Galleons artillery: aren't its too light for shells?

Just thought about that. The battle of Markovian Sea has been won largely because of Charisian explosive shells for their galleons guns.

But.

As i recall, the charisian guns of this era was either a long 30-pdr, or the 57-pdr carronades.

Are those guns really could work as a shell guns? The main problems with shells in naval warfare on Earth, if i recall correctly, was their insufficient weight to penetrate the enemy hull, and inability to survive the large acceleration. This why the shells wasn't really a significant part of naval warfare before the Paixhans gun.

The Paixhans gun combined large calibre (i.e. heavy shell) with low muzzle velocity (i.e. no problems with acceleration). But as i recall, all shell guns was large, seven or more inches, with shell of 50 and more pounds. Still, they weren't carronades; they have much larger muzzle velocity.

So. Would the small Charisian shells really work so good? I have doubts that they would be able to penetrate hulls of NoG galleons - their shells seems too light to do the job. Or i made a mistake somewhere (must admit, i haven't re-read AMF for some time)?

Dilandu wrote:Just thought about that. The battle of Markovian Sea has been won largely because of Charisian explosive shells for their galleons guns.

But.

As i recall, the charisian guns of this era was either a long 30-pdr, or the 57-pdr carronades.

Are those guns really could work as a shell guns? The main problems with shells in naval warfare on Earth, if i recall correctly, was their insufficient weight to penetrate the enemy hull, and inability to survive the large acceleration. This why the shells wasn't really a significant part of naval warfare before the Paixhans gun.

The Paixhans gun combined large calibre (i.e. heavy shell) with low muzzle velocity (i.e. no problems with acceleration). But as i recall, all shell guns was large, seven or more inches, with shell of 50 and more pounds. Still, they weren't carronades; they have much larger muzzle velocity.

So. Would the small Charisian shells really work so good? I have doubts that they would be able to penetrate hulls of NoG galleons - their shells seems too light to do the job. Or i made a mistake somewhere (must admit, i haven't re-read AMF for some time)?

The first shells, IIRC, were for the 30 lb krackens. While I am no expert on this subject, as the story goes, they worked just fine in the Markovian Sea and also at Ithyria where the angle guns were introduced. I don't remember what sized shells the angle guns used on the fortresses, but as I recall they were a quite a bit bigger than the ones used for the 30 pounders.

Don

n7axw wrote:

Dilandu wrote:Just thought about that. The battle of Markovian Sea has been won largely because of Charisian explosive shells for their galleons guns.

But.

As i recall, the charisian guns of this era was either a long 30-pdr, or the 57-pdr carronades.

Are those guns really could work as a shell guns?

(SNIP - by MWadwell)

The first shells, IIRC, were for the 30 lb krackens. While I am no expert on this subject, as the story goes, they worked just fine in the Markovian Sea and also at Ithyria where the angle guns were introduced. I don't remember what sized shells the angle guns used on the fortresses, but as I recall they were a quite a bit bigger than the ones used for the 30 pounders.

Don

From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrapnel_shell

"In 1784, Lieutenant Shrapnel of the Royal Artillery began developing an anti-personnel weapon..... () ....His shell was a hollow cast-iron sphere filled with a mixture of balls and powder, with a crude time fuse."

The date is significant, as it shows that explosive shells were viable with pre-napolenic war technology.

And the image in the article, is a shrapnel shell from a 12 pound cannon - which shows that even smaller cannons can fire explosive shells.

MWadwell wrote:
And the image in the article, is a shrapnel shell from a 12 pound cannon - which shows that even smaller cannons can fire explosive shells.

You didn't get it. The explosive shells were viable long before.

The problem is, that in sea battle it's insufficient to just throw shells in the enemy.

They need enough kinetic energy to penetrate the planks and detonate inside the construction.

If the bombs wouldn't be able to penetrate ships hull and just explode outside, the damage would be minimal.

And the problem is, that the 30-pdr long gun or 57-pdr carronade simply cannot do the trick. The penetration power of their relatively lightweight shells would be insufficient. They would just bounce away from enemy hull, or detonate outside, doing minimal damage. The sufficient calibre for shell gun, just started from 50 pounds and higher. And it's not carronade.

Dilandu wrote:

MWadwell wrote:
And the image in the article, is a shrapnel shell from a 12 pound cannon - which shows that even smaller cannons can fire explosive shells.

You didn't get it. The explosive shells were viable long before.

The problem is, that in sea battle it's insufficient to just throw shells in the enemy.

They need enough kinetic energy to penetrate the planks and detonate inside the construction.

If the bombs wouldn't be able to penetrate ships hull and just explode outside, the damage would be minimal.

And the problem is, that the 30-pdr long gun or 57-pdr carronade simply cannot do the trick. The penetration power of their relatively lightweight shells would be insufficient. They would just bounce away from enemy hull, or detonate outside, doing minimal damage. The sufficient calibre for shell gun, just started from 50 pounds and higher. And it's not carronade.

I see what you are saying...but they did work in the story.

So who knows, Maybe handwavium?

Don

n7axw wrote:
I see what you are saying...but they did work in the story.

So who knows, Maybe handwavium?

Don

Well, maybe. But there is still a problem.

Dilandu wrote:

n7axw wrote:
I see what you are saying...but they did work in the story.

So who knows, Maybe handwavium?

Don

Well, maybe. But there is still a problem.

I have been thinking about this. Maybe your conclusion might be a bit premature. Unless I'm missing something, we really don't know how thick the sides of a galleon are. I'm going to hazzard a guess here and suggest 2 inches on framing 18 inches center to center. IIRC, shells for a 30 lb kracken are 18 lb by the time they are hallowed out and filled with powder and shrapnel. When propelled from a cannon those shells should slam into the side of 2 inch planking to penetrate, perhaps even punch through...especially at close range.

If you have better info, please feel free to correct or fill in...

Don

n7axw wrote:

Dilandu wrote:
Well, maybe. But there is still a problem.

I have been thinking about this. Maybe your conclusion might be a bit premature. Unless I'm missing something, we really don't know how thick the sides of a galleon are. I'm going to hazzard a guess here and suggest 2 inches on framing 18 inches center to center. IIRC, shells for a 30 lb kracken are 18 lb by the time they are hallowed out and filled with powder and shrapnel. When propelled from a cannon those shells should slam into the side of 2 inch planking to penetrate, perhaps even punch through...especially at close range.

If you have better info, please feel free to correct or fill in...

Don

The hulls on Terrestrial wooden warships were more like 12" thick at a minimum (HMS Victory's hull was 24" thick). If you can imbed the shell in the hull, then the explosion could finish the job - particularly with a cylindrical shell with an ogive nose (at short ranges spin stabilization would be optional and increase sectional density while decreasing effective frontal area increasing penetration, aerodynamic stabilization could be another option for a smooth bore (i.e. fins or just putting most of the mass ahead of the center of pressure of the projectile (a hollow base for example (oversize minie ball..))).
A 2" thick hull would be light for a merchantman and would be more typical of a fishing boat.

n7axw wrote:
I have been thinking about this. Maybe your conclusion might be a bit premature. Unless I'm missing something, we really don't know how thick the sides of a galleon are. I'm going to hazzard a guess here and suggest 2 inches on framing 18 inches center to center. IIRC, shells for a 30 lb kracken are 18 lb by the time they are hallowed out and filled with powder and shrapnel. When propelled from a cannon those shells should slam into the side of 2 inch planking to penetrate, perhaps even punch through...especially at close range.

If you have better info, please feel free to correct or fill in...

Well, according to this -

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... hold/269/0

- they are more like US navy "heavy frigates", than earth ship-of-the-line. Still, to have at least some resistance to 30-pdr shots, they definitely need a hull thick enought - and it's enough to stop the lighter shell of the same gun, eventually.

Penetration in its' most basic form is a question of momentum (mass times velocity squared). (Please note the phrase- "most basic form". I fully realize that there's many more variables that have to be considered when dealing with penetration but for the question at hand, they are secondary to the explanation of the basic concept.) Heavier projectiles carry that momentum longer than lighter ones (following Newton's, "An object in motion..." and they have more mass to hold that motion) but a lighter, faster projectile has more velocity (but less mass to resist shedding it) that it can shed in the target before being brought to a stop by the target's resistance to its' passing through it.


The 'long guns' or cannons that fire smaller projectiles would have had enough barrel length to obtain the velocity needed for penetration. Black powder has such a long burn time that it takes a long barrel to generate higher velocities. To translate it into small arms, that's why the old single shot buffalo guns of the 1870's had 28 to 34 inch barrels instead of the 20 to 26 inch barrels that are more common today.

The carronades relied on the mass of the projectile for close range penetration due to the low velocity caused by their short barrels. Note the 'close range' part, they were short range guns during the Age of Sail on Earth with an effective range of only a few hundred yards. At very close range- say 50 yards or less, where the British liked to fight- the loss of velocity was minimized and they were devastatingly effective even when using solid shot. They weren't referred to as 'Smashers' for nothing. 'Long range' for a carronade would have been a hundred yards and the max effective range at sea was more around 200 or 300. That's not to say they weren't fired at longer range, a 57 pounder ball hitting a hull on a hop is still going to do some damage even if it never penetrated by producing showers of splinters on the inside of the hull.

The explosive shell weighs less than the corresponding solid shot in a given bore size, so the carronade would actually have improved ballistic characteristics (increased velocity) when firing them.

As previously pointed out, with the explosive shell, full penetration of a hull isn't necessary or even wanted if the objective is to sink the opposing ship. Lodging a shell in the hull (or partial penetration) is actually the most effective outcome of a round being fired because when the shell explodes, it is going to blow a far larger hole in the hull than it would by merely passing through. If the shell has a 12 inch diameter, then full penetration results in a roughly 12 inch hole that can be easily plugged. If a 12 inch diameter shell lodges in the hull and explodes, it could blow a hole 6 feet or more across (leaving the secondary damage to the internal structure and crew aside). You aren't going to 'plug' that kind of damage by ramming a piece of wood in the hole like a cork in a bottle.

Charis has superior ships and they know it so they follow a line of thinking that's more like the British when in a fleet engagement- namely that if they sink an opposing ship by shooting 'between the wind and water', that's one ship less they have to face. They don't necessarily want or need to capture opposing vessels. If they did, they would use a different style of fighting that is more like the French's attacking at longer range and shooting for the rigging with chain or bar shot to disable the vessel but keep the hull in one piece.