Talk:Carronade

low muzzle velocity
Question: the article says, that the carronade had a lower muzzle velocity, which was "intended to create many more of the deadly wooden splinters when hitting the structure of an enemy vessel, leading to its nickname, the smasher". This doesnt make sense: lower muzzle velocity should create less damage. Zkip 14:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the idea was that a large slow-moving projectile would tear through the wooden structure of the target, creating lots of "splinters" (which can be feet long and inches think, but wickedly sharp), whereas a smaller, higher velocity projectile would punch a hole and pass straight through. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

makes sense. thanks, Zkip 17:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Diagram needed
Diagram needed While I agree that a diagram or a picture would be a nice addition to the article, adding a picture that simply states that a picture/diagram is needed distracts from the article. I've removed the diagram (see right) from the top of the article. --Stephane Charette 06:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the template as there is now a diagram in the article. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Range
The article manages to use the word "range" 17 times but the editors have failed to state what the typical firing range in battle might have been. Silent Billy (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation for the term "Smasher"
Royal Navy museum website any good? http://www.hms-victory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Itemid=91 Captain Pedant (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Inventor
Although popularized by the Carron Company, there should be no doubt who invented the weapon:  Lieutenant General Robert Melville. In 1774, Melville proposed a short, 8 inch gun weighing only 31 hundredweight, yet firing a small windage 68 lb ball with just a 5 1/5 lb charge. He induced the Carron Company to cast a weapon to his design, which was then named "Smasher". This was the prototype for all subsequent carronades. The Carron Company took the Smasher's design, scaled its caliber down to be suitable for its own merchant fleet, and produced the so-called 'lesser carronades', which popularized the carronade concept. The Carron Company itself credited Melville with this invention. A number of years later, they presented LTG Melville with a carronade model having the following inscription: "Gift of the Carron Companty to Lieutenant General Melville, inventor of the Smasher and lesser carronades for solid, ship, shell and carcass shot, etc.  First used against French ships in 1779." Source: The "Evolution of Naval Armament", Engineer Commander Frederick Leslie Robertson, RN, London, Constable & Company, 1921. 98.255.85.245 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Now added. Snori (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Design
A smaller bore for the chamber would increase, not reduce the weight (compared to a gun with a chamber the same size as the bore). Take out less metal, the gun is heavier. Squid603 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, because the ordnance is sized to provide a thickness of metal around the first reinforce/powder chamber area. If you make the bore larger, both the inside and outside radius are increased. e.g. 32lb Ordnance, 24 chamber, has a wall thickness (using data from https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2015/11/12/constitutions-guns-a-snapshot/) for the RO/Carron pieces #1,#2 of around 31/32 of the bore (33/32 of the chamber) To keep the same absolute thickness around the powder charge, and allowing for the reduction in length required for same shot-travel, the non-chambered piece is around 6% heavier *assumption linear taper, spherical breech behind the breech ring (and to fit with the density of iron and the stated dimensions, that 'bore length' is actually the overall length excluding the elevation lug and breeching ring*.

You only need the thick metal around the charge, and the chase can be much thinner than a linear taper, a result accomplished in part by having a chambered piece. The design is far from optimal, but has a shape closer than that of a non-chambered gun, although it does sacrifice some ease of use and manufacture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9385:AD00:817A:8EB7:2767:1F81 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Diagram
The diagram is of a 'slide mounting', the lower part of the carriage should be renamed "the bed" (13) and the upper part "the slide" (14). Unlike the long guns, which used complex breeching ropes, the energy of the recoil was absorbed in moving the slide backwards over the bed - the friction of this movement meant that the carronade bed could be pivoted on a fixed point at the front of the bed. Urselius (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Main debut"?
Er, @ChrisWet, what is a "main debut", per this edit? There can only be one debut, and 1782 seems a very late one for a weapon which, we say elsewhere, was around between 1759 and 1779. I don't have access to the cited source, but would prefer something like "In a September 1782 engagement, the impact of a single carronade broadside fired at close range by the fifth-rate HMS Rainbow, under Henry Trollope, caused a wounded French captain to capitulate and surrender the frigate Hébé without a fight." Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I will put just that. Thanks ChrisWet (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

French diagram
I provisionally reverted this edit by Alandeus because of possible misunderstandings about File:Carronade-tag.svg (the original drawing). The carriage aboard HMS Victory (as shown in our first picture) has a slider carriage to help absorb the weapon's recoil. The "mobile pedestal" (berceau mobile) shown in the French diagram is not a sliding carriage. It is designed to move around a "vertical rotation axis" (axe de rotation vertical). The axis is vertical, the rotation is in a horizontal plane, to point the gun left or right, etc. The drawing is a hypothetical reconstruction. It looks like a very small weapon and lacks the necessary operational features such as fittings for the heavy ropes to contain recoil on a ship's deck. I disagree with changing the original artist's wording without further discussion, and possibly consulting with him (fr:Utilisateur:Walké). Also, the drawing is part of the Philip Greenspun illustration project, and we should maybe not muck about with their work without asking that group. Looking again, I see that one of the sources (here) more clearly shows the vertical axis for rotation, and also has ropes and mounting tackle. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, but then what is "9 Horizontal rotation axis"? The "vertical rotation axis" (axe de rotation vertical) mentioned above should then be where the 9 is pointing. Where is then a "horizontal axis" for rotation? (Sorry for being picky; I'm a technical translator and deal with axes all the time.) Alandeus (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. On further examination, I would say, yes, 9 is the (vertical) pivot or bearing which rotates the gun from left to right, etc, (using the little wheel (12); and the "vertical rotation axis" is the (horizontal) pivot under the centre of the barrel on which (partial) "vertical rotation" is achieved, i.e., raising and lowering the muzzle for range. In that case, we might suggest to the creators that "pivot" is a more meaningful English term than "axis". Does that make sense? Or should we just reject it entirely for now and ask them to fix it? Bjenks (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Pivot is much more understandable here than axis. An axis is always perpendicular to the direction of movement around it and when you add horizontal or vertical to it, it not readily clear whether the axis or the movement is meant. Number (9) should therefore simply be “Horizontal rotation pivot”. A further problem with the drawing is that the red pointer lines disappear behind the carronade so that in some instances you can’t see where they are connecting to. This is especially true with number (11), which seems to connect to just the base. I assume it should connect all the way up to the lug underneath the barrel. That would be the “Vertical rotation axis” or better yet as discussed above the “Vertical rotation pivot”. These pointer lines should be in the foreground then, and better even with a design with more contrast, for example with a white edge. Yes, please inform the creators/owners of the drawing about these suggestions for improvement. Alandeus (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, I've sent off a request to the illustration project coordinator. Ideally, that's where the changes should be made, so let's leave it as is until we hear back. Hopefully, I won't have to try out my rather rusty French! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Chamber size.
It says in the article that "Carronades had a chamber one caliber smaller than the bore – for example, an 18-pounder carronade had its chamber bored equal to a 12-pounder. This was partly to reduce the weight of the cannon, but also had the effect of reducing the velocity of the cannonball and range to which it could fire".

That doesn't make sense written like this, or at least isn't clear. If you wish to reduce the weight of the cannon, you would want to bore out MORE metal, not less. Having a smaller chamber than the bore means that the barrel is that much thicker in that location, therefore heavier overall than a barrel bored to the same caliber all the way to the breechplug (?). I think what they mean is that the small chamber is intended to intentionally reduce the possible powder charge that can be loaded into the gun, meaning that the barrel can be made thinner and lighter without risk of catastrophic damage if a gun crew attempts to overcharge the gun. That seems far more logical.

Also, what exactly is "one caliber smaller" supposed to mean? What exactly is "a caliber" in this sense? It can't be your typical artillery term "caliber", because "one caliber" is exactly the width of the barrel, thus "one caliber smaller" would be "zero". Why is a "12-pounder" one caliber less than an "18-pounder"? Could one not make a 16-pounder? A 14-pounder? An explanation or different wording here would be nice..45Colt 11:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Although you could build different calibre guns, in general you did not. The reason is that of logistics (still true today). Standard british naval guns of the time were of sizes like 6, 12, 18, 24, 32, 42, 68 pounders etc. You would not want to be the only ship in the fleet with 8 or 10 pounder guns & be in need of resupply. The 10 pounder, being so close to the 12 pounder would not bring enough to the party to be worth the trouble. 101.170.213.64 (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy—1st paragraph —duration of usage
According to Vol 1of Shelby Foote's Civil War series, "32-pounder carton added" we're used at the 1862 battle of Donelson...but I don't know enough about the language of war to be sure that that single usage contradicts the wiki article when it says in paragraph 1 these guns were only used 1770s to 1850s. Anyway, mostly curious... BinkyChottyboats (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

only used by the Royal Navy?
I believe the statement they were only used in the Royal Navy is false. However, other countries did not call their carronades, "carronades" because they were not made or designed by Carron. 2601:646:8301:61D6:E063:D684:C221:1418 (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)