Archaeological Evidence for the Development of RN Gunnery

[Steve20]

Attached is a dissertation written by marine archaeologist Daniel Pasco and titled ‘Archaeological Evidence for the Development of RN Gunnery from 1545- 1811’. It focuses on evidence from the wrecks of the London (blew up 1665), Hazardous (wrecked 1706), Invincible (wrecked 1758), Colossus (wrecked 1798), and the St George (wrecked 1811).

It has a lot of very interesting information; far too much to summarise here, and many of the findings deserve a topic of their own. If you have an interest in naval gunnery during this period, I recommend you read it.

The dissertation made me realize the importance of archaeology in filling the gaps in the historic record and appreciate that archaeology uncovers what was actually done rather than how it should be.

It’s disappointing that there’s such a lack of funding for maritime archaeology otherwise we’d see more papers like this. What’s worse, though, is that a lot of archaeologic evidence is being lost forever.

 

Here is the dissertation (note that it's 47MB):

 

Archaeological Evidence for the Development of RN Gunnery.pdf

 

Here’s a link to Daniel Pascoe’s website, which has more interesting information.

 

https://pascoe-archaeology.com/

 

[bruce d]

Thanks Steve, he has chosen some interesting examples.

[uss frolick]

Thanks! What great reading, especially for the St. George 1811. Those portable shot boxes are especially fascinating. But what kept the shot in place during heavy seas? Netting?

[Steve20]

1 hour ago, uss frolick said:

Thanks! What great reading, especially for the St. George 1811. Those portable shot boxes are especially fascinating. But what kept the shot in place during heavy seas? Netting?

 

As they've found no evidence of how the shot was kept in place it must have been with something that's since disintegrated - so could be netting.

 

[allanyed]

Steve

THANK YOU for posting this pdf.  Obviously some days/weeks of studies to do it justice, but fun reading times coming up.

Thanks again

Allan

[uss frolick]

If netting, then there should be evidence on the boxes of holes, nails or small cleats to hook the net, with which to properly secure the shot. You definitely don't want 32-pound shot flying about in a gale ...

[bruce d]

3 hours ago, Steve20 said:

they've found no evidence of how the shot was kept in place it must have been with something that's since disintegrated - so could be netting.

Wicker?

[druxey]

Fascinating read. It is clear and well written. However, I noted some inaccuracies such as the reference to the three volumes by Adrian Caruana. While Caruana planned three volumes, only two were actually published. Unfortunately he died before the third volume was completed. Occasional spelling errors such as 'healing' for 'heeling' and 'van de Weld' for 'van de Velde' suggest that this thesis might have benefitted from closer study by Mr. Pascoe's advisors.

 

Thanks for bringing this study to our attention, Steve.

Edited May 22, 2023 by druxey

[BANYAN]

Thanks Steve, much appreciated.  

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Steve20]

12 hours ago, uss frolick said:

If netting, then there should be evidence on the boxes of holes, nails or small cleats to hook the net, with which to properly secure the shot. You definitely don't want 32-pound shot flying about in a gale ...

 

11 hours ago, bruce d said:

Wicker?

 

This question is most perplexing as the archaeological findings prove that cannon balls were kept on deck, even though the crew must have known that weather conditions were deteriorating. Similarly, there would have been times when the ship was hit by a sudden change of weather, such as a squall, yet loose shot doesn’t seem to have been reported as a problem.

It’s hard to believe that the racks on deck alone would have kept the shot secure when sea conditions worsened, yet there doesn’t seem to be a method of keeping the shot in place that’s really plausible.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Steve20

[Steve20]

13 hours ago, allanyed said:

Steve

THANK YOU for posting this pdf.  Obviously some days/weeks of studies to do it justice, but fun reading times coming up.

Thanks again

Allan

 

There're some answers to questions here, Allan, and some new questions, also.

 

But more than anything, I'm reminded that the crews of these ships were highly skilled and the masters of improvisation. They would think nothing of striking topmasts in a gale or building a boat out of the wreckage of their own ship to effect a self-rescue.

 

Modifying gun carriages, and other gear, to make it better suit its purpose must have been routine for them, so variations to the norm must be more common than we might have expected.

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Steve20

[dafi]

5 hours ago, Steve20 said:

... yet there doesn’t seem to be a method of keeping the shot in place that’s really plausible.

There is one: Gravity 😉

We have been discussing this feature in our german forum too. My strong believe is, that the shot was quite save in its holes as for its own weight. Since they were a very snug fit in the racks, they couldn't build up any momentum that would fling them outside. For this, they would have to have less weight. You can see from a bowling ball, that they are very difficult to move out of their holders when stored. With a toy soccer ball, the situation is quite different, as a breeze is enough because of the lack of gravity.

 

If the cannon shot is almost sunk to its middle inside the rack, both the ship pitching, rolling and standing tilted should not be a problem. At least as long as the ship itself doesn't mind, after that it doesn't matter anyway 😉

 

XXXDAn

Edited May 22, 2023 by dafi

[Steve20]

Thanks Dan,

 

Gravity it seems to be, then, as there's no other explanation. I guess the people in those days must have long since determined the depth of concavity required and took it for granted that everyone knew it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by Steve20

[Steve20]

I note, though, that Daniel Pascoe is not so sure about this:

 

Page 372.

The Hazardous and Great Storm Wrecks are providing a much better understanding of the different types of shot and how it was stored and distributed around the ship. The evidence from the Hazardous in particular shows that there were several types of shot, all of which served a different purpose, and their location on the gundecks demonstrates that the ship was prepared to use all types immediately. However, what is still poorly understood is how the shot would have been secured on the decks so as not to be a danger to crew or equipment. In the conditions that the Hazardous was lost in one would expect that the shot must have been secured in a way that stopped it coming out of its holders. The evidence from the Stirling Castle demonstrates that the guns were given double security during rough conditions and I suspect equal attention would have been given to the shot to avoid serious injuries from this becoming loose.

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by Steve20

[Morgan]

I note the above discussion ranges from the Hazardous to the St. George, given there is a century between these wrecks I doubt a comparison of shot storage and handling can be readily made.

Things changed tremendously over the course of the 18th Century for the Royal Navy, it went from a gentleman officer class who left much to the warrant officers, to a meritocracy where officers involved themselves in many professional spheres such as ship design, cartography, gunnery, engineering, etc.  But in many respects it was the small incremental changes over this century in particular, such as in shot storage and handling as an example that set it apart from its continental rivals.

 

Daniel Pascoe’s work tries to address this development, but the fact that there is this debate shows he achieved no definitive answer.

 

Gary

Edited May 23, 2023 by Morgan

[uss frolick]

I remember seeing a picture of the well-preserved wreck of the Schooner USS Hamilton, lost in 1813 on Lake Ontario, in which the six-pounder shot racks - in that case, just long troughs at the base of the bulwarks - were nearly empty, even though the crew slept at their guns that fateful night, prepared for immediate action. Had the shot been netted in, they would still be there, but the net would probably be gone.

 

I also remember seeing a thrilling, realistic painting in National Geographic Magazine of the Swedish Warship Kronan sinking. It was an interior view of the ship on her beam ends, with debris and cannon balls airborne, flying towards the faces of the terrified crew! I no longer have that issue from the early 1980s. Perhaps someone here does, and can post?

Edited May 23, 2023 by uss frolick

[Gregory]

There is gravity, and then there is inertia....

[NavyShooter]

OK, 

 

Having sailed in the Navy for a lot of years, I'll observe a couple of things - Firstly - everything has a place, and it should be in place.

 

Secondly, on a Navy Ship, most of those 'places' were designed to properly hold those things, and keep them in place.

 

A big factor in objects on a ship is inertia - but I'm certain you all know that.  A cannon, on wheels, even when secured in place will still have some range of motion - the flex or stretch in the lines will enable this.  

 

The weight of a cannon and its carriage is huge - the 3 pdr I have in my garage takes an engine hoist to move safely into and out of the bed of my truck. 

 

Cannon balls are round, but they are not on wheels, nor are they loose rolling about on the deck.  In looking at pictures online of HMS Victory and other ships, there are cannon ball holders either behind the guns on the deck, or on the bulkhead beside the guns.  Those holders see at least 1/3 of the ball sitting into the wood, with only maybe 2/3 of the ball exposed.  The deck ones, in heavy seas, would not require a lot of effort to toss a blanket on top of them to ensure they wouldn't roll anywhere.  The bulkhead ones?  I suspect that if you looked closely at them, you'd find wear spots where they'd have a cover tied on to help keep them in place.  

 

Before a ship was to sail in the modern Navy, we'd always do "secure for sea" rounds on the day before sailing.  Are things tied down, are they secure, did they use rope instead of a bungee cord (NEVER use bungee cord!) 

 

I suspect that the same applied for the age of sail.

When a ship is alongside and open for tours, you don't see the chains holding the helicopter in place in the hangar.  They're all disconnected and hung up along the bulkhead, and are practically invisible to a visitor.  They're looking at the fancy helicopter, not the chains and clips and such.

 

If you asked a visitor to a ship how a helicopter was secured, they'd probably not have a clue.  You'd need to be a member of the Air Det to know which chains go where, which tie down points to use, which shackle point on the helo is appropriate for use and so on.

 

[popeye2sea]

After having sailed for 24 years in the Navy, one thing I can definitely tell you is that anything that can break loose WILL break loose.  I seriously doubt that cannon shot was not secured in some way.

 

Side note: I was always under the impression that like the modern Navy, the ammo stored near the guns is only ready service ammo. Would the cannon balls not be struck below into the shot lockers when not readied for immediate use?

 

Regards,

 

Henry

[mtaylor]

For some reason, I believed that the shot around the hatchways, etc. did have netting or canvas covers for "heavy weather".  I don't know where I picked that up att though as it's lost to me in the mist of time.  As for the ones in the shot locker, I was under the impression that they had to be cleaned of rust before they could be used.    I guess my info/sources was wrong.

[Steve20]

I don't want to move away from the subject of how shot was secured on deck - I hope someone can come up with a definitive explanation to this. In the meantime, here’s a document on naval gunnery that may be of interest to some. It was published in 1834 and written by Captain John Harvey Stevens, Royal Marine Artillery, Director of the Laboratory of Instruction Portsmouth. It’s titled ‘Some Description of the Methods Used in Pointing Guns at Sea’.

For those, like me, who prefer to flick through the technical parts you'll find that it touches on Congreve Rockets, gun sights, and how the Shannon gunnery was performed. It also corroborates Daniel Pascoe on breast pieces and/or sweeps in that they were used to stop gun carriage trucks jamming in the waterways during oblique pointing.

What's more, it has interesting diagrams of the Congreve and Hookham sights on the last page.

 

Some description of the methods used in pointing guns at sea 1834.pdf

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Steve20

[Morgan]

Hi Steve,

 

One issue I had with Steven’s essay when I last looked at it is the chronology, he talks of Captain Elliot’s concentration of fire in Victory using sweep pieces, but Elliot commanded Victory in the 1820’s when she was a guard ship with very few guns, so some doubts as to attribution, but notwithstanding it points to a continuity of sweep pieces from the time of Colossus.

 

In terms of deck storage of shot in my view it was confined to the shot racks around the coamings, in rough weather the hatches were covered in canvas and fixed with battens, these could easily have extended to cover the shot racks and pin the shot in place.

 

The 16-hole shot holder from St Gorge was probably a temporary holder used in action.  If you take Victory prior to Trafalgar she brought 3,000 shot up to the decks before the battle.  These holders are what were deployed around the deck. It is not clear if they were stacked in tiers upon them.   They would have been stored when in use wherever was convenient that did not interfere with the running of the ship.  Shot were gotten out of the hold using woven baskets and hoisted to each deck from the hold.
 

Gary

Edited May 24, 2023 by Morgan

[Steve20]

Hi Gary,

 

Thanks for the input. I do think John Stevens wording on Captain Elliot is not as clear as it could be. When he says it was believed Elliot enhanced the method of concentrating fire on board Victory (page 40) his meaning was that Elliot’s work on Victory was experimental. Elliot probably only needed a few guns for his trials and these could be moved around the Victory decks if needs be. Elliot would not have needed to fire a broadside.

Stevens says that it must have taken Elliot much ingenuity, care, and labour to perfect the application (the enhanced method that is) and this would be consistent with Elliot having plenty of time on his hands because Victory was at the time only a guard ship.

Reading the text a few times, this does seem to be the case to me, and this then leads one to conclude that Victory was probably used to further develop the method of gunnery that was applied by Brooke on the Shannon.

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Steve20

[Steve20]

I would just like to add more clarification to my last post.

 

Elliot’s work in improving concentration of fire entailed the accurate pointing of individual guns, and reading Steven’s description of Elliot's method of achieving this (Steven’s, page 40-43), it does looks like Elliot's experimental work would have been done using perhaps a few guns. The resultant triangle or quadrant boards, once fully developed, could then have been placed in any ship for broadside configuration and final testing.

 

Some Description of the Methods Used in Pointing Guns at Sea, Captain John Stevens, Extract from pages 40&41.
Triangle or quadrant boards were constructed (see fig.13), containing a quarter of a circle, described from the apex of the triangle a, with a radius of about one foot, the arc, c d, being divided into degrees, or points, half points, &c.

 

These boards are placed behind the gun on the deck, with the base, e f, parallel to the keel, and the centre of the circle, a, in the axis of the piece prolonged to the rear (i.e., in the vertical plane in which the axis lies). During the time the gun is being trained the board is moved also, in order that its relative position to the gun, as above described, may be preserved. The trigger line is held so as to coincide with the axis of the gun, prolonged to the rear, as a h ; ……...   

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Steve20

[Steve20]

 

The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture, 2nd Edition, 1812, David Steele.

 

For scantlings of shot racks on upper, middle and lower (gun) decks, Steele states ‘.......the upper sides gouged and hollowed to the size of the shot at one-third of its diameter, keeping the shot two inches asunder in the clear.'

 

Elsewhere, in a general statement, Steele states that shot garlands '.......fitted against the head ledges and coamings of the hatch and ladderways, or against the side between ports, to contain the shot; for which purpose they are hollowed out to near one third of the shot diameter, so that the balls lie in them about one inch asunder.'

 

By 'asunder' Steele means apart.

 

A hollowed out depth of one-third of the shot diameter doesn't seem a lot, so this tends to give weight to the argument that shot was kept in place, by some means or other, when the ship was heavily rolling and pitching.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Steve20