Author Topic: Of cannon, Ships, and the Sea (Read 2457 times)

KABAR2 · « **on:** July 15, 2009, 04:43:58 PM »

I was doing a little research and came across this it is a listing of museum ships from around the world in pictures,

You have to scroll through it as the older square riggers are mixed in with modern and 1890's steam many photo's have links to museum sites

Although not strictly cannon I know there is some interest here in the old square riggers. three pages of stuff.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=145104

RocklockI · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2009, 05:02:33 PM »

theres nothing like looking at old tall ship .....i've only seen one and i dont even know the name of it .

40 years ago in either san fransisco ...or new york .

i been on the bowfin and the north carolina .

the Vasa (wassa) is way cool ,maybe someday . the Swedes had mosteroius sea battles that i never knew about till Dan clued me in .

those old guns are my new favorites .....and i will own one someday .

Cannonball · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2009, 02:19:44 AM »

You guy's should take a vacation to nova scotia, canada in the summer. They have 2 maga festivals a year. The tall ship festival witch is going on right now and the wooden boat festival in a couple weeks. My buddy's there now and I'll ask him if he took any pics he can share with us. Each festival has over a hundred ships present. My buddy knows how crazy I am over cannons and he said he would take pics when he comes across anything I would like. He gets back in a couple weeks. I'll see what he brings back.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2009, 07:10:34 AM »

Thanks for opening this thread, Allen. I was looking at the Danish wooden steam frigate Jylland launched in 1860, and found it interesting that the ships armament included some beautiful older bronze guns. Does anyone know why the top part of the breech face is flat?

Cannoneer · « **Reply #4 on:** August 07, 2009, 05:41:06 AM »

Danish 30-pounder bronze cannon, 1768

cannonmn · « **Reply #5 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:02:27 AM »

Whenever I see an unusual flat place near the breech of a cannon, I suspect it is for laying a breech sight of some kind. Later such a flat on top of breech was for a laying a quadrant. Might be something to look into anyway. CW breech sights had to have a curved bottom to fit the curve of a particular piece, but if you only had to set it on a flat place, you could theoretically use same sight for various guns, but then......calibration....different.........well shot my own idea down.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #6 on:** August 07, 2009, 01:12:14 PM »

I think it's a logical conclusion to reach, that the flat section of the breech, and the shelf that results there, were intended to accomadate some kind of sighting device. It would be interesting to see the sight, and how it was hung, or supported on the breech of the gun.
Speaking of interesting, I didn't notice them the first time around, but after reading the description of this cannon in the Mehl, Roth book, I came back for a closer look at the handles, and sure enough they're in the shape of elephant heads (another first for me).

cannonmn · « **Reply #7 on:** August 07, 2009, 01:46:40 PM »

See the way the ring behind the trunnions is flattened on the side to fit the carriage?

BoomLover · « **Reply #8 on:** August 07, 2009, 03:35:25 PM »

We had the pleasure of a cruise aboard the Hawaiian Chieftan while it and the Lady Washington were in port here at Coos Bay. These tall ships are berthed in Puget Sound, Washington, and come thru every year. This particular cruise was a Battle Cruise, and they were firing their cannons at each other sailing around in the bay, for over an hour. Kinda brings the Pirate out in ya! BoomLover

Victor3 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 07, 2009, 10:14:43 PM »

I was recently reading about what it was like on the gun deck of a 17th century warship during battle. What an awful mess. I had to wonder what it was like for a 12 year old powder boy to go through that hell.

Pic I have of the Lady Washington being serviced at Southwest Marine in San Pedro CA, IIRC in the early 90's...

Cannoneer · « **Reply #10 on:** August 08, 2009, 04:57:18 AM »

Quote from: cannonmn on August 07, 2009, 01:46:40 PM

See the way the ring behind the trunnions is flattened on the side to fit the carriage?

Cannonmn,
I also think these bronze guns were altered to fit carriages that weren't intended to mount them, but I'm not sure of what flat piece you're trying to point out. According to the Mehl book, these guns were originally field cannon, and were used to fill out the armament of the ship, because of a shortage of naval guns at that time in Denmark. It appears to me that this cannon's trunnions were altered by adding a "cap," or tube over the existing trunnions, to make them fit the existing naval carriages that were intended for the more modern guns on board the ship. In the cropped photo I'm posting you can see the gap between the "cap" and the rimbase.

GGaskill · « **Reply #11 on:** August 08, 2009, 06:32:50 PM »

The flat space he is referring to is in this picture. The upper part of the breech face has been milled flat leaving the step above the cascable.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #12 on:** August 08, 2009, 07:45:43 PM »

Thanks George, maybe we can resume this dialogue in the morning, after you've had a few cups of coffee.

cannonmn · « **Reply #13 on:** August 08, 2009, 10:24:02 PM »

Quote

but I'm not sure of what flat piece you're trying to point out.

You can see it pretty well in this photo also, the first reinforce ring, which is just to the right of the dolphins (I know they are elephants but the handles on top of a cannon are called dolphins no matter what species they look like). The ring has been flattened on the side, and the only reason that was ever done that I know of was to clear the cheeks of a carriage.

Victor3 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 08, 2009, 10:36:37 PM »

But there's already enough clearance between the bbl and carriage to drive a truck through....

Maybe this bbl was previously mounted on a carriage that had the cheeks closer together.

Even so, wouldn't it have been easier to just cut a bit away from the carriage wood to make some clearance

dan610324 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 08, 2009, 11:02:35 PM »

here is some better pictures of the dolphins
they are very unique

Cannoneer · « **Reply #16 on:** August 09, 2009, 03:55:03 AM »

Thanks Dan, your photos give a lot clearer image of the heads, and trunks.

Victor,

I was referring to tubes being attached over the existing trunnions of the bronze guns, with the desired goal of the Danish attachers, being to increase the diameter of the trunnions, so that they would fit more precisely into the trunnion cut-outs, and be held more securely by the cap-squares that already existed on the cheeks of the naval carriages that were evidently originally manufactured to mount a cannon with larger circumference trunnions. Sorry, I got carried away with this sentence, besides which fact, I think you already knew what I meant.

Now I understand what Cannonmn was trying to point out in his earlier reply, but I think I'd have to agree with you, from viewing the photo, it looks like there would be more than enough space between the inside of the bracket, and the reinforce ring to accommodate the barrel being elevated and depressed without it being necessary to deface the barrel.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #17 on:** August 09, 2009, 05:55:39 AM »

Quote from: cannonmn on August 08, 2009, 10:24:02 PM

(I know they are elephants but the handles on top of a cannon are called dolphins no matter what species they look like).

It is my personal opinion, that all encompassing statements of supposed fact such as this, sometimes puts a person in the awkward position of having to attempt to defend a basically undefendable position.

This brings to mind the admonition to DD about the improper use of the word wedge, as opposed to the proper use of the word quoin; while in reality it's a very easy task to find a number of books authored by respected writers on the subject of artillery that indeed do use the word wedge.

We now find ourselves in the same type of situation; I can start with the Mehl book because it's close at hand, and proceed to continue to fashion a downward growing column of books on ordnance, where the authors use the word handles instead of dolphins. When the objects depicted in the handles have nothing to do with sea creatures, I myself prefer that the term handle be used, because calling them dolphins seems to me to be like an oxymoron.

John, I don't mean this post to be confrontational, and I'm also not trying to be a smart-_ss; I just wanted to make my position on this matter clear, and I genuinely think it's the correct position to hold (at least on this matter).

cannonmn · « **Reply #18 on:** August 09, 2009, 06:38:33 AM »

You can call 'em anything you please here, for sure, everyone knows what you mean. I call 'em dolphins for my own personal useage, probably because the vast majority of sources I've personally encountered use that term. I have no doubt that many references also use "handles" and someone else may have seen more that way, but for me the dolphins are ingrained.

cannonmn · « **Reply #19 on:** August 09, 2009, 06:42:43 AM »

I have a very old German artillery book, 16th C. as I recall, with large engravings of cannons. One bronze cannon has ladies for the dolphins, They have their front sides up in an arched posture that would be kind of uncomfortable to hold for a long time. They also have quite ample physical proportions and are not clothed.

dan610324 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 09, 2009, 08:53:00 AM »

John , lets see that picture

GGaskill · « **Reply #21 on:** August 09, 2009, 01:20:43 PM »

I don't think that would make it past Graybeard's all-seeing eyes.

Double D · « **Reply #22 on:** August 09, 2009, 01:31:45 PM »

...or mine.

dan610324 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 09, 2009, 01:58:37 PM »

why not if its an original antique cannon ??
I know that it was an italian founder who used nude couples as dolphins
do you really mean that we not are alloved to show and discuss pre 1899 bronze cannons here just because of the shape of the dolphins ??
if so it maybe was improper of me to show the elephant dolphins , elephants are an almost exterminated species

cannonmn · « **Reply #24 on:** August 09, 2009, 02:07:38 PM »

Dan, I'll do this, I'll get you the name and author of the book and you see if it is on Google books, and look at it there on your own computer if you find it.

cannonmn · « **Reply #25 on:** August 09, 2009, 02:21:26 PM »

Dan, here's a link to a descriptions of some of Furtenbach's books, the one you want is (c) Architectura Civilis, 1628, as I recall. With luck you might find that engraving on the web somewhere, but a quick search I did failed to turn it up.

http://books.google.com/books?id=30IJLnwpc8EC&lpg=PA167&dq=civil%20architecture%20furtenbach&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q=civil%20architecture%20furtenbach&f=false

cannonmn · « **Reply #26 on:** August 09, 2009, 02:44:46 PM »

Drawing is reproduced in Essenwein's QUELLEN ZUR GESCHICHTE FUR FEUERWAFFEN, Graz, 1969, 2 vols. Dan, send me yr email addy. again, I have no email files due to recent komputor krash.

Here are a few copies of this book, cheap ones are the nice hardback, folio sized 1969 reprints, which are IMO worth more than these dealers are asking. The 'spensive ones are the 1870's originals, which won't be as durable as the reprints anyway.

You would not believe all the early cannons pictured in this book, in excellent line drawings. Many I've only seen in this book. Very, very well worth the price, if you buy it you will thank me later I guarantee it.

http://used.addall.com/SuperRare/RefineRare.fcgi?id=090809175116127134

Cannoneer · « **Reply #27 on:** August 09, 2009, 03:44:47 PM »

Quote from: GGaskill on August 09, 2009, 01:20:43 PM

I don't think that would make it past Graybeard's all-seeing eyes.

Quote from: Double D on August 09, 2009, 01:31:45 PM

...or mine.

Hey, I feel like a kid who has been told that he's too young to look at something, now I really want to see these undraped ordnance nymphs.

Cannonmn, ever since this discussion, I've been musing (or cogitating, as RC would say) about the subject of artillery dolphins/handles, and I think it would make a good coffee table book, with large format high resolution close-up photographs of the dolphins on artillery from around the world. The text could explain the symbolism, and cultural signifigance of the objects chosen by the artisans of differing countries (and centuries) who adorned their cannons with these functional creations. I don't harbor any illusions that this book would ever make the "New York Times Best Seller List," but it might do reasonably well.

I've read different sources, that describe this as either an "angel ring," or a "merman" on the barrel of one of the Mary Rose's incredible bronze cannons from the Tudor Period in England.

Double D · « **Reply #28 on:** August 09, 2009, 06:09:49 PM »

This is not an adults only forum, we do have young people andchildren here and not just a bunch of dirty old men.

dan610324 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 09, 2009, 10:29:38 PM »

now when I looked at the pictures I can say that its NOT any low class porno .

its actually just a mermaid , but it is high class art and its cannon related (pre 1899)

so I take the risk to get banned from the forum by posting the picture here, but I hope it doesnt happened
you will find much more "offending" bronze and marble sculptures on public display in parks and museums

who will try to classify the greek marble statue "venus from milano" as porno ??

there is also much more interesting details on that picture , you will find a really beautiful carriage also

ok dd , if you think Im a dirty old man thats up to you .
but I still think this is very interesting for us who are interested in beautiful early bronze cannons and not only plain civil war cannons, they are just war machines without the beauty of an 200 year older bronze cannon in my opinion . the only exception from that would of course be the mountin howitzer

many of the cw breachloaders are very interesting from a technical point, but it aint any of them who can be called really beautiful . at least not of them I have seen yet, and I think I have seen most of them at least as pictures

from 1750 to 1800 most cannon manufacturers change their style from beautiful work of art to simple and plain war machines, thats the fact also with older iron cannons .
thats the reason why I think also most of them as just ugly cast iron pieces compared to early bronze cannons .

so I sure hope that not anyone will be offended by this picture , its very interesting for me and I belive also for other people who are interested in beautiful bronze cannons

it would be very interesting to hear the opinon from other members on this topic also .