The Carronade

[Cannoneer]

An article on the history of the carronade by Spencer Tucker, Nautical Research Journal Vol. 42.

http://www.thenrg.org/resources/articles/The%20carronade.pdf

[cannonmn]

Thanks for posting, had not seen this article before.  Spence Tucker is a friend, a true gentleman, and historian with few equals, but I have to question a couple of statements in the article.  On pp. 20, left column, "The low muzzle velocity allowed a sharp reduction in windage."  Someone will have to 'splain that to me, at least at this wee hour of the AM, it makes no sense at all.   
Also, in one place he attributes the enlargement of the carronade's bore near the muzzle to something about leaving room for the fingers in loading, which I seriously doubt.  In another place later in the article he mentions the thin extension of the metal beyond the bore to help protect the ship from (muzzle flash damage and fire.)  That I can believe, the finger thing I cannot, but somehow Spence has both rationale in the same article.

[seacoastartillery]

Thanks Cannoneer, good find.  I found the article very enlightening.

Cannonmn,  have to agree, John.  Fingers? No.

Thanks for posting, had not seen this article before.  Spence Tucker is a friend, a true gentleman, and historian with few equals, but I have to question a couple of statements in the article.  On pp. 20, left column, "The low muzzle velocity allowed a sharp reduction in windage."  Someone will have to 'splain that to me, at least at this wee hour of the AM, it makes no sense at all. 

     First,  I believe that I’ve read twice before that the “thin extension of the metal beyond the bore” was a natural evolution in the Carronade’s design due to inflammation of ships sails, lines, etc.  I’m at a loss where my copy of  Carron, Where Iron Runs Like Water by Brian Watters is right now, but I’m pretty sure you will find it in that excellent book.

     As for,  “The low muzzle velocity allowed a sharp reduction in windage."   “Someone will have to 'splain that to me, at least at this wee hour of the AM, it makes no sense at all.”   You are correct, John.  It doesn’t make much sense, given that terse statement.  I believe that short assertion can be understood only it you apply reverse logic to it.  Start from the desired result of a Carronade shot impact on a wooden ship, which was a large ragged hole, and then figure out how to achieve that desired result and note what conditions exist among the items of solid shot projection.

     A large heavy solid shot will cause more damage at a moderate velocity than a smaller one due to the terminal energy of each.  Loading a full size 32 Pdr. Gun with one third the powder to get a moderate velocity doesn’t make much sense, because of the terrific weight of gun metal involved in a ship’s battery of 32 Pdr. Guns which limits their numbers.  The ship could carry twice as many Carronades plus a few more.

     So, starting in 1759, Carronades were developed to get that desired end result of “Smashing” the sides of wooden ships with many, light weight guns shooting large caliber shot at moderate velocities.  However, one vicious problem existed.  Even with reduced powder charges of approx. one-third that of a corresponding same cal. long Gun, the recoil of the Carronade was still Extremely Vigorous and recoiling to a taut breeching was commonplace.  Double shotting could be disastrous for the crew as the Carronade recoiled violently, pirouetted deftly and swapped ends as it left the deck entirely!

     To control recoil and still achieve an adequate velocity to do destruction on the target at moderate ranges, windage was reduced to get more velocity and range with light powder charges.  Therefore, if the statement read,  “ A windage reduction was found necessary for efficient use of small, recoil reducing, powder charges to maintain the shot’s moderate velocity at modest ranges.”  That makes sense, does it not?

Tracy
   
 
 
 

[KABAR2]

 
I have not had time to read the full text, but was it mentioned that these were ideal for close action where as with a Bloomfield pattern cannon a ship could stand off and pound one to pieces? This is why most warships of the era would be armed with a both types of cannon….. Smashing power is great but if you can't close with your enemy so you can use these cannon you are at great disadvantage..... This is probably why they made such good insurance guns... your opponent wanted to take your cargo and the only way to do that was to close with the ship….. as the saying goes with great risk comes great reward……
 

[Cannoneer]

Thanks for posting, had not seen this article before.  Spence Tucker is a friend, a true gentleman, and historian with few equals, but I have to question a couple of statements in the article.  On pp. 20, left column, "The low muzzle velocity allowed a sharp reduction in windage."  Someone will have to 'splain that to me, at least at this wee hour of the AM, it makes no sense at all.   
Also, in one place he attributes the enlargement of the carronade's bore near the muzzle to something about leaving room for the fingers in loading, which I seriously doubt.  In another place later in the article he mentions the thin extension of the metal beyond the bore to help protect the ship from (muzzle flash damage and fire.)  That I can believe, the finger thing I cannot, but somehow Spence has both rationale in the same article.

Over a period of time I’ve had occasion to read some differing reasons given for the “cupped” form found in the front of the bore on many surviving carronades: Facilitates loading, aids in ejecting burning solids further from the bulwarks, reduces weight in an area of the tube that doesn’t require thickness of metal, and intimidates enemies peering down a more massive looking bore (yes I really did read that somewhere); but for my money, the best bet would be that this feature was intended to ease the act of loading. I’m guessing that Tucker feels the same way about this, but unfortunately his imagination may have become slightly overactive, causing him to add his finger theory, which, by the way, I’ve also never heard before.

As for the reasons that allowed for a reduction of windage in carronades, I don’t understand the difficulty here; Tucker’s opinion seems to coincide with many others who have expressed views on this topic, and simply seems to follow a common sense line of thought. The carronade had a reduced powder chamber, so less powder was needed to fire it, resulting in less pressure building up in the bore of a short barrel, which in turn led certain folks at the Carron Company to believe it was then possible to manufacture a safe barrel with less windage. 

[Double D]

 

As for the reasons that allowed for a reduction of windage in carronades, I don’t understand the difficulty here; Tucker’s opinion seems to coincide with many others who have expressed views on this topic, and simply seems to follow a common sense line of thought. The carronade had a reduced powder chamber, so less powder was needed to fire it, resulting in less pressure building up in the bore of a short barrel, which in turn led certain folks at the Carron Company to believe it was then possible to manufacture a safe barrel with less windage.

Thinking about it....

The reduction in windage would reduce the blow by and  enhance the effects of the reduced load.  Pressure might actually be increased to the same working level as a barrel with greater windage. 

Less windage would require more dimensional accuracy in projectiles and also greater dilgence in barrel swabbing.  A flare would also facilitate   the entrance of swabbing tools and projectile packages into the bore under combat conditions.  The load for howitzers  consisted of charge-sabot-projectile in one package,fixed ammunition if you will.

Just a thought, not a fact.

[IvarForkbeard]

My rendition of the carronade, with a bit of a deck to shoot off of.

[Cannoneer]

Thaks for the vid, Ivar. You did a fine job on that build.