Recoil energy and mass

[jud]

Thought some might find this link interesting, near the end you can see clearly the delay after the shot leaves the bore and the remaing energy after overcoming the mass of the gun and carriage results in movement.  https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FWSXaCkQ9sF8%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2_jageataBz8xSUo-6A9s3GRBT-1LH8659E9XbNK-fB-x5g0jO0eX5lIQ&h=AT0xInmSvJNLmqPpMy3aL6CFU_BmCU3pC7zvwp-lWxUNzSNCDhbVqM9SoUkWqutvh8VyafbMhELs9fNC5jEpZRwRRQzvuKBR73Gs__Nf3hMiVquWh4uMvlaDv9uw43oQytiMUXgHI2FSB4BJJa0&__tn__=H-R&c[0]=AT052FpwOe6xVjYlypq6Ix-aaIks1ECHaDlMSPOZiX1_jjKG4aVjZ_uS5uqwNg46qGNIiOWxzJTWGxJeWHFJ7hVUe05XqacKDLDg9ckKtOrVKAB1XlqVH1pU3woLIJlYN8F-kbv-hZi11V8iUOsHldNT37ss40MGYNuvZ3W13aIc2bLgt-f7hWYF-xFNg7-5jcADAnbX7IJJBtyX45c 

[mtaylor]

Your link kicked me to Youtube....  here it is to avoid the middleman...    Also,  the Youtube sideboard has a lot of related links on cannon fire.

 

[mgdawson]

Dan Snows comment on the noise and shock wave makes me wonder what it would have actually been like on a ship, with the muzzle outboard, the gun port would have restricted the amount of the external noise and shock wave traveling back inboard.

 

None of the re-enactments I've seen on youtube have attempted to simulate this nor, for that matter, have any used a realistic ship sized mass of timber to shoot into even though they present it as such. They seem to think the scantlings of a thin palisade are representative of a ship of the lines hull 😕

 

Despite this they still draw conclusions about the noise, shock and damage.

 

I'd love to have access to that gun and do the experiment properly. Even better, half a dozen of those guns 😁

[Lieste]

Naval ordnance tends to have modest recoil, by design - with the exception of carronades, where projectile velocity is sacrificed for low deployed mass, and heavier than 'battery' shot.

A field gun in 12pdr size is below 21cwt, while the upper deck battery of a ship of the line used much heavier guns of 34cwt with the same charges. Getting slightly more velocity (but not that much) and significantly lower recoil velocity and energy. Larger guns tend to a slightly lighter weight of metal per pound of shot, smaller calibre guns to be rather heavier.

A 32pdr carronade, by comparison, gets more than 2.5 times the recoil energy - while penetrating only about 80% as well at the near muzzle range (and somewhat better at random fire ranges). (Recoil energy of the carronade is nearly exactly that of the middle charge of the 32pdr gun of 56cwt, though it provides less than 1/2 the shot energy and ~2/3 the penetration at the muzzle and range at 5 degrees)

The 'excessive' weight of naval guns was often criticised, but the extra mass was seldom a significant proportion of the entire installed weight of shot, powder, stores, ordnance, crew and carriages, and the benefits of a 'ponderous' recoil were clear to most who actually designed and used the guns.

The use of larger shot for better penetration with extended ranges even with lower muzzle velocity were seen in the C19th, with the use of all 24pdr batteries first employed by the RN, with 'all 32pdr' and 'all 30 livre' armaments having a brief period before being supplemented by larger shell guns in small numbers. These sacrificed some controllability for common ammunition supply, greater long range effectiveness and (in theory) simplification of the supply of ordnance - though the RN ended up with 15 different '32 pdrs' (albeit that most were only one of 4 types).

[Lieste]

The Vasamuseet did an excellent testing of both the "structure under fire" and the "bronze ordnance" when they combined a structural test piece and a new cast 'light 24pdr' in testing at the Bofors instrumented range.

The full suite of publications haven't been published yet, but there are some videos of some of the 50+ shot sequence and some commentary and a single presentation that are available on line. Sadly the museum blog on the topic (both of the construction of the 'mechanical test piece' for the hull (which then also served as the gunnery target) and the gun and equipment) got filleted some time ago, so the currently available information is thinner than it was.

[wefalck]

'Penetration' was not necessarily the objective. When rifled canon and solid ogival projectiles were introduced, the projectiles tended to go straight through wooden hull with little damage and small holes that could easily be patched up. The effect of the older round shot was rather different, as their impact would generate significant splintering inside the hull with massive collateral damage to the crew and frayed holes that were more difficult to patch up. With the 'old-style' guns you bought impact by a closer fighting distance, while with rifled guns you did not get the same impact until shells became available sometime later - and functioning impact detonators became not available until after the time of wood walls.

[Roger Pellett]

The museum in Erie, Pennsylvania that operates the replica of the 1812 Brig Niagara has also conducted live fire tests of muzzleloading shipboard guns.  The targets were realistic shipboard structures.  The original Niagara fought in the 1813 battle of Lake Erie and was armed with Carronades.

 

Roger

[Gregory]

Any details about the results?

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  There was one clip I saw where a credible ship's wall was built for a naval gun test with solid shot, and there were quite a few splinters and shard sent flying.  Any round hitting a gun or carriage would disable that piece.

[wefalck]

Most navies in the decades after around 1850 did undertake tests against mock-ups of wooden walls and armour to better understand and select the various types of guns and projectiles. I have copies of French naval artillery handbooks that have dozens of plates that show the results of such tests, for instance.