hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (john hall) (06/01/89)
From: john hall <hall@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> What is a 1-pounder, 2-pounder, 6-pounder, etc? I understand 16", 155mm, and 50 caliber but have never known how to correlate that with old british descriptions for gun sizes. John
mayse@p.cs.uiuc.edu (06/05/89)
From: mayse@p.cs.uiuc.edu It used to be that artillery were described simply by the weight of the projectiles. Back around the time of the Revolutionary War, for instance, the heaviest naval armament (at least on British and American ships) consisted of "24-pounders" and "32-pounders," also known colloquially (I believe) as "long toms" and "carronades." (The 24's were for firing "accurately" at some distance; the 32's were for close-in bashing). This latter term/role are probably the reason the first USN purpose- designed fire support ship (for amphibious assaults) was the USS Carronade. [mod.note: I believe that the term "carronade" refers to a gun mounted on the ship's gunwales via a pintle mount, as opposed to being mounted on a carriage. As they couldn't recoil, the powder charge had to be small, reducing the effective range of the gun. Correct me if I'm wrong... In any case, the name derives from the town of Carron, Scotland, which apparently had a fine ironworks. - Bill ] The above designation scheme was probably descriptive enough when all (or most) projectiles were cast-iron balls, but when varying projectile shapes came along it became useful to describe the guns themselves (e. g. "five-inch") rather than indirectly by their ammunition. As I recall, a "two-pounder" is roughly a 37mm, and a "six-pounder" is probably about a 75.
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (06/06/89)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <7127@cbnews.ATT.COM> mayse@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >It used to be that artillery were described simply by the weight of the >projectiles. Back around the time of the Revolutionary War, for instance, >the heaviest naval armament (at least on British and American ships) >consisted of "24-pounders" and "32-pounders," also known colloquially >(I believe) as "long toms" and "carronades." (The 24's were for firing >"accurately" at some distance; the 32's were for close-in bashing). >This latter term/role are probably the reason the first USN purpose- >designed fire support ship (for amphibious assaults) was the USS Carronade. > >[mod.note: I believe that the term "carronade" refers to a gun mounted >on the ship's gunwales via a pintle mount, as opposed to being mounted >on a carriage. As they couldn't recoil, the powder charge had to be >small, reducing the effective range of the gun. Correct me if I'm >wrong... In any case, the name derives from the town of Carron, Scotland, >which apparently had a fine ironworks. - Bill ] Carronades were used to increase the weight of shot a broadside could deliver without the weight penalty that long guns of the same shot weight carried. Three-decker ships of the line often would have thirty-two or forty-eight pounder guns on the lower gun deck; however, the weight of these guns made them impractical for smaller vessels. The carronade allowed small ships to fire a heavy broadside, albeit at the cost of trading off most of the range of the long gun. The increased weight of broadside at the ranges British sailing orders prescribed combat made the carronade a very viable weapon. The most common carronade was the 32-pounder, although they were also made in 48-, 24-, and 16-pounder versions as well. The carronades would fire the same weight of powder as the long gun of the same shot weight, and would achieve much the same velocity, the gunpowder quality being more important than barrel length, given the shot-to-barrel fit (or lack thereof) during the period. Sean Malloy | "The proton absorbs a photon Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | and emits two morons, a San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | lepton, a boson, and a malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | boson's mate. Why did I ever | take high-energy physics?"
lance@kodak.com (Dan Lance) (06/07/89)
From: lance@kodak.com (Dan Lance) Our fearless moderator writes: >[mod.note: I believe that the term "carronade" refers to a gun mounted >on the ship's gunwales via a pintle mount, as opposed to being mounted >on a carriage. As they couldn't recoil, the powder charge had to be >small, reducing the effective range of the gun. Correct me if I'm >wrong... In any case, the name derives from the town of Carron, Scotland, >which apparently had a fine ironworks. - Bill ] The term "carronade" refers to a short-barreled, large-caliber gun mounted on a more-or-less conventional naval carriage. They posessed shorter range and lower muzzle velocity than the long-barrelled guns they replaced, and were quite devastating at short range. The name does come from Carron, Scotland; they were first used in the late eighteenth century. US frigates of the Revolutionary period typically carried a high proportion of these weapons. If I remember correctly, conventional naval guns of the period ranged from 6 or 8-pdrs for sloops and the top decks of larger ships to 24 and 32 pdrs for ships of the line. Carronades could be much lighter per pound of ball thrown; these guns typically were rated as (approx.) 77 pdrs. They were quite effective when loaded with grape or shell, though you had to get close to the enemy to use them. The little swivel guns on the gunwales were much smaller -- sort of like large shotguns -- and were used to repel boarders. They were also sometimes mounted in the tops. --drl Daniel R. Lance / Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester NY / drl@kodak.com
scameron@blake.acs.washington.edu (Scott Cameron) (06/07/89)
From: scameron@blake.acs.washington.edu (Scott Cameron) If memory serves the pintle-mounted pieces were called "swivel guns" or some such. Carronades were mounted on carriages, and did, I think, fire 32 or 36 lb. balls. They were short stubby guns, with a very short range, but you could really pound the enemy if you could get in close. I seem to recall they could fire exploding shot, but I'm not sure. S.D. Cameron " -I have sole and complete U of WA --+-- right to these opinions, Seattle ____________(*)____________ as long as I cannot be Bioengineering ! ! fitted with a magazine scameron@toby.acs.washington.edu holding > 20 opinions.
borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec) (06/08/89)
From: bnr-di!borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec) In article <7127@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mayse@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > [mod.note: I believe that the term "carronade" refers to a gun mounted > on the ship's gunwales via a pintle mount, as opposed to being mounted > on a carriage. As they couldn't recoil, the powder charge had to be > small, reducing the effective range of the gun. Correct me if I'm > wrong... In any case, the name derives from the town of Carron, Scotland, > which apparently had a fine ironworks. - Bill ] Carronades had trunnions and looked much like shorter, thinner skinned cannons. They were mounted on carriages. Their chief advantage was that they were MUCH lighter than cannons and hence a ship could throw a much larger weight of fire for a given weight of guns. They also tended to use shell and grapeshot ammunition more frequently because of their shorter range. As a side note, it is interesting to note that solid iron shot was not the projectile of choice in the early days of siege war, carved stone shot was. Stone on impact caused much more damage because it splintered. Also, it could be thrown farther. It was abandoned because of its expense. James Borynec. utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!borynec -- UUCP : utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!borynec James Borynec, Bell Northern Research Bitnet: borynec@bnr.CA Box 3511, Stn C, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (06/09/89)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
In article <7195@cbnews.ATT.COM>, Dan Lance writes:
=The term "carronade" refers to a short-barreled, large-caliber gun
=mounted on a more-or-less conventional naval carriage. They posessed
=shorter range and lower muzzle velocity than the long-barrelled
=guns they replaced, and were quite devastating at short range.
=The name does come from Carron, Scotland; they were first used in the
=late eighteenth century. US frigates of the Revolutionary period
=typically carried a high proportion of these weapons.
and some went overboard, in extreme cases equipping ships
entirely with carronades. this rendered them extremely
vulnerable to stand-off gunfire tactics when attacked by
ships armed with longer guns.
richard
--
richard welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com welty@algol.crd.ge.com
518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
``but officer, i was only speeding so i'd get home before i ran out of gas''henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (06/14/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >and some went overboard, in extreme cases equipping ships >entirely with carronades. this rendered them extremely >vulnerable to stand-off gunfire tactics when attacked by >ships armed with longer guns. Assuming, of course, that the ships with longer guns could hit the broad side of a barn, which wasn't common.