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

[Destraex]

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)

 

The only thing I see potentially wrong with this is that in this period iirc long guns were the default loadout while Blomfield and other shorter guns were the exception?

In game long guns seem to be not the default but some kind of special loadout?

In earlier periods the long guns were a bit shorter iirc...

[Sir. Cunningham]

Does anyone know the actual size difference between the ingame medium & long guns?

 

The real life difference between the average and the longest types of 24, 32 or 42 pdr guns was on average less than ½ a foot. I'm quite sure this is not the case ingame as there seems to be an absurd difference in length between the guns characterized as long and medium ingame.

 

But then again, there really shouldn't be any of these extra long long guns in the first place as they quite simply didn't exist ^^ Long story short: Different long guns were built and supplied by different manufacturers, which in turn varied a little in length, usually less than ½ a foot, but most crucially there was no difference in performance if using a similar charge.

 

The difference in power between two guns of the same caliber usually came down to two things, 1) the powder charge & 2) the barrel-to-ball windage. That's it, and I really hope GL gets this right

[Sir. Cunningham]

3) Powder quality. Muzzle velocity in RN service leapt up at/after the end of this period as old stocks of powder were replaced by new powders developed by better processes.

This powder wasn't "new", it had been available for some time, but not issued as service charges. Some small quantities were provided by the wealthier or more keen captains at their own expense. This may account for the "superior" long range performance of long range chase guns, especially if combined with a selection of high-gauge ball for this purpose. Similar use probably true of most other navies...

 

 

Absolutely, which is also what I meant by powder charge where both the size of the charge and the quality of the powder mattered. I simply encompassed them both under one

[akd]

Does anyone know the actual size difference between the ingame medium & long guns?

 

Without knowing this, we can't say anything is really wrong, other than that the MV increase may be somewhat exaggerated.  If in-game "standard" (i.e. Medium) 18pdr is 8 feet long and long 18pdr is 9.5 feet long, then that is as it should be for the Napoleonic era.  Foot and half of length well within the threshold for black powder efficiency would not be meaningless for MV.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Without knowing this, we can't say anything is really wrong, other than that the MV increase may be somewhat exaggerated.  If in-game "standard" (i.e. Medium) 18pdr is 8 feet long and long 18pdr is 9.5 feet long, then that is as it should be for the Napoleonic era.  Foot and half of length well within the threshold for black powder efficiency would not be meaningless for MV.

 

Thing is the difference is even smaller for the Naval 24, 32 & 42 pdrs, and again a lot more depended on the actual size & quality of the powder charge used considering the constant burn rate of black powder.

[akd]

Well sure, but other things equal, length did matter as long as it was under the threshold for black powder efficiency.

 

There 8 foot 24pdrs, as evidenced by Constitution.  8 feet for medium and 9.5 feet for long is reasonable, and worthy of some performance difference.

 

32s are definitely a grey area, but we don't know if the devs have already incorporated late period "medium" 32s.  If 32 long is 9.5-10 feet and medium is some sort of late period intermediate pattern gun, then again that is reasonable.

 

I have not seen two different types of 42s in game.

 

Since we know the dimensions of ships, it should be possible to determine the actual length of gun models in game.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Well sure, but other things equal, length did matter as long as it was under the threshold for black powder efficiency.

 

There 8 foot 24pdrs, as evidenced by Constitution.  8 feet for medium and 9.5 feet for long is reasonable, and worthy of some performance difference.

 

32s are definitely a grey area, but we don't know if the devs have already incorporated late period "medium" 32s.  If 32 long is 9.5-10 feet and medium is some sort of late period intermediate pattern gun, then again that is reasonable.

 

I have not seen two different types of 42s in game.

 

Since we know the dimensions of ships, it should be possible to determine the actual length of gun models in game.

 

Well it just so happens that 8-10 feet is also considered the optimum length for a black powder cannon

 

As Dr. John F. Guilmartin Jr. puts it: 

 

"There's a widespread belief that long barrels were synonymous with long range. In fact, when we're talking black powder cannon, that's simply not true. The reason is that the burning rate of black powder is constant, unlike the burning rate of modern propellants, and once the ball has moved 8-10 feet down the barrel it's outrunning the ability of the black powder to push gas behind it. So the practical barrel length of a black powder cannon is very short, about 8-10 feet, anything beyond that is a waste of metal."

 

In short: Everything else being equal (caliber, size of charge, powder quality and barrel windage), the difference in muzzle velocity between a 8 foot and 10 foot black powder cannon would be either exceedingly small or non-existant. 

 

Finally the normal length of a 24 pdr long gun ranged from 8 to 9 ft, with most being aroun 8.5 ft (French std.)

 

Infact these are the lengths of the standardized French naval long guns of the period:

 

12 pdr = 8.0 ft

18 pdr = 8.4 ft

24 pdr = 8.4 ft

30 pdr = 9.0 ft

36 pdr = 9.4 ft

[akd]

Well it just so happens that 8-10 feet is also considered the optimum length for a black powder cannon

 

As Dr. John F. Guilmartin Jr. puts it: 

 

"There's a widespread belief that long barrels were synonymous with long range. In fact, when we're talking black powder cannon, that's simply not true. The reason is that the burning rate of black powder is constant, unlike the burning rate of modern propellants, and once the ball has moved 8-10 feet down the barrel it's outrunning the ability of the black powder to push gas behind it. So the practical barrel length of a black powder cannon is very short, about 8-10 feet, anything beyond that is a waste of metal."

 

In short: Everything else being equal (caliber, size of charge, powder quality and barrel windage), the difference in muzzle velocity between a 8 foot and 10 foot black powder cannon would be either exceedingly small or non-existant. 

 

 

Nothing in the above quote says that.  "Beyond that is a waste of metal," yes,  but it does not say there was no practical difference between 8 and 10 feet.  Maybe with poor powder the max was achieved with an 8 foot barrel, leading to no gain with a 10 foot barrel, but with good powder, etc. (other things equal), 10 feet might provide a noticeable MV benefit over 8 feet.

 

Just follow the ballistics link posted earlier.  Barrel length is a factor and is born out with correlations between predicted and tested values.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Nothing in the above quote says that.  "Beyond that is a waste of metal," yes,  but it does not say there was no practical difference between 8 and 10 feet.  Maybe with poor powder the max was achieved with an 8 foot barrel, leading to no gain with a 10 foot barrel, but with good powder, etc. (other things equal), 10 feet might provide a noticeable MV benefit over 8 feet.

 

Just follow the ballistics link posted earlier.  Barrel length is a factor and is born out with correlations between predicted and tested values.

 

Erm, read it again, that's exactly what it says infact: "once the ball has moved 8-10 feet down the barrel it's outrunning the ability of the black powder to push gas behind it"

 

Also I've read the ballistics link (found it months ago) and I've done the calculations as well, problem is it assumes a perfect fit for barrel & shot, i.e. no windage. That's not reality however, where there was considerable windage between the barrel and shot. Even so using the formula from that site the difference in MV between an 8.5 foot 24 pdr (the std.) and a 10 foot one would be around 2%, and again this is assuming a perfect fit.  In reality you can expect zero difference.

[akd]

Erm, read it again, that's exactly what it says infact: "once the ball has moved 8-10 feet down the barrel it's outrunning the ability of the black powder to push gas behind it"

 

 

If a particular cannon loses efficiency at 10 feet, then 8 feet would have higher MV.  The range implies the distance for actual loss of efficiency depends on other factors.

 

Also I've read the ballistics link (found it months ago) and I've done the calculations as well, problem is it assumes a perfect fit for barrel & shot, i.e. no windage.

 

No it doesn't.

 

The ratio of the initial pressure of exploding powder to atmospheric pressure, R, was measured by Robins to be roughly 1000. Later Hutton's measurements [1, pp79] put this figure between 1500 and 1600. The values are empirical and depend on the quality of the gunpowder and the loss of pressure due to windage. Early 18th century muzzle velocities are better modelled with a value of R near 1500 and the early 19th century muzzle velocities, with higher quality powder and smaller windage, a value of 1600 is more appropriate.

[Sir. Cunningham]

If a particular cannon loses efficiency at 10 feet, then 8 feet would have higher MV.  The range implies the distance for actual loss of efficiency depends on other factors.

 

 

There was no such cannon though, at least not in the 18-36 pdr range where 8-9 feet was optimum. A 10 foot cannon would've simply been heavier without any improvement in MV.

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

And you don't see the contradiction in said quote?

 

Robins measured R at 1000, later Huttons measured it at 1600. We're talking major differences pressure here, and that no doubt due to differences in powder quality and windage (testing procedures weren't particularly thurough back then when it came to such factors). In other words the value of 1500 to 1600 is mere guesswork based on what figures best add up with measured MVs.

 

Finally, and most importantly, windage is not a considered factor in Robins formula, it simply isn't there.

 

Even so using said formula we're talking about a ~2% increase in MV between an 8 foot and a 10 foot 24 pdr. In other words, and in fear of repeating myself, an exceedingly small almost non-existant difference.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Moved thread to suggestion sub forum as that's really where it belongs.

[BungeeLemming]

Well lets take that assumption:

 

max effective barrel length was 8-9 feet. Thats basically our long gun's size.

 

However, long guns were mainly used on fortifications rather than ships. Yes there were some long guns on (nearly) every ship in case of a sternchase. But the broadsides were mounted with cannons wich were better to handle.

 

The "normal" guns ingame translate to this kind of gun. They have a more handy barrel lenght wich needs less men to operate and had a better firing rate. As said those were the main armament mounted on the broadsides.

 

Smaller cannons will translate into an even higher rate of fire but less range and pen.

 

As devs said: Get rid of the real life definition of long and short guns. Or at least dont take it 1 : 1..

All the game wants you to tell with the meaning of "long" and "normal" is that they have different firing characteristics.

 

btw:

the rate of fire drops on a higher rate if you use long barreled guns. (ingame I mean)

[Sir. Cunningham]

Bungee you really need to read the thread again

 

Pretty much ALL the guns on a rated ship were 'long guns', there was no appreciable difference in length between the shortest and the longest of these 'long guns', the variation being 0.5 to 1 feet, and such a small length difference constituted zero improvement in MV with a black powder cannon.

 

In short, there's no reason for there being extra long guns ingame, because in reality such guns quite simply weren't used in the major calibers, which is the main point.

 

In reality there were two types of gun categories, the short and the long guns, with small variances in length within each.

[BungeeLemming]

So.

You say the navy sailed with long guns only.

That may be true.

But we are having a sandbox game. Everyone can chose at his will.

 

Traders for example. Did they go with long guns? When armed they used light guns for a smaller crew. More crew means more salary to pay.

So yeah.. Trader go cheap.

 

When only restricted to long guns. Whats the point? You reduce it to cannon or carronade. 500meters or 1.5 km range.

What choice does the player have?

 

 

The point is:

In that time there were many different gunsizes. Experimenting was a big thing in those times.

long guns: yeah put those on naval ships.

normal guns: well thats for the cheap. Traders and such.

Carronades are for experimental guys and privateers maybe. Traders, too.

 

They aint "extra long" they are "long"

[BungeeLemming]

Lieste, dont mix up RL with what we have ingame. In the past there were many threads carronade vs cannons (range) but devs went the way we have it and they do have good foundation to their desicion.

point blanc is where you dont have to elevate the gun and dont have to bother aiming her.  run out - shoot - run in - reload - run out - etc. (thats my understanding) And at that kind of range you will have an advantage with carronades.

 

 

I dont know if you tested the new shooting mechanics. So I explain/ describe it:

Carronades now (in the OW) shoot over quite a long distance. But the penetration value goes down dramatically (I experienced that myself since I mounted carronades on small vessels. you can see the balls bounce off even at good angles).

Also the dispersion is modeled quite "funny". The first few meters of the ball's flyghtpath is on a straight line but then the ball disperses like crazy. Wich means that you cannot aim or effectively shoot at longer distances than 500 meters. This is basically the very max range you want to fight with carronades.

 

Cannons however have a lot straighter shooting characteristic. Cannon balls do not disperse as crazy as caronades do.

You can still reliably hit the enemy at 1km.

And even if I exaggerated with 1.5km you will be able to hit at least some of your shots. If they penetrate, that is another story.

Big guns versus light to med. frigates: for sure.

 

The point I want to have is that there is no redundancy between normal or long cannons atm. If you fight against bigger ships your better off with longs. If your even it comes down to your preference.

If you merge those two sizes into one format you only have the choice between carronades and cannons.

Less variety.

Im 100% backing up the devs with their decision here.

[Sir. Cunningham]

So.

You say the navy sailed with long guns only.

That may be true.

But we are having a sandbox game. Everyone can chose at his will.

 

 

Yes, pretty much. Usually a man o war featured long guns and carronades, or the Spanish equivalant to carronades, i.e. a very short howitzer like gun.

 

"Medium" sized cannons were experimented with, such as the famous British congreve guns, but they were not in use in anywhere near the scale of long guns, and AFAIK weren't mounted on anything but a few frigates, with most being assigned to shore batteries.

 

As to your last point, yes this is a sandbox type game, but it won't hurt anyone a bit if it is kept as realistic as possible without hurting gameplay - and reducing the choice down to two types of cannons (+ carronades) ingame won't hurt gameplay, esp. not when there are so many realistic AND fun alternatives to achieve the same differences in MV and range that we currently have without having ships look ridiculous with oversized guns sticking 2 meters out the gun ports

 

One way is introducing two or maybe three different types of available black powder, whilst another is introducing a few more types of ammunitions that you can choose to have onboard instead of another. See now then we're REALLY talking about a sandbox game

[Sir. Cunningham]

Now I don't know about you, but to me this looks abit silly:

 

 

Compared to real ships:

[Sir. Cunningham]

Anyway I really think this is something that needs to be done right for the sake of the game's authenticity, and preferably before this implementation of extra long guns becomes too rooted in the gameplay of the game.

 

I truly believe the game would be a lot more interesting without these ahistorical extra long guns, esp. if replaced by other more realistic choices for improving the range of the already long enough std. long guns (ingame mediums).

 

Such choices could incl. two different build qualities for guns, like for example "Standard" & "Fine" guns, where the fine guns of greater build quality feature an improved muzzle velocity over the std. guns using the logic that they enjoy a lower barrel windage, thereby reducing the pressure loss associated with barrel windage. 

 

Would also permit some interesting visual variety, where for example standard guns are a bit more rough in texture (ex. gritty matte black) whilst fine guns look more clean and polished (ex. glossy black).

 

Finally getting guns of fine build quality would become a great searching, trading & manufacturing objective for players as they strive to acquire the best type of armament for their ships, or perhaps try and make a profit off of manufacturing and selling such guns. 

[Sir. Cunningham]

I feel I need to bring this up again as there's simply too big a difference between the regular and extra long guns ingame, the longs feature an almost straight trajectory for a very long range. This again is at odds with reality not just because these extra long guns didn't actually exist (as already mentioned & explained in detail), but also because the difference in velocity between the shortest and the longest of a 12-42 pdr long gun was marginal to none existant due to the working nature of black powder.

 

The only reliable way to increase the muzzle velocity of a black powder cannon, esp. back then, was not by lengthening the barrel, but instead it was either by using a finer grain powder (at the risk of a burst barrel) and/or by decreasing the barrel windage either by using a tighter fitting ball or by the use of a sabot (as seen below).

 

 

I really do urge the developers to get this right, as its a rather critical detail for all the gunnery geeks, myself  included ^^

[Sir. Cunningham]

From another excellent resource on the matter, written by prof. John F. Guilmartin JR: http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/guilmartin.com/Santissimo.html

 

"The second example of reading back is even more to the point: generations of naval historians have assumed that long guns meant long range in the early modern period.^#8 While this is true for modern artillery using nitrocellulose-based propellants, it is not true for black-powder cannon. The cannonball propelled by a charge of black powder reaches the maximum possible velocity at a point approximately 18 calibers (i.e., eighteen times the bore diameter) down the barrel. For reasons having to do with the internal ballistic properties of black powder—which are utterly different from those of nitrocellulose-based propellants in that the burning rate does not vary as a function of pressure or temperature—this maximum effective barrel length is, for all practical purposes, a constant.^#9 Any additional length of barrel—and most 17th and 16th-century cannon barrels were considerably longer than 18 calibers—had no significant effect on muzzle velocity and thus no effect on range."

[Sir. Cunningham]

The guns on the victory (12, 24 & 32 pdr):

[admin]

We take all serious requests seriously and researched this topic in depth (again)

Unfortunately Sir Cunningham we would like to keep the long/short mechanic

 

Multiple resources showing that there was difference between short and long guns

• Main are "Frigate of Napoleonic Wars" http://www.amazon.com/Frigates-Napoleonic-Wars-Robert-Gardiner/dp/1557502889
• and Treatise on Naval Gunnery https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_PK50sbOOfjUC

In Treatise there is a whole chapter on long vs short differences: pointing to a significant difference even at point blank range (200 yards for short guns vs 275 yards for long guns with 0 elevation). And also proving that our decision to code lower damage for long guns is correct. (higher speed of projectile on average generated less splinters)

[maturin]

You can poke holes in the realism of the mechanic, but IMHO the level of abstraction and gamification is no greater than with any other game feature.

 

I mean, on balance, the unpopularity of quarterdeck carronades is a more significant inaccuracy than the properties assigned to barrel lengths.

[BungeeLemming]

aye..

And I think that Carronades are still not used often enough.

Rule of thumb atm is: you can either mount a gun with caliber X or you can mount a Carronade with caliber 2*X.

Which is not reflected by the weight we can mount on a gun deck.

18pd long: 3.2(t) vs 32 Carronade: 1,6(t). (comaring 12pd long: 2,7(t))

The decks will be able to hold that kind of weight. Only question is about recoil corce.

 

Someone who knows a lot about gunnery may tell us what kind of stress each gun is pulling on the ropes and sides of the ship. My guess: carronades are laughtable compared to normal guns. They also used smaller charges.

 

The current system does not give us historical options which imo, leads to very few carronades actually used on frigates. (in pvp) The long guns are simply a lot more versatile. Double shot on them matches the carronade's damage potential.

 

The Trincomalee should be able to mount 32lb carronades on her upper decks. Its historical.

And in conclution the Frigate should be able to do so, too.

 

Ships of the Line should be given the option to mount 32lb carronades on their uppermost decks. (all but Santi, she only had 6pd guns on top which is an idication about the designer's concerns. topweight, streght of the deck, etc.)

 

_____

Does anyone know the reload times on the guns?

Most interesting are the counterparts like:

12pd gun vs 24pd carronade and 18pd vs 32pd.