saying that it’s possible that my guess could be wrong and if this is indeed the case I’d like for this fact to be proven.
As I stated in my first post the order given to the drummer to ‘beat to quarters’ caused a flurry of activity by the seamen on a fighting vessel and one of these activities would be for the Marine snipers to gather their muskets, balls and powder and make a quick ascension up the shrouds to their stations on the fighting tops. In the time period we’re discussing (the first quarter of the 19th century) there are so many descriptions of the accuracy of these marksmen in print that it would be nonsensical to deny the efficiency that these men exhibited when plying their deadly skills. Just reading the accounts of two American frigate’s battles will suffice as examples that prove the prowess of these sharpshooters; the USS Constellation’s battle with the French ship La Vengeance in 1800 and the USS Constitution vs. the HMS Guerriere in 1812.
At two different times in the battle the ships drew close enough to each other that both Captains ordered boarding parties formed, the second occasion was a brutal affair as the U.S. Marines up on the Constellation’s masts shot down on La Vengeance leaving her deck running with blood and covered with the bodies of the dead and wounded, and forcing the remnants of her boarding party to clear the deck and take cover. The source for this passage is Six Frigates: The Epic Founding of the U.S. Navy by Ian W. Toll.
Captain James R. Dacres, Royal Navy, to Vice Admiral Herbert Sawyer, Royal Navy Boston 7th September 1812
This is the last paragraph of this letter: “I hope, in considering the circumstances, you will think the Ship entrusted to my charge was properly defended; the unfortunate loss of our Masts, the absence of the third lieutenant, second lieutenant of Marines, three Midshipmen, and twenty four Men considerably weakened our Crew, and we only muster’d at Quarters 244 Men and 19 Boys, on coming into action; the Enemy had such an advantage from his Marines and Riflemen, when close and his superior sailing enabled him to choose his distance.”
The Captain of the Guerriere even goes so far as to mention the American sharpshooters aloft as one of the main reasons for his defeat.
I have written about the exploits of the Marine snipers for a very specific reason, that reason being to ask the question; what in the world would necessitate the hoisting of a 200 pound swivel gun up into the fighting tops? A swivel gun is basically an anti- personnel weapon; do the above mentioned descriptions of the exploits of the U.S. Marine snipers give the impression that these leathernecks needed some additional fire-power?
I have already mentioned the hassle that it would be to use block and tackle to hoist a swivel gun up on to the fighting tops and I can’t envision them being kept there on a permanent basis (the fighting tops being in my opinion the only logical places on the masts where a swivel gun could reasonably be mounted).
The only place that a swivel gun would be of use on the fighting top would be mounted on the edge and this would mean the gunner would either be kneeling over or lying behind the gun, causing a hazard to the snipers that were trying to take positions that would give them clear shots. The explosion and ensuing smoke from firing the cannon would just be more of a distraction to the snipers, not to mention the danger of the sails being set on fire from smoldering powder being blown by winds back into the canvas. One of the standing rules of a sailing war ship was that only the bare necessity of black powder charges would be kept on a gun deck for each gun, the powder monkey’s job being to replenish this supply when needed; this would be impossible to do with a gun up top, and the only logical alternative would be for the gunner to take a number of bagged charges up with him and it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what would happen if one of the snipers were wounded and accidentally fired his weapon into the swivel guns stored charges or they happened to be hit by an incendiary projectile fired from the enemy ship. It just doesn’t seem reasonable to me that any commander of a ship would take these risks for so negligible an advantage to be gained.
BTW, it’s always a pleasure to view the photos of ordnance you post; I really enjoyed the boat howitzer and the bronze French gun that looks like the smaller brother of our M1841 6 pdr.
