Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

What is the difference between Bronze, Iron and Carronade Weapons?


Destraex

Recommended Posts


This article by Mark Lardas (a favourite author of mine) is an absolute gem. It describes the difference between carronades and normal long guns and why the different guns were more successful in different situations.



For those playing naval action this article provides some interesting back story.

 

However knowing this makes me curious about whether older ships would fit into the game and whether they were actually at a disadvantage. I believe Bronze guns were just phased out because they was more expensive, not because bronze guns were less effective?

 




 

So in order of history:

 

Bronze Long Guns - ?

Iron Long Guns - ?

Carronades - revolutionary, 1812 and Napoleonic wars

Columbaid and some Blomfeld designs (long guns with carronade tech that made them lighter) - this was late napoleonic 

 

Not sure:

Longer guns primarily for bow and stern chasers? Did they really even exist as full broadsides?

 

I guess I am trying for a timeline of naval weaponry so I can figure out where they would fit in game if earlier ships were introduced.

 

There are also other questions like:

- Bow chasers should not fire directly forward?

- Aiming tech and when it was introduced

- Crew training

- Different gun companies that make different quality guns

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bronze and Iron main difference was cost of production and not performance. So basically whichever would fit your nation resources the best.

 

Both could retain similar charges with similar results and would have similar lifetime.

 

Posted long ago a fine read about them in the section.

 

BRITISH SMOOTH-BORE ARTILLERY by David MCConnell, 1988

[ extensive study of the technology of British ordnance circa 1710 to the 1860s ]

1st edition - [link]

 

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/1125-useful-books-on-combat-sailing-and-naval-history-in-the-age-of-sail/#entry69025

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forget a key feature of bronze cannons, bronze is a metal that cools down faster, allowing you to reload faster wirhout a need to cool the cannon.(effectively a faster rate of fire)

I'm afraid you have this backward Steel. Bronze guns heated up faster, and so had to have their rate of fire artificially restrained. However, if they did overheat and burst, it was not catastrophic like an iron gun. The most significant practical advantage of bronze was lighter weight, but it also did not corrode at sea. And then there was a somewhat intangible prestige factor, e.g. our Sviatoi Pavel - serving as the BSF flagship - was armed with bronze long guns at a rather late date.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

To Mirones reply:

 

In our timeframe cannons were cast in one piece.

In the mid 1800 a innovative guy started building cannons out of two pieces. The barrel and a big ring to put around the powderchamber in order to hold the preassure.

This method proved to be much easier than casting in one and lead to a better/ more efficient way to mass production.

 

(I am not sure if it was an american or british ingeneer.. But I think it was an american)

__

About long vs short guns.

The discussion was done many times and if I remember correctly black powder is only able to propell a ball up to ~1,5 meter barrel lenght bevore the propellant travels faster than the powder burns. (that figure may be very rough estimate I cannot remember100%)

 

Did anyone mention that in a long battle the powdercharges were reduced? In care of the hot guns.

Ive read about it but I am not sure if its 100%true or fictional.

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...