When was the last contested boarding? Not against pirates like of the Ethiopian coast, but like in the 1600s where they would send the marines in to capture the battered capital ship.
Drachism of the day: "You wanted to stay as far away as possible, in the first case because you didn't want the stupidity to stick to you in case it was contagious."
@@anastasias6352 Thanks, now I have the mental image of Admiral Rozhestvensky using a small carronade to fire binoculars at the Kamchatka stuck in my head.
For flintlocks, while much more reliable than slow match, you still have hang fire. As my job as a historical presenter means firing 1820's (Roughly Napoleonic era) musket and cannon, I can firmly attest to how unnerving and terrifying hang fire can be. Imagine being given the order to fire, and either touching your match to the touch hole of a cannon or pulling a trigger on a weapon for the following to happen: the primer goes off with a satisfying flash and noise, but there's no recoil. You wait 5 seconds and just when you begin to suspect that your black powder charge didn't actually take, you are suddenly met with a bright flash, a loud bang, and your weapon producing much smoke and recoil as the shot leaves the barrel. This is hang-fire, and it can be delayed enough from when you expect your weapon to go off that it scares the crap into everyone's trousers, and if you are in the heat of battle, an inexperienced soldier, or even a militia conscript would have had enough time to begin inspecting the weapon for what went wrong. Suffice to say, it would be very easy for a friend to be killed as a soldier begins moving their musket to inspect the issue, or in the case of cannon, any of the gun crew to be killed by the recoil. A 6lb (a bit less than 3kg) American field gun firing a blank charge will recoil up about 3 feet (roughly 90-100 cm), and back about 6 (roughly 180 to 200cm). With cannonball, the field piece would have recoiled backward by a further 3 feet or meter. With a 6lb field piece weighing half a ton, that's a lot of energy that can go into the skull of an unfortunate gunner moving to inspect the weapon at the wrong moment. Of course, naval guns had smaller wheels, so they didn't move as far rearward, but they also often were many times heavier than 6 and 12 lb weapons used by Napoleonic armies.
@@zidanelionheart pleasure to be of service. If you have interest in this sort of thing, I recommend going to a museum where they give firing demonstrations. It's one thing to read about but another to see and hear and smell.
Hang fires aren't a thing of the past -- you can still get them with modern guns. In the coastal artillery, we had a rule that if your charge didn't go off even with repeated snapping of the firing pin, you had to wait 10 minutes in case of a primer fault, then another 30 minutes in case of a charge fault, before removing the round. Even with that 40 minute wait, carrying the no-go round in your arms to a safe location would tend to give you butterflies in the stomach.
Because by then only sissy's remained in the navy. The lost stratagem was to minimize own losses, cuddling the sailors, rather than maximizing the losses of the enemey. Very very bad for morale.
This is the perfect place for me to thank Admiral Drachinifel for graciously answering my question about a loose cannon event, and what a crew is supposed to do about it in the event of such a disaster in, say, a high sea gale. Drach's answer, by the way, was a classic: " RUN AWAY!" 😂
It was not unheard of for the breechings securing a carriage gun to be shot away and the now loose gun, weighing several tons on a listing or rolling ship to run the full width of the deck and smash gear along the way and kill a gun crew on the other battery or drop through an open hatchway to either the deck below or all the way down into the hold, again smashing anything in the way.
@@robertf3479 Yes, I read a short yarn a few years back, and the author likened it to a three ton pile of iron that can dance on a single edge. The story described how a brave fellow managed to get a rope looped around it enough to enable crew to begin wrestling it under control. I wondered at the time how much of the story was realistic, and if any of it was fanciful.
I like to think that Royal Marine on Victory had a bet that he could fire 500 musket balls at the enemy. He just Decided that using his musket was too time consuming.
"Desire to watch Pirates of the Caribbean intensifies O___O" Fantastic video as always Drach. I've now got an imagine of a Royal Marine running across the deck with his barrel of musket balls and telling his gun captain that this is a great idea. And the captain, being slightly twisted, agreed.
I just wonder if it was a bet? “I can shoot all 500 of these at the enemy!” “Alright 10 quid says you can’t” just no one specified he had to use his musket!
If something seems just a little too ridiculous or like something might go horribly wrong aboard a warship always assume that it was a Marine who came up with it. I am still convinced that the Marines in all navies (not just the US and UK) are a special sub-breed of human capable of great physical feats at the cost of some of their sanity...
In shop class in high school I built a 6 inch long 1/2” bore brass canon. It was mounted on a welded steel carriage with four wheels like a naval gun. It looked about right and went bang real good. You could load it a variety of ways and get different reports, all louder than hell. It disappeared one day and never came back.
... I read somewheres that the upgrade to the use of a "flintlock" type ignition system vs a old fashion "fuse" had a big impact on timing the roll of the ship w/ the actual firing of the gun ... resulting ... in more hits ...
Not really. There was now slow burning fuse in the vent of a cannon before using flint locks either. The main benefit was simply, that a flintlock, as long as it is not actively doing it's thing, is inert. The slow burning match in a match-holder is always smouldering. This can cause problems around lots of more or less open powder around you. Also, the matches would need to be lit in time for action and carefully kept lit, to be useful. a flintlock, oyu can throw into a bin, and get out 15 years later and it is ready as soon as cocked.
@@JostVanWair Would you happen to have a source or reference handy for that? As far as I see it, there is a miniscule improvement in timing, but nothing I'd call major.
@@lutzderlurch7877 Now that I look, no, I do not. Since quick matches were not used in the firing of naval artillery (unlike land artillery where one was inserted into the touch hole and ignited by the linstock) the difference would not be there. The gunlock's main advantages were that it was far safer to use, easier to sight and faster to load.
@@JostVanWair Since there is a lot floppy use of terminology, what exactly do you refer to as 'uick match' On land, at least the 18th C british artillery usually employed uill or very thin sheet metal tubes, filled with a sticky powder mixture and with a thick wire poked through, to form a hollow tube. The term eludes me right now, and I am too lazy this evening to look for the book.. These tubes tend to send the flame of ignition down the touchhole almost instantaneously. I am not sure what was used in naval guns. The Book likely containing that particular nugget of wisdom is on my pile of shame XD At best my vague recollection is pouring some fine powder to the touchhole, but that would make the powder (relatively) slowly burn down into the breech with considerable variation in timing, regardless of it being ignited by flintlock or linstock... I --REALLY-- have to reduce my pile of shame XD
Thank you sir, for acknowledging, albeit indirectly, that the English navy ceased to exist after the Acts of Union, being replaced with the Royal, (British), Navy. I have encountered historians who infuriatingly insist on calling the RN the 'English' Navy, (and 'English' Army, and believe it or not 'English' Air Force), up to modern times.
its pretty wild how many dudes get legitimately angry over military terms being "misused" or when some super specific factoid regarding historical context of military groups/items. Like an APC being called a tank(which by definition, it could be.) Or, that "Marines arent soldiers." Oh stfu and go masturbate alone for the 5 millionth time, ya hosers.
@@ΒασίληςΒλάχος-τ3κ Prior to 1707 England and Scotland were separate Kingdoms and sovereign nations. They had their own armies, navies and parliaments. The 1707 Acts of Union, combined the Kingdoms and created a new sovereign nation. Scotland and England continued to exist but they lost their sovereign status and became more like American States. Confusingly, some people (including the English) refer to the U.K. as 'England', which it absolutely is not. England is like Texas. It cannot have it's own army or air force, have a seat at the U.N. or negotiate international trade.
Not at all it was in fact so common that there was a term for it, after all sinking a ship before the 20th century was rare so anything that could kill the crew on the enemy ship was used, that included things like nails or cutlery.
During the desperate defense of the fortified town of Negotin in early 19th century against the attacking Ottomans, the Serbian revolutionaries, short on ammunition for their cannons, used even coins as impromptu grapeshot.
I once took a course on the military revolution and a large portion of the course focused on the arms race between fixed fortifications and the armaments designed to break such fortifications. Specifically the star fort and the various artillery designed to deal with them. There was a section on naval artillery and if I remember correctly the cost of a battery of bronze cannon was something like 5-10 times the cost of the ship itself. That directly led to the reduction of the number of ships of the line because it wasn't that the ships were expensive, it was just too expensive to arm them.
There won't be a lot of people left now who, like me, actually worked for Carron Iron works, in Falkirk, near Stirling, where the Carronades came from. We were still making ornamental versions in the 1980's. Same place where Major Shrapnel developed his fragmenting cast iron casing, as still found on grenades.
Would love to see a follow up video on age of sail developments in naval architecture. There's loads of information here and there about the relative efficacy of firing into the side and rear of ships but no real comprehensive account online of times it happened, the consequences of it and how important arc of fire was during different points in the age of sail. It's taken as read that cutting the stern of an opposing ship was devastating but an expert analysis of the topic in more detail would be much welcomed.
Cutting across the bow or stern of an enemy and firing down the length of his ship is referred to as "raking" and was one nasty situation all captains sought to avoid like the Plague or perpetrate against an enemy. This is because wooden warships were "soft-ended". Unlike the heavy timbers of the sides, there were almost no substantial structures to block the passage of a shot along the length of the ship, so one cannon-ball could do far more damage travelling that way, than across it's width. Take a tour of HMS Victory if you can and you will see what I mean. I'm sure Drach will explain how this issue was resolved in a future vid.
@@followthewhiterabbit7504 Yeah, I haven't been down to Portsmouth to see Victory but I have been on the (former) RN frigate Trincomalee in Hartlepool. My understanding is that it's not just the internal structure of the ship but also the external structure and architecture that made wooden ships vulnerable in this way. What I'm really interested in is when and how people came to this realisation in terms of first hand accounts, were there any serious attempts in terms of engineering to address this prior to the ironclads of C19th, were all ships of the time equally vulnerable or were some classes of ship moreso than others, etc. The questions that it's harder to answer without a substantive degree of research.
@@matthewmcneany I imagine that it was practical experience that taught seafarers about the strengths and weaknesses of their ships, particularly in combat. I've not read any accounts of seamen or naval architects attempting to address the raking problem, prior to the Ironclad revolution, but maybe someone did.
Points of interest! You mentioned the action between HMS Shannon and USS Chesapeake. Chesapeake, was as you say taken, and taken into RN, but she was so badly damaged that she was fairly soon sold for scrap. She was bought by a merchant who used the main timbers to build the frame of his new mill. Its still there - the Chesapeake Mill in Wickham near Fareham in Hampshire. You can still see the gaps gouged out of the timbers by Shannon's cannon in one part! Also, there are a few things you didn't mention that improved accuracy. The casting of cannonballs became better so the size was more consistent so fitted the barrels better and reduced the variable windage. And the British invented/adopted corned powder, which was when the ingredients of gunpowder were thoroughly mixed wet(ish), then dried into grains, so each grain contained the same correct mix of the components (as in corned beef!). This gave a consistent burn every time. Hitherto, the ingredients were mixed dry, so when they were packed in barrels, the movement and shaking gradually separated them again, so the burn was inconsistent. Royal Navy ships didn't use captured French powder unless desparate, because the French never really caught on to the process when it mattered. Rudimentary sights were gradually introduced, which again helped - particularly on the long 9s used as bow or stern chasers. Incidentally, grapeshot was particularly effective in raking either stern or bow, whether cannon or carronade! Very nasty! Sorry to go on - I enjoyed that exposition on naval artillery.
@@followthewhiterabbit7504 The larger corned bits burn longer then smaller powdered BP - but the actual burn rate will be the same as they are chemically the same. It is the prolonged burn time that slows the pressure curve peaking.
"Windage" is the gap between the cannonball and gunbarrel. I now know this. Unsurprisingly, whatever I'd have presumptuously guessed that it meant, if asked, based solely on the spelling/sound of the word itself, was miles away from actuality.
In 1946/7 I was a student at Lancaster Junior Technical School. In our theory lesson on casting, we were told that, before gun barrels were bored on a lathe, the British perfected the technique of coating the 'Bore core' with graphite thus giving a much more, relative, smoother bore. Have you heard of this?
Philosophical moment... The main thing I have realised out of these very interesting videos by Drach is... Why can't humans learn to live together instead of letting their egos run uncontrolled and trying to continually find ways to kill each other throughout history into the present day? Really sad and wasteful when you think about it. Cheers Drach... nicely researched work. You deserve to be a Patreon sponsored UA-camr... stay safe.
Well, strictly speaking, fire arrows are much more viable in naval combat than on land. Their potential to damage sails, light powder, frighten sailors, and generally cause chaos is very useful when everyone is flammable.
@@littlebigheroman The problem is viability of implementation though. If you want fire arrows you need something to have that fire from, for instance, a large fire. However, people tend to be less enthusiastic to bring a giant pit of fire on board of a wooden ship
@@iamhere6893 Well you wouldn't need a large fire at all, you could use something small like a torch or just light it on the spot with a flint and steel, and you're gonna be having those on a ship either way.
@@hedgehog3180 or possibly even a candle would do. Although you would still need to be very careful during the heat of battle as even a tiny flame can easily engulf the one big tinderbox your floating on
@@hedgehog3180 the problem people don't understand is its not the simple you can't use a smaller fire it gets blown out on route from the speed of the projectile involved
Diamond drill bit, real game changer Ft McHenry shows the mortar rounds, they were a tear drop shape, with tiny fins at the pointy part, filled with powder, and a percussion cap on the nose... They used those in the blunderbusses and Grenade launchers back then, too
I know quite a lot about black powder firearms, but always wanted to learn about artillery which i did not know nothing about. I must say this video is amazing, i learned a lot, its a real class, one of the best informative youtube videos i ever saw, Congratulations and thank you
I'm fairly sure that the term "grape shot" has nothing to do with the size of the projectile(especially since some grapes are the same size as the musket balls used in canister shot) but has to do with the shape of the bundled projectiles resembling a cluster of grapes on the vine.
RN Sea service Grape was uniformly 9 rounds of the size 'roughly' 1/11th the nominal, plus the tampion. For 32lb guns, 3lb shot, 24lb gun guns 2lb shot, 18lb 1.5lb, 12lb 1lb... etc. For land service, where penetration of bulwarks wasn't required, effectiveness was higher with larger numbers of shot, and grape had 12-32 shot and blended with cannister in design and effectiveness.
Drachinifel mentions lighting the fuse of a shell or carcass projectile before loading it into the cannon/howitzer/mortar. In land warfare these were loaded unlit, and the fuse was started by the flash of the propellant charge. Much safer. I should imagine it was the same with naval gunnery.
A number of points. At this time the main aim was to captuire an enemy ship, get it home and it and any cargo would be sold by the Prize Agents, and you got your share . Howitzer and Mortars are completly diffrent weapons systems. Case and Carcase were loaded, fuse down unlit. The deflagration and or radiant heat of the proppellant lit the fuse. Carcase was used to fire at rigging . A small hole in a sail , bearing in mind the pressure on a sail when a ship is motion can be masured in tons per square yard, leads to rips. Landridge shot was a specifie form of shot using bars of iron bundled not balls. Any thing down the barrel, was known as Junk Shot. Two of the Royal Navy's last Bomb Ketchs are very famous , they were modified speciffically because of their massive structural strenght, as Polar Exploration vessels. They were called HMS Erebus and HMS Terror.
50:20 Interesting to see that this painting shows boats being trailed by the ships. This was a common practice when "clearing for action" - it meant your boats were not in the way on the upper deck - they were less likely to be hit by enemy shot (which also creates splinters) and anyone who fell or was knocked overboard had some chance of grabbing the boat as it went by. Most paintings never show the boats. I know it was not always done but it seems to have been a common practice.
But most paintings still show Ensigns streaming backwards, hey folks ! On a sailing ship the wind normally comes from behind, so which way will the rag blow?
I really can't get enough of Drach's classic British understatement of happenings that in reality would be absolutely horridly gruesome in this topic. On one hand it amuses me, on the other, I don't know what to think of the horrifying part.
Good video. I love ship of the line. I'm building a model now. I wish there was more content out there. Despite all my research into everything 16th through 18th century naval warfare; I found this video with so much new information. More age of sail videos!
If you think back and look at it, it's remarkable that a ship -- any ship -- can successfully platform the 15 or 16 inch guns on WWII battleships. Even with decades of posterity, it's a remarkable feat of engineering to see what these behemoths could offer in firepower.
Speaking of mortars, when it was laying siege to Vicksburg, Grant's Army of the Tennessee didn't have a proper siege train. So, Union artillerymen improvised. They took short sections of gum-tree logs, bored them out to accept six or twelve pound shells, and hooped the logs with iron bands. These wooden mortars reportedly worked well.
Excellent summary, and every time I was thinking "I bet he won't touch on xxx" you totally did. Very impressed, and I can't wait to see the next installment!
@@jobdylan5782 i find he is very knowledgeable on specific aspects he specializes in but most everything else (especially WW1 and later) needs to be taken as entertainment rather than education
Carronade: noun. A short-range, heavy, short-barreled antipersonnel cannon on board any sailing vessel of the 1650-1820 period of sail. Use with buckshot.
There was never a time when cannon were cast as simple cylinders and then had the bore drilled into them. Cast guns were (and still are) cast with a hole in the middle, which was then either bored out to exact tolerance or (with later iron/steel barrels) a mandrel was inserted in the hole and the barrel forged around it. It is much easier, quicker and less effort to widen an existing hole than to bore a massive hole into a large block of metal. It would also seem rather dangerous to light the fuse of a bomb before loading it into a mortar -- in case of a hang fire, the bomb might blow the whole gun to pieces since the actual propelling charge in mortars was usually smaller than the bursting charge. At least in later pieces, the fuse was lit by the propelling charge when the gun fired. As an interesting aside, the fact that bomb (mortar) vessels had to be built stronger than usual to withstand the force of the firing meant that they were also eminently suitable (as far as wooden ships of the period went) for navigation in ice, which is why HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, ships used in several British Antarctic and Arctic voyages of discovery between 1836 and 1847, were originally bomb vessels.
Chain shot, in addition to being hard on sails, is also fairly effective in an anti-personnel capacity, especially if you make the chain several feet long. On land, it was sometimes used as a mechanism for breaking an enemy infantry's nerve, encouraging them to retreat, preferably in a disorderly manner.
Thank you Drach for this very nice Video . Those Bronze Cannons were Very Ornate , I tracked one down Last year and was stunned by what I saw . The San Joseph is on the Lawn of the Livonia Library in Western , New York . The San Joseph was cast in 1790 in Spain using Mexican Copper , it is a work of a Art . If any body is in the area of Livingston County stop by to see it . Back story is Hon . Oscar F. Williams was from Livonia , N.y . Judge Williams was the Consul to the Philippines in 1898 and was on Admiral Dewey's Flagship during the Battle , The Cannon was Captured from at Fort San Fillippe by Manila . It is a Huge Ornate Cannon and the Length is Impressive . I cannot find the photos but i think it is at least 24 lbs vs 18 lbs as was listed ? Judge Williams had at least 5 cannons brought back but the number might be 11 if somebody cared to do more careful research .
hi, just thought you should know, i clicked on the video, saw it's length and the music at the start and subscribed 5 seconds in because i can tell we're gonna get along. cheers
I think a really cool idea would have been to have specialized mortar ships armed like 8-15 mortars only firing airburst shrapnel rounds. That could lay down alot of damage and the sheer volume and ROF combined with airburst charges would fix thr accuracy problems assuming you had a competent crew
I believe the last Admiral to cross the T in a Battleship on Battleship naval encounter, Rear Admiral Jesse Oldendorf was still firing solid shot in October of 1944. The fact that it happened to be armor-piercing I would say makes it real solid shot LOL.
@@YAT-YAS_To_The_Extreme Aye, improvise mostly because we haven't the funding to have the right tool for the particular job that nobody else wants to do. Department of the Navy my Ar$e!. But, yeah Oohrah. Just 'gotta get it done regardless. : )
Just want to point out that a shell, particularly one filled with lead shot or musket balls, exploding mid air over a fortification can do a lot of the killing and maiming usually required in a bombardment...
The fact that every single person who served aboard a naval vessel during this time period wasn't utterly ruined by PTSD from witnessing the aftermath of any significant battle is almost the most incredible part of it all. The sheer carnage must have been unfathomable, and woe be to whoever gets stuck cleaning up after a ship gets shot through from the end.
What makes you think they weren’t? I’d say a lot of the stereotypes about irascible hard-drinking sailors can be traced back to what is now known as PTSD suffered as a result of just the carnage you mentioned.
DG: Modern studies of PTSD since WWII find that sailors suffer PTSD at a fraction of that of army/land personnel under relatively similar conditions. Psychologists have concluded that the tight knit nature of ships' crews, and the fact they always travel together, gives better social support, reducing the incidence of PTSD.
You could say that about land armies as well. I believe part of the difference is the mindset of the times. Life was generally shorter with a long list of things that commonly ended a life. Likewise missing limbs weren't exactly uncommon either. Since death and maining was much closer to everyone it wasn't nearly as traumatic.
The Carton iron works existed until fairly recently and manufactured many of the old red telephone boxes (ask mum or dad) as well as Piller or post boxes.
Shooting from as far away as possible? Wasn't it Nelson himself that said aiming practise was useless as needing to aim your gun simply meant you were too far away from your enemy?
A lot of commanders and generals have throughout history said things that go against the doctrine of their nation, in cases like that it often means that they're specifically choosing to make different tactical decisions but it isn't a challenge to the doctrine. Nelson did lead according to the principle of trying to get in close but I don't think he'd say that you should get in close if you had a range advantage. It's just that he was leading in large decisive engagements in which the ships were fairly evenly matched and in those he chose to be aggressive and go for close quarters combat.
Nelson was actually a pretty poor seaman but he had good leadership and liked to get stuck in. Boldness was the key to victory often in this period. It certainly mattered less than rate of fire.
Ok, maybe I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that shells at least weren't lit before loading. Instead, a paper fuse full of gunpowder was put in, and loaded so it went backwards in the gun/mortar, so it got lit by the detonation of main charge.
That was common in direct fire shell guns of the 1800's, with short barrel mortars in earlier periods you could light the fuse with the charge but it wasn't as reliable. Toward the end of this period the method you describe was the most common
Drach, if you happen to be over on this side of the pond sometime again, look up the North-South Skirmish Assoc, we shoot American Civil War firearms and artillery in live fire competitions and more importantly hold mortar matches along with field guns and small arms matches. In the mortar matches, we shoot at a stake placed in the ground at 100 yards and fire 7 rounds at it and tally up the total distances of the 5 closest shots to the stake. I have seen a score of 11 feet, 3 inches for all 5 rounds combined in a match. There are several videos on YT about our mortar matches and it's really cool to watch and even better to be on the line shooting.
Of note the HMS Cruizer and HMS Snake class brigs and brig sloop had an all carronade armament(the Cuzier class was over 100 ships completed) so an all carronade armament could be a good idea. Grape shot were a bit larger than described and the size depended on the gun...i.e. individual grape shot for a 32 pounder (around 3 pounds weight and just under 3 inches in diameter each) was considerably larger than the individual shot for a 12 pounder (around 1 pound weight and just over 2 inches in diameter each). The shot were typically 3 shot per row and 3 or 4 rows per round, wrapped in cloth and bound with twine or wire to keep it together for loading(and it looked rather like a punch of grapes - hence the name). The individual shot could run up toward 3 pounds each for a larger cannon. The weight of the shot gave it longer range and penetration than canister shot(heavier equals more momentum, all other things being equal). A cannon firing a spread of multiple 2-3 pound individual shot in a shotgun style made them brutally effective at up to medium ranges...one of the reason the RN used grape with great effect when Lord Exmouth pounded the Barbary Pirate fortifications into surrender in 1816. Admiral David Farragut's ships used grape against Confederate fortifications frequently with good effect on the American Civil War also.
thanks for this, it is very interesting. I have grown interested in these canons because the building where I work has 2- 32 pounders on the front lawn. they are trophies from the Crimea war in the 1850s.
If something seems just a little too ridiculous or like something might go horribly wrong aboard a warship always assume that it was a Marine who came up with it. I am still convinced that the Marines in all navies (not just the US and UK) are a special sub-breed of human capable of great physical feats at the cost of some of their sanity...
We stopped off at the Isles Marcouf in the bay of the Seine. We anchored between the islands and rowed to the Isle du Large for a wander about. There were canon barrels just lying about on the beach.
Mortars are designed to fire at a trajectory of +45 degrees. So no carriage is viable, therefore you have a Base Plate , direct contact with surface to absorb recoil. Two Bomb Ketchs, which wer ethe last of there type, had second very famous carrers , speciffically because of thier heavy build, they wer eused for polar exploration HMS Erebus and HMS Terror.
Great video as usual! Very impressed with the naval gunner who was a "sharpshooter." I wonder how many master gunners attained this degree of enterprise?
I have spoken to a (American) civil war reenactor who's battery operated a 12lb Napoleon type smoothbore. They go to target shooting competitions. He said it was not great feat for an experienced gunner to hit a 6'x6' target at 400 yards. That said their powder and shot are likely manufactured to much tighter tolerances than the originals
Another nice evening hour, thanks for that. Would love to see some details about alloys used and casting process possibly with on-site visits to some old foundaries if they still exist somewhere in the UK. On another note I remember precise description of the shooting from the mortars in one of the Hornblower books, it was described there as a pinnacle of precise gunnery if I remember correctly. Thanks for this great video again.
Amazing video Dranchinifel! At 9:40 you mention the transition away from decorative cannons to simpler cannons for weight reduction. Is there by any chance a name or "cannon period" of these more decorative guns? I love the look of how decorative and ornate some of the older guns were. If you have any resources for finding images about these decorative guns it would be greatly appreciated, I'd love to learn more! Wonderful video again!
It seems that Essex lost to Phoebe for a combination of two primary reasons. First - Phoebe was a little faster (which the loss of her main-topmast by Essex before the battle only made worse). Second - Phoebe had a lot higher percentage of long guns. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Valpara%C3%ADso In contrast, Constitution survived largely because she was faster and like a Battle Cruiser - could run away from anything she didn't out gun and out gunned anything she couldn't run away from. .
Pinned post for Q&A :)
What would happen if an ironclad met a somali pirate boat
Not that iI didnt massively enjoy this but are we ever going to get ww2 destroyer development?
When was the last contested boarding?
Not against pirates like of the Ethiopian coast, but like in the 1600s where they would send the marines in to capture the battered capital ship.
Can you please make videos about German submarines?
What ranges are we talking about for the different types and eras of guns?
Eg What constitutes "short range"?
Chain Shot - the first Weapon of Mast Reduction.
That joke is bad enough to win a free trip to Hague
Ow!
-.- take my updoot
They have WMRs!
This message sponsored by the Association of Dyslexic Historiographers
Apprentice - 'I do not want to be a cannon maker'
Master - 'Why not?'
Apprentice - 'It's a boring technology'
BOOOO
*APPLAUSE!!*
Aha
Good enough for me 😂😂
You might want to cast around for a better pun
Drachism of the day:
"You wanted to stay as far away as possible, in the first case because you didn't want the stupidity to stick to you in case it was contagious."
Do you see torpedo boats?
@@anastasias6352 Thanks, now I have the mental image of Admiral Rozhestvensky using a small carronade to fire binoculars at the Kamchatka stuck in my head.
For flintlocks, while much more reliable than slow match, you still have hang fire. As my job as a historical presenter means firing 1820's (Roughly Napoleonic era) musket and cannon, I can firmly attest to how unnerving and terrifying hang fire can be. Imagine being given the order to fire, and either touching your match to the touch hole of a cannon or pulling a trigger on a weapon for the following to happen: the primer goes off with a satisfying flash and noise, but there's no recoil. You wait 5 seconds and just when you begin to suspect that your black powder charge didn't actually take, you are suddenly met with a bright flash, a loud bang, and your weapon producing much smoke and recoil as the shot leaves the barrel. This is hang-fire, and it can be delayed enough from when you expect your weapon to go off that it scares the crap into everyone's trousers, and if you are in the heat of battle, an inexperienced soldier, or even a militia conscript would have had enough time to begin inspecting the weapon for what went wrong. Suffice to say, it would be very easy for a friend to be killed as a soldier begins moving their musket to inspect the issue, or in the case of cannon, any of the gun crew to be killed by the recoil.
A 6lb (a bit less than 3kg) American field gun firing a blank charge will recoil up about 3 feet (roughly 90-100 cm), and back about 6 (roughly 180 to 200cm). With cannonball, the field piece would have recoiled backward by a further 3 feet or meter. With a 6lb field piece weighing half a ton, that's a lot of energy that can go into the skull of an unfortunate gunner moving to inspect the weapon at the wrong moment. Of course, naval guns had smaller wheels, so they didn't move as far rearward, but they also often were many times heavier than 6 and 12 lb weapons used by Napoleonic armies.
Its the origin of the phrase "a flash in the pan" - ie something that makes a lot of noise/fuss but is over quickly and is not effective.
I REALLY know the feeling of this problem, been there done that lol
I very much enjoyed reading this
@@zidanelionheart pleasure to be of service. If you have interest in this sort of thing, I recommend going to a museum where they give firing demonstrations. It's one thing to read about but another to see and hear and smell.
Hang fires aren't a thing of the past -- you can still get them with modern guns. In the coastal artillery, we had a rule that if your charge didn't go off even with repeated snapping of the firing pin, you had to wait 10 minutes in case of a primer fault, then another 30 minutes in case of a charge fault, before removing the round. Even with that 40 minute wait, carrying the no-go round in your arms to a safe location would tend to give you butterflies in the stomach.
"Why is the rum gone?!"
- Royal Navy, 1970
Sad noises :(
Hide the rum!
Because by then only sissy's remained in the navy.
The lost stratagem was to minimize own losses, cuddling the sailors, rather than maximizing the losses of the enemey. Very very bad for morale.
Dam they shot us below the water line who put the rum where the gun powder suppose to be
The rum went the way of sodomy and the lash. So much for traditions.
The Karenade: When you're no longer asking for the manger
Live, laugh, blast a massive hole in the enemy ship.
thats what i refer to as a super sayian karen
I just pictured a cannon sporting a wedge hair cut with blonde streak wig near the breach of the cannon.
Karen is just razy lacist now. The chinese are calling western women Karen
How did I *not* hear that?
Thank you.
Royal Marine afther loading his 68 pounder Carronade: you know what this needs ? balls more balls
God the carnage on the French ship must've been like a hell scape!
I am watching this at work while my clients sleep. I laughed so hard, I had to make sure I didn't wake them up.
The lad is not only crazy, he's also a genius
This is the perfect place for me to thank Admiral Drachinifel for graciously answering my question about a loose cannon event, and what a crew is supposed to do about it in the event of such a disaster in, say, a high sea gale.
Drach's answer, by the way, was a classic:
" RUN AWAY!"
😂
D’you have a link to the video?
It was not unheard of for the breechings securing a carriage gun to be shot away and the now loose gun, weighing several tons on a listing or rolling ship to run the full width of the deck and smash gear along the way and kill a gun crew on the other battery or drop through an open hatchway to either the deck below or all the way down into the hold, again smashing anything in the way.
@@robertf3479 Yes, I read a short yarn a few years back, and the author likened it to a three ton pile of iron that can dance on a single edge. The story described how a brave fellow managed to get a rope looped around it enough to enable crew to begin wrestling it under control.
I wondered at the time how much of the story was realistic, and if any of it was fanciful.
@@mrb692 It's Drydock #56, around the five-minute mark.
I like to think that Royal Marine on Victory had a bet that he could fire 500 musket balls at the enemy. He just Decided that using his musket was too time consuming.
"How are we gonna get rid of all these extra barrels of musket balls?"
"Wait, I have an idea!"
Bet that Gamble was with a QM who didn't want to have to count them
Blunder buses already existed though. Its the same concept.
"Hold my rum... Watch this!"
"But Sar'nt Major, that's not fair!" Says no one.
"Desire to watch Pirates of the Caribbean intensifies O___O"
Fantastic video as always Drach.
I've now got an imagine of a Royal Marine running across the deck with his barrel of musket balls and telling his gun captain that this is a great idea.
And the captain, being slightly twisted, agreed.
I love how you assume the marine asked permission
@@lancepharker I never said he asked lol
I just wonder if it was a bet? “I can shoot all 500 of these at the enemy!” “Alright 10 quid says you can’t” just no one specified he had to use his musket!
If something seems just a little too ridiculous or like something might go horribly wrong aboard a warship always assume that it was a Marine who came up with it. I am still convinced that the Marines in all navies (not just the US and UK) are a special sub-breed of human capable of great physical feats at the cost of some of their sanity...
In "Master and Commander" there are some very impressive canon duels.
Some of the shots made my house shake.
Last time I was this early, HMS Captain was still a good idea.
How did that work out for you?
Liar. It was *never* a good idea.
Surely it should be "Last time I was this yearly HMS Captain was still HMS Midshipman"?
@@jamesarronmartinmartin7262 Time went by and, as it turns out, ship design is better left for ship designers 😅😅😅
I love how this channel now has its own inside jokes
In shop class in high school I built a 6 inch long 1/2” bore brass canon. It was mounted on a welded steel carriage with four wheels like a naval gun. It looked about right and went bang real good. You could load it a variety of ways and get different reports, all louder than hell. It disappeared one day and never came back.
... I read somewheres that the upgrade to the use of a "flintlock" type ignition system vs a old fashion "fuse" had a big impact on timing the roll of the ship w/ the actual firing of the gun ... resulting ... in more hits ...
Not really. There was now slow burning fuse in the vent of a cannon before using flint locks either.
The main benefit was simply, that a flintlock, as long as it is not actively doing it's thing, is inert. The slow burning match in a match-holder is always smouldering.
This can cause problems around lots of more or less open powder around you.
Also, the matches would need to be lit in time for action and carefully kept lit, to be useful. a flintlock, oyu can throw into a bin, and get out 15 years later and it is ready as soon as cocked.
@@lutzderlurch7877no, it is true
@@JostVanWair Would you happen to have a source or reference handy for that? As far as I see it, there is a miniscule improvement in timing, but nothing I'd call major.
@@lutzderlurch7877 Now that I look, no, I do not. Since quick matches were not used in the firing of naval artillery (unlike land artillery where one was inserted into the touch hole and ignited by the linstock) the difference would not be there.
The gunlock's main advantages were that it was far safer to use, easier to sight and faster to load.
@@JostVanWair Since there is a lot floppy use of terminology, what exactly do you refer to as 'uick match'
On land, at least the 18th C british artillery usually employed uill or very thin sheet metal tubes, filled with a sticky powder mixture and with a thick wire poked through, to form a hollow tube. The term eludes me right now, and I am too lazy this evening to look for the book.. These tubes tend to send the flame of ignition down the touchhole almost instantaneously.
I am not sure what was used in naval guns. The Book likely containing that particular nugget of wisdom is on my pile of shame XD
At best my vague recollection is pouring some fine powder to the touchhole, but that would make the powder (relatively) slowly burn down into the breech with considerable variation in timing, regardless of it being ignited by flintlock or linstock...
I --REALLY-- have to reduce my pile of shame XD
Thank you sir, for acknowledging, albeit indirectly, that the English navy ceased to exist after the Acts of Union, being replaced with the Royal, (British), Navy. I have encountered historians who infuriatingly insist on calling the RN the 'English' Navy, (and 'English' Army, and believe it or not 'English' Air Force), up to modern times.
its pretty wild how many dudes get legitimately angry over military terms being "misused" or when some super specific factoid regarding historical context of military groups/items. Like an APC being called a tank(which by definition, it could be.) Or, that "Marines arent soldiers." Oh stfu and go masturbate alone for the 5 millionth time, ya hosers.
No way
What's the difference? Can anyone explain to me the context?
@@ΒασίληςΒλάχος-τ3κ Prior to 1707 England and Scotland were separate Kingdoms and sovereign nations. They had their own armies, navies and parliaments. The 1707 Acts of Union, combined the Kingdoms and created a new sovereign nation. Scotland and England continued to exist but they lost their sovereign status and became more like American States. Confusingly, some people (including the English) refer to the U.K. as 'England', which it absolutely is not. England is like Texas. It cannot have it's own army or air force, have a seat at the U.N. or negotiate international trade.
45:03 ...so stuffing cutlery down the barrel wasn't unheard of after all? Huh.
Not at all it was in fact so common that there was a term for it, after all sinking a ship before the 20th century was rare so anything that could kill the crew on the enemy ship was used, that included things like nails or cutlery.
During the desperate defense of the fortified town of Negotin in early 19th century against the attacking Ottomans, the Serbian revolutionaries, short on ammunition for their cannons, used even coins as impromptu grapeshot.
@@VersusARCH oh, I have seen dimes out of a shotgun shell. That must have been devastating.
@@phoenix55755 Coin ammunition is very inferior compared to actual shotgun loads. ua-cam.com/video/tEcTxjnrg8A/v-deo.html
@@brianwyters2150 Ah, I see you too are a man of culture.
What makes up a meat target?
I once took a course on the military revolution and a large portion of the course focused on the arms race between fixed fortifications and the armaments designed to break such fortifications. Specifically the star fort and the various artillery designed to deal with them. There was a section on naval artillery and if I remember correctly the cost of a battery of bronze cannon was something like 5-10 times the cost of the ship itself. That directly led to the reduction of the number of ships of the line because it wasn't that the ships were expensive, it was just too expensive to arm them.
There won't be a lot of people left now who, like me, actually worked for Carron Iron works, in Falkirk, near Stirling, where the Carronades came from. We were still making ornamental versions in the 1980's.
Same place where Major Shrapnel developed his fragmenting cast iron casing, as still found on grenades.
These gems are better than any TV documentary I have ever seen. Subbed, well done
Would love to see a follow up video on age of sail developments in naval architecture. There's loads of information here and there about the relative efficacy of firing into the side and rear of ships but no real comprehensive account online of times it happened, the consequences of it and how important arc of fire was during different points in the age of sail. It's taken as read that cutting the stern of an opposing ship was devastating but an expert analysis of the topic in more detail would be much welcomed.
Cutting across the bow or stern of an enemy and firing down the length of his ship is referred to as "raking" and was one nasty situation all captains sought to avoid like the Plague or perpetrate against an enemy. This is because wooden warships were "soft-ended". Unlike the heavy timbers of the sides, there were almost no substantial structures to block the passage of a shot along the length of the ship, so one cannon-ball could do far more damage travelling that way, than across it's width. Take a tour of HMS Victory if you can and you will see what I mean. I'm sure Drach will explain how this issue was resolved in a future vid.
@@followthewhiterabbit7504 Yeah, I haven't been down to Portsmouth to see Victory but I have been on the (former) RN frigate Trincomalee in Hartlepool. My understanding is that it's not just the internal structure of the ship but also the external structure and architecture that made wooden ships vulnerable in this way. What I'm really interested in is when and how people came to this realisation in terms of first hand accounts, were there any serious attempts in terms of engineering to address this prior to the ironclads of C19th, were all ships of the time equally vulnerable or were some classes of ship moreso than others, etc. The questions that it's harder to answer without a substantive degree of research.
@@followthewhiterabbit7504 If you've got any reading on the subject please share btw.
@@matthewmcneany Try "The Battleship Era" by Peter Padfield.
@@matthewmcneany I imagine that it was practical experience that taught seafarers about the strengths and weaknesses of their ships, particularly in combat. I've not read any accounts of seamen or naval architects attempting to address the raking problem, prior to the Ironclad revolution, but maybe someone did.
Points of interest! You mentioned the action between HMS Shannon and USS Chesapeake. Chesapeake, was as you say taken, and taken into RN, but she was so badly damaged that she was fairly soon sold for scrap. She was bought by a merchant who used the main timbers to build the frame of his new mill. Its still there - the Chesapeake Mill in Wickham near Fareham in Hampshire. You can still see the gaps gouged out of the timbers by Shannon's cannon in one part!
Also, there are a few things you didn't mention that improved accuracy. The casting of cannonballs became better so the size was more consistent so fitted the barrels better and reduced the variable windage. And the British invented/adopted corned powder, which was when the ingredients of gunpowder were thoroughly mixed wet(ish), then dried into grains, so each grain contained the same correct mix of the components (as in corned beef!). This gave a consistent burn every time. Hitherto, the ingredients were mixed dry, so when they were packed in barrels, the movement and shaking gradually separated them again, so the burn was inconsistent. Royal Navy ships didn't use captured French powder unless desparate, because the French never really caught on to the process when it mattered. Rudimentary sights were gradually introduced, which again helped - particularly on the long 9s used as bow or stern chasers.
Incidentally, grapeshot was particularly effective in raking either stern or bow, whether cannon or carronade! Very nasty!
Sorry to go on - I enjoyed that exposition on naval artillery.
You can see a few artifacts from the Chesapeake in the Halifax Maritime Museum.
'Corned' powder also burns more slowly, reducing the pressure inside the gun.
@@followthewhiterabbit7504 The larger corned bits burn longer then smaller powdered BP - but the actual burn rate will be the same as they are chemically the same. It is the prolonged burn time that slows the pressure curve peaking.
"Windage" is the gap between the cannonball and gunbarrel. I now know this. Unsurprisingly, whatever I'd have presumptuously guessed that it meant, if asked, based solely on the spelling/sound of the word itself, was miles away from actuality.
In 1946/7 I was a student at Lancaster Junior Technical School. In our theory lesson on casting, we were told that, before gun barrels were bored on a lathe, the British perfected the technique of coating the 'Bore core' with graphite thus giving a much more, relative, smoother bore. Have you heard of this?
As a nautical history nut, i love your videos. So professional and well researched.
Philosophical moment... The main thing I have realised out of these very interesting videos by Drach is... Why can't humans learn to live together instead of letting their egos run uncontrolled and trying to continually find ways to kill each other throughout history into the present day? Really sad and wasteful when you think about it. Cheers Drach... nicely researched work. You deserve to be a Patreon sponsored UA-camr... stay safe.
Drachinifel: The fire arrow.
Me, A Lindy Beige Fan: I feel like I know how this story ends.
Well, strictly speaking, fire arrows are much more viable in naval combat than on land. Their potential to damage sails, light powder, frighten sailors, and generally cause chaos is very useful when everyone is flammable.
@@littlebigheroman The problem is viability of implementation though. If you want fire arrows you need something to have that fire from, for instance, a large fire. However, people tend to be less enthusiastic to bring a giant pit of fire on board of a wooden ship
@@iamhere6893 Well you wouldn't need a large fire at all, you could use something small like a torch or just light it on the spot with a flint and steel, and you're gonna be having those on a ship either way.
@@hedgehog3180 or possibly even a candle would do. Although you would still need to be very careful during the heat of battle as even a tiny flame can easily engulf the one big tinderbox your floating on
@@hedgehog3180 the problem people don't understand is its not the simple you can't use a smaller fire it gets blown out on route from the speed of the projectile involved
Diamond drill bit, real game changer
Ft McHenry shows the mortar rounds, they were a tear drop shape, with tiny fins at the pointy part, filled with powder, and a percussion cap on the nose...
They used those in the blunderbusses and Grenade launchers back then, too
I know quite a lot about black powder firearms, but always wanted to learn about artillery which i did not know nothing about. I must say this video is amazing, i learned a lot, its a real class, one of the best informative youtube videos i ever saw, Congratulations and thank you
I'm fairly sure that the term "grape shot" has nothing to do with the size of the projectile(especially since some grapes are the same size as the musket balls used in canister shot) but has to do with the shape of the bundled projectiles resembling a cluster of grapes on the vine.
RN Sea service Grape was uniformly 9 rounds of the size 'roughly' 1/11th the nominal, plus the tampion.
For 32lb guns, 3lb shot, 24lb gun guns 2lb shot, 18lb 1.5lb, 12lb 1lb... etc.
For land service, where penetration of bulwarks wasn't required, effectiveness was higher with larger numbers of shot, and grape had 12-32 shot and blended with cannister in design and effectiveness.
@@gracesprocket7340 So like I said, considerably heavier than musket balls since a .68 cal ball weighs a little more than one oz.
Imagine my delight to arrive home from work and finding this waiting for me! Thank you Drach, you turned a humdrum day into a good one. USN retired.
Drachinifel mentions lighting the fuse of a shell or carcass projectile before loading it into the cannon/howitzer/mortar. In land warfare these were loaded unlit, and the fuse was started by the flash of the propellant charge. Much safer. I should imagine it was the same with naval gunnery.
It was rapidly adopted, although the very earliest used the 'light-insert-fire' method
A number of points. At this time the main aim was to captuire an enemy ship, get it home and it and any cargo would be sold by the Prize Agents, and you got your share . Howitzer and Mortars are completly diffrent weapons systems. Case and Carcase were loaded, fuse down unlit. The deflagration and or radiant heat of the proppellant lit the fuse. Carcase was used to fire at rigging . A small hole in a sail , bearing in mind the pressure on a sail when a ship is motion can be masured in tons per square yard, leads to rips. Landridge shot was a specifie form of shot using bars of iron bundled not balls. Any thing down the barrel, was known as Junk Shot. Two of the Royal Navy's last Bomb Ketchs are very famous , they were modified speciffically because of their massive structural strenght, as Polar Exploration vessels. They were called HMS Erebus and HMS Terror.
50:20 Interesting to see that this painting shows boats being trailed by the ships. This was a common practice when "clearing for action" - it meant your boats were not in the way on the upper deck - they were less likely to be hit by enemy shot (which also creates splinters) and anyone who fell or was knocked overboard had some chance of grabbing the boat as it went by. Most paintings never show the boats. I know it was not always done but it seems to have been a common practice.
But most paintings still show Ensigns streaming backwards, hey folks ! On a sailing ship the wind normally comes from behind, so which way will the rag blow?
I really can't get enough of Drach's classic British understatement of happenings that in reality would be absolutely horridly gruesome in this topic. On one hand it amuses me, on the other, I don't know what to think of the horrifying part.
God, I just love the odd macabre one liner. Its one of the reason I love this channel.
Good video. I love ship of the line. I'm building a model now. I wish there was more content out there. Despite all my research into everything 16th through 18th century naval warfare; I found this video with so much new information. More age of sail videos!
If you think back and look at it, it's remarkable that a ship -- any ship -- can successfully platform the 15 or 16 inch guns on WWII battleships. Even with decades of posterity, it's a remarkable feat of engineering to see what these behemoths could offer in firepower.
Another amazing material about naval history. Thanks Drach!
Speaking of mortars, when it was laying siege to Vicksburg, Grant's Army of the Tennessee didn't have a proper siege train. So, Union artillerymen improvised. They took short sections of gum-tree logs, bored them out to accept six or twelve pound shells, and hooped the logs with iron bands. These wooden mortars reportedly worked well.
Excellent summary, and every time I was thinking "I bet he won't touch on xxx" you totally did. Very impressed, and I can't wait to see the next installment!
since i found your channel i find my self binching your content day after day thank you
Welcome then.
I found myself in the same spot about 3 years ago...
@47:00 "fire arrow" somewhere in the UK we hear inarticulate screeching in beige.
If only Lindybeige understood coal when making that video 🤣
Also screams in Robin Hood titles. Leave us alone Mel Brooks!
and a bunch of conjecture and pompous blowharding
@@jobdylan5782 i find he is very knowledgeable on specific aspects he specializes in but most everything else (especially WW1 and later) needs to be taken as entertainment rather than education
@@Legitpenguins99 that's fair enough
Love this video series, cant wait for the final instalment! Your channel is easily my favourite on youtube.
Fascinating topic. Love the dry humour! Many thanks!
Absolutely love this channel. Thank you for your efforts sir.
Again, many thanks to you for this most excellent content. You have my gratitude for your efforts.
Carronade: noun. A short-range, heavy, short-barreled antipersonnel cannon on board any sailing vessel of the 1650-1820 period of sail. Use with buckshot.
If you wrap that buckshot in canvas, you get a non-lethal round. -US police
@@kirknay No.
@@benlaskowski357 They're called Bean Bag rounds, and they use #9 lead shot in a fabric sack.
@@kirknay Now they use rubber or plastic pellets.
@@duck636 Nope, the ones that are currently used in the US are still lead.
Really useful info for a fantasy book I’m writing about flying machines during this era (weight is a big deal.)
There was never a time when cannon were cast as simple cylinders and then had the bore drilled into them. Cast guns were (and still are) cast with a hole in the middle, which was then either bored out to exact tolerance or (with later iron/steel barrels) a mandrel was inserted in the hole and the barrel forged around it. It is much easier, quicker and less effort to widen an existing hole than to bore a massive hole into a large block of metal.
It would also seem rather dangerous to light the fuse of a bomb before loading it into a mortar -- in case of a hang fire, the bomb might blow the whole gun to pieces since the actual propelling charge in mortars was usually smaller than the bursting charge. At least in later pieces, the fuse was lit by the propelling charge when the gun fired. As an interesting aside, the fact that bomb (mortar) vessels had to be built stronger than usual to withstand the force of the firing meant that they were also eminently suitable (as far as wooden ships of the period went) for navigation in ice, which is why HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, ships used in several British Antarctic and Arctic voyages of discovery between 1836 and 1847, were originally bomb vessels.
This guy is 100% correct
That is interesting
Chain shot, in addition to being hard on sails, is also fairly effective in an anti-personnel capacity, especially if you make the chain several feet long. On land, it was sometimes used as a mechanism for breaking an enemy infantry's nerve, encouraging them to retreat, preferably in a disorderly manner.
Fascinating stuff, Drach. You're an informative and entertaining lecturer!
Thank you Drach for this very nice Video . Those Bronze Cannons were Very Ornate , I tracked one down Last year and was stunned by what I saw . The San Joseph is on the Lawn of the Livonia Library in Western , New York . The San Joseph was cast in 1790 in Spain using Mexican Copper , it is a work of a Art . If any body is in the area of Livingston County stop by to see it . Back story is Hon . Oscar F. Williams was from Livonia , N.y . Judge Williams was the Consul to the Philippines in 1898 and was on Admiral Dewey's Flagship during the Battle , The Cannon was Captured from at Fort San Fillippe by Manila . It is a Huge Ornate Cannon and the Length is Impressive . I cannot find the photos but i think it is at least 24 lbs vs 18 lbs as was listed ? Judge Williams had at least 5 cannons brought back but the number might be 11 if somebody cared to do more careful research .
I really look forward to the next part of this series, its so very interesting to watch.
Thank you for this very interesting presentation on naval artillery.
hi, just thought you should know, i clicked on the video, saw it's length and the music at the start and subscribed 5 seconds in because i can tell we're gonna get along. cheers
I think a really cool idea would have been to have specialized mortar ships armed like 8-15 mortars only firing airburst shrapnel rounds. That could lay down alot of damage and the sheer volume and ROF combined with airburst charges would fix thr accuracy problems assuming you had a competent crew
I automatically liked this video before watching. Thanks Drach.
This channel have everything
I believe the last Admiral to cross the T in a Battleship on Battleship naval encounter, Rear Admiral Jesse Oldendorf was still firing solid shot in October of 1944. The fact that it happened to be armor-piercing I would say makes it real solid shot LOL.
I love your videos, thank you for making this channel and sharing your knowledge.
Leave it to a jarhead....
"Hehe Canon go boom "
Or, in the case at hand leave it to a Bootneck!
Improvise...Adapt....and OVERCOME. OORAH
@@YAT-YAS_To_The_Extreme Aye, improvise mostly because we haven't the funding to have the right tool for the particular job that nobody else wants to do. Department of the Navy my Ar$e!. But, yeah Oohrah. Just 'gotta get it done regardless. : )
As a tangential companion to your section on pirates during the Carronade discussion, I recommend CGP Grey's video on pirates (captain edition)
As a massive Patrick O'Brien fan, this is the BEST title I've seen in a long time! 😊
Just want to point out that a shell, particularly one filled with lead shot or musket balls, exploding mid air over a fortification can do a lot of the killing and maiming usually required in a bombardment...
Great video. I'm really looking forward to the next one.
Runs out of ammunition during a battle.
Begins violently stuffing the contents of a silverware drawer into the cannon barrel.
I love this series! Hoping the next episode comes out soon, but take the time you need to get it down right.
"Spin like a pair of demented lethal high speed bowlers"
Drach, you never disappoint
Bolas... he said Bolas, but still just as funny :)
@@rippervtol9516 I didnt even know what bolas are until a second ago
@@Chrischi3TutorialLPs Learn something everyday ;)
Well explained! I appreciate the knowledge behind the video!
The fact that every single person who served aboard a naval vessel during this time period wasn't utterly ruined by PTSD from witnessing the aftermath of any significant battle is almost the most incredible part of it all. The sheer carnage must have been unfathomable, and woe be to whoever gets stuck cleaning up after a ship gets shot through from the end.
What makes you think they weren’t? I’d say a lot of the stereotypes about irascible hard-drinking sailors can be traced back to what is now known as PTSD suffered as a result of just the carnage you mentioned.
DG: Modern studies of PTSD since WWII find that sailors suffer PTSD at a fraction of that of army/land personnel under relatively similar conditions. Psychologists have concluded that the tight knit nature of ships' crews, and the fact they always travel together, gives better social support, reducing the incidence of PTSD.
They weren't such snowflakes back then.
You could say that about land armies as well. I believe part of the difference is the mindset of the times. Life was generally shorter with a long list of things that commonly ended a life. Likewise missing limbs weren't exactly uncommon either. Since death and maining was much closer to everyone it wasn't nearly as traumatic.
Talking about bomb vessels, could you do a video onHMs Erebus and HMS Terror and Franklin's Lost Expedition
I think hes already done a video on Erebus and Terror
@@spartancam-rs5ru nah that video was on the monitors built around ww1.
Or the riverine mortar boats of the civil war US Navy.
Ooh, yes please
hustory buffs does a vid on these
Would be great if all such videos would be available on Spotify as a history Podcast type show
Any day drach uploads is a good day
The Carton iron works existed until fairly recently and manufactured many of the old red telephone boxes (ask mum or dad) as well as Piller or post boxes.
Last time I was this early Captain Aubrey thought he was talking to the French doctor.
Is it time to......
BEAT TO QUARTERS!!!!!!???
You might have thought that, but in fact, Jack was busy debauching his sloth.
George Crabb Yes Mr Mowett and out us on a course south east by east.
@@lutenantsweedpertasa By God that's seamanship!
DOWN !!!!! ALL HANDS DOWN !!!!!
As always, well presented, very informative. Thank you!
Shooting from as far away as possible? Wasn't it Nelson himself that said aiming practise was useless as needing to aim your gun simply meant you were too far away from your enemy?
@joanne chon not dieing would be another i think.
@@robertharris6092 its the 16-1700s, life is pain, death is inevitable and always on the horizon. money is probably a higher priority tbh.
@@robertharris6092 maybe if you are alone in a shady place, but among enlisted men, nah that makes no sence
A lot of commanders and generals have throughout history said things that go against the doctrine of their nation, in cases like that it often means that they're specifically choosing to make different tactical decisions but it isn't a challenge to the doctrine. Nelson did lead according to the principle of trying to get in close but I don't think he'd say that you should get in close if you had a range advantage. It's just that he was leading in large decisive engagements in which the ships were fairly evenly matched and in those he chose to be aggressive and go for close quarters combat.
Nelson was actually a pretty poor seaman but he had good leadership and liked to get stuck in. Boldness was the key to victory often in this period.
It certainly mattered less than rate of fire.
UA-cam algorithm finally got me to this channel.
This was very informative man, thanks for going through on this.
Ok, maybe I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that shells at least weren't lit before loading. Instead, a paper fuse full of gunpowder was put in, and loaded so it went backwards in the gun/mortar, so it got lit by the detonation of main charge.
That was common in direct fire shell guns of the 1800's, with short barrel mortars in earlier periods you could light the fuse with the charge but it wasn't as reliable. Toward the end of this period the method you describe was the most common
Drach, if you happen to be over on this side of the pond sometime again, look up the North-South Skirmish Assoc, we shoot American Civil War firearms and artillery in live fire competitions and more importantly hold mortar matches along with field guns and small arms matches. In the mortar matches, we shoot at a stake placed in the ground at 100 yards and fire 7 rounds at it and tally up the total distances of the 5 closest shots to the stake. I have seen a score of 11 feet, 3 inches for all 5 rounds combined in a match. There are several videos on YT about our mortar matches and it's really cool to watch and even better to be on the line shooting.
Of note the HMS Cruizer and HMS Snake class brigs and brig sloop had an all carronade armament(the Cuzier class was over 100 ships completed) so an all carronade armament could be a good idea. Grape shot were a bit larger than described and the size depended on the gun...i.e. individual grape shot for a 32 pounder (around 3 pounds weight and just under 3 inches in diameter each) was considerably larger than the individual shot for a 12 pounder (around 1 pound weight and just over 2 inches in diameter each). The shot were typically 3 shot per row and 3 or 4 rows per round, wrapped in cloth and bound with twine or wire to keep it together for loading(and it looked rather like a punch of grapes - hence the name). The individual shot could run up toward 3 pounds each for a larger cannon. The weight of the shot gave it longer range and penetration than canister shot(heavier equals more momentum, all other things being equal). A cannon firing a spread of multiple 2-3 pound individual shot in a shotgun style made them brutally effective at up to medium ranges...one of the reason the RN used grape with great effect when Lord Exmouth pounded the Barbary Pirate fortifications into surrender in 1816. Admiral David Farragut's ships used grape against Confederate fortifications frequently with good effect on the American Civil War also.
Last time the dogs failed to wake this early I was pulling an oar on a galley
raming speed practice those were the days
@@obelic71 Except for the days the Captain wanted to waterski...
thanks for this, it is very interesting. I have grown interested in these canons because the building where I work has 2- 32 pounders on the front lawn. they are trophies from the Crimea war in the 1850s.
If something seems just a little too ridiculous or like something might go horribly wrong aboard a warship always assume that it was a Marine who came up with it. I am still convinced that the Marines in all navies (not just the US and UK) are a special sub-breed of human capable of great physical feats at the cost of some of their sanity...
Some?
We stopped off at the Isles Marcouf in the bay of the Seine. We anchored between the islands and rowed to the Isle du Large for a wander about. There were canon barrels just lying about on the beach.
I finally learned why the old mortars were so heavy. Thank you.
Mortars are designed to fire at a trajectory of +45 degrees. So no carriage is viable, therefore you have a Base Plate , direct contact with surface to absorb recoil. Two Bomb Ketchs, which wer ethe last of there type, had second very famous carrers , speciffically because of thier heavy build, they wer eused for polar exploration HMS Erebus and HMS Terror.
Very interesting. Watching this from Carron, Falkirk, Scotland.
I am bewildered as to how this doesn't have more views!
Great video as usual! Very impressed with the naval gunner who was a "sharpshooter." I wonder how many master gunners attained this degree of enterprise?
I have spoken to a (American) civil war reenactor who's battery operated a 12lb Napoleon type smoothbore. They go to target shooting competitions. He said it was not great feat for an experienced gunner to hit a 6'x6' target at 400 yards. That said their powder and shot are likely manufactured to much tighter tolerances than the originals
This channel is great! Where else would I want to learn about cannons and the brass monkey!
Ahhhhhhhh yes my beloved Wednesday special!
Another nice evening hour, thanks for that. Would love to see some details about alloys used and casting process possibly with on-site visits to some old foundaries if they still exist somewhere in the UK. On another note I remember precise description of the shooting from the mortars in one of the Hornblower books, it was described there as a pinnacle of precise gunnery if I remember correctly. Thanks for this great video again.
"in the first case because you didn't want the stupidity to stick to you in case it was contagious" - british humor - I love it!
50:56 greetings from the great seafaring nation of Switzerland
Amazing video Dranchinifel! At 9:40 you mention the transition away from decorative cannons to simpler cannons for weight reduction. Is there by any chance a name or "cannon period" of these more decorative guns? I love the look of how decorative and ornate some of the older guns were. If you have any resources for finding images about these decorative guns it would be greatly appreciated, I'd love to learn more!
Wonderful video again!
I've heard that the crews could generally rely on the blast to light both fuses and carcass
It seems that Essex lost to Phoebe for a combination of two primary reasons.
First - Phoebe was a little faster (which the loss of her main-topmast by Essex before the battle only made worse).
Second - Phoebe had a lot higher percentage of long guns.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Valpara%C3%ADso
In contrast, Constitution survived largely because she was faster and like a Battle Cruiser - could run away from anything she didn't out gun and out gunned anything she couldn't run away from.
.
I love the mythbusters episode on improvised canon ammo, where they used chain and ships nails, against a pig carcas... damned nasty.
That chain was nasty
Didn't the Mythbusters also demonstrate that wood splinters were mush less hazardous than previously thought, in that episode?
Instant pulled pork sandwich
@@followthewhiterabbit7504 they did, yes. it did no damage at all.
52 minutes on naval guns.... Oh, I don't mind if I do.