Carronade on swivel?

[Thanasis]

Hello all.

I have found a text and and an image on which I would like to have your comments please.

The below text says about a 48pdr carronade on a swivel! Is that posible or it means something else?

The below photo is described as a 32pdr carronade and is shown on a swivel. How come this gun is defined as "carronade" and could be a 48pdr carronade attached on a same-similar swivel.

 

Many thanks in advance.

Thanasis

Edited March 14, 2022 by Thanasis
Grammar

[druxey]

This photo is is not of a carronade! It has been utterly misidentified. The photo is of a half-pound swivel gun on its original mount. If you tried to mount a 48 pounder carronade this way, it would blow itself off such a mounting the first time you tried to fire it! In the description, it is obvious that the powder was 'bad', or this would have undoubtedly happened to the merchant. 

[Gregory]

Note how the text also says there is a breeching loop, of which there is none..

[uss frolick]

When the author says a swivel, I think he mean a single, large, centrally-mounted pivot-carriage. Chances are too, that the unusual-weight 48-pounder is not of a true carronade pattern, but a short-barreled siege howitzer.

 

Where is that picture from? It is so misidentified! And why is such an important historical piece outside in the elements?

[wefalck]

Mostly, carronades were used as broad-side guns, whose carriage was pivoted at the front. However, the sliding carriage could also be designed with a pivot in the centre, so that it could be rotated through a full circle, when mounted on the centre-line of a ship. I gather that this what is meant.

 

However, I doubt that using a carronade is a good proposition for this. Carronades are short-range guns and as such would have a considerable muzzle blast, which could blow away bulwarks and damage the deck-planking. Normally, long guns were used in such positions.

[michaelpsutton2]

How does that gun class as a 32 pounder? looks like a 3pounder or less

[Lieste]

2 hours ago, wefalck said:

Mostly, carronades were used as broad-side guns, whose carriage was pivoted at the front. However, the sliding carriage could also be designed with a pivot in the centre, so that it could be rotated through a full circle, when mounted on the centre-line of a ship. I gather that this what is meant.

 

However, I doubt that using a carronade is a good proposition for this. Carronades are short-range guns and as such would have a considerable muzzle blast, which could blow away bulwarks and damage the deck-planking. Normally, long guns were used in such positions.

Carronades will happily throw shot beyond that which is considered useful for guns. (This requires more elevation than guns, but this also helps partially limit the problem for carronades from the dispersion increase given by firing from an unsteady platform - the roll taken as being the same, the effect on range of random fire for the gun is greater in direct proportion to the help given by flatter fire in the increase of the danger space - making the defect arguable at best... with ricochet fire the short hitting space of lower velocity guns is less important too - with shot weight giving a longer working distance in ricochet).

Penetration/shot effect at range strongly favours high calibre/weight over high velocity - with a 42pdr carronade shot penetrating 21" sides at ~ 1700yds, while a 12pdr gun shot with distant charge maybe reaching only ~ 900yds, albeit at a higher velocity and a flatter angle of fire. This also serves to make ricochet fires more attractive to extend useful range for heavy shot (despite the additional loss on each rebound).

The "problem" for carronades on the lakes was the meeting of 24pdr carronade broadsides (or hodgepodge armaments with many 6, 9 and 12pdr guns) - with 24pdr and 32pdr long guns on pivots, and 32pdr carronades, where there is no compensating benefit from shot weight, and an absolute penalty is all aspects of long range fire.
(Also oft quoted examples have the problem being well within carronade range but anchored and unable to retain springs - so taken apart from the quarter "where not a single carronade could be brought to bear" (alternative rendered as 'no carronade could reach' - both of which are also incorrect/incomplete given the actual report of damage needing repair given by the carpenter's report describing both RN vessels, and the USN prize (and the armaments of the Cherub being 32pdr and 18pdr carronades, against the 32pdr carronades of the Essex (with no indication that this was only a single ship action as Cherub could not fire)).

[Thanasis]

Thank you all for the quick response.
You confirmed also my doubts about the 32pdr "carronade" in the photo.
The photo is from Osprey Publishing "Napoleonic naval armaments 1792-1815"

 

and there is another photo on page 7, for which I would like to read your coments...How a long barrel gun, can defined as "caronade"?

Thank you

[wefalck]

This is definitely not a carronade. However, it may be that the photograph was distorted by the book-producers to fit the available space. The carriage looks rather low. Early carronades were mounted on normal trucked carriages. Also half-trucked carriages were used sometimes, I think in particular in France. But then quickly the slide carriages became common for them.

[Lieste]

Carronade usually refers to 5-8 calibre bores, with the breech end chambered and the muzzle (in later pieces) extended by a loading cup/flash-hider. True carronades are jointed, but a few trunnioned gunnades were made - and the free standing carriages were more flexible in use than the fixed slides/fighting bolts.

That said, the use of the term carronade is often extended to both Howitzers and the early Shell Guns, such as the 'Millars' 68pdr of 50cwt - and this had a proportion shorter or similar to that of a field gun (noticeably shorter than large naval guns typically are: (6ft 8.5", bore the full nominal length to the breech ring, gomer chambered on an 8.05" bore (62.7 Litres capacity) - this compares to the carronade (36cwt 5ft 2", including the muzzle cup and flash-hider with the chamber being cylindrical and also extending to the breech ring 46.1Litres capacity), and to the later "Full gun" of 95cwt 8.12" bore and a capacity of 96.6Litres.

While the shell gun was intended to fire hollow shot (unfilled shell) and shell, it did so with an 8lb powder charge, compared to the 5.6lb charge for the carronade (firing solid shot), and the 16lb powder charge of 68pdr gun.

A 42pdr carronade is usually assigned a weight of 22.5cwt, so this is approximately the proportion of this otherwise not recorded "48 pdr" - it should be charged with "around" 4lbs of powder (42pdr uses 3.5lbs). With the claimed overcharging there is no purpose... the increase in velocity predicted by Helie (1865/1884) is not for firing conditions within the 'scope' of the ordnance used to derive their prediction/model (and is likely overestimating velocity) but only shows a ~4% increase in velocity and a ~25-27% increase in recoil from a wastage of 73% of the powder used, plus a lot more risk from fire from unburnt or partially burnt power, and the charge extending well outside the chamber into the more lightly constructed bore is ... well ... not at all safe.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Lieste
Nominal weight 22.5cwt for 42pdr (not as originally given the 48pdr)

[popeye2sea]

What is the source for these photos. They are mislabeled. I would not trust them at all.  This one mentions a dispart sight on the muzzle which is not evident in the photo.

 

Regards,

[Lieste]

The image/caption will be swapped between that one (obviously a naval pattern gun (can't reliably estimate scale for identification, but it could be a 6pdr or 4pdr by indications from the grain of the timber in the carriage)) and another on the same spread which will be a carronade, labelled as this gun or a third affected caption.

TQM from Osprey.

[druxey]

I'm beginning to suspect sloppy design and poor proofreading of this book. The descriptions are OK, but obviously the photos are placed incorrectly and belong elsewhere!

[Thanasis]

Thank you all again.

So to get back in the text, this is a part from the "Memoir on the use of shells , hot shot and carcass shells from ship artillery", by Frank Abney Hastings, captain of the Greek steam vessel of war, karteria. London 1828.
So, we have an experianced naval officer and also inventer of a 68pdr carronade form for "Karteria", who is exposed (for his knowledge) by publishing his memoir and sets queries.?
Why he uses the term "swivel" instead of "pivot".?
Why he describes a gun as 48pdr carronade, although there was not such a caliber for carronades at that time.?
Wasn't he able to recognise a gun from a carronade.?
What should I guess.
Thx

[wefalck]

Well, first of all is the original text in Greek or in English? Perhaps these are just translation errors.

 

Today, we seem to be obsessed with 'correct' terminology (sometime perhaps to show-off, I gather ...), while in the old days tended to you terms much more casually (which arguably now causes problems for historians, of course). Perhaps, for the author in question the distinctive feature of a 'carronade' was that it was slide-mounted and not so much what the barrel looked like. Up to first quarter of the 19th century, indeed, a slide-mounted gun was virtually always a carronade and not a long gun.

 

It was about that time that people realised that guns above 32 pounds on 'free-wheeling' carriages are difficult to control and can be quite dangerous. In addition, small numbers of big guns on small ships are better deployed on slides, firing from the centre-lin of the ship, than moving them around to different gun-ports.

[Thanasis]

Many thanks wefalck. 
The text it's from a translation since from the hardcover appeare that the book was published in London.
The rest of your information are much convinient with what I also tent to belive in my research.
However, it seems to me rather inaccurate for a Naval officer and in his "Memoir on the use of..." to reffer to his conclutions leaving ambiguities.!?
I would be much obliged if you can direct me to a source, for placing big guns on slides. 
Thank you

Thanasis

Edited March 15, 2022 by Thanasis

[wefalck]

It seems that this officer in the 'Ottonian' Navy was British then. In this case I would assume that his terminology was reasonably good. However, as I said the use of terminology may not have been as strict, as we would expect from today's perspective.

 

Re-reading the passage, perhaps Mr. Hastings did not actually see the gun himself, but was relying on what the schooner owner told him?

[Lieste]

He was in one of Byron's Phillhellenes.

The text of the document refers to the gun set on the two gunboats (previously a long 32pdr) to be caused to be replaced by "a short long 68" - This is not a carronade, but from the date and the context (and the peculiar wording) is likely the Millar's 50cwt gun. The replacing of a ~48/50 or 56cwt 32pdr gun by a 50cwt 8" shell gun using mostly 48lb hollow shell gives a similar performance and similar weight on board.

As to the a 48pdr of 28cwt noted as being a carronade - this seems to be a mercantile or export Carronade (as frequently supplied by Carron Co), but has no match within the noted RN ordnance for which a pattern, diagram or data survives that I have ever come upon. A '42 pdr carronade' increased in size by 4.5% would do in the absence of any better information IMO.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Lieste

[Thanasis]

Thank you all.

My last finding  might explains everything....

I would appreciate if someone can confirm what I read somewhere that "the French supplied the Spanish with their own French made obusiers".

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/InfHistorica/ArtilleriadeMarina/8-obuseros.htm

 

 

[wefalck]

Yes, it seems that other nations soon began to copy the carronades - no international patents and IPR protection then ...

 

For a short period, carronade-type guns were produced with trunnions, rather than the later ubiquitous lug at the bottom.

 

See:

 

DELAUNEY, J.F.,  GUITTARD, A.C.A.J. (1889): Historique de l'artillerie de la marine 1692-1889.- 328 p., Paris (D. Dumoulin).

LAFAY, J. (1850): Aide-memoire d'artillerie navale.- 721 p., 50 pl., Paris (J. Corréard).

Edited March 17, 2022 by wefalck

[Thanasis]

Hi all again. 
Sorry, I was waiting the resurrection of my pc to get back...
So I pretty please for your help to my following queries about the writing of the text in the first post.

a.The writer describing the carronade,  specifies that is  on a swiver and what we assume, is that he reffers to a mounted pivot-carriage. 
If I'm not wrong, the carronades were produced mainly on a pivot-carriage and had the ability to move up and down by a screw. 
So,  can we assume  that by using the term "swivel", determines that it was placed on a carriage by which had also the ability to move left and right? And if is so, can we consider that this carronade was not placed in a gun port (which it would set limitations) but maybe amidship or in the prow?

b. Why the writer again specifies that the carronade was loaded by "a shot (ball) from a 48pdr gun (cannon)"? 
I'm not familiar but this seems to me that the carronade was loaded with a non proper ammunition, something for its own. Am I right?
I would like to have your opinions.

Ps: My English can't help me to see the defference between pivot and swivel. 

Many thanks

Thanasis

[wefalck]

As I said earlier, I would assume that this was a carronade barrel mounted on a sliding carriage. The lower part of the sliding carriage pivots (swivvels?) around a 'fighting pivot' during action. There does not seem to be any information, where this pivot was located.

 

I am not sure, whether in 1828 traversing carriages already existed, meaning that the carriage had lugs for the pivots at both ends and by placing pivot-stubs on the deck at suitable points so that you can move (swivvel?) the carriage into different positions, while always having at least one pivot engaged - make the operations much safer than moving around a 'loose' cannon. Typically the gun would have been stored using two pivots in the centre-line of the ship and then moved into action position at the bulwark.

 

I don't think that in 1828 central pivots already existed, but I may be wrong. If the carriage was pivoted centrally, then gun would have been just turned into firing direction, without the carriage being moved around.

 

A smooth-bore gun can be loaded with pretty much anything of which you think it would inflict the desired damage to your opponent. In case of solid shot or shells, you just need to make sure that it fits with some clearance (for which there were rules or calipers set for each gun with which each shot or shell would be checked before loading. A 'wad' between the powder and the shot ensures a gas-tight seal - unlike in a modern breech-loader, where the projectile has a soft metal ring that provides the seal.

[Thanasis]

Thank you Wefalck.
So, if I  understand well, you also assume that.
  a. He refers to a carriage that was giving the ability to move the barrel also left or right.
  b. There should be a deck fitted pivot for securing the carriage and  safe fire from the weapon.
  c.Yes, there was not traversing carriages at that time (1821) and especialy in a schooner, so that carronade coudn't be in a gun port possition.

As about the shot, I gather that a 48pdr carronade could fire a 48pdr cannon ball under conditions.
Thank you

[mtaylor]

I think part of issue is language here...  and no clear illustrations of what's being talked about.

 

Here's a pic of what I think is the topic.  The pivot is in the front.  

[mtaylor]

I should add, that this was for mounting at the bulwarks.   Some ships had centerline mounted pivots with the axis being in the center and there being wheels at the front (instead of the pivot) that were much like the ones at the aft end.

[Lieste]

You text indicates a carronade - so with suitable adjustments to the style of the ordnance, and the brackets/joint (or alternatively going with a high bracket and trunnioned carronade - there is literally no information on the "style" of lightweight gun fitted here, beyond that it is *entirely* consistent in estimated weight with an ordnance of the scale and proportions of a typical carronade in a mercantile or foreign calibre), you could do far worse than examine and interpret from the pivot guns shown in these cutters:

The earlier statements indicated a pivot gun in the bow, with 12pdr (light) guns in the broadside positions, rather than dead midships, which is entirely feasible with a single 48pdr centreline carronade.

An alternative arrangement could be a broad semi-circular track just inside the bulwark with the rear of the rail the location of the pivot. The general arrangement otherwise similar.

[Thanasis]

Thank you all for your participation. 
I must say that, like in some other threads in this forum, I'm trying to exam infos that are revealed in texts from here and there, about a weapon on a schooner.
What was written, is that on the schooner was a "big cannon" or "a heavy gun" or "a 48pdr gun" or "a gun with big caliber" or "a carronade" or "an  obusier (howitzer)" and so on. The weapon was set in the prow as chase gun and nothing more.
So examing the case of a carronade and as far I know,   between 1800-1822 there was not 48pdr carronade but as I recently found, a Spanish 48pdr obusier (howitzer) that was used in Trafalgar naval battle (1805). According to what is written the French answer to a " carronade" was a 36pdr obusier (howitzer) and I don't know I should say, that in this naval battle, the English were refering to French captured "obusier de vaisseau" (naval howitzer), as carronade.
Next I'm coming to the use of that weapon.
If was a carronad, could be  used as chase gun? As I' ve read it was used as unti-personel weapon. Couldn't  its small range be a problem as chaser?
I also have read that there were many type of carriages for a carronade to be placed on but despite the way, I want also to exam how the Spanish vertion obusier  (howitzer) could be operatted.
And finaly about the shot (ball) of a 48pdr cannon. 
No matter what the weapon (48pdr carronade of the text) was loaded with , why on the schooner were shots (balls) of a 48pdr cannon?
Many thanks

[Lieste]

Carronades are 'heavy' guns for direct battering fire, albeit at somewhat lower powder charges and velocity to long guns of the full weight. (There are also various lightened/shorter guns which fire intermediate charges). They are not 'Howitzers' designed for even smaller powder charges and hollow shell and case alone.

The long range penetration of shot depends nearly solely on the size and weight of the shot. 48pdr shot can (by Helie) penetrate more than 2ft of timber at more than 1400yds from a nominal carronade, which would exceed the capability of a full gun of 24pdr size to match (only 32pdr guns of above 'medium' weight and length (probably a cut off of around 7.5ft and 6-8lb charges)). The 12pdr guns of the rest of the battery quoted for this vessel, likely being of a short pattern (7.5ft at most) would be limited to less than 750yds to deal with this same target, despite their higher muzzle velocity.

While the relatively low velocity would require a higher trajectory for hits on first graze at long ranges, you have provided statements that fire in ricochet was used for long range fire, and again, the heavy shot would be superior for this use.

While Spanish Naval Obusiers do exist, they are similar to and patterned after the Carron company carronade weapons and might even be derived from samples commercially provided by Carron company, who not only manufactured Carronades for many national and merchant uses (both at home and exported throughout Europe and beyond), but also built and ran ordnance factories for the Russian State (who also manufactured a 48pdr carronade at some point in the early C19th). I suspect that as many of the notable vessels were built and supplied from England, that the 'oddity' weapons fitted are likely to be commercial supply direct by Carron co - either 'guns of the new construction' or Carronades (jointed or trunnioned). It doesn't really matter too much, the carronades of 'cannot have been more than 28cwt' are going to be of a 'typical' pattern of carronade or gunnade of the same basic form.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Lieste

[Thanasis]

Many thanks Liste.
You are as always much analytic in your explanations.
However  I must say you set new elements in this discussion for which there are no (I don't have) any information  from hystorical Gr texts I've read nor for the  total Carron's products to rely on.
These are the comertial for merchant use (special or by order I guess) carronade and the gunnade.
And although I accept any simple description for the weapon from a ordinary sailor of that time, or from an with less knowledge  historian, I don't know how to see this description from an English naval officer, who, I point out again, writes about gunnery results without ful information about the gun or its nationality.
In any case, I really thank you all for this discussion which was much enlightening, at least to conclude that I can make only guesses.
Thanasis

[Thanasis]

Hi all.

Comments please...

Thx