Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

470 Excellent

About Lieste

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,907 profile views
  1. Poplar/Spruce/Fir is around 50% as resistive as Oak. Oak sides can be penetrated into by 9pd at combat ranges, why not a weaker wood? There is no 'armour with a mast behind it' or 'armour with hull structure behind it' in both cases the bulk material which resists the shot is also the target which takes injury when struck. Rope is even more fragile than Poplar, and is the main critical point of rigging injury. That mast damage seems to be 100% "all or nothing" is incorrect, and the reality is that running rigging which allows stability and control of the sail angle and form, or suspends the yards, or standing rigging which supports the upper spars and prevents the carrying away of the spars by wind forces is damaged incrementally by shots, the rigging failing piecemeal or as one as the critical strength threshold for the prevailing loads is exceeded. Damage to rigging alters the ability to trim sail to control 'pointability' of the ship, directly with the loss of the windward braces, indirectly if sail must be reduced to restore trim because of lost sail on another mast. Given the overwhelming presence of 4-9lb guns as chase guns to interfere with rigging function on brig and frigates throughout the entire period, I have to assume that these weapons can be effective in compromising rigging at 'extended chase' ranges, permitting the closing to effective fighting range against (or the escape from) their opponent. A '12" rope' is only around 4" in diameter. This is comparable to the size of shot, so even a partial hit will destroy a single rope... and there are limited numbers of duplicates and only for certain functions. Many rigging lines are much smaller than '12" rope'.
  2. I'm asking for a friend... but just what do you think 'chase guns' are for?
  3. While you might see the majority of wounds from splinters, deaths and the *direct* dismounting of ordnance and damage to masts, pumps etc are more likely with the shot. On the other hand, the increase in material damage to the side (the source material for the greatly increased size/reduced velocity of splinters) might see a greater potential for the damage to breechings in the marginal penetration. Still shot size and the area each affects is minimal in comparison to the overall size of ships (ports seldom account for more than 1.5% of a side, and the damaged area of a single hit is far smaller than the port area.
  4. Lieste

    Barrack Ships

    Receiving ship is the term for a hulk used for collecting new landsmen and seamen and providing initial discipline and training before their first assignment at sea on a naval ship. Not every hand would necessarily pass through a receiving ship, though many did. Exceptions might include those impressed seamen from merchant vessels assessed in excess of their minimum requirement under articles of war among others.
  5. This is plot of on the left, a single 32lb gun, and a single 4lb gun with velocity vs range. Both set arbitrarily to 1600fps. A second curve for the 32lb gun represents either double shot, or as listed carronade. (Set to be a range offset of 1000m, representing a V0 of 850 fps in this case. Note that these appear to all have 'different form' and result from a trajectory with full accommodation for mach drag for the different sized shot (which has a small but dis-regardable difference in this 2:1 scale change of form (it has a higher impact on the next halving of size, to give an 0.5lb shot, with a reduced performance). When the carronade velocity profile is shifted to the right by the difference in range at which the full gun and the carronade share the carronade muzzle velocity, and all shot are 'scaled' by dividing the range by shot calibre, then the right hand plot is seen. Note that the form of carronade and gun are continuous, and that the 4lb gun is scaled in range in nearly direct proportion to it's shot diameter (e.g. the three plots so adjusted overlap and are nearly identical, despite the large differences in initial velocity, and the large difference in shot size/weight). The 'shape' of each is approximately the same. The 4lb curve reduces over a range of 50% of that of the 32lb curve, but is otherwise of the same form. The 32lb carronade curve is merely offset by the range at which the long gun falls to the carronade performance. All of these trajectories are for 1nm, and are all in the 'flat fire' regime where trajectories are reasonably rigid, and limited by air drag rather than by trajectory form and gravity. The Carronade has the steepest angle of projection, and the 4lb gun loses the most velocity over the distance (and has the lowest velocity outside of approximately 1000m) The size of the shot is 2:1, the 32lb gun penetrates at the same velocity as 2:1, and carries it's velocity losing the same proportion over a distance in ratio 2:1 (i.e. 'penetrates' the air in the same proportion, nearly exactly). Edited. Slight missspeak, the right hand range measure is not 'calibres' but rather metres/calibre in inches. The implication remains the same, just a scaling constant and labelling difference.
  6. I'm not sure what part of carronades are subsonic so have less but lose less penetration is hard to understand. The penetration at the muzzle is in the ratio of 2:1 for the full charge gun and a carronade (or top shot of the reduce charge and double). This represents a range difference for equal penetration of 875m At distance the ratio reduces, - at 700m, it is 3:2 ratio, but the absolute range difference remains 875m All intermediate power guns fall between these limits, but also will have an absolute difference in penetration based on a constant range offset for all practical trajectory.
  7. Cannon is not synonymous with gun or ordnance. (Strictly, cannon is a 7" gun, so one of 42lb shot weight, so none of those ships had a single cannon fitted to them). Being looser with the definition, but still careful, you have main battery ordnance, possibly some additional similar or heavier guns in a demi battery, a handful of guns of a lighter pattern on quarterdeck and forecastle, lighter guns on the roundhouse, and then swivels on the rail in the waist, the quarterdeck and forecastle and in the tops. The reports of 'many guns' on these small ships (none of which are even close to the size of a Southampton, or Surprise (corvette)) are talking about 6lb guns, possibly augmented by a couple of pairs of 9lb in demi-battery or in the midships part of the main battery, with 4lb, 3lb, 2lb guns on the q'deck and f'csle, swivels and stone throwers making up the remainder.
  8. Double shot was used in guns - and usefully it reduced the performance of the ordnance to approximate that of a carronade in terms of velocity trajectory and range. Useful to "range well together" in 'elevation by quadrant' and also to reduce the degree of overpenetration from gunshot, giving similar penetration/damage effects to carronades (including a deficit performance against thicker sides near the water, from moderate bore ordnance)
  9. Well... a 2lb shot at 100m, from a 'reasonable' muzzle velocity** would penetrate around 20" of oak - sufficient to penetrate *much* of the side of a first rate, though this penetration would have little 'impulse' and little effect on the side - though because of the 'overpenetration' effect, the 9lb gun might only be twice as effective on the near side, or a 32lb carronade five times. The main difference would be the hole size, and the behind target effect on soft targets and on ordnance etc. While it would indeed be ineffective vs the wales on single hits, and the target size is huge, so multiple hits would to a reasonable approximation be nearly independent, the gun decks, and especially the quarterdeck, f'castle and the bulwarks are not at all heavily built (most ships thin to around 6-9" at the top timber line, at a high estimate - which a 2lb shot should *just* pass at up to 680m). **(comparable to any 'modern' other gun firing 1/3rd charges) though insufficient evidence exists to the form of 2lb guns to make good estimates, as they were seldom used after the 1580s. The smallest carriage guns on '1700s-1800s' ships being 3lb, and this later being increased to 4lb then 6lb, or with 12lb carronades substituted.
  10. 42lb @ 300m/s is only marginally above carronade level performance. That said, you would never see <160m/s at any range, at 'mortar' elevations you would reach 4030m while at 166m/s+, a minimum velocity at around 163m/s is seen in the vicinity of 20 degrees projection at 3020m, and a 'typical carriage out angle' of 11 degrees would result in ~2050m and 178m/s Guns would add an 'extra' 750-800m or so, with minimal changes to velocity at the termination. (+10m/s or so at 11 degrees) NACA drag data for spheres, at various reynolds numbers and mach numbers - note that (sub gun calibre) smaller shot will slow *much* faster, but these are all in the turbulent flow regime with tripped boundary layers down to at least the 6lb gun.
  11. Penetration, in inches.. given shot weight in lbs Avoirdupois and shot diameter in Henrician English Inches. Poncelet was one of the French Officers performing experiments at Metz during the early/middle C19th, and this is his formulation of the penetration by shot/shell into a variety of materials valid over the ordnance range of velocity and for a range of materials of use in ship building and fortification. Didion was a later contributor who with more access to test data refined some of the parameters. The formulation and parameters were still 'state of the art' in the 1970s for penetration of bombs into concrete and earth.
  12. Why reinvent the formulae. This is from Poncelet, translated to English units. (12*1.1513*W)/(32.2*kA*D*D) * LOG(1 + (V/kB)*(V/kB)) Where the later Didion parameters, as copied by Bashforth are 0.004328 for kA and 734 for kB.
  13. Mizzen falls first, and often completely, because it is much lighter in construction than the large foremast and larger mainmast. (proportion as little at 50%) It also has it's root at the Lower deck level or Orlop, rather than extending to the Keel in at least a significant proportion of ships. Rigging damage tends to see the mast remaining for fore and main, but with tops, t'gallants and the yards being shot away and falling. This is more common than the complete dismasting 'flush'. T'gallant spars are then often shipped onto the masts, if the top spars are damaged in action. A reduced press of sail sufficient to trim the ship is what is required, not maximum speed. Damage to standing rigging, masts, and the spars they support will reduce what sail can be carried, even if the damage doesn't actually result in the collapse of the spars immediately.
  14. Yes, there was a pressure by British Admirals to press combats to close range, pistol shot or closer.... yet this must be taken in their proper context, where pistol shot is the carry range' of a moderately elevated pistol (around 50% of the ultimate range). This range is stated by Admiral Rodney as being 400 yds, and it is noted in the same document that this 'pistol range' is seldom obtained in fleet action with many being performed at 1000yds plus, by analysis of the number of ships engaging simultaneously on a broadside. Indeed, the line of metal range, the range at which *all* ordnance can be pointed by the top line was routinely seen to be ~750 yds for all natures when fired single shot with the standard charge, and accuracy in pointing was less inside this distance, although the maximum error in pointing and the range at which pointing is correct can be reduced by reduction in charge size, and the use of double shot. (The relative inflexibility of Carronade chamber (and the small powder size/absence or futility of double shot) led to a reputation for inaccuracy at 400 yds (in comparison to guns), because the apex above the sight line is higher, and the potential to adjust the apex height, and the range at which the line of sight passes the trajectory is far less amenable to correction by adjustment of shooting conditions within the bore). Rigging damage is the fastest way to bring down yards, which are largely only suspended by ropes... Spars are rigidly fixed by their caps, and must break or be mounted to part of a larger spar which breaks to fall. This can be damage caused by shot, by wind load and by moderate amounts of damage and stress caused by either/both of these exceeding the remaining stability and strength of the beam as standing rigging is shot away, or running rigging fouled resulting in uncontrolled sail. This damage can be a single shot into a critical point, or dozens scattered over the mast being insufficient. What masts are *not* is shot proof. What they are is 'resiliant' and 'redundant' with a few critical vulnerabilities and existing stress. Poplar, pine, spruce, all woods used to make masts and spars, *because they are light*. All poor at resisting shot (half or less of oak for some)... but they are (at least at the mast, rather than top sparring) substantial timbers, little changed by the presence of shot holes in small number.
  15. When you mention 'stability' of a ship most people will read it as a hydrodynamics consideration, response to lading, pitch, roll, yaw, heave and surge in seas and in response to wind load. You mean structural strength and structural stiffness of the 'beam' which is a ship structure. And, yes, the main and fore mast are secured to the upper deck beams and to the keel - the maximal height of the 'beam' and thus the strongest most stable arrangement of this structure under load. Mizzen (sometimes) and Bowsprit (usually) often didn't continue down to the keel though, ending on one of the lower decks.
  • Create New...