Author Topic: carronader (Read 1795 times)

RocklockI · « **on:** July 27, 2009, 07:39:38 AM »

so do you specialize in carronades .....not being a wissenhimer now ......

i like them but dont know much about them , except that some were 'insurrance guns'

i always thought they could shoot hollow balls for smashing things , but i've been told differant by some .

just wondering as it is a nitch type of thing ?

Long Live The Queen , gary .

Rickk · « **Reply #1 on:** July 27, 2009, 02:43:38 PM »

Carronades were shorter ranged, lighter weight, and generally bigger bores than the guns they replaced. Think of them as ship board sawed off shotguns. They made a lot of sense, as long range aiming on a ship made long range fighting rare. They provided lots of short range knockdown power, especially in large numbers. They also tended to be tighter (less windage) than other guns of the time, meaning more efficient use of powder.

carronader · « **Reply #2 on:** July 27, 2009, 10:24:22 PM »

Rocklock, was too busy yesterday mussing your hair up(having fun) to answer this,will make up a parcel of info for you and send it to you.Carronades are interesting and for around 10 years were pretty important in Naval warfare.Sawed off is really a good comparison.

Tom.

carronader · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2009, 10:29:27 AM »

Dan will probably have issues with the bronze details in this item Rocklock but it has some good info in it too.It also let's you know I haven't forgotten you.Dragon has been tidying up and I can't find a damn thing,yup,she even (cleans up ) my desktop.

carronader · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2009, 10:55:14 AM »

found some more,got lots more about deployment,casting,all kinds of stuff..........just got to find it.

cannonmn · « **Reply #5 on:** July 28, 2009, 11:44:54 AM »

I read this article

http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=178921.0;attach=22838

and ran into what often shows up in web articles, lack of references and notes. Thus we have no idea where the author got the somewhat surprising notions that carronades just grew trunnions over time, and that carronades fired shells seemingly whenever the gunners wanted to fire shells.

Since the author fails to offer proof of either point, I choose to ignore them.

I didn't have any problems with the first article.

Thanks for posting them.

carronader · « **Reply #6 on:** July 28, 2009, 10:42:24 PM »

Don't really get your point,this article was targeted at Rocklock to give him an overview of what information is out there on Carronades,the author of it attempts too much I agree but it gives Rocklock a good start towards knowing whether he wants to learn more about these particular cannons or moves on to something else.I come here to this forum to read what better informed,more experienced people discuss,question and put out information on.I then take off sniffing around websites,books etc. learning all the time.
If only correctly sourced,categorised,researched,authorised,complete with a government health warning,articles were shown here I would get bored and drift off.
My History teacher at school was like that and I lost interest,but I found it again just by reading as much as I could,some good and some written by ' experts '.I go to museums now, ' Museums ' for god's sake,no smoking...........no drinking..........and worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! very few good looking girlies.
and for Rocklock .........one carronade, one bag of peanuts,perfect squirrel ambush.The beauty of this forum is the huge amount of information shared by like minded people,long may it continue.

dan610324 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 28, 2009, 11:36:17 PM »

ugly cast iron

what bronze details

urrkkk

cant even take 400 years in salt water without to be destroyed

when there is bronze beauties

but ok I like some bagpipe music and that malt thing you make, there up in the north

carronader · « **Reply #8 on:** July 29, 2009, 01:09:15 AM »

I thought you might add some comments on the composition of bronze,you know a hell of a lot more about it than I do.We got a bronze lover Dan !!! don't let him escape.
Unusual to find a marine with such refinement,class and style.Soon have him throwing away the damn Duraglit.
Rocklock, need an e-mail address from you, I can't send you that stuff,can't find a way to attach files on the message system.
Got to warn you though.........I just love Bronze..........almost a religion to the mad Swede.

RocklockI · « **Reply #9 on:** July 29, 2009, 04:58:26 PM »

THAT IS GREAT INFORMATION !

Thank you very much there is a certain charm to them in an ugly sort of way .

Did they make any bronze one's

gary

gmlorenz@comcast.net

cannonmn · « **Reply #10 on:** July 29, 2009, 07:07:54 PM »

Quote

Don't really get your point

Point is that one of the articles has some questionable information in my opinion. Anything posted here for whatever purpose will probably be "fact-checked" by someone This is a fact-of-life on discusson boards.

carronader · « **Reply #11 on:** July 29, 2009, 11:14:38 PM »

Not taking that hook Gary' not today

the mad Swede cast his bait,set the hook,reeled me in,and pan fried me with a little butter with his Mons Meg comment,Hell that IS ugly.
Personally I wonder that such an evil,wicked,effective weapon can be so damn gorgeous.( bit like my wife really )
check the pdf,they make a few extravagant claims but don't all towns trying to attract the tourist bucks.

RocklockI · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2009, 03:29:37 PM »

Thank you carronader for the info .

i will treat it as i treat all other info .....ok...then i'll finger out the truth myself .

i knew virtualy nothing of the carronades ....myths , cannonmn taught me that gunaides were the ones with trunitions .

every darn model i ever built called them carronades .....who knew .

a nich within a nich.......i like those .

i wouldnt know enough to dispute any of the info ...i appreciated the info ......

gary

so were their any bronze ones .

Cannoneer · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:14:39 PM »

Gary,

There were bronze carronades that were cast, but the vast majority of carronades were made of cast iron; in fact, I think it would be accurate to say that the very concept of the carronade itself is linked with the material it was intended to be made of, namely cast iron.

This book shows an example of a Dutch bronze 30-pdr carronade.

BRONZE CARRONADE

RocklockI · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:36:58 PM »

Sweet ,Thanks Boomj

cannonmn · « **Reply #15 on:** August 01, 2009, 04:49:30 AM »

Thanks, nice photos, bunches of 'em if you scroll back and forth thru the preview of that book linked above. There are a few other bronze carronades both before and after that one. I have that book in my library but have never looked in it-online pix are a lot handier.

As I've mentioned before just because someone puts their opinion in a book or an online article doesnt' mean it is correct. There's a lot of wonderful info in the linked book but I will show you an example of a commonly-mis-identified item. This item is also mis-identified in Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain, SPANISH MILITARY WEAPONS IN COLONIAL AMERICA ... -1821.

Here's the page in the linked book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8vmyATH4gzsC&lpg=PA39&dq=naval%20guns%20hans%20mehl%20bronze%20carronades&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q=&f=false

It is identified as a Schemel??? mortar, French, 1836, and the description indicates it is a tactical weapon, when in reality it is an "Eprouvette" or powder tester. I have four of them that size, two Spanish and two German, and have studied them fairly extensively, that's how I know what they are. They came with a set of very accurately-sized hollow copper shells which were filled with lead so a very precise weight (about 64 lbs.) was achieved. You were to load them with a special screw-in handle, then unscrew the handle and screw in a faired plug. There were as I recall four shells (balls) provided, one a gauge shot and the other three for use. You fired three rounds using exactly three oz. of the powder to be tested each shot, and measured the range of each shot and took the mean. This was supposed to give you the quality of your powder. Normally, governments would have a reg forbidding acceptance of any powder that did not range at least 250 yards.

The French example is the first one I've ever seen which may be attached to its original base. These mortars were usually cast with four holes in the base for attachment to a heavy wood base such as is shown.

I'm anxious to fire any of mine, but somehow I've never run across a 7 1/4 inch diameter ball which they require. I have an original copper, weighted ball but I'm not about to shoot that one.

cannonmn · « **Reply #16 on:** August 01, 2009, 05:09:20 AM »

Here's the only picture and description I could find online of an eprouvette.

http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/index.php/Secrets/MillhouseGunpowderMill

Here's a large pic of the eprouvette itself, note that it fired cylindrical projectiles, which was how they got the weight up to what was required:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/powder%20testing%20mortar/Section1/swiki/m1/millhousemortar.jpg

Bob Smith · « **Reply #17 on:** August 01, 2009, 05:47:43 AM »

I think Brian Lavery is the best source on the early development of the carronade:
Lavery, Brian (1987) The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War: 1600-1815. Conway Maritime Press
Lavery, Brian (1989 ‘Carronades and Blomefield Guns’ in : SMITH, Robert D. (ed.) British Naval Armaments. London, Royal Armouries, 1989.
That New Zealand article has got things a little mixed up- the first carronades did have trunnions.
I must admit to being deeply disappointed in the Mehl book- too many mistakes and misattributions.
Bob Smith

cannonmn · « **Reply #18 on:** August 01, 2009, 06:47:45 AM »

Bob, thanks-always great to have the professional weigh-in on these things-you are probably the only marine archaeologist-historian type we have on this board.

Bob, I think I posted this long ago but probably before you were looking at this board. This piece I call a bronze gunade-has a 2-inch bore and larger dia. false muzzle. Does the little crown cast onto it have any significance or is it just decoration, in your opinion? What do you think the original purpose of this piece was? The lock slot is just a bit too narrow for the standard-issue British cannon flintlock; I've tried one on it and it will not fit in the slot.

slideshow of bronze gunade:

http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/myartillery/my%20artillery3/?action=view&current=59b4ebff.pbw

Thanks!

Bob Smith · « **Reply #19 on:** August 03, 2009, 04:51:32 AM »

This is really Ruth's territory rather than mine.

She says that from the late 17th century when a gun was proofed for sale in the merchant market, it was normally engraved with a P. Then in the 18th century, as a special courtesy, foreign governments, East India Company and the like were allowed to have their guns proofed at Woolwich by the Board of Ordnance. These were then engraved with a crowned P.
Now none of these marks are covered by legislation and about 1800 canny gunfounders started casting guns with the crown or crowned P already on them, jumping the gun a little.

It is more usual to find them on the cast-iron gunnades than bronze guns- Ruth suggests as it is bronze, it was either intended for a nice yacht or large country house.

Bob Smith

cannonmn · « **Reply #20 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:30:06 PM »

Thanks again Bob, and tell Ruth thanks also. The info you provided is the kind that as you know is very sparsely documented, and the only way I can find out is from "the experts."

Bob Smith · « **Reply #21 on:** August 04, 2009, 01:01:52 AM »

no, cannonmn,

YOU ARE "one of the experts"!

Cannoneer · « **Reply #22 on:** August 06, 2009, 04:27:42 PM »

Quote from: cannonmn on August 01, 2009, 04:49:30 AM

Thanks, nice photos, bunches of 'em if you scroll back and forth thru the preview of that book linked above. There are a few other bronze carronades both before and after that one.

Cannonmn,

Ditto, on your opinion about the photos, this book has some pictures of cannon I've never seen before, like the bronze Whitworth, but your statement about the other bronze carronades has made me look about five more times now, and I'm not seeing the other examples. I knew about that interesting bronze Russian smaller than usual bore (8-pounder) carronade that comes after the Dutch carronade, but these are the only two I can find. Are you including the French bronze 'Obusier de 36' as a carronade?

Bronze Russian Carronade

cannonmn · « **Reply #23 on:** August 06, 2009, 07:23:54 PM »

Quote

but these are the only two I can find. Are you including the French bronze 'Obusier de 36' as a carronade?

Things I kinda consider bronze carronades are shown on pp. 39, 42, and 45-one of those is French, may be the one you mention. The French may have called it a howitzer (obusier) but if it has a large bore, short barrel, is chambered, has lugs vice trunnions, etc. I feel comfortable calling it a carronade.

Here's the page with that interesting item:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8vmyATH4gzsC&lpg=PA39&dq=naval%20guns%20hans%20mehl%20bronze%20carronades&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Cannoneer · « **Reply #24 on:** August 07, 2009, 04:58:29 AM »

Thanks Cannonmn; I was looking at pages preceeding the Dutch carronade, and thought I was missing something. I've admired the "Obusiers" since first seeing them, and the French designed them as a counterpoint against the British carronade, so the reality is that other than the outward appearance of the tubes, they were in fact, basically made to function just like carronades.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #25 on:** August 07, 2009, 05:24:28 AM »

Quote from: Bob Smith on August 01, 2009, 05:47:43 AM

I must admit to being deeply disappointed in the Mehl book- too many mistakes and misattributions.
Bob Smith

Now, Mr. Smith, tact and diplomacy, always tact and diplomacy; we wouldn't want to provoke any response in Hans and Rudolf that would cause them to go off on a hunt for a functional Messerschmitt, that once found they'd undoubtably feel the urge to fuel up.

cannonmn · « **Reply #26 on:** August 11, 2009, 07:32:07 AM »

I was thinking of buying the Mehl book just for the photos, which would probably justify it for me, but wanted to check the reviews first. The second review is kind of interesting, and the kindest way I can describe it is "perhaps uninformed" when he says something like "does not contain all guns that existed at that time." Think about that! No one could afford "the Encyclopedia Britannica of All Cannons" even if such were available.

http://www.amazon.com/Naval-Guns-Years-Coastal-Artillery/product-reviews/1591145570/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

RocklockI · « **Reply #27 on:** August 11, 2009, 12:41:43 PM »

when i was a kid in charlotte nc there was an old house , behind it was a JU 87 Stuka ....

. evry single time my brother and i where driven down this mainish road , we would stare at it as long as possible .....every single time !!

it had no wings outside the landing gear (fixed) , but sure as there is it was huge and you could see the first part of the gull wings . ....but it didnt have a cannon ...

so i'll ask if anyone would have the proper cannons for a BF 109 . or G model ? they are hard to find here ....

yea sure , they are parked right next to my P-38 lightning .

that also had a cannon ......!

opps sorry they were auto ....my bad , sorry .

Quote from: Boom J on August 07, 2009, 05:24:28 AM

Quote from: Bob Smith on August 01, 2009, 05:47:43 AM
I must admit to being deeply disappointed in the Mehl book- too many mistakes and misattributions.
Bob Smith

Now, Mr. Smith, tact and diplomacy, always tact and diplomacy; we wouldn't want to provoke any response in Hans and Rudolf that would cause them to go off on a hunt for a functional Messerschmitt, that once found they'd undoubtably feel the urge to fuel up.

carronader · « **Reply #28 on:** August 12, 2009, 03:22:31 AM »

Gary, were you out in the sun too long? thought you were wearing a sombrero!!!!! what are you goin on about?

RocklockI · « **Reply #29 on:** August 12, 2009, 04:28:41 AM »

i give up ...i dont really know . i'm going to say boomj mentioned messerschmidt ...and

and i had a flashback to an old stuka ....