The "extra long" long guns and why we should get rid of them

[Sir. Cunningham]

There is this one thing that's been bothering me ever since the beginning of sea trials, and that's the long.. erm... long guns, and their significantly higher muzzle velocity.

 

Historically the std. armament on a warship of the 18th & 19th century were long guns, and that's because the std. cannon was refered to as a "long gun". Infact the word cannon was previously applied to guns of a certain length, usually the intermediate between the really short and the really long guns, which in turn were usually refered to as culverins or sakers. The only standardized use of guns of an extra long length during the 18th & 19th century that I can think of is the famous "long nines", and that was exclusively as chasers.

 

But now here comes the interesting bit, and the main reason I don't like the idea of extra long long guns in the game:

 

The reason that the really long guns known as culverins and sakers of the 16th & 17th century eventually fell out of use and gave way to the more moderate length cannon was due first and foremost to the fact that black powder starts & stops expanding very quickly in comparison to modern smokeless gunpowder ; as a result the optimum barrel length of a black powder gun is shorter. This problem was of course further exacerbated by the fact that the cannons of the day weren't firing projectiles that fit snuggly with the bore of the gun, which in turn allowed the expanding gasses to pass around the ball, lowering the maximum pressure attainable and thus further reducing the max attainable muzzle velocity.

 

As a result the optimum length of a black powder cannon is rather short, usually around 18-20 times the caliber (which was the length of guns previously refered to as just cannons, but would be refered to as long guns in the 18th & 19th century), and further lengthening the barrel will not increase the muzzle velocity, instead it will actually decrease it.

 

You can see it explained here in this excellent documentary on naval guns as well beginning at 12:39 min:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehCpuEX328w

 

So how does this compare to what we have ingame? Well since the sea trials we have had extra long versions of every type of gun except for the 42 pdr, and that was quite simply not the case in reality where all the medium sized guns we have ingame were infact refered to as long guns, and so because they were usually the longest guns of the caliber either available or in std. use - as already mentioned only very rarely were guns longer than L/18-20 in caliber used on ships in the 18th & 19th century, and when they were they were of a low poundage and used almost exclusively as chasers.

 

Finally the muzzle velocity of our ingame "long long guns" (   ) is also waaaaay too high - it almost looks like they are flying at 150% the speed of the regular balls - which is kind of funny considering that the difference in max attainable muzzle velocity between black powder guns of the same caliber practically doesn't differ from a length of L/18 to L/26, any longer than that and the longer barrelled gun would actually hurl its projectile slower NOT faster (see explanation above). 

 

In short: I think we should get rid of the ahistorical "extra long" long guns and just have the three types most often used: Long guns, short guns (congreves etc.) & carronades, and instead introduce more ammunition types to the table and perhaps even the possibility of acquiring a better more even burning powder for those who want a little extra muzzle velocity  

[Young]

Good Post. I have also seen this Doc and have wondered the same questions. As for the powder idea i can just see people running a muck with a corned powder perk

[SueMyChin]

Completely agree.

 

You know what the response will be though (in fact, I'm sure this has been mentioned before) "It's a game, there must be some variation".

 

The guns of the age came in all shapes and sizes and all had their pro's and con's. I don't see why a more historical approach to the armaments would lessen gameplay in any way. It might slightly confuse the newer, less knowledgeable (with regard to 18th century weaponry) players to begin with but informative descriptions and time would remedy that.

[BustyLove]

I agree. I'd like to see a real world test though.

[admin]

Naming of guns should not confuse you.

 

We name long guns this way not because they are extra long, but because there are longer than the shorter versions

And shorter versions existed and were extensively used. For example Blomfield pattern short 18 pounders.

Admiralties were always searching to find the way to reduce weight and length of large caliber guns. There were experiments with very short lightweight 24lb cannons and even 32lb cannons.

 

Shorter models experimentation eventually led to carronades invention.

 

 

In reality long guns was used for all cannons that were long enough (i think)

[admin]

 

1) So how does this compare to what we have ingame? Well since the sea trials we have had extra long versions of every type of gun except for the 42 pdr, a

 

2) Finally the muzzle velocity of our ingame "long long guns" (   ) is also waaaaay too high - it almost looks like they are flying at 150% the speed of the regular balls - which is kind of funny considering that the difference in max attainable muzzle velocity between black powder guns of the same caliber practically doesn't differ from a length of L/23 to L/35, any longer than that and the longer barrelled gun would actually hurl its projectile slower NOT faster (see explanation above). 

 

 

 

1) We have no references on the 42 lb variants. But we do have extensive data that both short pattern and long pattern 18lb 12lb 24lb and 32lb existed and were used extensively. 

 

2) Is it empirical/theoretical assumption? that long guns shoot projectile slower?    We believe that the longer the barrel the better is the velocity and energy.

 

ps One documentary on the ship cannon shown that a restored old cannon could achieve almost sonic speed. 

[NorthernWolves]

I agree with both sides here, which is unusual.

 

In 1797 the Furnace Hope model 24 pounder 'long gun' was delivered to the USS Constitution, they were exactly 8’ feet long and weighed 6000 pounds.

 

In 1807 Cecil Iron Works delivered a new battery of 24 pounders to her and supposedly these provided increased range over the Furnace Hope guns. These new guns weighed in at 6400 pounds and were 9’ 6" long. An even longer long gun.

 

Now, I've heard before, as in the documentary, that "8 to 10 feet" is about the range that the burning powder stops accelerating the projectile.

 

That leaves the door open I suppose.

 

Both viewpoints could be correct, so there is enough for me to accept the long and medium cannons, even if it could be proven that the longs shouldn't have increased range and penetration.

 

Or maybe I just want to get the whole grape debate and the hull thickness/construction thing sorted first

[Sir. Cunningham]

I agree with both sides here, which is unusual.

 

In 1797 the Furnace Hope model 24 pounder 'long gun' was delivered to the USS Constitution, they were exactly 8’ feet long and weighed 6000 pounds.

 

In 1807 Cecil Iron Works delivered a new battery of 24 pounders to her and supposedly these provided increased range over the Furnace Hope guns. These new guns weighed in at 6400 pounds and were 9’ 6" long. An even longer long gun.

 

Now, I've heard before, as in the documentary, that "8 to 10 feet" is about the range that the burning powder stops accelerating the projectile.

 

That leaves the door open I suppose.

 

Both viewpoints could be correct, so there is enough for me to accept the long and medium cannons, even if it could be proven that the longs shouldn't have increased range and penetration.

 

Or maybe I just want to get the whole grape debate and the hull thickness/construction thing sorted first

 

I'd wager that the main reason for the longer range of the Cecil Iron Works gun was simply due to the use of a larger powder charge, and not the result of the longer barrel - although there could be other factors, such as bore diameter vs shot diameter i.e. "windage", which also made a major difference and was the main reason behind the improvement in range of many newer British guns introduced in the early 19th century which peaked out at a MV of ~1700 ft/s.

 

Depending on the powder charge the MV could range from 1200 to 1700 fps, the latter usually being considered the limit of a black powder cast iron cannon.

 

In short L/18-20 was the optimum length of a black powder cannon and making the gun any longer wouldn't increase the muzzle velocity as black powder quite simply stopped accelerating the ball at this point.

[Sir. Cunningham]

1) We have no references on the 42 lb variants. But we do have extensive data that both short pattern and long pattern 18lb 12lb 24lb and 32lb existed and were used extensively. 

 

2) Is it empirical/theoretical assumption? that long guns shoot projectile slower?    We believe that the longer the barrel the better is the velocity and energy.

 

ps One documentary on the ship cannon shown that a restored old cannon could achieve almost sonic speed. 

 

 

 2) That is only really true for modern smokeless gunpowder, not black powder which stops accelerating rather quickly along the length of the barrel. To be more specific:

 

 

"In the late-nineteenth century, gunpowder was largely replaced by nitrocellulose-based propellants (the so-called “smokeless powders”). These produced less smoke and flash, burned progressively, and caused less erosion to the barrels. They are classified as being single-base (nitrocellulose) or double-base (nitrocellulose combined with nitroglycerin or some other liquid organic nitrate).

 

Ballistite (1887) was 40% nitrocellulose and 60% nitroglycerin (EB2002CD/explosive). Cordite was similar; 37% nitrocellulose, 58% nitroglycerin, 5% Vaseline (Rinker 34) or later 65-30-5 (EB11/Cordite).EB11 doesn’t say anything about stabilizers, but EB2002CD suggests diphenylamine.

 

A member of a Civil War reenactment group would probably be familiar with Pyrodex, which was developed in the 1970s. It’s essentially black powder with various additives so it burns more cleanly—less fouling of the bore, less smoke. However, the formula of Pyrodex is proprietary, and the person who developed it (Powlak) lost his life in the process.

 

The decomposition products of black powder are 43% gaseous and 57% solid, the latter being responsible for the smoke of the proverbial “smoking gun.” In contrast, modern smokeless powder is more than 99% gaseous. Gases can be accelerated to higher velocities than solids, for a given internal pressure. Consequently, black powder has a low “specific impulse” (pounds thrust produced per pound propellant burned per second)—~50–70 seconds—whereas double base powders provide ~180–210 seconds. (Guilmartin 300).

 

Average muzzle velocities increased over the nineteenth century, from 1575 fps for ordinary black powder, to 2133 fps for prismatic powder and 2225 fps for early (1885) smokeless powder. (Breyer 38)."

 

 

and

 

"Early gun barrels were short and thick, typically no more than 26 calibers, as the gunpowder propellant they used burned very quickly and violently, and hence its acceleration time was short. Slower-burning "brown powder" formulations of gunpowder allowed gun barrel length to increase slightly in the 1880s but enormous quantities of brown powder were required. New slower-burning "smokeless powder" propellants available from the 1880s onwards such as Poudre B, cordite and nitrocellulose allowed a gentler prolonged acceleration, hence gun barrels were made progressively longer and thinner. The new formulations were far more powerful propellants than gunpowder and far less was needed by weight as they transformed almost entirely to gasses when burned. Muzzle velocity became limited only by the length of barrel that was feasible, both in terms of the construction methods of the day and in terms of any practical constraints imposed by the gun's manner of use."

 

 

As to your final comment, most long guns featured a MV of around 1600-1700 ft/s, which is well over supersonic speed, but again these were regular long guns of L/18-20 (8-10 feet) in length, not extra long guns. The extra long guns that existed (which I believe weren't really that much longer than regular long guns) didn't enjoy any appreciable increase in MV and hurled a ball at the same 1600-1700 ft/s as the regular long guns, which is why they were rarely used - they were quite simply a waste of metal.

[Sir. Cunningham]

The two main points I'm trying to get across here are:

 

1) By far the majority of guns on warships during the 18th & 19th century, of the size 18 pdr and up, were of roughly the same length caliber wise (i.e. usually around L/18-20) and were all refered to as long guns.

2) The few guns that were longer than L/20 in caliber didn't enjoy any particular advantage in muzzle velocity, infact usually their MV was the same as the regular long guns peaking at 1700 ft/s.

 

It is for these two reasons that I believe it is rather ahistorical to have these extra long long guns ingame, esp. when in reality their muzzle velocity was no greater than the regular long guns, which was the main reason that such extra long guns (culverin etc) were replaced with the shorter std. "cannon" in the first place

[CommodoreWesley]

Cunningham, I really don't understand this "extra long long guns." 

 

The Admin has already said "We name long guns this way not because they are extra long, but because there are longer than the shorter versions."

 

The guns themselves are already reasonably similar, with the only exception of actual range.  Therefore, the term "long guns" might not actually mean guns with longer barrels, but guns with longer range.

[admin]

What i am saying is that there were longer guns and shorter guns of the same caliber and there were even shorter guns installed on various ships
which translates into the following types in games.

long 
standard
short

 

I am very much sure that long 18lb had different characteristics than short 18lb. 

[akd]

I think it is just somewhat confusing because the "standard" (most widely used) versions of some guns were sometimes the longest versions.  What is called "standard" above for these guns would be the mid-length experimental guns, which were not standard (widely used) in service, at least until very late in the era.

 

It would probably be better to say:

 

Carronade / Howitzer

Short

Medium

Long

[yamms]

I just got through reading http://arc.id.au/CannonBallistics.html , http://arc.id.au/ArmstrongPattern.html and http://arc.id.au/ArmstrongPattern.html (I hope that none of you wrote this, otherwise I am putting my foot in my mouth) it seams that the length of the gun could effect the velocity in at least one major way. 

 

The length of the cannon determined the length of the most reinforced region of the barrel. The longer the "first reinforce" the more powder could be used, in fact the shorter naval versions used as a compromise with space aboard ship had to be proofed with a lower charge because the naval version would explode if fully charged with a proving charge. The lang based versions seem to have been longer and also have a high MV.

 

In conclusion it seems as though you are both right. There were different length guns with different characteristics and it would not be historical to have the long guns aboard a ship.

 

At leas that is how I read those articles. 

[NorthernWolves]

I would tend to think it was the ability to put in a larger charge as well ( I have the bore data for the Hope Furnace but not the Cecil so can't compare) and if that is the case then that could be the believable reasoning for the increased range.

[Alex Connor]

What i am saying is that there were longer guns and shorter guns of the same caliber and there were even shorter guns installed on various ships

which translates into the following types in games.

long 

standard

short

 

I am very much sure that long 18lb had different characteristics than short 18lb. 

 

Ok, but there wasn't a "standard" type cannon, only short and long. Long was the most common type, carried by most SoL and frigates, short guns were more rare and usually reserved for ships like the British 20 gun 6th rates that were armed with short 9lb guns because they were too narrow in beam to comfortably operate long guns.

 

Current ingame "long gun" should be removed, the model is too long. The "default" gun should be renamed to long gun but otherwise perfect, no need to change anything except the name (probably I would keep characteristics the same, they feel right for a long gun). New "short" cannon should be introduced with new ingame model, reduced accuracy/range/weight compared to the long (ex-standard) cannon, better filling the gap between long guns and carronades.

 

notes,

 

1) You will sometimes find 2 patterns of long guns, for example 9ft length and 9ft 6in. There is no point modelling both because there is almost no difference in performance or appearance, black powder barely has the potential to fully use a 9ft barrel so you will not notice any significant improvement going to a 9ft 6in barrel).

 

2) Colombaids are a type of short cannon but rare and not really used on ships till after the Napoleonic wars and War of 1812 were over, I would probably not use these and model instead the common type short gun which is just a shorter barreled long gun.

[akd]

I just got through reading http://arc.id.au/CannonBallistics.html , http://arc.id.au/ArmstrongPattern.html and http://arc.id.au/ArmstrongPattern.html (I hope that none of you wrote this, otherwise I am putting my foot in my mouth) it seams that the length of the gun could effect the velocity in at least one major way.

 

That is an amazing link.  Everything you need for round shot ballistics (except terminal).  Incredible detail on the Armstrong (Armstrong-Frederick) pattern guns as well.  Devs please bookmark if you have not already visited.

 

Ok, but there wasn't a "standard" type cannon, only short and long. Long was the most common type, carried by most SoL and frigates, short guns were more rare and usually reserved for ships like the British 20 gun 6th rates that were armed with short 9lb guns because they were too narrow in beam to comfortably operate long guns.

 

That is oversimplified, I think.

 

For example, around mid-18 C. there were 5 different lengths of 9lb cannon.   "Standard" length on a 28-gun 6th rate was 7 ft., while at the same time "standard" length on an 80-gun 3rd rate's upper deck was 9 ft.  By 1782 there were 2 additional lengths, including a 9.5 ft. cannon.

 

The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, 1600-1815

[Alex Connor]

That is oversimplified, I think.

 

For example, around mid-18 C. there were 5 different lengths of 9lb cannon.   "Standard" length on a 28-gun 6th rate was 7 ft., while at the same time "standard" length on an 80-gun 3rd rate's upper deck was 9 ft.  By 1782 there were 2 additional lengths, including a 9.5 ft. cannon.

 

 

The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, 1600-1815

 

Well, you are right, I'm simplifying a bit, but at least for the bigger guns there is no medium variant.

 

For the 42 pdr there are only 2 patterns, the 9ft 6 long gun and the 10ft long gun. Virtually identical in appearance and performance since even the 9ft 6 barrel was really pushing the limits of black powder, definitely not worth having both ingame.

 

The 32 pdr also came in two variants, again a 9ft 6 long gun and a 10ft long gun. Not worth having both. There was also a 32lb Colombaid, but as this was only introduced on a couple of ships right at the end of the War of 1812 and wasn't fired in anger till the war was over it probably shouldn't be ingame.

 

24 pdrs came in two long gun variants, 9ft and 9ft 6. Again, no point modeling both, they are almost indistinguishable. There was also a rare 8ft short gun, this only seems to have been fitted to a handful of ships (including 2 Leda class as an experiment to improve their chances vs the american super-frigates).

 

The 18 pdr had only 1 common type, a long gun with 9ft barrel. An rare 8ft barreled short gun was also produced, but I haven't seen anything saying it was used on ships (why would it be? Any ship designed for 18 pdrs is big enough to carry the superior long pattern, anything designed for smaller guns can't handle the weight)

 

All these "long guns" should be using what is the current medium gun model, not the extra-long gun models with 11 or 12 ft barrels. If the short gun versions are added (which I'd hesitate about given little these guns were really used) they would need new short barreled models.

 

The smaller guns do have medium variants, sometimes even long/medium/short, but the big guns were almost always long guns, rarely short and never medium.

[akd]

The 18 pdr had only 1 common type, a long gun with 9ft barrel. An rare 8ft barreled short gun was also produced, but I haven't seen anything saying it was used on ships (why would it be? Any ship designed for 18 pdrs is big enough to carry the superior long pattern, anything designed for smaller guns can't handle the weight)

I think the 8ft 18lb (38cwt) was used on some frigates (e.g. Constellation and Macedonian according to this). There was also a 9ft 6inch 18pdr.

EDIT: in fact the 8ft 18pdr had become the establishment on all British 18pdr frigates by 1800 (some as early as 1782). Source: Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars

Likewise, there were "standard" 9ft, 9ft 6inch, and 10ft 24 pounders, and of course later on the "short-to-medium" 24 pounder guns which had some importance, e.g. 8ft 24pdrs used on some British and American frigates, and 6ft 6in Gover 24 pounders that apparently saw widespread use on merchantmen due to the lower manning requirements of the short guns.

All these "long guns" should be using what is the current medium gun model, not the extra-long gun models with 11 or 12 ft barrels.

I hadn't really looked if that was the case in game, but if so, then that is definitely not the correct model for long guns of this period. That is way too long for the ships in game and anachronistic for mid- to late-18th C. and later.

The smaller guns do have medium variants, sometimes even long/medium/short, but the big guns were almost always long guns, rarely short and never medium.

Well, that depends on what time, caliber and terminology we pick. I was kinda of assuming that, for example, 8ft, 9ft and 9ft6in 18lb would generally fit into the scheme of "short, medium (standard in this case) and long." You are right, however, that for the larger guns it is generally "long" and "a little more long".

[Sir. Cunningham]

The basic point here is that the longest versions of the 24, 32 & 42 pdr guns weren't that much longer than the standard versions (we're litterally talking half a foot), but more importantly they didn't hurl their projectiles any faster, which is the complete opposite ingame.

 

Fact is 1700 ft/s was the absolute limit of black powder, it simply couldn't accelerate a cast iron ball any faster, esp. not in a smoothbore cannon with any amount of windage. And said limit was reached with a std. length gun, thus having the ingame extra long guns out range the standard versions is in short an unrealistic feature.

[Sir. Cunningham]

What i am saying is that there were longer guns and shorter guns of the same caliber and there were even shorter guns installed on various ships

which translates into the following types in games.

long 

standard

short

 

I am very much sure that long 18lb had different characteristics than short 18lb. 

 

One version of the long 18 pdr tested by the British might have, but again that is based on one test. one which even had the 18 pdr out penetrate the 24 pdr, something which has been since proven false. 

 

The reason for said result could've been many, ranging from barrel & shot windage to powder quality. Testing back then wasn't really to the same standards of today. Also the difference in length of these two 18 pdr's might have been quite large, and not the mere half a foot that was normally the case between a std. length gun and an extra long one.

 

Crucially other British & French tests proved the above test with the 18 pdr to be incorrect in its conclusion. 

[Rafael]

I would be happy to just have the single length cannons and focus perhaps on the quality of the build of said Cannon or even quality of powder and those attributes giving small improvements with trade-offs, this would help the crafting and economy as-well having more consumables.

[akd]

 

 

Fact is 1700 ft/s was the absolute limit of black powder, it simply couldn't accelerate a cast iron ball any faster, esp. not in a smoothbore cannon with any amount of windage. And said limit was reached with a std. length gun, thus having the ingame extra long guns out range the standard versions is in short an unrealistic feature.

 

A 23 caliber (lower end of your threshold) length 24-pounder would be 11ft long!  Look at the ballistics link above ( A standard (i.e. long) 24 pounder (9.6ft) was about 20 calibers in length.   So for at least some guns we have short, medium, and long guns that are all within the limit for black powder m/v.  The 24-pounder at the end of the 18th C. conforms fairly well to a 4-tier system if we are careful with the use of the word "standard."

 

24-pdr Carronade (4ft)

24-pdr Short (6.5-7.5ft)

24-pdr Medium (8ft)

24-pdr Long / Standard (9-9.5ft)

 

Yes, the weight and m/v differences would be marginal tier to tier, but I don't think there is anything wrong with marginal differences in a customization scheme for a game where the focus is on player skill and customization choices are about small percentage improvements / penalties.

 

For the 32-pounder and 42-pounder guns, however, you are correct.  For our period, there were only long guns of about 16-18 calibers in length, which were the "standard" guns.  Shorter 32-pounders are really a creature of the post-1820 period.

[Sir. Cunningham]

A 23 caliber (lower end of your threshold) length 24-pounder would be 11ft long!  Look at the ballistics link above ( A standard (i.e. long) 24 pounder (9.6ft) was about 20 calibers in length.   So for at least some guns we have short, medium, and long guns that are all within the limit for black powder m/v.  The 24-pounder at the end of the 18th C. conforms fairly well to a 4-tier system if we are careful with the use of the word "standard."

 

24-pdr Carronade (4ft)

24-pdr Short (6.5-7.5ft)

24-pdr Medium (8ft)

24-pdr Long / Standard (9-9.5ft)

 

Yes, the weight and m/v differences would be marginal tier to tier, but I don't think there is anything wrong with marginal differences in a customization scheme for a game where the focus is on player skill and customization choices are about small percentage improvements / penalties.

 

For the 32-pounder and 42-pounder guns, however, you are correct.  For our period, there were only long guns of about 16-18 calibers in length, which were the "standard" guns.  Shorter 32-pounders are really a creature of the post-1820 period.

 

The L/23-26 figure applies to the most common gun of the time, the 12 pdr. The caliber length went down with increases in caliber, down to the L/16-18 common with the 32 & 42 pdrs. As such my point still stands as the difference would usually be around half a foot or less for the British 24, 32 & 42 pdr, and crucially the velocities would be pretty much identical as that half a foot would make no difference at all. 

[Sir. Cunningham]

Using the same gunpowder burn constant, and the same charge weight:

A 10ft 24lb would give 1% more velocity than a 9.5ft gun would do.

A 7.5ft gun would give 5-6% less velocity than the 9.5ft gun.

The recoil from the shorter gun would be too harsh with the full charge though, and in practice a quarter or even a sixth charge would be used instead of the third of the heavy gun (long gun is mostly about weight and recoil management in confined spaces, not about additional power).

With a quarter charge the 7.5ft gun loses 11-12% of the 9.5ft standard velocity, and the sixth charge corresponds to 21% loss.

For chasers, it is possible that a special quality of powder was kept in limited supply, which would permit a higher velocity from the same charge and length of ordnance.

Both exceptionally long and exceptionally short weapons have their issues. Very long pieces for the available space complicate serving the weapon, and require larger crews and slightly slower readying times after reloading. Very light pieces require lower charges to keep recoil manageable, but permit lower crews and are handier. Most of the reloading time is spent clearing the weapon and loading the new charge and ball. This isn't appreciably different for any length of piece. It is only when running out the weapon (or clearing it after a misfire) when longer pieces with heavier weight have a modest penalty.

Yeah, the velocity increase between the long and the std. 24, 32 & 42 pdrs (also refered to as long guns) was pretty much non existant as that half a foot did nothing using blackpowder as a propellant.

Infact that 1% difference will most likely disappear completely due to the exponential loss in total pressure that the barrel windage constitutes.

In other words the ~150% velocity of the ingame long guns really has no basis in reality. In reality the velocity AND size difference between a std. length and extra long 24, 32 & 42 pdr gun was either non existant or exceedingly small.