Matle

I don’t see why that would be bad form, thanks for posting. 3D printing is here to stay,  for finished products and for making masters for moulding. That you only needed a few hours to whip that up is enough proof of concept.
 
One question from someone who only has space for small models - down to what scale do you think your equipment would be able to produce sharp results? I guess 1/64 should work if 1/48 looks that good, but what about 1/100 and 1/200ish? I’m curious what hobby-modellers as us would be able to do - I’m sure there is expensive industrial machines which can do it but that is another topic really.

Thanks Dafi, those are quite convincing images I have to admit. Maybe the forces involved were not that great to threaten the integrity of the brackets/connections, and the inertia of the largest guns would perhaps take most/some of the forces. The rate of fire was as said not great. Even in the battles of the Northern 7-years war which were artillery duels, the ammunition consumption were surprisingly low.
 
It’s still a silly thing to do, to balance outside the hull like that.

Thanks Dafi, those are quite convincing images I have to admit. Maybe the forces involved were not that great to threaten the integrity of the brackets/connections, and the inertia of the largest guns would perhaps take most/some of the forces. The rate of fire was as said not great. Even in the battles of the Northern 7-years war which were artillery duels, the ammunition consumption were surprisingly low.
 
It’s still a silly thing to do, to balance outside the hull like that.

And sitting on the gun is not unusual to be seen on paintings. 
 

 

 
Also later on to be seen with the french ...
 

 
And a fresh picture of Hermione, giving a hint what it would mean 😉
 

I don’t see why that would be bad form, thanks for posting. 3D printing is here to stay,  for finished products and for making masters for moulding. That you only needed a few hours to whip that up is enough proof of concept.
 
One question from someone who only has space for small models - down to what scale do you think your equipment would be able to produce sharp results? I guess 1/64 should work if 1/48 looks that good, but what about 1/100 and 1/200ish? I’m curious what hobby-modellers as us would be able to do - I’m sure there is expensive industrial machines which can do it but that is another topic really.

Aye; it was applied in post #15  

Mark, 
I feel we might be talking past each other. The 16th century was a long period, full of experimentation and technological and tactical development. Even at the same time and place, different types of vessels were used with very different purpose and armament. For example, I focused my post on the pure-bred warship of the latter half of the 16th century in the Baltic - these were largely artillery ships. For the earlier type of breech-loaded heavy iron guns common during the end of the 15th and first half of the 16th centuries, having little recoil makes more sense. 

You are, of course, correct. When I said it wouldn’t move, I meant that any sideways movement would be  insignificant, negligible - not that it would be absolutely 0. 

Mark, 
I feel we might be talking past each other. The 16th century was a long period, full of experimentation and technological and tactical development. Even at the same time and place, different types of vessels were used with very different purpose and armament. For example, I focused my post on the pure-bred warship of the latter half of the 16th century in the Baltic - these were largely artillery ships. For the earlier type of breech-loaded heavy iron guns common during the end of the 15th and first half of the 16th centuries, having little recoil makes more sense. 

I should really like to read it. Which time and space is he then refering to? None of the accounts of late 16th and early 17th century warfare indicates that the ships tried to disengage to load guns, rather the contrary. When Mary Rose sank, her newer guns had 4 wheel carriers while the older had only 2. Although this can be related to weight rather than age, adding wheels seems consistent with letting the gun recoil. One could argue that these were muzzle-loaded and wheels make hauling them back and forth easier, but it seems to me that someone would quickly realise that letting the guns do that job themselves seems like a rather tempting idea. And again, pinning the large guns would quickly damage them.
 
 

As you said, I can not address the article as I have no access, only the short points you posted.
Since you did not address my main points, I feel you took the choice of word ”silly” a bit harsher than I intended: I did not mean to say that the author was silly to propose it, I merely meant that the idea of leaning out and trying to flip a 10-20 kg iron ball into a small hole, and powder too, seemed to me a rather impractical procedure to do, especially while simultaneously being shot at. I did not mean it in demeaning sort of way.

I doubt these conclusions, except the one about bowed guns and chasers.
 
How would you arrange the gun to not let it recoil? Using tight breech ropes? The brackets holding them to the hull wouldn’t last long I suspect. Likewise bolting the carriage to the deck would be rather unhealthy to the gun and carriage. The force won’t be magically transferred to the ship: it would first cause immense strain on the barrel, connections and carriage. It could work for the smallest caliber guns, though. Also, the forward motion of the cannonball wouldn’t change in any significant way. There is no advantage other than not having to haul a breech-loaded gun out and in case of muzzle-loaders you’d have double work. Loading outboard sounds like a silly thing to do when actions were close-fought and the other fellows  armed with muskets and bows would be using you for target practice. edit: To clarify for heavy breechloaded guns this make  sense, but not muzzle-loaded.
 
Anyhow, researchers have recently been studying guns and their carriages from the Mars (1563, discovered some years ago): these had wheels and brackets for breeching lines.  There was no doubt that broadside firing was the chosen tactic there, based on written sources and ship design. In the beginning of Nordic 7-years war the allied Danes and Germans still employed boarding tactics, while the Swedes had started using artillery-only and designed their new ships for gunnery duels. Their tactic relied on trying to keep a distance and pounding the opposition with superior artillery. The broadside of Mars actually sank a Hanseatic (or Danish) ship in one of it’s first engagements. Even though the Mars was ironically lost during a boarding action, the Danes and Germans quickly adapted and started building artillery ships rather than boarders (getting rid of the high sterncastles for example). The Mars did seem to have had stern-chasers of grand proportions (5 m long 48-pounders), but they would not have wasted so much weight on broadside artillery as they did if it wasn’t meant to be used. Now, I guess the author focussed on English practice but I doubt the English were late to follow these developments.
 
 
—
As for the hypothetical case of fixed guns moving the ship sideways: no, it wouldn’t. Here’s a visual example. A few years ago a copy of a Vasa 24-pounder was casted and tested. They performed some 50 test shots, measuring a muzzle velocity of 350 m/s. The recoil is a balance of momentum: the ball’s  forward momentum should equal the backward momentum of the gun. 
Ball momentum: 11 kg * 350 m/s = 3850 kgm/s
The gun weights about 1400 kg, solving for the gun recoil velocity
v = 3850/1400 = 2.75 m/s
 
Check out this video and estimate the actual gun velocity (it is 2-3 m long):
 
Now imagine that the gun is instead a ship weighing a 1000 tons instead of a 1000 kilos: its velocity would be 1/1000 of that of the gun - and that only it were placed on wheels and free to roll, rather than having water and wind pushing back.
 
Incidently, in the end of the 18th century Chapman designed and built ”gun yawls”, which essentially were small floating gun carriages with a single fixed 20-something-pounder. Plenty of sources exists from this time so if there was some significant recoil moving the boat someone should have written it down - I’ll have a look if someone has bothered telling that story. That’s something entirely different of course.

I doubt these conclusions, except the one about bowed guns and chasers.
 
How would you arrange the gun to not let it recoil? Using tight breech ropes? The brackets holding them to the hull wouldn’t last long I suspect. Likewise bolting the carriage to the deck would be rather unhealthy to the gun and carriage. The force won’t be magically transferred to the ship: it would first cause immense strain on the barrel, connections and carriage. It could work for the smallest caliber guns, though. Also, the forward motion of the cannonball wouldn’t change in any significant way. There is no advantage other than not having to haul a breech-loaded gun out and in case of muzzle-loaders you’d have double work. Loading outboard sounds like a silly thing to do when actions were close-fought and the other fellows  armed with muskets and bows would be using you for target practice. edit: To clarify for heavy breechloaded guns this make  sense, but not muzzle-loaded.
 
Anyhow, researchers have recently been studying guns and their carriages from the Mars (1563, discovered some years ago): these had wheels and brackets for breeching lines.  There was no doubt that broadside firing was the chosen tactic there, based on written sources and ship design. In the beginning of Nordic 7-years war the allied Danes and Germans still employed boarding tactics, while the Swedes had started using artillery-only and designed their new ships for gunnery duels. Their tactic relied on trying to keep a distance and pounding the opposition with superior artillery. The broadside of Mars actually sank a Hanseatic (or Danish) ship in one of it’s first engagements. Even though the Mars was ironically lost during a boarding action, the Danes and Germans quickly adapted and started building artillery ships rather than boarders (getting rid of the high sterncastles for example). The Mars did seem to have had stern-chasers of grand proportions (5 m long 48-pounders), but they would not have wasted so much weight on broadside artillery as they did if it wasn’t meant to be used. Now, I guess the author focussed on English practice but I doubt the English were late to follow these developments.
 
 
—
As for the hypothetical case of fixed guns moving the ship sideways: no, it wouldn’t. Here’s a visual example. A few years ago a copy of a Vasa 24-pounder was casted and tested. They performed some 50 test shots, measuring a muzzle velocity of 350 m/s. The recoil is a balance of momentum: the ball’s  forward momentum should equal the backward momentum of the gun. 
Ball momentum: 11 kg * 350 m/s = 3850 kgm/s
The gun weights about 1400 kg, solving for the gun recoil velocity
v = 3850/1400 = 2.75 m/s
 
Check out this video and estimate the actual gun velocity (it is 2-3 m long):
 
Now imagine that the gun is instead a ship weighing a 1000 tons instead of a 1000 kilos: its velocity would be 1/1000 of that of the gun - and that only it were placed on wheels and free to roll, rather than having water and wind pushing back.
 
Incidently, in the end of the 18th century Chapman designed and built ”gun yawls”, which essentially were small floating gun carriages with a single fixed 20-something-pounder. Plenty of sources exists from this time so if there was some significant recoil moving the boat someone should have written it down - I’ll have a look if someone has bothered telling that story. That’s something entirely different of course.

Mark, 
I feel we might be talking past each other. The 16th century was a long period, full of experimentation and technological and tactical development. Even at the same time and place, different types of vessels were used with very different purpose and armament. For example, I focused my post on the pure-bred warship of the latter half of the 16th century in the Baltic - these were largely artillery ships. For the earlier type of breech-loaded heavy iron guns common during the end of the 15th and first half of the 16th centuries, having little recoil makes more sense. 

You are, of course, correct. When I said it wouldn’t move, I meant that any sideways movement would be  insignificant, negligible - not that it would be absolutely 0. 

Thanks - it’s a keeper. I particularly like the essay about launching, by Barker.

You are, of course, correct. When I said it wouldn’t move, I meant that any sideways movement would be  insignificant, negligible - not that it would be absolutely 0. 

Mark, 
I feel we might be talking past each other. The 16th century was a long period, full of experimentation and technological and tactical development. Even at the same time and place, different types of vessels were used with very different purpose and armament. For example, I focused my post on the pure-bred warship of the latter half of the 16th century in the Baltic - these were largely artillery ships. For the earlier type of breech-loaded heavy iron guns common during the end of the 15th and first half of the 16th centuries, having little recoil makes more sense. 

Thanks - it’s a keeper. I particularly like the essay about launching, by Barker.

I should really like to read it. Which time and space is he then refering to? None of the accounts of late 16th and early 17th century warfare indicates that the ships tried to disengage to load guns, rather the contrary. When Mary Rose sank, her newer guns had 4 wheel carriers while the older had only 2. Although this can be related to weight rather than age, adding wheels seems consistent with letting the gun recoil. One could argue that these were muzzle-loaded and wheels make hauling them back and forth easier, but it seems to me that someone would quickly realise that letting the guns do that job themselves seems like a rather tempting idea. And again, pinning the large guns would quickly damage them.
 
 

As you said, I can not address the article as I have no access, only the short points you posted.
Since you did not address my main points, I feel you took the choice of word ”silly” a bit harsher than I intended: I did not mean to say that the author was silly to propose it, I merely meant that the idea of leaning out and trying to flip a 10-20 kg iron ball into a small hole, and powder too, seemed to me a rather impractical procedure to do, especially while simultaneously being shot at. I did not mean it in demeaning sort of way.

I doubt these conclusions, except the one about bowed guns and chasers.
 
How would you arrange the gun to not let it recoil? Using tight breech ropes? The brackets holding them to the hull wouldn’t last long I suspect. Likewise bolting the carriage to the deck would be rather unhealthy to the gun and carriage. The force won’t be magically transferred to the ship: it would first cause immense strain on the barrel, connections and carriage. It could work for the smallest caliber guns, though. Also, the forward motion of the cannonball wouldn’t change in any significant way. There is no advantage other than not having to haul a breech-loaded gun out and in case of muzzle-loaders you’d have double work. Loading outboard sounds like a silly thing to do when actions were close-fought and the other fellows  armed with muskets and bows would be using you for target practice. edit: To clarify for heavy breechloaded guns this make  sense, but not muzzle-loaded.
 
Anyhow, researchers have recently been studying guns and their carriages from the Mars (1563, discovered some years ago): these had wheels and brackets for breeching lines.  There was no doubt that broadside firing was the chosen tactic there, based on written sources and ship design. In the beginning of Nordic 7-years war the allied Danes and Germans still employed boarding tactics, while the Swedes had started using artillery-only and designed their new ships for gunnery duels. Their tactic relied on trying to keep a distance and pounding the opposition with superior artillery. The broadside of Mars actually sank a Hanseatic (or Danish) ship in one of it’s first engagements. Even though the Mars was ironically lost during a boarding action, the Danes and Germans quickly adapted and started building artillery ships rather than boarders (getting rid of the high sterncastles for example). The Mars did seem to have had stern-chasers of grand proportions (5 m long 48-pounders), but they would not have wasted so much weight on broadside artillery as they did if it wasn’t meant to be used. Now, I guess the author focussed on English practice but I doubt the English were late to follow these developments.
 
 
—
As for the hypothetical case of fixed guns moving the ship sideways: no, it wouldn’t. Here’s a visual example. A few years ago a copy of a Vasa 24-pounder was casted and tested. They performed some 50 test shots, measuring a muzzle velocity of 350 m/s. The recoil is a balance of momentum: the ball’s  forward momentum should equal the backward momentum of the gun. 
Ball momentum: 11 kg * 350 m/s = 3850 kgm/s
The gun weights about 1400 kg, solving for the gun recoil velocity
v = 3850/1400 = 2.75 m/s
 
Check out this video and estimate the actual gun velocity (it is 2-3 m long):
 
Now imagine that the gun is instead a ship weighing a 1000 tons instead of a 1000 kilos: its velocity would be 1/1000 of that of the gun - and that only it were placed on wheels and free to roll, rather than having water and wind pushing back.
 
Incidently, in the end of the 18th century Chapman designed and built ”gun yawls”, which essentially were small floating gun carriages with a single fixed 20-something-pounder. Plenty of sources exists from this time so if there was some significant recoil moving the boat someone should have written it down - I’ll have a look if someone has bothered telling that story. That’s something entirely different of course.

That’s a Contarini galley (the blue and yellow is indeed their arms) - Contarini was based in Venice and ran charter tours to Jerusalem for pilgrims. I believe he had a more or less a monopoly when Konrad went, so I guess Konrad travelled with him. 
 
The town on the last image is Ragusa (Dubrovnik) by the way.

That’s a Contarini galley (the blue and yellow is indeed their arms) - Contarini was based in Venice and ran charter tours to Jerusalem for pilgrims. I believe he had a more or less a monopoly when Konrad went, so I guess Konrad travelled with him. 
 
The town on the last image is Ragusa (Dubrovnik) by the way.

That’s a Contarini galley (the blue and yellow is indeed their arms) - Contarini was based in Venice and ran charter tours to Jerusalem for pilgrims. I believe he had a more or less a monopoly when Konrad went, so I guess Konrad travelled with him. 
 
The town on the last image is Ragusa (Dubrovnik) by the way.