Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

The Bronze Cannon


Recommended Posts

In the Q&A threads I started to look a little bit more closely at “Double Charge” and “Double Ball” perk mechanics. I came to the conclusion that DC should be dropped while DB needs a bit of tweak somewhat. Take a look if time…

“Doublecharge Penetration multiplier” by rediii

 

Anyway, I came across something I just didn’t know and might be worth adding to the game while looking at the above thread. The Bronze Cannon, Brass made from Copper and Tin the Bronze Cannon was far superior to the iron cannon we use in NA. Far stronger, rust free, and could be re-cast to make a very accurate gun. 

By contrast the iron cannon was Brittle, prone to overheating and more likely to burst.  Its major advantage over Bronze was cost. Around the Age of Sail Iron cost around 15 pounds per ton, while Bronze was 150 pounds per ton. 

The rare Bronze cannon I thought would make a nice superior addition to the medium and longs we have now. Although they can only be had at a price. 

 

References:

Line of Battle by Robin Gardiner – Guns & Gunnery p. 146-161 

The Trafalgar Companion – Tracey, Nicholas Naval Tactics

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several people have mentioned 'could be re-cast' as if it is a virtue. What it really means is the bore wears far quicker than an iron cannon.

I might be being a little unfair here. Bronze cannons are cheaper to cast then iron ones (the casting process, not including the material), so you might get a bronze cannon re-cast when you wouldn't think of replacing a similarly-worn iron cannon.

Iron cannons can be re-cast as well, but there's no point. The material is so cheap, you may as well sell the old cannon for scrap (where doubtless it will be re-made into something else) and buy a new cannon rather then go to the trouble of taking a few tons of iron to the ironworks yourself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Remus said:

Several people have mentioned 'could be re-cast' as if it is a virtue. What it really means is the bore wears far quicker than an iron cannon.

I might be being a little unfair here. Bronze cannons are cheaper to cast then iron ones (the casting process, not including the material), so you might get a bronze cannon re-cast when you wouldn't think of replacing a similarly-worn iron cannon.

Iron cannons can be re-cast as well, but there's no point. The material is so cheap, you may as well sell the old cannon for scrap (where doubtless it will be re-made into something else) and buy a new cannon rather then go to the trouble of taking a few tons of iron to the ironworks yourself.

Bronze guns wore better than iron guns, the discovery that adding a higher tin content to bronze made it a much more durable, this discovery was made during the 16th Century and was in common practise, at least by the European navies by the 18th. The bronze guns of the time were generally superior in almost every aspect and had the bonus of being almost infinitely recyclable, when it comes to casting/recasting the extra cost of casting iron over bronze is negligible, the real cost of manufacture was the boring process and the raw materials, the harder bronze alloys took longer to bore, combined with the hugely higher expense of the raw materials over iron.

The main reason that iron guns took the lead was the change in naval tactics during the Anglo Dutch wars where fighting naval battles became less about manpower and more about broadside poundage, this drastic change to naval doctrine forced the major European navies of the period to commit to a naval arms race of quantity over quality, something that iron worked much better towards over its more time consuming and costly bronze counterpart, although navies with a large stock of bronze tended to continue recasting almost indefinitely until their guns were lost over time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bronze guns didn't rust but the bore got distorted, and grape shot and langridge cut up the bore. So the bronze gun wore faster in use. Bronze guns split (or crack) instead of exploding from a too heavy charge.

 

Bronze guns were lighter than early iron guns. In 1742, British navy

  • 32lb weighted 6048lb in bronze and 6384 in cast iron
  • 42lb weighted 7392lb in bronze and  8400 in cast iron

But once the iron casting technology had evolved at the begenning of the 19th century, iron guns were lighter because less weight was needed for the same strength.

 

Bronze guns were much more costly than iron guns. In 1670 iron in Britain was £18 per ton and bronze was £150 per ton. Bronze is likely to have been even more expensive in continental Europe because of the lesser tin availability.

 

Bronze was easier to cast and could be re-cast without loss of strength. But the advanced casting technology of the end of the 18th century enabled to actually improve the guns quality by re-casting old guns, especially in countries where coal furnaces weren't developped yet. In Liège (main Napoleonic artillery arsenal), they used a mix of 2/5 re-melted (from old guns) cast irons and 3/5 raw (or virgin) cast irons.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...