Sixty-Four Pounds Is 64 Pounds

[Sailor Steve]

Don't read this if you're easily bored by historical shenanigans. You've been warned. It's a perverted sort of geekdom to the max.

As I've mentioned many times in the past, I've been working on my own tabletop miniatures naval game for a couple of decades. I'm no closer to being done than I've ever been because I keep finding out new things and adding them in. Honestly I worry that my real hobby is doing the research, and actually playing the game is something I can take or leave. We did a little playtesting back in 2001, but not much since.

Part of the problem is that I'm weird to begin with. I played several naval games back in the 1990s and had objections to every one of them. Some of them were too simple, being designed to enable the player to run a whole fleet, or at least a task force or squadron. That's fine. In fact, that's what most players want - something they can play in a couple of hours and have fun sinking their friends. Other games are more complex and more detailed, and I like that. My problem there was that they were usually detailed in ways I didn't like and not detailed enough where I wanted them to be. I wanted to feel like I was on board the ship, and none of them made me feel that way. I stress "me", because my objections are my own and I don't expect other players to see it my way.

This has lead me to create individual charts for each ship class (and often each individual ship within the class) showing how they handled in bad weather, acceleration calculations, turning radius, gun descriptions and penetration charts and individual critical hit charts for each ship, with armor values for each specific location.

I vowed that I would not do any ships earlier than 1890, mainly because I wanted ships that served in the First World War. This has been scotched a couple of times because some classes had ships that were built in 1887 and the last one in 1891 (the British 'Admiral' Class battleships are a good example). I just finished the American protected cruiser Chicago yesterday, and planned today to start the British Mersey class cruisers of 1889. I went back the extra year because some of them served all the way through World War Two. My research showed that the Merseys were actually identical to the preceding Leander class of 1885, except the later ships had a protective internal deck extending the length of the ship whereas the earlier class's deck only covered the machinery spaces (engines and boilers).

Then I discovered that the class preceeding those, the Iris class of 1879, were in fact identical except for not having a protecive deck at all. The Irises were also the very first steel ships built for the Royal Navy, so including them was probably a good idea, and since it's my game I can do whatever I want anyway. I then found out that another difference between the classes was the guns they carried, and that the guns changed from time to time. No problem, that's true of a lot of ship classes.

So I checked all the sources at my disposal on the Iris class second-class cruisers, and discovered that their original armament was ten 64pdr RMLs. Yes, these ships were so old they were originally built with MUZZLE-LOADERs, just like back in the sailing ship days. In fact despite being the first steel ships and having quite powerful engines for their size, they also still carried sails.





Okay. I started doing research on the 64pdr, and found out that there were two different versions. The original was the gun that outfitted the first all-iron warship, HMS Warrior, back in 1860. It had a bore diameter of 8" because an 8" round iron cannonball weighed 64 pounds; or more properly a sixty-four pound roundball was eight inches in diameter.

Not long before this they had designed a new 64pdr, this one having a diameter of 6.3" and a rifled barrel. I knew that an oblong shell can be narrower but longer and still have the same weight, but I wondered why six-point-three inches and not six, or seven? It made no sense to me, but I had to find out. I started reading more, and what I found was to me both weird and wonderful, and ultimately so typically British, that I had to share it with anyone who might be interested.

The best example of that roundball vs oblong shell is the 12-pounder. The 12pdr Napoleon was the primary field gun from Napoleon himself through the American Civil War, and dating back to the 1700s for ship use. A round cannonball weighing twelve pounds is 4.62" in diameter, and that was the size for all 12pdr guns until the British Army changed that in 1859. They wanted a rifled gun firing an oblong shell and figured that the best diameter for that would the three inches. All 12pds (and 13 and 14pdrs) used on ships as anti-torpedo-boat guns right through the First World War were 3" in diameter.

Anyway, back to the main story, if you're still with me. Why on earth did they pick 6.3 inches for the new 64pdr gun? Well, it seems that the old 32pdr roundball was 6.3" in diameter, and they had large stocks of them just sitting around unused, so somebody decided that the new 64pdr gun should be able to shoot them as well, just to get rid of them. Okay, so the new gun is 6.3" across. So why stick with sixty-four pounds? Modern (WW1-era is modern to me) 6" guns fire a 100-pound shell. They could have made the shell for this gun longer and heavier, which would have been a good thing. Or they could have made it shorter and weighing only fifty pounds, which might not have been so good because it would have been less stable in flight. But a longer shell would have been more stable, which is even better.

So why insist on calling it a 64pdr? Because we weren't authorized to make a 6" gun, or a 6.3" gun, we were ordered to make a new 64pdr. We have to design the shell to weigh sixty-four pounds, or it's not a 64pdr anymore!

As I said, that strikes me as extremely odd to say the least, but it also strikes me as so quintessentially British as to make perfect sense, in its own perverse way.

[Cybermat47]

Nice long post.

Very interesting as well! You sure have done your research!

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So why insist on calling it a 64pdr? Because we weren't authorized to make a 6" gun, or a 6.3" gun, we were ordered to make a new 64pdr. We have to design the shell to weigh sixty-four pounds, or it's not a 64pdr anymore!

As I said, that strikes me as extremely odd to say the least, but it also strikes me as so quintessentially British as to make perfect sense, in its own perverse way.

I could envision the politicians clamoring for more sixty-four pounders simply because that particular shell was, in fact, synonymous with British artillery, both naval and field. Anything else, as was your point, would be un-British. In the hyper-nationalism that prevailed during both Victorian and Edwardian England, anything un-British woud have been frowned upon. The powers that be were most interested in preserving the social status quo, and it would not be a stretch of the imagination that this may also extend to the military status quo.

[Red Brow]

Are you kidding? "Part of the problem is that I'm weird to begin with..." you are one of the ones I believe is not weird.

I collect American antique books, I know a bit what you are talking about. I think it is great that you are rediscovering this data. I hope you one day tabulate it all and publish it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I could envision the politicians clamoring for more sixty-four pounders simply because that particular shell was, in fact, synonymous with British artillery, both naval and field.

Nah bigger is always better when it comes to artillery. A 65 or 70 pounder would be very popular.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Red Brow

I hope you one day tabulate it all and publish it.

I once had someone I told stories to tell me I should write a book. The only problem is that all the information I have came from books someone else already wrote. I just keep spending all my money on those books. People like Norman Friedman, John Campbell, all the folks at Conway's Maritime Press and the Naval Institute Press plus a handful of website owners keep the information available. There are great writers out there with access to the primary sources. I only have access to their work. I also hang out with friends who have similar expertise in other fields, including aviation and general military history.

It's a curse.

[Armistead]

I thought we already had a boredom thread

However, I did find it interesting as I use to build model ships.

I purchased a large box lot years ago at a auction that was full of photo albums from the Civil War til about 1930's. It was mostly full of ships and several warships. Many I still haven't figured, maybe I can get them all posted one day.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by August

Nah bigger is always better when it comes to artillery. A 65 or 70 pounder would be very popular.

Especially naval artillery. A 12lber is about a 4inch bore amd that's waaaay too whimpy for a naval gun. The main armament on the USS Constitution is 24 lber(?). So a 64 pounder almost sounds like a Rodman(?)

Nevermind, I just looked up the specs for a Rodman. 12 inch bore and......225 lbs shell. Love to see the crew fire that three times a minute. They also made a 20 inch rodman.

[magic452]

Since someone brought up 64 pounders and such, something that I often wondered about but never bothered to do the research on, when did they change from just shooting steel balls and start using exploding shells?

I'm so old I should remember but the memory just ain't what is use to be.
I'll be Steve remembers as he's a little younger than me.

Good and interesting post as well.

Magic

[Hottentot]

I may be stating the obvious here, but I feel I need to say this...

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The only problem is that all the information I have came from books someone else already wrote.

Very few historians write a book completely based on the original sources. That would imply it's a subject that has never ever been written about, not even closely, and it's based on some completely new material. Even if the material is completely new, some research on the subject still probably exists. And I can't think of many things more insulting to the fellow researchers as well as the whole science itself than to ignore everything anyone has ever said and claim your work is the ultimate revelation.

Just refer to the already written books properly and build your own ideas based on them, develop their points further or disagree with them. Building new is based on improving the old.

There are great writers out there with access to the primary sources. I only have access to their work.

Out of curiosity, what prevents you from accessing the primary sources?

In general, I agree that you already know a lot, have read a lot and definitely know how to put your thoughts on the paper (or the Internet forum in this case) in a constructive way. That's a great start for writing a book.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by magic452

Since someone brought up 64 pounders and such, something that I often wondered about but never bothered to do the research on, when did they change from just shooting steel balls and start using exploding shells?

I'm so old I should remember but the memory just ain't what is use to be.
I'll be Steve remembers as he's a little younger than me.

Good and interesting post as well.

Magic

Do you mean like a modern contact shell? There were the rifled guns, such as a 3inch ordinance rifle, or a parrot rifle.




For a smoothbore gun, they had timerfuse case shot.

[nikimcbee]

Civil War naval guns:

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by magic452

Since someone brought up 64 pounders and such, something that I often wondered about but never bothered to do the research on, when did they change from just shooting steel balls and start using exploding shells?

I'm so old I should remember but the memory just ain't what is use to be.
I'll be Steve remembers as he's a little younger than me.

Good and interesting post as well.

Magic

Explosive shells were in regular use on land since around the 17th century, but they were only used on mortars and howitzers, which were too inaccurate for naval combat except on specialized ships (like bomb ships), because they were too dangerous to use with a high-velocity gun. The switch to shells in naval weapons gradually happened between the 1820s and the Crimean War after the invention of the Paixhans gun; the Battle of Sinop in 1853 is the point I usually see referenced as the first major use of which in a naval battle. This also coincided with the simultaneous introduction of screw propulsion and iron armour, which would result in the first ironclad warships.

[magic452]

Thanks Raptor and nikimcbee. That's what I was looking for.
Explosive rounds go back farther than I thought.

nikimcbee From that chart I take it that shot means steel ball and shell means explosive round.

Magic

[Oberon]

I do love the warships of the period Steve indicates, the pre-dreadnoughts and the early dreadnought classes, there's something about them.
Damn shame they never preserved the Dreadnought, the only battleship to sink a submarine too...