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
Progress was made in the classification of pieces and in the reduction
of the number of different types carried; a change was also made in
the forms of the guns, in order to enhance the fighting value of the
gun armament in certain circumstances. The great guns were made still
shorter than before; the quicker-burning powders now in use allowed
this to be done. By which expedient the ratio between gun-weight
and weight-of-metal-thrown was reduced; more guns could be carried
for a given weight of metal; they could be more easily manipulated;
and if they were of small ranging power they yet possessed a power
of penetration sufficient for close-quarter fighting. Moreover, the
reduction in length enabled an increase in calibre to be made; and this
was one of the factors which led to the reintroduction of larger types
than had formerly been considered suitable: the cannon-serpentine, the
cannon, and even the cannon-royal, with its sixty-six pound shot and
its eight thousand pounds of metal.[56]
In the Dutch Wars the preponderance in the size and weight of the
unit shot lay with the English ships, and was in itself undoubtedly
a great advantage in their favour; though complaints were made of
the great weight and clumsiness of the pieces, “which caused much of
the straining and rolling at sea.” Writing of naval ordnance in the
year 1690, Sir Cloudesley Shovell recorded that, “our lower-deck guns
are too big and the tackles ill fitted with blocks, which makes them
work heavy; the Dutch who have light guns have lignum vitæ sheaves.
The Dutch guns are seldom larger than twenty-four pounders.” By this
time, it will be noted, the more scientific nomenclature had come into
vogue; the cannon-petro was now known as the 24-pounder, and the heavy
lower-deck guns referred to were the old bastard-cannons, known since
the reorganization of the Commonwealth navy as 42-pounders.
The founding of guns continued to be, throughout the seventeenth
century, an affair of private enterprise. Proof was carried out under
the supervision of the Board of Ordnance.
In 1619 a decree was issued that gun-founding was to be confined
to Kent and Sussex, that guns were to be landed at or shipped from
the Tower Wharf only, and that East Smithfield was to be the one
market-place for their sale or purchase. Guns could be proved only
in Ratcliff fields, and all pieces were to have on them at least two
letters of the founder’s name, with the year and the weight of the gun.
Exportation was illegal; nevertheless the illicit traffic went on just
as in Elizabeth’s time. The royal forts themselves were turned into
marts for these and other unlawful transactions, and Upnor Castle is
described as having been “a staple of stolen goods, a den of thieves, a
vent for the transport of ordnance.”[57]
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