The Evolution of Naval ArmamentRobertson, Frederick Leslie
History
The Evolution of Naval Armament
Robertson, Frederick Leslie
Naval art and science -- History; Ordnance, Naval -- History; Warships -- History
Writing in 1628, Robert Norton, in his book _The Gunner_, refers as
follows to the early Tudor ordnance. “Gun-founders about 100 or 150
years past,” he says, “did use to cast ordnance more poor, weak, and
much slenderer fortified than now, both here and in foreign parts:
also the rather because saltpetre being either ill or not refined,
their sulphur unclarified, their coals not of good wood, or else ill
burnt, making therewith also their powder evilly receipted, slenderly
wrought, and altogether uncorned, made it prove to be but weak (in
respect of the corned powder used now-a-days), wherefore they also
made their ordnance then accordingly (that is much weaker than now).
For the powder now being double or treble more than it was in force of
rarification and quickness, requireth likewise to encrease the metal
twice or thrice more than before for each piece.” And, in fact, the
weight of cannon increased in the period mentioned from eighty to two
hundred times, the weight of culverins from a hundred to three hundred
times, the weight of their shot. The slender large-bore built-up guns
of the _Henry Grace à Dieu_ could only be used with a weak slow-burning
powder. At the same time this slow-burning powder required, for its
complete combustion, a great length of gun. These guns, such of them as
were breech-loaders, must have suffered from the leakage of gas at the
joints of their primitive chambers; in the case of the smaller pieces a
serious inefficiency was the excessive windage allowed between shot and
gun. Until the end of the sixteenth century the windage bore no direct
relation to the diameter of the shot or bore of the gun: it was a fixed
amount, one quarter of an inch. The effect, therefore, of the leakage
of powder gases past the shot, the loss in efficiency of discharge, was
greatest in the smallest guns.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account