Sixty-Four Pounds Is 64 Pounds

[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.

[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.

[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

[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...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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(?)

I completely forgot! Here is a video of the exact same type of 64pdr as used on Iris being fired.
http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php?topic=256671.0

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.

That's wimpy from my point of view. Twelve-inch guns from the pre-Dreadnought era fired a shell weighing 850 pounds.

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?

As Raptor1 pointed out, exploding shells were experimented with as far back as the 1300s. They came into common use for ships in the early 1800s. Solid shot was okay for trying to pound in a ship's sides, but the answer to that was to just make the sides thicker. It was realized that an exploding shell could not only kill lots of enemy sailors, but could also start fires, something truly terrifying on a wooden ship with cloth sails and lots of gunpowder lying around. French officer Henri-Joseph Paixhans designed the first gun specifically designed to fire a flat-trajectory exploding shell in 1823. American John A. Dahlgren improved upon this by designing a gun that could fire both shot and shell.

Much earlier than this, in 1784, a British army officer invented a hollow cannon ball filled with musket balls and a small explosive charge, designed to shred a line of troops en mass. It was called case shot, but the flying metal itself still bears his name: Henry Shrapnel.

In the 1890s they developed the base-fused Armor Piercing shell, but it took a decade or so before it was trusted. Throughout that period it was common for ships to carry both AP shell and solid shot, just in case.

Originally Posted by Hottentot

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.

John Campbell wrote a series of articles for Warship Quarterly magazine, of which I have several of the bound collected volumes, titled 'British Naval Guns: 1880-1945', detailing the design, construction and use of every British naval cannon of that period. He actually went through the first-hand records to gather his information. Same with David Lyons' The First Destroyers, Campbell's Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, R. A. Burt's British Battleships series, Norman Friedman's books on American and British Destroyers and Cruisers, and a great many more. Their reputations allow them access to all sorts of official records, and the money to travel to where the primary sources are.

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.

I can show where different books disagree with each other, but mostly all I can do is collect them and work on my game.

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

Money, mostly. Travelling to where the material is kept isn't cheap.

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.

The truth is, while there's no money in it I'm having fun just putting my game together.

[TLAM Strike]

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?

Well for a time the two types of shells existed side by side, but used different weapons to fire them. (This time period should be obvious if you remember the national anthem).

By the 1860's they had rounds that could be fired from normal guns, although adoption of it was slow.

[Gerald]

How long did it take to reload these guns,

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Vendor

How long did it take to reload these guns,

About 1 minute.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Vendor

How long did it take to reload these guns,

It's very labo(u)rous to load these guns. (muzzle loaded) For field artillery (12 lbr) you can fire it about 3x /minute. I've seen a Rodman fired (sans round) and it ain't fast. The implements are awkward to handle, plus you must load the powderbad and round (which is the size of a bowlingball)

[magic452]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well for a time the two types of shells existed side by side, but used different weapons to fire them. (This time period should be obvious if you remember the national anthem).

By the 1860's they had rounds that could be fired from normal guns, although adoption of it was slow.

Actually it was the National Anthem that got me started thinking about this.

@ Steve thanks for the info. Great thread and pics

Magic