an argument for the use of heavy carronades

[Kaaru62]

over in the cannon range and damage thread i posted a link to a study done on carronades.

 

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 the paper it states that carronades were commonly used in place of the same weight of cannon to give significant broadside firepower at short range while lowering weight, space, load time, and crew requirements compared to the equivalent weight of cannon.

 

i motion that loadouts be changed to allow the use of heavy carronades based on the weight bearing capability of decks. this would mean that everything from a Yacht to a Surprise would be able to mount up to a 42 pd carronade ( equivalent to 6-12 pd cannon ), and starting with the second deck of a Trincomalee ( 18 pd capability ), 68 pd carronades.

 

the paper also covers the reason why doubling of carronades was prohibited. the reason was not that they would explode, but rather the recoil of the guns was so great that double shot would cause the guns to break free from the mounting carraige. so i would propose that all carronades be made single shot only.

 

one thing that would need to be implemented if heavy carronade was allowed would be a fatigue value added for the 42 and 68 pound carronades. the paper states that crew fatigue for these guns was a factor in battle.

 

if we had these capabilities, gun selection would be a factor of range, load time, fatigue value, and firepower. there would also be a need for ammunition supply, naturally being able to carry more small shot than large. it would give small ships defensive capability against larger ships and be better for gameplay.

[Brigand]

the paper also covers the reason why doubling of carronades was prohibited. the reason was not that they would explode, but rather the recoil of the guns was so great that double shot would cause the guns to break free from the mounting carraige. so i would propose that all carronades be made single shot only.

This makes a lot of sense. You are shooting a 68 lb ball from a relatively light weight (compared to the weight of a normal gun of equal caliber) gun. Each action causes an equal reaction in the opposite direction, yada, yada. So a lighter gun will produce a more violent recoil compared to a heavier gun, when shooting the same ball.

 

But let's not forget the whole discussion on carronades done earlier.

~Brigand

[Prater]

The max the Surprise carried were 32lbers IRL...

Yacht should not get 42lbers, that seems too heavy.  Should be modeled after real life ships.

 

 

 

starting with the second deck of a Trincomalee ( 18 pd capability ), 68 pd carronades.

 

Where do you get these numbers at?  Did you read the paper?  38 gun Royal navy frigates carried 24lbers on the top deck.  68lbers were rarely used on sols.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Prater

[Kaaru62]

The max the Surprise carried were 32lbers IRL...

Yacht should not get 42lbers, that seems too heavy.  Should be modeled after real life ships.

 

 

 

Where do you get these numbers at?  Did you read the paper?  38 gun Royal navy frigates carried 24lbers on the top deck.  68lbers were rarely used on sols.

from page 18:

" 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. "

the whole point of this is to break from what was actually used in real life and use what could have been used had the Royal Navy chose to. just because they didn't use them does not mean they were unable to.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Brigand

[Prater]

That was one ship, a 44 gun frigate (Constitution is a 44 gun).  It also says it was an extreme example.  Later in the paper it says 68lbers were rarely used, and 38gun frigates (our 38 gun is the Trincomalee) had 24lbers.

[Brigand]

(...)

the whole point of this is to break from what was actually used in real life and use what could have been used had the Royal Navy chose to. just because they didn't use them does not mean they were unable to.

 

I'm pretty sure the Royal Navy used whichever was the most effective. If they choose to typically limit the upper size of the carronades they carried, I think they had very good reasons for it.

 

Let me quote a professor of mine:

 

"If it looks easy on paper, your data is most likely incomplete."

 

~Brigand

[SueMyChin]

We've debated this on other threads and I've used that source as well as sources used in that paper.

Firstly, just because the gun is lighter doesn't mean the added weight of the full armament including ammunition & powder would be. A fully supplied 9lber would add 2.14cwt per gun while a 42lb carronade would add 4.04cwt per gun.

 

It also doesn't mean the ship can take the recoil either or that they would actually fit on the deck.

 

As it's difficult to know how practical it would be to fit massive calibre guns on small ships or if the gun would shake the ship to bits without testing, I would suggest we listen to those who knew best. So if you can find an example of a 18th century yacht mounting 42lber carronades, please share.

[Prater]

<cough> HMS Glatton, 4th </cough>

 

 Another extreme example by the same captain of Rainbow.

 

Glatton was originally armed with twenty-eight 68-pounder carronades on the lower deck and twenty-eight 42-pounder carronades on her upper deck. All were non-recoil, which is to say that they were fixed to the deck.^%5B2%5D Within a month 32-pounder carronades replaced the 42-pounders.^%5B2%5D However, Glatton's ports were too small to allow the larger guns to traverse properly, and she had no bow or stern chasers. Her guns therefore could only be pointed straight out the side. The month after the action in July 1796 (see below), she received two 32-pounders and two 18-pounder carronades for her forecastle. Later, the Navy replaced the twenty-eight 68-pounder carronades on the lower deck with twenty-eight 18-pounder long guns, ending the experiment.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Prater

[Kaaru62]

from page 18:

 

 " Although the Board of Ordnance remained

skeptical and indeed preferred the old long gun,
perhaps because of its greater range, the Navy
Board pointed out the advantages of this gun, especially
for a smaller vessel. "

 

also from page 18:

 

" The carronade had a
special appeal because it
offered large caliber and
relatively little weight. For
example, a 42-pounder carronade,
while shorter than
a 3-pounder long gun, actually
weighed less than a
12-pounder long gun. Another
advantage of the carronade
was that it could be
worked by relatively few
men. The normal gun
crew for a 24-pounder long
gun was eleven men, but
Marine writer William Falconer
noted in 1815 that a
42-pounder carronade
could be worked by four
men "without any exertion
or difficulty." 8
The carronade was also easy to

load and hence more rapidly
fired. William Clowes, the Royal Navy historian,
noted an engagement involving Milbrook, in
which she was able to fire eleven broadsides to only
three for her opponent. "

 

ships were perfectly capable of mounting the heavy carronades. the navy chose not to because of early problems with the gun and the that the Navy wanted long range guns over short range firepower.

 

i say we break from what was historically used and go with what ships were capable of using.

[Brigand]

i say we break from what was historically used and go with what ships were capable of using.

 

I say we don't. But that is just my opinion. The thing with opinions is, there is no point in trying to back them with facts, as facts are, by their very definition, not opinions.

 

The thing with your preference for breaking away from what was historically accurate may not streamline with the opinion of many others (and even then, the game development is not a democracy, but we can try to influence the vision the developers have of course).

For a rough idea of what others thought about realism vs breaking away from it: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/506-arcade-or-simulation-the-poll/

 

Cheers,

Brigand

[Kaaru62]

We've debated this on other threads and I've used that source as well as sources used in that paper.

Firstly, just because the gun is lighter doesn't mean the added weight of the full armament including ammunition & powder would be. A fully supplied 9lber would add 2.14cwt per gun while a 42lb carronade would add 4.04cwt per gun.

 

It also doesn't mean the ship can take the recoil either or that they would actually fit on the deck.

 

As it's difficult to know how practical it would be to fit massive calibre guns on small ships or if the gun would shake the ship to bits without testing, I would suggest we listen to those who knew best. So if you can find an example of a 18th century yacht mounting 42lber carronades, please share.

 

my point is not about who actually used them historically, but rather who could have used them based on the ability for the deck to support the weight of the gun. the physical size of the guns are smaller than their cannon counterparts. using just deck support as the criteria, a 6pd long gun, available to all ships, weighs in at 2,688 lbs. the 42 pd carronade weighs in at 2,492 lbs, nearly 200 lbs lighter.

 

ammunition loadout would need to be adjusted, making for a smaller supply of large calibre shot. there is also the decision of gun weight versus cargo weight. do i want to mount 18's and have more cargo capability? or go with heavy guns and less cargo. its all a decision for the player. there is also the decision of load time, the big carronades take alot longer to load than the smaller calibre guns, another decision for the player. there would also be the decision of cost, naturally the large carronades would be very expensive in comparison to the smaller calibre carronade.

 

i say we allow the ships to mount what they are capable of mounting, not what was historically used

 

i still argue that we need this as it will help to balance small vs large ships.

[Kaaru62]

This makes a lot of sense. You are shooting a 68 lb ball from a relatively light weight (compared to the weight of a normal gun of equal caliber) gun. Each action causes an equal reaction in the opposite direction, yada, yada. So a lighter gun will produce a more violent recoil compared to a heavier gun, when shooting the same ball.

 

But let's not forget the whole discussion on carronades done earlier.

~Brigand

 

yea, that is where i initially posted about the document i found. that thread is more about general cannons that changed to a carronade discussion. i wanted to separate from that thread and make one specifically about carronades.

[maturin]

A 42-lb carronade may weigh about the same as a 6-lb long gun, but the recoil is going to be atrocious.

 

So yes, let's allow small sloops and cutter to carry heavy carronades, but only if they are restricted to firing ranging shots, with severely limited traverse for the barrels.

 

 

We also should question that source that describes four men handling a heavy carronade "without exertion," as we know of frigate captains who got rid of theirs due to the difficulty of loading a heavy ball. It hurt their rate of fire.

[Prater]

 

i still argue that we need this as it will help to balance small vs large ships.

 

 

I sank a Surprise last night in a Lynx with 12lb carronades.  That is the 2nd Surprise I have done that to.  I have sank several Surprises with 12lb carronades or 6lb regular guns in the yacht/privateer, and 1 Trinc.

 

I think they are perfectly ballanced, and I like the small ships and have probably played the Lynx more than anyone.  Who else has 50 battles in the Lynx, 42 battles in the Cutter, and 52 battles in the Privateer, and 57 battles in the yacht?  That is over 200 battles.

 

I have also sank several Constitutions with the Navy Brig armed with 24lb carronades.

 

We don't need to make the small ships OP.  The reason why I play them so much is because of the challenge they give.

 

 

P.s.  A Yacht/Privateer/Cutter with 6 42lb carronades will have a higher broadside weight than and almost put out as much damage as a Surprise armed with 12 12lbers and 7 9lbers.  6 42lber carronades = 252 broadside weight and 378 damage vs a Surprise with 207 broadside weight and 416 damage (385 with longs)

Edited March 18, 2015 by Prater

[Kaaru62]

A 42-lb carronade may weigh about the same as a 6-lb long gun, but the recoil is going to be atrocious.

 

So yes, let's allow small sloops and cutter to carry heavy carronades, but only if they are restricted to firing ranging shots, with severely limited traverse for the barrels.

 

 

We also should question that source that describes four men handling a heavy carronade "without exertion," as we know of frigate captains who got rid of theirs due to the difficulty of loading a heavy ball. It hurt their rate of fire.

 

 i agree on the exertion part, 42's should be tiring to use and fatigue should be simulated,worse for 68's, traversal limitations on small ships as well, along with limited ammunition and any other limitation, like reduced cargo. im for all that.

 

it would be a better choice for people to go with 32's because of better traversal, less fatigue, more ammo, faster reload, more cargo, etc., having the choice of a heavy 42 with all of its limitations should still be there, in my opinion.

[Brigand]

yea, that is where i initially posted about the document i found.  (...)

 

You do realise that the document you linked is identical to the document linked in the same thread earlier? The document, along with several other sources, were used in the discussion about carronades vs long guns, their weight by comparison and the viability of replacing a long gun with a carronade.

 

As such, this discussion is largely a rise and repeat of the previous one. Only this one is more opinion based.

~Brigand

[Kaaru62]

if we want to play the realism card for use of carronade, we need to use the realism card for the sailing mechanic as well. all this sped up stuff has led to SOL's playing stop-and-go turret vs frigate zig-zag sterncamp, both gamey side effects of an unrealistic sped up sailing mechanic. good for gameplay, bad for realism.

[Prater]

if we want to play the realism card for use of carronade, we need to use the realism card for the sailing mechanic as well. all this sped up stuff has led to SOL's playing stop-and-go turret vs frigate zig-zag sterncamp, both gamey side effects of an unrealistic sped up sailing mechanic. good for gameplay, bad for realism.

 

 

Yes, this is why Maturin and I have advocated to severe penalties for going to full stop 0% sails.

[Alex Connor]

The maximum exchange rate of carronades for cannon seems to have been,

 

18 pdr = 68lb carronade

12 pdr = 42lb carronade

9 pdr  = 32lb carronade

6 pdr = 24lb carronade

4 pdr = 18lb carronade

 

This was not always followed to the letter, but generally holds true.

 

For example, as has been mentioned HMS Glatton and HMS Rainbow both carried 68lb carronades in place of an 18 pdr maindeck. Glatton was a 150ft gundeck length ex-Indiaman, and Rainbow a 133ft 44 gun 2 decked ship (smaller than Trincomalee) rather than a true frigate. Since these were not particularly large ships, it is probable any ship with 18 pdrs could have carried 68lb carronades in their place, although it should be stressed that 68lb carronades were extremely rare, hence an upper limit of 42lb might be more suitable (even these were unusual) unless we get the Glatton ingame. Following the success of Victory's "smashers" at Trafalgar the Royal Navy started giving more SoL a pair of 68 pdrs on the forecastle, and sometimes a 2nd pair in the otherwise empty maindeck forward chase ports. 

 

The United States class were designed for a 12 pdr top deck (Constitution had a mixed 18 pdr and 12 pdr top deck as built, but this negatively affected her sailing qualities), on President and United States these were replaced with 42lb carronades (Constitution used 32lb carronades, possibly due to a shortage of the larger caliber). Similarly, the razee'd 64s like Indefatigable mixed 12 pdrs and 42lb carronades on the upper deck.

 

The sheer weight of shot seems to counted against reloading the above two calibers, for example this was the main reason the RN dropped 42lb long guns in favour of lighter and faster reloading 32 pdrs.

 

Ships carrying 9 pdrs frequently substituted these for 32lb carronades, example the British 36 or 38 gun 18 pdr frigates would mix 9 pdrs and 32lb carronades on the topdeck. 20 gun post ships or sloops and small frigates designed for a 9 pdr maindeck would swap these out for 32lb carronades, as would the Cruizer class brig-sloops (sometimes Cruizers carried 24lb carronades instead).

 

There does not seem to be any hard and fast rule for smaller carronades, but you will sometimes find 24lb carronades on vessels as small as schooners or gunbrigs, and 18lb carronades on the roundhouse of a ship of the line. 12lb carronades were "boat-guns" that could be carried in the bow of a ship's launch, as such they are a bit light to be used in a broadside, but you will on occasion see a small vessel armed with them.

[Kaaru62]

I'm all for whatever limitations there would need to be. shure 68's were rare and expensive,by all means make them expensive in the game. if they need to be fixed mounts that don't traverse and very limited elevation, then so be it, if there needs to be very limited ammo due to size, so be it,if they fatigue the crew from sustained use, so be it,  as long as there is the choice of having such limited use.

[Prater]

It would need to be something that is extremely rare so it should have to be unlocked somehow and be hard to unlock.  How many frigates/4th rates were outfitted with 68lb carronades?  We have 2 so far, and they say these are extreme examples.  The captain of both ships while they had 68lb carronades are the same person.

 

By all means, give me 42 or 32lb carronades in the privateer, however, I'll be sinking Constitutions with them.  A Trinc or Coni outfitted with 68lb carronades could easily take a Victory or Santisima without any sweat.  A Surprise or Navy Brigs could easily take a Constitution.

[Kaaru62]

The maximum exchange rate of carronades for cannon seems to have been,

 

18 pdr = 68lb carronade

12 pdr = 42lb carronade

9 pdr  = 32lb carronade

6 pdr = 24lb carronade

4 pdr = 18lb carronade

 

This was not always followed to the letter, but generally holds true.

 

For example, as has been mentioned HMS Glatton and HMS Rainbow both carried 68lb carronades in place of an 18 pdr maindeck. Glatton was a 150ft gundeck length ex-Indiaman, and Rainbow a 133ft 44 gun 2 decked ship (smaller than Trincomalee) rather than a true frigate. Since these were not particularly large ships, it is probable any ship with 18 pdrs could have carried 68lb carronades in their place, although it should be stressed that 68lb carronades were extremely rare, hence an upper limit of 42lb might be more suitable (even these were unusual) unless we get the Glatton ingame. Following the success of Victory's "smashers" at Trafalgar the Royal Navy started giving more SoL a pair of 68 pdrs on the forecastle, and sometimes a 2nd pair in the otherwise empty maindeck forward chase ports. 

 

The United States class were designed for a 12 pdr top deck (Constitution had a mixed 18 pdr and 12 pdr top deck as built, but this negatively affected her sailing qualities), on President and United States these were replaced with 42lb carronades (Constitution used 32lb carronades, possibly due to a shortage of the larger caliber). Similarly, the razee'd 64s like Indefatigable mixed 12 pdrs and 42lb carronades on the upper deck.

 

The sheer weight of shot seems to counted against reloading the above two calibers, for example this was the main reason the RN dropped 42lb long guns in favour of lighter and faster reloading 32 pdrs.

 

Ships carrying 9 pdrs frequently substituted these for 32lb carronades, example the British 36 or 38 gun 18 pdr frigates would mix 9 pdrs and 32lb carronades on the topdeck. 20 gun post ships or sloops and small frigates designed for a 9 pdr maindeck would swap these out for 32lb carronades, as would the Cruizer class brig-sloops (sometimes Cruizers carried 24lb carronades instead).

 

There does not seem to be any hard and fast rule for smaller carronades, but you will sometimes find 24lb carronades on vessels as small as schooners or gunbrigs, and 18lb carronades on the roundhouse of a ship of the line. 12lb carronades were "boat-guns" that could be carried in the bow of a ship's launch, as such they are a bit light to be used in a broadside, but you will on occasion see a small vessel armed with them.

 

 for the sake of gameplay i would concede the 6pd decks be limited to 32's since 32's are less than 2,000 lbs and would be nearly 800 lbs lighter as opposed to less than 200 lbs lighter for the 42's.

 

the 9pd decks though, since they 3,400 lb guns, should be allowed 42's as they would be nearly 800 lbs lighter. the 68's should be allowed in place of 18pd cannons allowing the trincomalee to have full traverse 42's and limited traverse 68's. that would be devastating firepower. the Constitution and up should be allowed full traverse 68's on both decks.

 

the Surprise being 9 and 12 pd decks, should be allowed all limited traverse 42's. this would make both the Surprise and Trincomalee very powerful carronade frigates.

 

and don't forget, this is all single shot, no doubles.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Karu

[Brigand]

Why would you want to see smaller ships being able to make larger ships obsolete?
 

Edit: or, flipping the issue around, why would you want to shorten battle duration? (A Victory which decides to blow you to little splinters in a single salvo, with a broadside weight of 2782 pounds*)

~Brigand

 

* 31×64 pounder + 15×42 pounder + 7×24 pounder carronades.

Almost twice the historic broadside weight of the Santisima Trinidad.

[Alex Connor]

As Lieste says, weight is not the only consideration, you have to take into account recoil and dimensions.

 

Also, when I said 68lb carronades were rare, I meant only one company in one nation ever built them, they were used as the main armament of a ship exactly twice in all history, and total production seems to have been in the <100 units range.

 

So we shouldn't have every frigate in game running around with them and having more broadside weight than a 1st rate. Except, you know, that 1st rate could have 3 decks of 68s and a weather deck of 42s, in which case your little frigate is going to be quite spectacularly one-shot the moment it ventures into range.

 

Not a good direction to go in.

[Kaaru62]

Why would you want to see smaller ships being able to make larger ships obsolete?

 

Edit: or, flipping the issue around, why would you want to shorten battle duration? (A Victory which decides to blow you to little splinters in a single salvo, with a broadside weight of 2782 pounds*)

~Brigand

 

* 31×64 pounder + 15×42 pounder + 7×24 pounder carronades.

Almost twice the historic broadside weight of the Santisima Trinidad.

 

i could argue that a ship of the line should fear a carronade frigate more than they currently do, and that they are overpowered to what is currently called a carronade frigate ( the Surprise with 18's and 24's single shot). also, a SOL with heavy carronades on a main deck would have increased short range firepower, something people may want.

 

if we are going to keep everything historically accurate, wouldn't you put a single loadout on a SOL and not have the option to change it? or did they have 1st rates with different loaodouts?.

 

if you are going to have one thing that is not historically accurate ( like ship sailing performance ), then why not have loadouts that are not historically accurate as long as they were possible?.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Karu