Vosper Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 From the Smithsonian Channel show, The Real Story Season 4 Episode 6 Master and Commander saw this today and had to post it. How to stop a cannonball 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prater Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Nice! The framing isn't quite correct. The British ships would have hard larger gaps and the Constitution would have had no gaps, whereas in the video it has gaps. Would be awesome to see a non-scaled test with the correct dimensions, framing, and larger sized guns. That ball bouncing off was amazing. Also funny to compare them putting the different test walls up. On The British ships, the framing was spaced, so a good portion of the ship was only 8'' thick, whereas the constitution had 0 space framing and had between 20-25'' thick (I've seen different measurements). Would be interesting to see a test on a hanging knee, which pretty much doubles the thickness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Connor Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 In the interests of fairness to British ships... A Leda class frigate is built with 12in wide oak frames, spaced 2-4in apart (the diameter of a 24lb cannonball is 5.8in) except for 5 places where the gap tapers from 8in at the top to 2in at the bottom so that the frames flow correctly from bow to stern taking into account that the deck is longer than the keel. These gaps are filled with fir, both for strength and to prevent water building up in the gaps, meaning the hull is a consistent thickness. At the waterline the hull frames are 10in thick, with 6in external and 4.5in internal oak planking for a total thickness of 20.5in, tapering to 16in total over the gundeck, with hanging knees 20in thick at the top and 5in at the bottom. Which means the maximum possible thickness for a cannonball to hit is slightly over 40 inches of English Oak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueMyChin Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 It's intersesting but then they've an agenda to follow. I'm sure if that 2nd ball smashed right through the planking like the first they would have said "damn, we can't go back with that footage, completely debunking a legend that it's in out interests to preserve! Reduce the charge?...Yeh, reduce the charge.."I also remember mythbusters testing the myth that most sailors were killed by the splinters in battles rather than the shot. They found it would be a cause of wounding but unlikely to be fatal. I'm not suggesting that this is the case, they're not exactly 18th century commanders, with so many variables they're unlikely to ever create accurate tests. It's interesting though that the only footage/test I've ever seen on the subject that showed any evidence leads me to doubt whether it's true..Anyway, it's always cool to see stuff smashed with cannon If anyone knows of similar videos spread the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prater Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 It's intersecting but then they've an agenda to follow. I'm sure if that 2nd ball smashed right through the planking like the first they would have said "damn, we can't go back with that footage, completely debunking a legend that it's in out interests to preserve! Reduce the charge?...Yeh, reduce the charge.." I also remember mythbusters testing the myth that most sailors were killed by the splinters in battles rather than the shot. They found it would be a cause of wounding but unlikely to be fatal. I'm not suggesting that this is the case, they're not exactly 18th century commanders, with so many variable they're unlikely to ever create accurate tests. It's interesting though that the only footage/tess I've ever seen on the subject that showed any evidence leads me to doubt whether it's true.. Anyway, it's always cool to see stuff smashed with cannon If anyone knows of similar videos spread the word. I dont know that myth busters is exactly accurate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGM6AlwjGS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfsuIaTU92Y&app=desktop 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernWolves Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I would trust the Smithsonian Institute would not allow that, besides the artillery expert is British, he would not have gone for that. That's tin foil hat territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernWolves Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Yeah, it's not staged, just looked him up, the guys name is Ian Henn, he runs Mainmast Conservation out of Cornwall, England, where this was filmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir. Cunningham Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Great videos all of them, thanks guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir. Cunningham Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Yeah, it's not staged, just looked him up, the guys name is Ian Henn, he runs Mainmast Conservation out of Cornwall, England, where this was filmed. I noticed he was British as well, and I can't imagine it being staged either. What I did not understand however was the stated muzzle velocity of 1200 fps, which is rather low compared to the 1550-1600 fps of the 18, 24, 32 & 42 pdr cannons of the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prater Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Yes, they say that the weight of the shot is 1/4th that of shots used on warships, whatever that means. I assume it is a 6lber? But the say they also scale the wood so it isn't as thick as what it would have been, but I don't know if this test is exactly reliable. I wish they could have got a scale gun like an 18lber and made the "hulls" the correct size. 32lb carronade would have been nice as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Caldwell Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 great find... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taki1980 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Yes, they say that the weight of the shot is 1/4th that of shots used on warships, whatever that means. I assume it is a 6lber? But the say they also scale the wood so it isn't as thick as what it would have been, but I don't know if this test is exactly reliable. I wish they could have got a scale gun like an 18lber and made the "hulls" the correct size. 32lb carronade would have been nice as well. Yeah, scale down the Woods wasnt the best move. Also i dont know why they dont make a Statement on the Weight of the Shot, the Powdercharge, the velocity etc. no good science from them. The other Video i dont understand. Swedish? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prater Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Don't know, but it shows a cannon being fired at a "hull" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueMyChin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I would trust the Smithsonian Institute would not allow that, besides the artillery expert is British, he would not have gone for that. That's tin foil hat territory. No 'tin foil' about it, It's just not science. Until they offer more information about the variables It's as much use as Master and Commander itself as a reference. It's clearlly a marketing video. Wouldn't be vary good marketing if it didn't bounce off now would it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illusive Tabby Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I personally love the Mythbusters show, but I was always at odds with their result about cannonballs and splinters. They had ONE cannon. And I doubt the "ship" they built was fully built in the same way as a real ship. I just do not recall how it was built But they had one cannon. Show me a warship with three masts that has one cannon per side. Fire 15 cannons at the side of a ship and you may have more of a real result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maturin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The Mythbusters fired the equivalent of a 4 lb cannon at a very thin set of boards. The problem was with the myth itself. They labeled a naval fact as a pirate myth, and used shot a pirate-sized cannon at a small merchantman-sized hull, instead of using naval-grade equipment. When you actually shoot a real carronade at the bulwark of even a light warship like Niagara, the splinters come large and fast enough to stab themselves into PLYWOOD like knives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueMyChin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The Mythbusters fired the equivalent of a 4 lb cannon at a very thin set of boards. The problem was with the myth itself. They labeled a naval fact as a pirate myth, and used shot a pirate-sized cannon at a small merchantman-sized hull, instead of using naval-grade equipment. When you actually shoot a real carronade at the bulwark of even a light warship like Niagara, the splinters come large and fast enough to stab themselves into PLYWOOD like knives. You're exactly right, it was all too scaled down to work. As intended. The video in OP is the same, the validity is all lost in the scaling. He's firing cannon balls "roughly a quarter of the size used on warships" at "10 inches of wood"?! Are they claiming constitution had a 40" hull, because the woman in the video clearly states "roughly 20 inches thick" ...if we scale that up 2x so the wood is correct then they're still only firing a ball half the size it should be... Any surprise it didn't penetrate? I love the bit where the guy picks a piece of wood up that's travelled about 25 foot and says "that could take your head off!" Now, If I were to pick that up I could easily throw it 3-4 times as far, yet I highly doubt I could throw it hard enough to "take a head off". Wound, someone yes, but they always over exaggerate.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuthbert Collingwood Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I have over 20 years of being a re-enactor under my belt both army and naval using black powder cannons. Through doing this I have done a lot of extra/cast work for documentarys especially with regards to the Nelson era Royal Navy. Funny enough the vast majority of this was done on board the Trincomalee down at Hartlepool. My reason for stating this is that I have found time and again that the team making the documentary will turn up and they will ask you how things were done at the time and will listen ernestly. They will then film exactly what they had decided to film before they walked out of the office. This will usually include all the old garbage that they think the public want to hear and is at best factually dubious and quite often just plain wrong. The problem is that the direction and message of the documentary have been decided before the camera starts turning. It is this version of reality that was pitched to the money men to get the funding for the documentary and it's not going to change. Also in my experience directors do not want to challenge the widely believed myths as doing that does not make 'good TV'. The sad thing is when you look at the reality of what actually happened it is far more exciting and interesting than the TV/Hollywood version. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernWolves Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 the woman in the video clearly states "roughly 20 inches thick" Just for the record, that's at the upper port sill, it's 25 at the waterline, just like on the Victory where it's 28 at the waterline and 18 at the uppermost portsill. Nothing to do with what you said though. When I do my test, everything will be 1 to 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now