Cannon range and damage guide?

[Brigand]

Well, it depends. I'm not sure which source you are using, so let's work with this:

Weight of |           | Weight
Shot (lb) | Type      | (lb)
----------+-----------+--------
       68 | Carronade | 4,032
       42 | Long gun  | 7,504
       42 | Carronade | 2,492
       32 | Long gun  | 6,496
       32 | Carronade | 1,918
       24 | Long gun  | 5,824
       24 | Carronade | 1,456
       18 | Long gun  | 4,704
       18 | Carronade | 1,008
       12 | Long gun  | 3,808
       12 | Carronade |   654
        9 | Long gun  | 3,388
        6 | Long gun  | 2,688
        4 | Long gun  | 1,372
        3 | Long gun  |   812

(source)

 

We can see that the 4 pounder long gun weights approximately the same an 24 pounder carronade. So, if you equip your ship with 24 pounder carronades instead of 4 pounder long guns, your complete loadout weights about the same.

 

~Brigand

[Kaaru62]

a cannon loadout for the surprise are 7-9 longs on deck 1 and 12-12  longs on deck 2. according to the chart, the 9 longs are 3 times the weight of an 18 carronade and the 12 longs are over 2 times the weight of a 24 carronade.

 

 

23,716- 7 9pd     long

7,056  - 7 18pd   carronade

45,696- 12 12pd long

17,472- 12 24pd carronade

 

69,412 pounds for long guns

24,528 pounds for carronades

 

44, 844 pound difference

 

that is a lot of extra crew and ammunition to make the weight the same for both loadouts

Edited March 2, 2015 by Karu

[majordon]

Fascinating stuff!

 

2 questions:-

 

1) Will you allow double shotting of Carronades?

 

2) Will you have limits on Ball and Powder carried by each ship?

 

You will make me very happy if the answers are:- 1  No 2 Yes

Love the Game

[BungeeLemming]

I just did a bit of calculation:

Lets say we mount the 24x12pd. long ad the 14x9pdr long on the Surprise. (I forget about chasers here)

Base tonnage of the Surprise is 1400.

Total is 1400+138,824== 1538,824t.

The historical armament was 9 and 6 pdrs. Results in 1518,944t. Thats about 20ts less.

Thats 1,3% difference.. I will not expect my Surprise to perform a lot better when armed with lighter guns.

I know this is lacking the ammount of powder and ammunition but even if that will put the difference at 2% (wich is worst case) there is not a lot that physics will/ or can do.

The game models weight as this.

 

I tested it with Mirones in a Duel. Both on Bellonas. I was empty while he ran the biggest possible weapons.

We went 180 to the wind and had a little race. The results were an eye opener for me:

I accelerated a tiny bit faster and had a better top speed of around 0.8 knots. ( Who knows when the ships are fully accelerated?)

 

And when I am honest with myself this is just what I would expect from a few percent difference in weight.

[maturin]

That pretty much proves that customizable gun calibers are a meaningless feature. Go with the largest possible or commit suicide.

[BungeeLemming]

That pretty much proves that customizable gun calibers are a meaningless feature. Go with the largest possible or commit suicide.

.. until we may see a difference in crew wich are working on a gundeck.

I suspect that huge caliber guns will suffer a lot more from crewloss than smaller guns on the same deck with the same crew. (okay that is obvious)

So If I load the Bellona with 32/24/12s I may be suffering reload times a lot more than the historical 24/18/12s armament.

Maybe the guncrews even get exhausted in a future build.

[BungeeLemming]

Lieste I took the data out of the gamestats.

I dont know how heavy the Surprise was in history.

 

All comparisms I made are directly related to the game and as such the conclutions are correct.

 

I dont claim to be a Surprise buff and I am far from a sailing physician. But ingame this is what it is

[SueMyChin]

Posted this in another thread thought I'd add it to the information already here..

"A carronade weighed a third to a quarter as much and used a quarter to a third of the gunpowder charge for a long gun firing the same cannonball" *

So you could be looking at anything from 1/3 to 2/3 of the weight even with larger calibre guns.



Let's say a ship carrying 20 (to keep it simple) 12lb long guns was planning to swap them out for carronades. Let's say his cargo capacity after water, stores and other essentials was 100 ton for armament and cargo.

The 20 x 12lbs would collectively weigh 63,840lbs (or 31.92 ton)

If he was to swap them out for 18lb carronades... 20 x 18lbs = 22,400lbs (or 11.2 ton) that's 20% extra cargo.

If he was to swap them out for 24lb carronades... 20 x 24lbs = 29,120lbs (or 14.56 ton) 15% extra cargo.

If he was to swap them out for 32lb carronades... 20 x 32lbs = 39,760lbs (or 19.88 ton) 10% extra cargo.

In fact, you could even swap out the 12lbs long guns for 42lbs carronades and still lessen the weight of the armament, providing the ship had the space, strength and crew to use them.


*p 84 J. Guillmartin "Ballistics in the Black Powder era" p 73-98 in ROYAL ARMOURIES CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS.; British naval armament 1600-1900; London, 1987; Nov, 1989

 

 

 

Fact is, the current test doesn't really highlight the benefits of the carronade. It doesn't really take into account sailing qualities of ships with different weight of armament besides a few fractions of knots (which I appreciate isn't relative to final game). The cost of buying and supplying guns isn't accounted for and the number of crew needed to fire them isn't either. Also as it stands they can fire double-shotted, which really should be removed before full launch.

 

 

For guns the major portion is the gun itself, while for carronades the deck weight is lower, with the bulk made up of ammunition and supplies (the larger weapons have much heavier ammunition than weapon for the typical ammunition quantities (94-108 rounds)).

 

 

Re: Accounting the weight of ammunition as part of the gun weight
 

You're right to suggest that with increase of calibre the weight of ammunition will increase but to what extent will not depend on how much ammunition the 18th century Royal Navy would issue as standard (between 60-70 shot per gun I believe(?)). In game the damage dealt per each shot will not mirror the effective damage dealt in1800 naval combat perfectly, so we may only need to carry half (or double) the amount of shot per gun when the full game launches.

If we say end game 50 shot per gun is the recommended load. Going by this table it would take you 35 minutes to fully exhaust those 50 rounds per gun (12lb long guns) if you were to continually fire both broadsides non stop. 41minutes if you were armed with 32lb carronades. I wouldn't imagine needing any more than that and I would suggest that if I were a merchant I wouldn't be wanting to fire half that amount really.

 

The 20 x 12lbs would collectively weigh 63,840lbs (or 31.92 ton)   + 50 shot per gun (12,000lb or 6 ton)

If he was to swap them out for 18lb carronades... 20 x 18lbs = 22,400lbs (or 11.2 ton) + 50 shot per gun (18,000lb or 9 ton)

If he was to swap them out for 24lb carronades... 20 x 24lbs = 29,120lbs (or 14.56 ton) + 50 shot per gun (24,000lb or 12 ton)

If he was to swap them out for 32lb carronades... 20 x 32lbs = 39,760lbs (or 19.88 ton) + 50 shot per gun (32,000lb or 16 ton)
 

You're still able to swap out 20x 12lb long guns for 20x 32lb carronades and not increase weight at all going by 50 shot per gun

 

I suppose that where the weight is (gun decks vs shot locker or hold) would play a part but whether the game will account for this too is another thing.

Edited March 4, 2015 by SueMyChin

[Brigand]

(...)

 

You're right to suggest that with increase of calibre the weight of ammunition will increase but to what extent will not depend on how much ammunition the 18th century Royal Navy would issue as standard (between 60-70 shot per gun I believe(?)).

 

(...)

 

 

"In the 1780s a 74-gun ship had 2800 rounds of ball shot, compared with 166 of grape shot, 84 of double-headed shot, 115 of Langrel (langridge), shot and 173 of canister shot."

 

source: Arming and Fitting of English Ship of War 1600-1815, p.136.

~Brigand

[SueMyChin]

 

"In the 1780s a 74-gun ship had 2800 rounds of ball shot, compared with 166 of grape shot, 84 of double-headed shot, 115 of Langrel (langridge), shot and 173 of canister shot."

 

source: Arming and Fitting of English Ship of War 1600-1815, p.136.

~Brigand

 

 

 

The tables of channel and foreign service loads show *much* higher loads.

For a third rate, third class (54 guns, 17 carronades) it lists;

Channel service : Foreign Service

4710 ball : 6840 ball

392 grape ; 392 grape

315 case ; 315 case

 

About half this is for 24pdr guns and 32pdr carronades, the rest made up from 18pdr guns, 18pdr carronades and 9pdr chase guns.

 

I was only just reading 'Tars' by Tim Clayton the other week and remembered this snip-it (luckily it's on google Books so I don't have to type it all up) from a chapter about Monmouth's capture of the Foudroyant"

 

Monmouth actually carried 70 guns at the time so it's almost a perfect reference for the numbers offered by Lieste above.

 

At that rate it would have literally taken them days to fire off the 5417 listed as 'channel service load' not to mention the 2130 extra for Foreign Service.

 

Now, I'm not disputing it, I know the RN kept strict records of the numbers which is interesting reading but again I'm just not sure it's going to be relevant in game to be honest.

I wonder if the devs have data on average shots fired per engagement in each ship. I bet 50 isn't far off.

 

[maturin]

I imagine that they would run out of powder first in any case. And carronades use a nice small charge.

 

Apparently chainshot was carried in very small loads, however.

[SueMyChin]

"The tables below were calculated based upon a 130-round-per-gun norm because that number equates to the known number of 18‑pounder rounds carried by the ship in June 1812 per the log for its sole gun of that caliber"

 

32‑pounder shot

1,920 round shot
960 chain or bar shot
240 grape or canister stands
2,160 rounds, weighing 69,120 lbs (34.56T)

 

24-pounder shot

2,700 round shot
900 chain or bar shot
300 grape or canister stands
3,900 rounds, weighing 93,600 lbs (46.80T)

 

18‑pounder shot

130 round shot, weighing 1,340 lbs (1.17T)

 

Total Weight of Shot 165,060 lbs  (82.53T)

 

 

 

The quote above suggests the estimate for 32lb carronade and 24lb long guns was made off the back of the ship carrying 130 rounds of 18lb shot per gun. This doesn't really take into account the fact (see below) that they always seemed to take less shot per carronade relative to the long guns.

 

It may well be that these reduced carronade shot amounts were decided upon after the supposed (above) load-out was used but I doubt that they would have ever deemed the need for both carronade and long gun shot to be exactly the same ratio of shot per gun.

 

 

1809

60 round shot

10 double or chain shot

10 stands of grape or canister

 

28 August 1813 (edit)

100‑120 rounds of solid shot

50‑60 stands of grape

20‑25 rounds of canister

 

(Carronade)

80‑90 solid shot

30‑40 grape

10‑15 canister

 

1 September 1813

100 round

40 grape

5 double-headed (dismantling) shot per long gun of whatever weight

 

(Carronade)

60 round

40 grape

20 canister

 

She used some 943 shot (20%) of her allotment to defeat a single inferior frigate.

 

"In slightly less than two hours, for there had been at least two lulls in the action, Hull’s people had expended 943 rounds of 32- and 24-pounder shot of four types.  They represented twenty percent of his 32-pounder inventory and thirteen of his 24-pounder stock.  Because mostly double-shotted cannon were used, they had burned up only seven percent of the powder. "

 

Without taking into account that they wouldn't be firing both broadsides at once or the doublle-shotted cannon (mostly because I've always been under the impression you couldn't fire Carronades double-shotted and it's a little ambiguous as to how much of each shot were used) that's roughly 19 shots per gun in "slightly less than two hours".

 

Working at 5 minutes per shot that's about 95 minutes worth of continuous fire. 20 shots per gun in a 2 hour engagement seems plausible to me given half could well have been fired double-shotted.

 

Basically because carronades wouldn't need to (or couldn't) be fired double-shotted you wouldn't need as many shot per carronade as you would per long guns...thoughts?

Edited March 4, 2015 by SueMyChin

[SueMyChin]

I found this quote on another forum but it's completely un-sourced so could well be twaddle..

 

In the Danish Navy, 1775, a 60-gun ship with 24 24-pounder guns, 24 12-pounder guns and 12 8-pounders carried:

1920 cannonball, 240 bar-shot, 120 grapeshot for the 24-pounders

1920 ball, 240 bar and 120 grape for the 12-pounders

960 ball, 120 bar and 60 grape for the 8-pounders.

 

In other words, 80 roundshot, 10 barshot and 5 grapeshot per gun.

[SueMyChin]

Amusingly, your figures for 1812 are even higher than those from the page I quoted from. (Those were 130 rounds per gun, of which 80, 90 carronade and gun respectively were ball. You list 80 and 100 as minimums.)

 

....Amusingly?

It must have been a typo or I've overlooked the dates as it was (now edited) 1813 too.

 

..and it's the same source.

 

"In a 28 August 1813 letter to Secretary of the Navy William Jones, Captain Thomas Tingey, Commandant of the Washington Navy Yard, recommended that ships load out, for each long gun aboard, 100‑120 rounds of solid shot, 50‑60 stands of grape, and 20‑25 rounds of canister; for carronades, 80‑90 solid shot, 30‑40 grape, and 10‑15 canister."

 

 

It does seem that either 20% and 13% are rounded up a bit, or the expenditure of 943 rounds is from a smaller supply than that quoted ~ but not by a significant amount.

 

I think they've overestimated the amounts carried for the carronades but it's irrelevant really but it would be interesting if someone could come up with some official figures as I know the RN (at least) kept note of these numbers and subsequent changes to them also.

[Steelfury]

 

960 chain or bar shot

 

Pfft! Sailsnipers

[Jack_the_Stripper]

in game there is a scale cannon 4pd x16 and cannon 6pd x8? what dose that mean

[SueMyChin]

Posted this on other thread, though it's just as relevant here too.

Re: total weight of carronade vs long guns. it gives some idea as to the number of rounds they would carry for each (and in what ship/deck) too.

Edited March 8, 2015 by SueMyChin

[tarkin1980]

Does anyone have the reload speed for 24 longs?

[BungeeLemming]

Does anyone have the reload speed for 24 longs?

If you have looked one page bevore this one

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/3990-cannon-range-and-damage-guide/?p=81182

Thats what ur looking for

[kang]

This is probably a bit of nerdly type question but was curious if the center of gravity and such are modeled in the game.  If something like that exists then the more weight you put on the deck then the more top heavy you are which could impact your rolling/healing and such.  I guess back in the day they used ballast to help with that and you could just abstract the COG to a point but anywho.  Just wondering if anyone knew about this sort of stuff...

[AKPyrate]

This is probably a bit of nerdly type question but was curious if the center of gravity and such are modeled in the game.  If something like that exists then the more weight you put on the deck then the more top heavy you are which could impact your rolling/healing and such.  I guess back in the day they used ballast to help with that and you could just abstract the COG to a point but anywho.  Just wondering if anyone knew about this sort of stuff...

 

Not sure if it's specifically the center of gravity, but you can overload some ships so that in heavier weather the lower ports aren't always able to fire.  I noticed this specifically on the Snow, and not as much since then (though to be fair, I've tried to be mindful of that since then).  It seemed to roll a bit more and have substantially lower gun ports.  I never checked to see if she'd sink faster/with less damage when starting out lower in the water.  As for that being a nerdy question, probably...but here I am throwing an answer back, so what does that say about me?

[kang]

Not sure if it's specifically the center of gravity, but you can overload some ships so that in heavier weather the lower ports aren't always able to fire.  I noticed this specifically on the Snow, and not as much since then (though to be fair, I've tried to be mindful of that since then).  It seemed to roll a bit more and have substantially lower gun ports.  I never checked to see if she'd sink faster/with less damage when starting out lower in the water.  As for that being a nerdy question, probably...but here I am throwing an answer back, so what does that say about me?

 

That's good to know.  I've been trying to compensate for upsizing to the largest size long gun by reducing the fore and aft sizes but couldn't really tell much difference.  I'm sure this will continue to evolve over time...

[Kaaru62]

i was looking for information on carronades that ins't a wiki and pound this pdf

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFwQFjAN&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenrg.org%2Fresources%2Farticles%2FThe%2520carronade.pdf&ei=J0EJVZXoMIKzggSYwoPwAg&usg=AFQjCNEWwaeIfeyDy7ASqidscfZk45lliw&sig2=Oatq1JifGhSQTi9wd7o_1w&bvm=bv.88198703,d.cWc

 

if you read this research paper the carronade was in competition to heavy cannon for the Royal Navy contract. it shows how the carronade had more firepower and could put more power and volume down range than it's equivalent weight in cannon.

 

from page 20:

 

 " Balls fired by carronades moved at relatively slow

velocity. At its highest initial velocity of 1,500 feet
per second, the momentum (weight times velocity)
of a 9-pound shot from a long gun was 13,500
pounds. A 32-pound shot from a carronade, with an
initial velocity of 750 feet per second, was 24,000
pounds, or nearly double. "

 

and this:

 

 " when the Admiralty rearmed the fifth-rate 44-gun

Rainbow, she had carried forty-four long guns
(twenty 18-pounders, twenty-two 12-pounders, and
two 6-pounders). In July 1782 she was armed with
forty-eight carronades (twenty 68-pounders, twenty-two
42-pounders, and six 32-pounders). In the
process her weight of broadside went from 318 to
1,238 pounds of shot. Rainbow is an extreme example,
but all ships so armed experienced dramatic increases
in weight of broadside, itself a powerful
temptation to captains. "

 

so we have to ask, should we be given the choice to load carronades of appropriate weight on the ships? that would mean my Surprise could carry 19 - 42pd carronades and be lighter than its weight of cannon. a Trincomalee could have 68 pd carronades on the lower deck and 42's on the upper deck. that is significant firepower.

 

the talk about the banning of doubled carronades is also mentioned in the paper.

 

" The carronade was ideally suited for close actions,
but it had its disadvantages. One was its excessive
recoil. Robert Simmons, writing in 1812,
noted that its recoil was "almost ungovernable."
This was especially a problem when the carronade
was double shotted, something that could easily occur
in the heat of battle. This was likely to dismount
the carronade when it was fired, and so this
procedure, while common for long guns, was thus
prohibited for carronades. "

[BungeeLemming]

Not sure if it's specifically the center of gravity, but you can overload some ships so that in heavier weather the lower ports aren't always able to fire.  I noticed this specifically on the Snow, and not as much since then (though to be fair, I've tried to be mindful of that since then).  It seemed to roll a bit more and have substantially lower gun ports.  I never checked to see if she'd sink faster/with less damage when starting out lower in the water.  As for that being a nerdy question, probably...but here I am throwing an answer back, so what does that say about me?

Basically you tell what should happen.

In game there is not a huge difference between fully equippend ships and empty ones of the same size.

Yes the hull is slightly lower. But you can barely see that even when sailing alongside.

Tests with Bellonas (a buddy and I went into duel for this) showed that the only benefit you get from lighter ships is acceleration and a few more % topspeed. It was something about .8 knots. Turning is not affected. I even felt slower than the "overloaded" Bellona. (but that can be human errors in the maneuver's execution) Maybe the greater momentum keeps the ship's speed higher.

 

About heel I do not have exact reproduced data. I cannot tell if your right but I doubt that the difference is a huge as you describe it.

 

This will not change in the future. Devs use very detailed data about ship's behavior and their theoretical performances. Theoretical because noona can know how the Victory for example sails in RL.

The benefits of smaller guns may come in some other stats. Maybe such as fatigue of the crew.

[Kaaru62]

a question about guns in the game now. how does the damage value work for doubles, is the damage done exactly double of single shot, or are there other factors involved. i ask this because i want to get an idea of the difference in damage done between my carronade Surprise with double shot loaded and compare that to what single shot 42pd carronades would deliver, both from point blank distance. I don't know how the damage is calculated from the chart.

 

the Surprise has 7 18pd and 12 24pd carronades