Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Elizabeths Guns
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Sunday, 22nd February 2009
Sorry to say that I missed most of the Time Watch production the power of the cannon was a real eye opener, but was this what Phillip of Spain was refering to when he sai beware of the english and thier Demi Calverines (not sure of the spelling).
Can anyone through any light on the subject, or is this a different weapon? -
Message 2
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
I think the basic point being made was that Elizabeth's military men had come to the realisation that large-bore cannon was not as effective as standardised smaller-bore ones fired as a broadside. Standardisation of bore meant that ammunition was the same for each piece on the gun deck, greatly improving speed and efficiency during battle. So marked was the improvement that the Spanish noticed it too.
-
Message 3
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
I should have added that this technological achievement probably saved us from being invaded by Spain, for the point was also made that Spain was the super-power of the time and had a huge army - whereas we had none to speak of. It seems to compare with our situation in 1940 when we were saved by the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters (plus radar, of course).
-
Message 4
Posted by simonthepilgrim (U6675399) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
So much of this programme was fascinating that it was only after I had watched it a second time (thank you iPlayer) that I realised that we got no nearer learning how this improvement in weapon-making came about and by whose inspiration.
We are taught about the importance of the Whitworth screw in the development of standardised boiler manufacture and, therefrom, general standardisation of spare parts. But this advance predates Whitworth by a long 'shot'. To have conceived and developed standardised artillery must have occurred as a result of long work. Was this done in the Royal Arsenals or was it the work of some lonely 'Clive Sinclair' of the day?
What fun lies before the researchers. I wish them well in their researches and thank them and the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ for giving us yet another historical puzzle to ponder on. -
Message 5
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Saw an updated episode of Battlefield Detectives about the Armada. And after surveying new wreck sites around Ireland - they discovered that Spanish ships had such an array of different sized shot that was not properly allocated to the right ships. Therefore early on in the battle they were unable to fire their guns.
Standardisation might have defeated the english navy. -
Message 6
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
-
Message 7
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
So why were there so few (if any) Spanish ships sunk by gunfire?
From what I've gleaned, most of the Armada was victims of the weather, not gunfire. -
Message 8
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
my thanks for the replys. I am still wondering why the spanish were so afraid of the english guns. Its seems 1 the fire power was great 2 the range far better than the spanish plus the rate of fire far better. Am I wrong, for as you say most spanish ships were lost to bad weather or very poor planing. Or was it just bad luck for the dons.
-
Message 9
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Monday, 23rd February 2009
Re msg 4, I suspect Dr. Johnson provides us with the best explanation - "When a man knows he is going to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates the mind wonderfully". It may have been an early example of brainstorming by the experts of the day.
-
Message 10
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
There used to be a theory that one of the reasons that the spanish gunnery was so bad was that the guns in spanish ships were fixed to the ships side and the crews had to shin out along the barrel to load them while the English ships were using gun carriages that rolled back inboard to be loaded allowing a quicker rate of fire.
-
Message 11
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:53 GMT, in reply to 2295wynberglad in message 1
was this what Phillip of Spain was refering to when he sai beware of the english and thier Demi Calverines (not sure of the spelling).Β
A demi-culverin was a medium sized gun firing a shot weighing nine pounds. The guns they were dealing with did indeed look like demi-culverins. Although 'cannon' is often used to refer to any old muzzle-loading gun, strictly speaking it is a 42-pounder gun. -
Message 12
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:51 GMT, in reply to Anglo-Norman in message 11
Forget to say... this was particularly interesting for me, as I've had the chance to help conserve some of the stuff from the wreck, including part of the stock of a musket, IIRC. This was when I was volunteering with Jersey Heritage Trust, who were doing a lot of the smaller scale conservation work. -
Message 13
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
Thanks for that information, I have often wondered what was a Demi Culverins its a term that I had not heard of before and when this was brought up I was Puzzled is it a Spanish term or was this a common usage at the time.
-
Message 14
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:56 GMT, in reply to 2295wynberglad in message 13
Demi-Culverin (or variants of the same) was a common term. The main types of gun were:
Robinet (l/2 lb)
Falconet (1 lb)
Falcon (3 lb)
Sakeret/Minion (4 lb)
Saker (5 1/4 lb)
Demi-Culverin (9 lb)
Culverin (18 lb)
Demi-Cannon (23 lb)
Cannon (42 lb)
Cannon-of-Seven/Cannon Royale (63 lb)
Note, though, that there was variation within each type, so that a Demi-Culverin, for example, might be designed to fire an 11 pound shot. It all depended on where the gun was cast and who cast it. It would not be until after the Civil Wars of the 17th century that guns became fully standardised in Britain. From the early 17th century, however, all Royal (and then Parliamentary) Naval guns were cast by the John Brown firm of gun-founders, and English company who had developed a type of iron gun that was equivalent in quality to bronze weapons but significantly lighter (therefore an English warship could carry more and/or heavier guns than a Continental equivalent). -
Message 15
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 24th February 2009
So why were there so few (if any) Spanish ships sunk by gunfire?Β
It was very difficult to sink a wooden ship by firing iron balls at it. The damage would be local, and most of it above the waterline; and in reasonable weather the crew could plug holes below the waterline. However, the damage did make the ships much more vulnerable to bad weather, and it is probable that more of the Spanish ships would have survived if they had not suffered battle damage. The same happened after the battle of Trafalgar, where the volume of fire was much larger, but it was the gale after the battle that sank more ships -- fourteen, as opposed to only one actually sunk during the battle itself.
Hailing the better armament of the English fleet as a new "discovery" seems to stretch it a bit. This has been known for a long time, and as a matter of fact it was known to the better-informed Spanish officers of the period -- even king Philip II pointed it out in his instructions to Medina Sidonia. (The Spanish king could never resist any opportunity to micro-manage.) The ships of the first line of the Spanish fleet were reasonably well armed if number of guns is your standard, but it was a mix of numerous small guns and a few heavy pieces that were unsuitable for naval use, being mounted on unsuitable carriages. As for the guns of the second line of Spanish ships, archaeologists have discovered that too many of them were mere junk, too old or cast in a hurry and badly made.
As the genius behind this innovation, the historian Garrett Mattingly credited Sir William Wynter. But he gives few details. Wynter was Master of Naval Ordnance for some time and surviving papers indicate that he favoured heavier gun armament, but it is unclear how much he was actually able to influence policy -- guns were expensive. I suppose N.A.M. Rodgers probably discusses the subject in the relevant part of his history of the Royal Navy, which unfortunately I don't have. -
Message 16
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Wednesday, 25th February 2009
Message 14 Anglo Norman, many thanks for that wonderful insight to the terms of the day.
Message 15 Mutatis, if any thing I am now have the view that the Spanish plannig was very much at fault and ofcourse the weather did not help them at all. -
Message 17
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
Plus the program I watched suggested a lot of the spanish ships were mounted on large wheels as though on land. Unlike the trucks of the english ships.
-
Message 18
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:32 GMT, in reply to redcoat in message 17
Recoat, I take it you mean the guns, rather than the ships themselves!
Yes, I've heard that, too.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.