Cannonball skip emulating sniper shots

[seanjo]

It quite clearly says shots deflected off the surface penetrated very well at 1200 yards.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Lieste said:

Nope. These are solid shot, fired with highest charge and from all smootbore ordnance, (albeit some 32lb natures are lighter and use a lower maximum charge from a reduced windage piece, giving approximately the same or slightly reduced maximum velocity to the 55.5cwt 32lb of the Bloomfield pattern with is included in the table). The only hollow shot noted in the table is that for the 10" and 8" shell guns, also both smoothbore ordnance of a low windage and low powder charge.

Again I do not see this as applicaple in a naval wargame - the winds would have to be almost deadstill and the cannon calibers from the 1850's are not comparable with those from the 1750's and all cannons mentioned in the treatise are very large calibers for the ships currently ingame (the french 30 pounder would roughly translate as a british 32 pounder - these were not fitted to frigates untill late 1850's unless we're talking carronades and as I recall all carronades used in the experiment were hollow shots - as is mentioned on p. 128). The two cannons mentioned in the treatise that roughly would compare with the guns currently ingame - the 12pds and the 24 pds, the shots simply failed to penetrate (for the 12 pds) and the 24pds would fail to penetrate on a distance longer than 1200 yards, with normal charge. Most of the penetrating rounds were made with double charged and often with additional material to "tighten" the enclosure around the shot - again impractical in a battle situation.

Moreover on p. 126, second paragraph the author himself infers that the shots would fail to penetrate under the waterline and actually injure the ship. This entire debate is based on two faulty premises - the first being that the size of the guns would be in any way applicable to the ships in the game, the second that this was plausible in naval battles against warships. Neither is the case outlined in the treatise. To round off the futility of this discussion in terms of the ships in game the author himself notes the difficulty of maintaining elevation off the guns to the angle needed for the shot and this is on the movable floating platforms specifically designed for the experiment.. Another issue is the downward elevation of the cannons on actual frigates making the tactic difficult against smaller objects at close range - again noted by the author..

[seanjo]

51 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

Alright I'll yield - if we get ships from the 1850's.. The problems I see is:

The smoothbore cannons compared to the rifled ones. The use of rifled cannons (as far as I know) didn't become widespread practice in naval warfare untill the late 1850's and I simply do not see its practical use.

In the same treatise (if I recall it correctly) it mentions that it only works with large calibers on level ground and smooth water surfaces..

And one premise that is outlined in the treatise is that the shots are so-called hollowshots - worthless against any warships.

 

I concur that it could have its uses against longboats and similar targets - in very smooth waters, but I don't see it in almost all sailing condition nor against any of the current ships in game.

The experiments he mentions were done in 1838.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, seanjo said:

It quite clearly says shots deflected off the surface penetrated very well at 1200 yards.

And it quite clearly states the conditions for the experiment - a calm surface. How often would you find that at sea?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, seanjo said:

The experiments he mentions were done in 1838.

Yeah but the only cannons mentioned actively used on warships (other than SoL) are the 12 pds and the 24 pds.. And again - how often do you find completely calm seas? 

EDIT: and just for clarification, the cannon de obousier was a type of cannon developed in france in the 1850's - not part of the 1838 experiment.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Guest

[Hodo]

Just now, Bearwall said:

Yeah but the only cannons mentioned actively used on warships (other than SoL) are the 12 pds and the 24 pds.. And again - how often do you find completely calm seas? 

EDIT: and just for clarification, the cannon de obousier was a type of cannon developed in france in the 1850's - not part of the 1838 experiment.

If there are completely calm seas, there is no wind... no wind means you dont move. 

[Guest]

Just now, Hodo said:

If there are completely calm seas, there is no wind... no wind means you dont move. 

lol yeah I know - but that kinda ruins the point of a naval action wargame.. The only time I can see a use for the tactic is either when trying to shoot into a harbor protected by a fort, or trying to take out several longboats attempting to board a ship lying dead in the waters.. Neither case is really possible in the game.

[seanjo]

I've skipped stones in choppy waters, I'm pretty sure an experienced cannon Captain could pick his moment.

 

Anyway, the point being, bouncing cannonballs off the surface of the water was a well-known practice and it would be nice to see it in the game.

[Guest]

Just now, Lieste said:

In the 1750s line ships of the British navy were armed with 42 lb ordnance on the lower deck, they were armed with 32lb on the lower deck if the ship was not designed for 42lb or the scale of ordnance had been reduced. Frigates did indeed have 12lb or 18lb ordnance of a short pattern, but these will still perform in proportion to those of the ships of the line with a linear reduction in range and penetration depth in line with the bore of the ordnance.

By the 1790s 32lb ordnance or heavier was commonplace on fifth and sixth rates, in the form of carronades, which while ranging less well than guns, are not as inferior in range nor penetration as are commonly portrayed, with carronades being more effective than the smaller ordnance they supplement at both very short and very long ranges in their particular merits (high injury to structure at short range, (relatively) high penetration at long range, and accuracy adequate at short and not falling far behind the diminished accuracy of guns at extended direct fire and random fire ranges).

The failure to penetrate was against the lower side of a line ship. Small ordnance would remain effective against the upper works of all ships and the sides generally of unrated vessels to extended range.

Hollow shot is discussed in the treatise and largely dismissed as it was newly suggested and considered to be a poor substitute for ordnance of full power firing with high charges. The table of results from the firings were almost exclusively reported for solid shot of nominal weight, except for the three types of shell gun in 10" and 8" natures.

 

18pds frigates doesn't become the norm untill the 1770's and only the first rates had 42pds on the bottom deck. The problem with downward elevation would only be exacerbated on ship of the lines due to the shape of their hulls. And while it is true that carronades became widespread practice on fifth rates in the 1790's they were often of inferior quality to the long guns due to manufacturing of them. Carronades were (in the beginning) a cheap, discount alternative to the more expensive long cannons. In terms of the quality of materials used that is. The british first saw a genuine interest in outfitting their frigates proper with carronades and throughout the period produced some of the most devastating carronade frigates.

 

2 minutes ago, seanjo said:

I've skipped stones in choppy waters, I'm pretty sure an experienced cannon Captain could pick his moment. Guncrews "picking" their moment in battle and predicting the movement of the sea over several hundred yards? wow.... And I thought the current educational system placed high demands on its students.. 

Anyway, the point being, bouncing cannonballs off the surface of the water was a well-known practice and it would be nice to see it in the game. No it would not - it was NOT a common practice (hence the need for experimentation in 1838 and later - why experiment to document something in widespread knowledge? - You don't experiment to prove that milk is good for the development of childrens bonestructure, you just take it for granted that ppl know this. And the author himself notes the need for very calm seas - no sailing ship would move very far in calm seas. You know.... because it uses the windforce....

This must be the most unenlightened comment so far. Discussion is closed for my part..

[George Washington]

16 hours ago, seanjo said:

It was used to good effect many times, it uses the same principles as skimming stones. Barnes Wallis is said to have got the idea for the bouncing bomb from Nelson bouncing cannonballs.

Ordinary solid round shot, however, would skip if fired on a low trajectory (almost flat to the water), with the right wave conditions. We do not have wave variation in NA, so it won't work. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by George Washington

[janat08]

14 minutes ago, George Washington said:

Ordinary solid round shot, however, would skip if fired on a low trajectory (almost flat to the water), with the right wave conditions. We do not have wave variation in NA, so it won't work. 

I don't belief there're waves near ports, and I contend that ball will skip hitting tip of the wave despite the obtuse angle of "attack". This feature all the same is more likely to favour frigates that have less decks and really need the penetration, in place of PB restrictions.

Edited November 1, 2017 by janat08

[George Washington]

10 minutes ago, janat08 said:

I don't belief there're waves near ports, and I contend that ball will skip hitting tip of the wave despite the obtuse angle of "attack". This feature all the same is more likely to favour frigates that have less decks and really need the penetration, in place of PB restrictions.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/aboutnelson/barnes-wallis-and-the-bouncing-cannon-balls-t445.html

Cannons usually being mounted quite low, it would have been relatively easy to get the effect to work...

Edited November 1, 2017 by George Washington

[seanjo]

6 hours ago, Bearwall said:

18pds frigates doesn't become the norm untill the 1770's and only the first rates had 42pds on the bottom deck. The problem with downward elevation would only be exacerbated on ship of the lines due to the shape of their hulls. And while it is true that carronades became widespread practice on fifth rates in the 1790's they were often of inferior quality to the long guns due to manufacturing of them. Carronades were (in the beginning) a cheap, discount alternative to the more expensive long cannons. In terms of the quality of materials used that is. The british first saw a genuine interest in outfitting their frigates proper with carronades and throughout the period produced some of the most devastating carronade frigates.

 

This must be the most unenlightened comment so far. Discussion is closed for my part..

LOL, you experiment to perfect a method as well.

I prove you wrong and you get all pissy...carry on muppet.