The Jaigarh Fort and its cannon ...

[fernando]

A resume extracted from an article posted in "The Cellar" ...

Jaigarh Fort is located on a hill called the Cheel Ka Teela, looking over the Amer Palace. It once held the treasures of the royal family of the Maharaja of Jaipur. It is the only fort in India that houses its own cannon factory. The art of cannon making was brought to India by the Mughals. The Maharaja of Jaipur, having collaborated with the Mughals, learned cannon making and built a cannon factory at Jaigarh.
This factory has produced some massive cannons, of which the most famous one is Jaivana - the largest wheeled cannon in the world! Jaivana was cast and forged in 1720 in the Jaigarh fort itself. The barrel has floral design. An elephant rests on the tip of the barrel and a pair of peacocks are carved in the center. The two thick rings on the barrel were used for lifting it with the help of a crane which, though incomplete, is still lying in Jaigarh. A pair of ducks also decorates the rear of the barrel. The barrel of the cannon weighs 50 tonnes. The carriage weighs a lot more! It is said that it took four elephants to turn the cannon around.The length of the cannon barrel is 6.15 mts. The diameter of the bore of the barrel is 28 cm and the thickness of the barrel at the tip is 21.6 cm. Jaivan rests on a high two-wheeled carriage. The wheels are 1.37 m in diameter. The carriage is equipped with two removable additional wheels for transport. The removable wheels are 2.74 m in diameter. About 100 kg of gunpowder fired a shot ball weighing 50 kg. The Jaivana Cannon was only fired once by the Jai Singh II, as a test-fire in 1720. The most exaggerated myth claims that the weapon had a range of 40 km, other sources say it is 35, 22 and 11 km, although the exact range could perhaps never be determined. After studies on the period ballistics,the highest probably muzzle velocity would be around 1500 to 1700 feet/second. This would give a maximum ballistic range of around 5000 yards to 3 miles.
Regarding this, i have a narration that an Indian cannon, way larger than this one, was dismantled in Goa by order of the Portuguese Vice-Roy in 1848, to be minted in bronze coins, which at the time were missing for chance money, thus over inflating the value silver coins.

.

[Philip]

Thank you, Nando, for this contribution!

A magnificent piece of artillery. I notice that for something from the first half of the 18th cent., its design is somewhat conservative, for the presence of the loose-rings in integral "eyes" cast integral with the tube, on its upper surface. These, for the purpose of lifting via a crane, in lieu of the so-called "dolphins" characteristic of Western guns from the 16th cent. until the end of the muzzle loading period, second half 19th.

The system of rings, generally two sets of pairs, is characteristic of most cannons worldwide beginning in the age of bombards and lasting a century or so. There are early Portuguese guns in the Museu Militar de Lisboa which this design, and rather finely-cast at that which I'm sure you're familiar with.

Considering the influence of the Portuguese in the development of firearms and gunnery in the East, it's not surprising to see the feature on Indian guns as well. Robert Elgood's Hindu Arms and Ritual p 50 illustrates a massive wrought iron tube preserved at Tanjore, fabricated in south India in the 16th cent., with the same system of lifting rings. The shape and construction of that gun is reminiscent of what was used during the siege of Constantinople in 1453. For something made in the 1600s its design is quite dated by Western standards although similar albeit smaller cannon were made and used in China, Korea, and Burma until even later.

[Jim McDougall]

This is a fascinating post, and speaks well to the educational and research elements of these forums. While I admit to having little knowledge overall on artillery and ordnance, this huge cannon inspired me to learn more, not just on this amazing piece, but on others.
Further encouraged by Philip's insight, I found what I could online and recalled some time ago, another huge cannon, Mons Meg in Edinburgh, which is apparently a 'bombard'.

Mons Meg, which is 15ft. long and a 20" barrel, firing a 369 Lb. ball.

Jaivana is 20.2" long and an 11" barrel firing a 11 pound ball.

Focus on Jagargh Fort, which was apparently built overlooking Amber Fort and the palace to guard the royal family. It is on a promontory on the hill called Cheel ka Teela (as noted) and which means hill of eagles. Here in the Aravali range it seems there is an abundance of iron, clearly well providing for the casting of cannon, which they could cast in a day many of 16 ft.


It is said that the firing of Jaivana cannon took 220 lbs of powder , which had the handling soldiers taking refuge in water barrels to prevent burns from the intense heat generated. While Mons Meg had huge caliber, the Jaivana had range of up to 22 miles if I have read correctly.

Only fired once, as the Rajputs were allied with the Mughals in these times, it still represented a formidable threat to any attacking forces.

The Mons Meg cannon apparently burst in 1680, rendering it effectively inert and I wonder if that was from the manner of construction which consisted of iron staves rather than solid cast iron.

Thank you for this thread, and the opportunity to learn more on this dramatically large piece of artillery.

Images of Jaigargh fort as seen from Amber Fort and looking down from it to Amber Fort.
Bottom, Mons Meg at Edinburgh

[fernando]

Jim, while you have certainly read such notes about the Jaivana, let me please recall the data presented in my first post and the following further details i originally omitted, in order not to be so boring; this will perhaps gives us a more balanced contest with the Mons Meg, often approached in previous discussions. Besides my impertinent correction, the data is now in Royal units, as metrics could create some confusion.

The Jaivana barrel is 20.2 ft. long (not " ;)) and weighs 50 tonnes.
The carriage weighs a lot more! It was rumored that it took four elephants to turn the cannon around.
Its circumference at the tip measures 7.2 ft.
Its caliber is indeed 11", but fires a 110 pound projectile, expelled by 220 lbs of powder.
It rests on two wheels measuring in diameter 4.5 ft. Two removable wheels measuring 9.0 ft. are used for its transport.
The Jaivana Cannon was only fired once by the Jai Singh II, as a test-fire in 1720. The most exaggerated myth claims that the weapon had a range of 40 km (25 mi), other sources say it is 35, 22 and 11 km (6.8 mi), although the exact range could perhaps never be determined without adequate scientific computation.

And, in order to "defend my dame", i recall once more that a Portuguese Vice-Roy had one melted, twice its size, to mint bronze coins.
This was the reason for RD having published (within his circle) the Jaivana article.

[Philip]

Further encouraged by Philip's insight, I found what I could online and recalled some time ago, another huge cannon, Mons Meg in Edinburgh, which is apparently a 'bombard'.

Mons Meg, which is 15ft. long and a 20" barrel, firing a 369 Lb. ball.

Jaivana is 20.2" long and an 11" barrel firing a 11 pound ball.

It is said that the firing of Jaivana cannon took 220 lbs of powder , which had the handling soldiers taking refuge in water barrels to prevent burns from the intense heat generated. While Mons Meg had huge caliber, the Jaivana had range of up to 22 miles if I have read correctly.


The Mons Meg cannon apparently burst in 1680, rendering it effectively inert and I wonder if that was from the manner of construction which consisted of iron staves rather than solid cast iron.


You're most welcome, Jim. Thank you for taking an interest, I know that this subject is outside your bailiwick. It's great that you presented a comparison piece, Mons Meg, with essential technical info. Here are some comments on the interesting points you raise.

1. First, a question for you. Do you have R D Smith / R R Brown, Bombards: Mons Meg and Her Sisters (Royal Armouries Monographs series, 1989)? It quite clearly lays out the elements which define a bombard, a type of mega-artillery which originated in the final decades of the Middle Ages. We can see from this that they can be distinguished, by their design and construction, from large cannon of later eras. The most obvious difference, and which affected ballistics and field performance, was the fact that bombards were constructed of forged wrought iron, consisting of longitudinal staves forming a tube stabilized by an outer shell of forge-welded hoops and reinforcing mouldings. (hence, in English the word for the tubular portion of a gun is "barrel"). The inherent limitations of this method led to its abandonment by the turn of the 16th cent. in favor of cast pieces in bronze or iron.

2. The bursting of Mons Meg in 1680 makes a modern reader wonder who might have thought that it was still safe to shoot over 230 years after its manufacture, and apparently being exposed to the elements for much of that time. Here is an object built up of numerous iron pieces welded together with heat and hammer (a remarkable feat in and of itself) -- all those mating surfaces, interstices which are subject to slag inclusions, incomplete welds, etc., coupled with the corrosive effects of atmospheric moisture for many years...

Not to mention that between the mid-1400s and 1680, gunpowder manufacture had improved markedly. Early powder was ground to the consistency of flour or "meal" -- it tended to settle into its constituent ingredients during transport, and its consistency impeded efficient combustion because insufficient oxygen got into the mixture. During the 15th cent, it was found that powder of "corned" or granular consistency made for faster and more consistent rate of ignition: therefore more POWER. However this increased the internal pressure in the barrel, making the bombard construction woefully inadequate.

3. Re projectile size and weight. Because of the different ballistic profiles of bombards and later cannon, comparing bore diameter and weight of shot between the types is not all that meaningful. The reason that most large cannon made during the 16th cent. and later have smaller bores on average* than earlier bombards is that gunners realized, with the improved ammunition at their disposal (corned powder and precisely cast iron balls), that a shot traveling at greater speed packed more projectile energy and therefore more destructive force, not to mention being capable of greater range and accuracy (the latter due to a more consistent burning rate of granular powder).

* leaving mortars out of the discussion for now, since these specialized guns have a totally different role and function than the types of artillery we are considering here.

4. Performance of Jaivana: 22 miles is an impossibly long range. I recall from reading the text in Fernando's post that estimates vary considerably, but 3 miles is a more realistic figure. A lot of this depends on the quality of the powder used, and the elevation to which the tube could be raised. It is an axiom in ballistics that the maximum range that can be achieved by a gun, ceteris paribus, is at an elevation of 45 degrees, this principle proved by the Italian mathematician Tartaglia in the 15th cent. (he is said to have invented the gunner's quadrant which became essential in gunnery practice for the next 400 years). Do we have any idea of how the one test shot with Jaivana was conducted?

5. Fuel economy: 220 lb of powder to power an 11-in. diameter cannonball sounds like an awful lot. Would be interesting to compare this with the powder charges of the largest fortress guns of the 18th cent.; British and French gunnery manuals of the era would have this info. I'm wondering if for this firing, the earlier type of fine-consistency powder was used. For instance, bombards required a prodigious amount of gunpowder in order to function (the powder chambers of these cannons is a separate part of the bore so it's easy to estimate the volume of powder required) simply because the relative weakness of the explosive required it.

Now, for the gunners having to dunk themselves to avoid being toasted by the blast. I wonder where they were standing when Jaivana was touched off. I can imagine a frightful muzzle blast but who would stand near the front end of something like this? For a barrel that's 20 feet long, one would think that somewhere to the side and rear should be sufficient, and that ear protection would nonetheless be the order of the day.

[fernando]

I assume i was more bringing in the 'curiosity' of the notes as they were published out there, that not worried to ponder on the accuracy of their technical assumptions.
We all know that exorbitation is the middle name of story tellers.
I have made a timeline chart with a few of the examples in exhibition and described in A ARTILHARIA EM PORTUGAL (1982), written by General Manuel F. T. Barata, when of an event in the Oporto Military Museum where, among other details, that of the guns reach is rather more realistic.
It is undeniable that (mainly) the evolution of gunpowder, added to the elevation angle of the piece and other parallel technologies contributed for an exponential reach and impact of projectiles.


.

[fernando]

... Now, for the gunners having to dunk themselves to avoid being toasted by the blast. I wonder where they were standing when Jaivana was touched off. I can imagine a frightful muzzle blast but who would stand near the front end of something like this? For a barrel that's 20 feet long, one would think that somewhere to the side and rear should be sufficient, and that ear protection would nonetheless be the order of the day...
I wouldn't know, without researching, how loud was primitive gunpowder explosion noise in comparison to that of nowadays. In an episode i made part when 'punishing' a determined spot somewhere in the bush, with a 8.8 (1983) howitzer, all the gunner used to get away from the noise was a rough string extension with less than 2 yards.

---
However looking further, in a little publication i have in the Artillery in North Africa during the XV-XVI centuries, one can read episodes like accidents occurred with gunpowder burning, poisoning caused by thick smoke coming out of collective cannon mouths in closed quarters like towers, and the damage caused by the high sonority level produced when of gunpowder ignition. In fact, the boom of artillery caused so much horror, that were men that became deaf and for many days will not hear any thing.
Damião de Gois
J. Manuel Cordeiro
D.Manuel de Menezes.

[Jim McDougall]

Philip, thank you so much for the further information on this topic! As I noted, while not a field of study I have much entertained over the years, this thread has 'sparked' a genuine interest and I am enjoying learning more.
I am hoping that readers here will also have their interests piqued if not already involved in the study of artillery.

Actually I do not have the reference on 'Mons Meg' that you mentioned, however I had noticed material on it over the years, one that comes to mind was in JAAS many years ago.
I did not bring Mons Meg into the discussion as any sort of competition or contesting comparison, but merely an example of another 'notably huge' cannon.

I am intrigued by some of the elements of the firing of such cannon, and hope I might pose some questions regarding things brought up here.

I had noted (from the reference I read) that the gunners sought refuge from the enormous heat generated by this huge amount of black powder ignited, either in or behind water containers. While obviously the amount of powder is a matter of debate, it certainly was considerable.
The flash and sparks would come out the end of the barrel, but how much heat would be released from the touch end of it as it seems the explosion would be contained?

Obviously the sound of the explosion from such a load of powder would be enormous, but from what I have understood, not nearly the report from more modern cannon, would that be correct?

There seems to be a great deal of attention to the quality of powder, and I recall in study on the Seige at the Alamo, one of the pressing issues was the poor quality of the Mexican black powder that had been captured (not to mention lack of men to properly man them).
Would the grade of powder have notable effect on the nature of the explosion as far as sound, heat etc.

I recall reading on the Alamo battle that the Mexicans with their poor powder had to load extra to gain sufficient charge, thus they had to hold their muskets at the hip to avoid the pan flash which would burn their faces.
If I understand correctly, the powder used in cannon is different than that used in firearms.
Could the nature of the powder used in these large cannon be pertinent to the results of firing we are considering?

Could the same have been the result in firing, and damaging, of Mons Meg?

I did notice that Mons Meg's barrel consisted on longitudinal staves (fascinating note on the term 'barrel'!!) which may have contributed to its failure. Some time ago I did some research work on the deck guns used on 17th c. vessels (in this case a pirate wreck) and found that a number of these breech block guns were indeed 'staved'. Interesting note, in references on Mons Meg it was termed 'murderer', and a particular type of these deck guns was also termed 'murderer'.
One wonders if perhaps the term deviously referred to the potential danger to those firing them.

Returning to the Jaigargh cannon, it does not seem surprising this huge cannon was fired only once. While it seemed an impressive and formidable weapon,it does not seem that viable as a siege weapon due to its size and lack of maneuverability despite the ingenious oxen power device.
It would be no problem to redirect an attack on the fortress from another direction before this could be moved.

Also, much as (again) what happened at the Alamo, cannon were less than effective at short or immediate range as a rule as those on parapets could not fore downward. Obviously at reasonable range, they could fire cannister or langrage into oncoming mass of attackers.
Such would not be the case with these massive cannon.

I hope my Alamo analogies do not too much detract as I am just using them in comparative analysis.

[fernando]

... I did not bring Mons Meg into the discussion as any sort of competition or contesting comparison, but merely an example of another 'notably huge' cannon...
Jim, do i gather that the only comment that you have over my previous humble contribution/s, are my using the 'contest' word ? meaning that, if it weren't for such flaw, you would simply ignore the rest of my entries ... ;).
So, if i resource my better English and say 'balanced parallelism' instead of 'balanced contest' are my notes worth a better reception ? :rolleyes:.
Keep well :cool:.

[Philip]

I wouldn't know, without researching, how loud was primitive gunpowder explosion noise in comparison to that of nowadays.

---
However looking further, in a little publication i have in the Artillery in North Africa during the XV-XVI centuries, one can read episodes like accidents occurred with gunpowder burning, poisoning caused by thick smoke coming out of collective cannon mouths in closed quarters like towers, and the damage caused by the high sonority level produced when of gunpowder ignition. In fact, the boom of artillery caused so much horror, that were men that became deaf and for many days will not hear any thing.
Damião de Gois
J. Manuel Cordeiro
D.Manuel de Menezes.

Yes, Nando, we can't travel through a time warp with decibel meters in order to find out :D

Seriously the points you raised were a considerable factor faced by commanders and soldiers until the end of the black powder era (1880s, orthereabouts, when "smokeless" powders first hit the market). Turkish chronicles describing preparations for the Ottoman siege of Constantinople (1453) mention that when a giant bombard made by the Hungarian renegade engineer Orban was tested in a nearby town, the noise caused women to miscarry from fright. The reason that armies wore bright colored uniforms and carried large regimental flags through much of the 19th cent. was so that troops and their leaders could distinguish friend from foe in the dense smoke generated by the volley fire of muskets, on top of the smoke of larger-bore weapons like cannon and the explosion of mortar shells.

[Philip]

I am intrigued by some of the elements of the firing of such cannon, and hope I might pose some questions regarding things brought up here.


The flash and sparks would come out the end of the barrel, but how much heat would be released from the touch end of it as it seems the explosion would be contained?

There seems to be a great deal of attention to the quality of powder, and I recall in study on the Seige at the Alamo, one of the pressing issues was the poor quality of the Mexican black powder that had been captured

I recall reading on the Alamo battle that the Mexicans with their poor powder had to load extra to gain sufficient charge, thus they had to hold their muskets at the hip to avoid the pan flash which would burn their faces.
If I understand correctly, the powder used in cannon is different than that used in firearms.

Could the same have been the result in firing, and damaging, of Mons Meg?

.

Having stood near a fair number of muzzle-loading cannon when fired, I can say that most of the combustion byproducts would emerge from the muzzle end. The touchhole is typically 1/4 inch in diameter or a bit less, there will be some spark and smoke spurting upwards out of it but not enough to pose a real risk in and of itself. The thing to remember about these guns is that there is no recoil-absorbing mechanism so the entire cannon rolls back on its carriage if fired with a full load + shot. That is why artillery drill called for the crew to stand back and to the side at moment of firing. The cannoneer, in particular, had to be completely clear of the wheel(s) or the carriage trail when he applied the linstock, or jerked the fulminate primer cord. The recoil of a large gun could crush a man to death. Also, standing back was especially beneficial to all, in order to avoid inhaling a snoutful of sulphurous smoke, made worse if the wind was contrary.

Re the quality of gunpowder. It depends not only on the formulation and care taken in manufacture, but the conditions of storage and transport. Black powder is notoriously unstable. It is hygroscopic (moisture-absorbent; consider that carbon and saltpeter are primary constituents) and thus has a limited storage life (compared to modern nitrocellulose powders) unless kept well sealed in very dry conditions. Jim, have you found out anything about the manufacture of powder in Mexico during the period in question, or the level of the country's military supply and logistics?

If Mexico was anything like the late Qing Dynasty, corruption had its effect on military provisioning. A common trick played by contractors supplying gunpowder during the Opium Wars period was to adulterate it with sand. So much so that it sometimes failed to explode. The cannon-founders realized this so they took shortcuts in the casting process, and used inferior alloys. The result being that most 19th cent. Chinese cannon, with the exception of those made in French-supervised plants in southern China, were not much more dependable than the wrought iron bombards of late medieval Europe. The ruling Manchus were apparently too fixated on their heritage of shooting arrows from galloping horses to take the problem seriously enough.

So why did Mons Meg burst in 1680? Not having seen a metallurgist's report, I can surmise that it was likely due to structural deterioration of the forged iron components over two centuries, and moreover that it was probably loaded with the more powerful corned or granular powder as opposed to the early, weaker meal powder with its slow and inconsistent combustion rate (see my first post explaining this in some detail). The evolution of barrel construction tended to go lockstep with progress in propellants. This is why today's shooters of black-powder weapons, including replicas made to modern metallurgical standards, are warned never to load with nitrocellulose powder.. Even the breech loading double barrel shotguns, made of damascus steel, from the late 19th cent must always be used with black powder shotshells.

[fernando]

... The reason that armies wore bright colored uniforms and carried large regimental flags through much of the 19th cent. was so that troops and their leaders could distinguish friend from foe in the dense smoke generated by the volley fire of muskets, on top of the smoke of larger-bore weapons like cannon and the explosion of mortar shells.
Ah Filipe ... the colored uniform resource didn't occur to me but, reading chronicles of the Peninsular war (1807-14), the impossibility to discern a thing whilst battling, with all that musketry and artillery smoke, is repeatedly mentioned.

[Jim McDougall]

Jim, do i gather that the only comment that you have over my previous humble contribution/s, are my using the 'contest' word ? meaning that, if it weren't for such flaw, you would simply ignore the rest of my entries ... ;).
So, if i resource my better English and say 'balanced parallelism' instead of 'balanced contest' are my notes worth a better reception ? :rolleyes:.
Keep well :cool:.

Fernando, I could not possibly ignore your entries, in fact they are profoundly thorough, and the only reason I brought up the contrasting Mons Meg was indeed as a parallel comparison. My concern was that you might perceive my addition of that gun as detracting from this most interesting Indian gun.

As I mentioned, the subject of artillery is far outside my regular purview so I have been trying to address this topic so as to learn as much as I can. Philip had presented some elements that I wished to go further on, so I asked some questions.
My off center position is easily seen in the faux pas you kindly corrected where I noted inches instead of feet in the 20 ft. barrel! Oops! :)

I very much appreciate the expertise of both of you in this thread, and it is exciting to learn more on such a fascinating topic. It's great that you posted this in this thread.....great subject and interesting history.

[Philip]

Returning to the Jaigargh cannon, it does not seem surprising this huge cannon was fired only once. While it seemed an impressive and formidable weapon,it does not seem that viable as a siege weapon due to its size and lack of maneuverability despite the ingenious oxen power device.
It would be no problem to redirect an attack on the fortress from another direction before this could be moved.



At least it went bang! once. The Russians like to say that the Tsar Pushka, or Emperor Cannon, standing in the Moscow Kremlin is the largest artillery piece cast in pre-industrial times. Be that as it may, it is humongous. And it has never been fired. It was more likely intended as a visual reminder that the country's ruler had some big toys and that other kids on the block must take heed. (The Russians also have the world's biggest bell, the Tsar Kolokol, which tradition says was never rung; a fire that broke out before it was ready for use caused it to fall and break, it's on display in Moscow with the detached chunk lying beside it; s child could crawl through the gap as I recall from seeing it.)

I agree that Jaivana was likely intended to be an intimidating piece of garrison artillery and not a siege gun due to the mobility issue. Keep in mind that gun carriages of the 17th cent. were ponderous, and that roads in many parts of the world were dicey. Accounts of European military campaigns during that time and prior do contain mention of road quality (along with the effects of seasonal weather) as a factor in logistics, especially the movement of heavy guns. This was one of the reasons that commanders preferred to limit their campaigning to when the ground dried after spring rains, and onward til before the climate turned problematic in later fall.

A comparison of the two Ottoman sieges of Vienna (1529 and 1683) is instructive. The earlier effort was marked by the extensive use of artillery by the Turks in an attempt to breach the city walls. The Ottos had to haul their big guns up through Rumelia and the Balkans to reach the theater of operations, and the siege was lifted because the invaders could not take the city as fall approached and their troops were getting restive.

In 1683, the Turks tried something else, realizing that the now-stronger defenses required even heavier guns which had to be laboriously transported north. So they relied instead on their fabled engineer corps to supervise teams of sappers to dig an extensive network of approach trenches, and tunnels going under the moat and thick ramparts to penetrate deep under what is now central Vienna. The tunneling endeavor was ultimately stymied because the defenders developed ingenious methods for detecting underground activity, and in most cases were able to dig counter-mines to neutralize the threat.

[Jim McDougall]

Philip, in answer to your question on Mexican powder and arms logistics in the Alamo period, during my research on that fell short as no specific mention of the source of their powder was found.
I can only presume that the British, who supplied most of their arms also provided black powder as well.
The main issue in the powder that remained in the Alamo among numbers of captured arms and cannon, was (as described by Mrs Dickson in her account) 'damaged'.
It was March in Texas, known for damp, cold conditions, and it is not hard to imagine the powder becoming unreactive or insufficient for normal use.

The Mexican army rifles were notably insufficient in firing, and extra charge as well as buck and ball were used to compensate. While the Mexican army was said to have steadily bombarded the Alamo for over a week before the attack, it was noted that none of the fire had caused notable damage or casualties. The powder charges were apparently inadequate to effectively reach their target.

I agree that the Jiavana cannon was probably an intimidating element, despite the fact that its maneuvering was not particularly expeditious.
Its rather like, if they've got that huge thing up there, who knows how many other pieces are about.
Your notes on moving huge siege guns through horrible transporting conditions remind me of the movie "The Pride and the Passion" with the troops struggling with ropes and oxen etc. trying to move one through muck and mire.

These insights into the artillery aspects of warfare are fascinating, and provide great overall context and dimension in understanding the logistics of these weapons and battles.

Fernando, looking back at the chart of guns in the Portuguese report, it is fascinating to see the different terminology used in the variant types. I had not been aware of differences between a bombard and other guns, nor what a howitzer was exactly.

These discussions make me appreciate more the profound contributions our late friend Matchlock made here, and wish I had paid more attention then.

[Philip]

Philip, in answer to your question on Mexican powder and arms logistics in the Alamo period...
I can only presume that the British, who supplied most of their arms also provided black powder as well.

It was March in Texas, known for damp, cold conditions, and it is not hard to imagine the powder becoming unreactive or insufficient for normal use.

The Mexican army rifles were notably insufficient in firing, and extra charge as well as buck and ball were used to compensate. While the Mexican army was said to have steadily bombarded the Alamo for over a week before the attack, it was noted that none of the fire had caused notable damage or casualties. The powder charges were apparently inadequate to effectively reach their target.



Hey Jim, muchas gracias por esta información. My knowledge of a lot of New World military history is quite thin, so this is helpful. You are teaching me new things. The British supplying Gen. Santa Ana's army, for instance. So, would his troops be armed mostly with Brown Besses, and English-made cannon? If the Brits provided the powder, I can imagine what it went through on the sea voyage across the Pond, then goodness knows the storage conditions in Mexican depots (and for how long), then the damp of Texas spring (this is an eye opener for me since I have no experience with that state except for changing planes at Dallas/Ft.Worthj airport, and I never stepped out of the terminal.).

Regarding small arms in the 1820-30s Mexican service, were there many rifles in use? In the US and the advanced European armies of those decades, smoothbore muskets were the norm, since arms with rifled barrels were issued to special units like sharpshooters who had more advanced training and justified the additional cost of producing the weapons.

My interest in firearms of the Iberian Peninsula has sparked my curiosity about military and sporting small arms used in the Spanish colonies and their successor states shortly after gaining independence. My impression is that the firearms of that region and time were, like swords, primarily imports from Spain, or local copies thereof. Eudaldo Graells, in Les Armes de Foc de Ripoll, includes excerpts from documents that demonstrate a thriving export trade from the gunmaking town of Ripoll in Cataluña to Mexico and Cuba in the 18th cent.

Miquelet pistols with a colonial Mexican or American Southwest provenance do show up in collections and at gun shows; mostly they are low- to medium-grade, some are now composite thanks to period overhauls, and they tend to be in well-worn condition. Signed work by Latin American gunsmiths is rare, as are top-flight Spanish imports for the carriage trade -- there is a gorgeous pair in the collection depot of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the stocks overlaid with filigree and chased silver undoubtedly done by a Mexican artisan in the 18th cent. Also a rare Ripoll miquelet pistol stocked in the Brescian manner, probably end 17th cent but stylistically earlier, with pierced brass overlay depicting Aztec-looking warrior figures battling sea monsters and playing music, sold at Czernys auction house 8 June 2008, lot 1899.

Finally, do you have Howard L Blackmore's Guns and Rifles of the World? Photoplate # 67 shows a curious matchlock, of a form clearly derived from 16th cent. Spanish musket (including the tiller trigger), though with insufficient patina to be that old, with Latin American folk motifs inlaid in brass and a crude inscription with the improbable date 1844 on the lockplate whose lower contour has a bulge reminiscent of the shape of a wheellock (Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, inv. no. 1894.133). A real oddball!


If you have info on what models of British military long arms and pistols were supplied to newly-independent Mexico, please share that info -- maybe a new thread would be nice since we seem to be drifting away from India, and cannons in particular with this discussion.

[Philip]

Fernando, looking back at the chart of guns in the Portuguese report, it is fascinating to see the different terminology used in the variant types. I had not been aware of differences between a bombard and other guns, nor what a howitzer was exactly.

.

Jim, the names of artillery pieces is a fascinating subject in itself. First off, our term "gun" is derived from the word "gonne" which was first applied during the late Middle Ages to mechanical catapults.

The "falconet" in Fernando's museum table was a common term for a very light artillery piece, its long but slender barrel having a bore as small as about an inch or slightly bigger. The names of birds were often applied to artillery pieces, generally of lighter caliber. Thus, the "robinet" which incidentally was earlier used to identify another type of catapult. And there's the "saker" which is, as I recall, a species of hawk.

Reptilian names, of real or mythical beasts, were used for some larger bore weapons. There was the "culverin" , from culebra or serpent. And the "basilisk".

To answer your question, a howitzer (Ger. Haubitz) is a gun of large enough bore to shoot an explosive shell, but of fairly short barrel length, mounted to fire at medium elevations (around 20 to 45 degrees), usually for the purpose of breaking up enemy formations in the open field with bursts of shapnel.

At the extreme are mortars, very short large bore guns shooting bombs at very high elevations, designed to drop their bursting shells behind enemy fortifications, to clear or penetrate the decks of ships, or to hit troop formations behind hillocks or other obstacles. (small hand-held versions in shoulder stocks and fitted with flintlocks were even made to launch grenades)

[fernando]

It is undeniable that, the first efficient component in artillery was not its wished purpose but the noise, that imposed fright among the enemy's hordes.
Aside from the first registered use of artillery in the Peninsula, which took place in the siege of Algeciras (1342-1344) where Yusuf I, Sultan of Granada, "fired iron projectiles from primitive gunpowder bombards, which caused extensive damage*, we have the Battle of Aljubarrota (1385), in which the Spaniards were equipped with 16 trons**, which only managed to kill two Portuguese and a British (ally) in the in the defenders right wing, with one of the volleys; however the trons fuss causing great consternation among the Portuguese horde, as our men of arms did not know such weapon.
* I am not certain of the type of the damage; a plausible inferrement would contextually be the psycho impact, rather than physical.
** Trom is the onomatopoeic name given after the noise caused by these devices (troooom).
In the Portuguese Navy museum, there is a device called Aljubarrota Trom, recognized as neither having being in the Aljubarrota battle, contrary to tradition, nor being a whole trom, but a loading chamber for one of the trom kind. With 1.7 yards in length and weighing 1.5 ton, must have served a 5 to 6 yards gun, basically due for beating walled fortification gates.

In a timeline as from then, artillery pieces were given a countless series of names, from those of birds, beasts, and other, until they ended up being named after their caliber (six pounder, twelve pounder), still not forgetting that, before a caliber 'standardization' was 'imposed', yet long after it was 'idealized', calibers existed for all tastes, through all such timeline, which caused great difficulty to check on what ammunition to introduce in each barrel.
It is amazing to see a (Portuguese, for one) list (never complete) of early cannon variants:
Besides gross an small bombards, bombardetas, and cradles we had ...
Eagles ... large and small,
Falcons and falconetes,
Lions (large cannon),
Camels and cameletes (ex-Moroccan wars and after in India),
1/4 cannon (circa 1/2 ton, for field use by King Dom Sebastião)
Bears,
Dogs (small bronze piece),
Serpentines (short culverins),
Serps,
Culverins and half culverins,
Culverins, bastards and legitimate,
Basiliscs (for siege),
Sacres and half sacres (1/4 and 1/8 culverin, used by Dutch),
Aspides,
Esperas (waits) and half esperas (short cannons),
Espalhafatos (fusses; threw stone balls 5 to 7 spans around ),
Selvagens (savages),
Roqueiras or forneiras,
Pedreiros (after stone projectiles),
Passa-volantes (Italian inspired).
Passa muros (one in Arzila thew 127 pound balls)
Mortars (from Latin mortarium=pestle),
Trabucos,
Esmerilhão (like a falconete, used in Alcacer Quibir)

To be continued ... ;)


.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Philip,
I have been fascinated with weapons of the Spanish colonial era for as long as I can remember, but as I have noted it has been with focus on edged weapons.
With the Mexican Independence of 1821, they had of course huge stockpiles of Spanish weaponry.
What I recall is that the use of the lance as a primary weapon as well as for hunting etc. in 18th century New Spain was due to poorly maintained guns and lack of powder.
With that it does not seem that Mexico had the necessary facilities or resources for producing black powder, and this extended apparently into the 19th c.
While they acquired considerable numbers of British arms in the mid 1820s it is unclear whether the powder was also from them.
With its poor substance it sounds more like they were attempting to produce their own powder, but lacked the necessary skill and materials to do so.
One Texian grumbled that the Mexican powder was 'like ground charcoal'.

The Mexican army did use rifles in degree, which were India pattern Baker rifles, but the bulk of their weapons were India pattern British muskets. There were some French Charleville muskets I believe and of course varying Spanish weapons.

While this subject matter is of course some deviation from the OP cannon in Rajasthan, but the topic concerning powder has led indirectly to this course in discussion. I totally agree that a new thread on the arms of Mexico would be in order, and I will try to put together notes to do that.

Again, I wanted to thank you for the great further insight into the terms used for various guns and artillery, and Fernando for the detailed supporting material on these. I am always intrigued by the terms used in Portuguese parlance in weapons which he always furnishes in these discussions.

Fernando, thank you, and to be continued, YES!!!
Learning a lot here, and I hope to continue much further.

[Jim McDougall]

From most of what I have been able to find online, there seems to be a lot of myth and hyperbole on this gun. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems to have inspired the 1933 CS Forester novel "The Gun", which later was made into a movie in 1957, "The Pride and the Passion", about the travails of trying to transport such a huge cannon.

While most accounts say this gun was fired only once in 1720, others claim it was fired numerous times, as evidenced by fire marks inside the barrel. The disputes over the actual range have apparently been largely exaggerated in accord with the huge size of the gun.

It also seems that a water tank was often placed near guns, particularly large ones, for gunners to literally dive into to avoid the shock wave and it seems the heat from the explosion. I would think more research would be necessary on the validity of that perspective.

With the huge gun, it would seem the very noise of firing it would be a profound declaration of power, and disconcerting to any potential attackers as well as the surrounding populace. We have at times been located near Ft. Hood here in Texas, and often we would hear resounding report booming in the distance, and a sense of concussion almost as the practice firing of their artillery took place. It is very convincing!

Though this is a huge cannon, firing 110 lb ball, it is hard to imagine the explosion from 220 pounds of powder! I would not wish to be standing next to this kind of explosion as these poor gunners must have. Another account claimed the gunner was killed by the detonation of this huge gun before he could make the water tank. Naturally it is hard to determine the truth from the lore in these things.

[fernando]

Jim, just an intermediate note to say that, it was already established that, the 220 pounds gunpowder load is definitely unreal data, in the best, a miswriting flaw from the article author or of the article text itself.
More to come ;) .

[Jim McDougall]

Jim, just an intermediate note to say that, it was already established that, the 220 pounds gunpowder load is definitely unreal data, in the best, a miswriting flaw from the article author or of the article text itself.
More to come ;) .


Thanks Fernando, it seems there have been a lot of those in these many entries I have come across...kinda like the 25 mile range. 220 pounds.....yikes, wouldn't want to be within blocks let alone next to it...not even in a water tank!

[Philip]

It also seems that a water tank was often placed near guns, particularly large ones, for gunners to literally dive into to avoid the shock wave and it seems the heat from the explosion. I would think more research would be necessary on the validity of that perspective.

With the huge gun, it would seem the very noise of firing it would be a profound declaration of power, and disconcerting to any potential attackers as well as the surrounding populace.



So true, Jim. Consider that when guns appeared at the close of the Middle Ages, their mechanical inefficiency, slow rate of fire, and general unreliability was more than offset by their psychological power. Think noise, smoke, flames, and the stink of sulphur -- just the way that the clergy had been describing Hell from the pulpit for centuries, to an impressionable and superstitious populace. It is not hard to imagine the poor Turkish women miscarrying their babies from sheer fright after a test shot from the bombard that Orban made for Sultan Mehmet II's assault on Constantinople.

The water tank idea is worth researching. I can imagine its utility for gun emplacements in confined quarters within a system of fortifications, such as covered casemates in bastions and towers, or from embrasures located at the base of adjoining ramparts that would confine the effects of muzzle blast on the gun crews. (Recalling, from previous posts, that cannons recoiled some distance when fired and black powder emits a tremendous amount of flame and smoke which open air can only partially dissipate)

Siege narratives from the period describe the hellish conditions to be expected. Especially graphic are the memoirs of knights and soldiers who defended Malta during the Ottoman siege of 1565, where the impact of incoming cannonballs and the detonations of return fire made it feel like the massive walls of Fort Sant' Angelo were rocking like a boat at sea. Losing one's hearing for days afterward was probably just the beginning of some men's misfortunes after enduring this and other privations, especially in a siege which lasted for many weeks, in the heat of a Mediterranean summer no less.

[fernando]

On the Mons Meg ...
I know you guys are more focused on why it cracked, but i find it also interesting to find when it cracked... as attached down below.

On the cannons recoil ...
A problematic issue with artillery aboard ships; even considering that their carriages were tied to the ship walls, to limit their course.
This fell into the complexity of bringing gross artillery aboard, as opposed to earlier conviction that ships could only carry relatively small guns, given to their structure, namely then vessels width (narrow breadth).
In order to achieve success in their sea adventures, the Portuguese invented or took advantage of previous inventions, upgrading their basics. For a start, the heavier guns (camelos) * were mounted aboard the lower board ships (caravels) thus avoiding the tilt caused by such guns on high board carracks (naus), those which were equipped with smaller ordnance for their defense purposes. This was the start of advantage in sea warfare.Then a new idea was to build watertight gunports ** in the ships hull by a lower deck level, thus gaining more fire power and the possibility to shoot fire at the waterline (ao lume d'água), an extraordinary asset, as the ball would take a horizontal trajectory, keeping to bounce off the water surface and hitting the enemy's more lightly built (Turc) ships at water level, causing their quick sinking.


On the water tank episodes ...
Not that this did not take place but, there would be a difference between shooting a gigantic gun in confined spaces, which dual occurrence is not the general rule, and shooting them in the open field, like in siege or beating situations where, apart from the environmental fuss ***, somehow the smoke burn and air dislocation find ways to escape. Notwithstanding that, during artillery primitive ages, all kinds of accidents would take place, where hardly gunners stood safe. For come reason the French used convicted men to operate them ;).

On the gunpowder quality, Alamo and all ...
It takes a few contextual reasons for gunpowder not being successfully effective; from early times where the invention still had an incipient condition, passing by the difficulty in acquiring the ideal ingredients ***, and ending wth the ineptitude of non specialized makers ... not forgetting climate conditions (humidity) most depending in the place where it is stored.

* As these guns shot stone projectiles (pelouros), their lower density, as opposed to iron, made thin barrels feasible, and the resultant pieces were remarkably light when compared to their destructive power.

** This revolutionary idea is attributed to a Descharges, but other nations started by declining it, with fears to weaken the ships hull structure. But the Portuguese, circa four years earlier, took the risk, by placing them in pondered hull spots, as it was fundamental to lower the artillery center of gravity.

*** Philip is right in that the Constantinople crowd ran for their lives over Mehmed's massive cannon firing endlessly on the walls, but maybe the effect from the assailants side was not so unbearable, specially spaced by the extremely slow rate of its reloading; adding by the way that (as i've read), its imprecision gave the besieged the opportunity to repair most of the damage after each shot, limiting the cannon's effect.
Is such story plausible, Philip ?
This being true, such cannon reloading procedure gave a chance for the Turcs to dry their bodies between each diving into water tank.

**** Such look for precious gunpowder raw materials may be observed in the third attached text.

So long :cool: ...


.

[kronckew]

Cannons were usually fired with the muzzles outside their embrasures, and the heat, smoke and pressure waves were mostly (but not all) directed forward away from the crew, who learned quickly not to stand forward of the muzzle, or behind the carriage. A 'loose cannon' was a danger to all.

Any excess powder un-burnt outside the barrel is essentially wasted as it has no effect on propelling the projectile, just in making noise and heat. Establishing the correct charge would require a few firings of it or a close 'standard'relative and would also depend on the quality of the powder. Originally the overly hygroscopic powder was rather finely ground before mechanically mixing and tended not only to absorb moisture, but would rapidly separate if shaken during transport or storage. It also had a nasty habit of exploding and killing the mixers. Early Cannon masters on average were not old men as they had their own secret and personal recipes as to it's constituents and how to grind and mix the stuff. They learned not to use any iron/steel fittings, tool, nails, just brass or bronze, which is non-sparking. (felt slippers, as iron boot nails were also a no-no.)

Wet mixing and extrusion into known sized strings of known lengths along with sieving, corning, was not only more consistent, but less hygroscopic, and did not settle out. standardising the grains into the F system resulted in standard and consistent results. As did sealing it into tins rather than wood barrels. Even ww2 Iowa class battleships stored their bagged powder in non-sparking sealed tins in their magazines.

Now on to the mystery behind the letter 'F'. The letter 'F' stands for "Fine" and dates back to the time when the grains were designated F or C (for "coarse" grains). The number of times the letter F occurs in the powder grade shows the average size of the powder grains. The more times the letter F occurs in the name, the smaller the grains. What this means is that the size of "FFFg" grains are smaller than "FFg" grains, and "FFFFg" is even smaller than these two. When black powder is manufactured, the grains are sorted through sieves of standard sizes and classified that way.


Powder-Grade----Mesh-Size----Average-Size-in-mm.

Whaling------------4-mesh-------4.750-mm.-(0.187-in.)
Cannon-------------6-mesh-------3.35-mm.-(0.132-in.)
Saluting-(A-1)----10-mesh------2.0-mm.-(0.079-in.)
Fg-------------------12-mesh------1.7-mm.-(0.0661-in.)
FFg-----------------16-mesh------1.18-mm.-(0.0469-in.)
FFFg---------------20-mesh------0.85-mm.-(0.0331-in.)
FFFFg-------------40-mesh------0.47-mm.
FFFFFg-----------75-mesh------0.149-mm.

Note that the first 3 grades are intended for use with cannon. The A-1 grade is generally used for artillery blanks used for firing gun salutes. Fg is made for using in large bore rifles and shotguns (8-gauge and larger). FFg powder is used for historical small arms such as muskets, fusils, rifles and large pistols. FFFg powder is for smaller caliber rifles (below .45 caliber), pistols, cap-and-ball revolvers, derringers etc. FFFFg and FFFFFg are mostly used as priming powder for flintlocks. In the image above, the two grades of powder were intended to be used in a historical re-enactment and the FFg powder was meant for the main powder charge of a flintlock rifle, while the FFFFg powder was intended to be used in the pan of the flintlock as a priming powder.

[Jim McDougall]

Guys, these are amazing and powerfully informational entries, thank you so much! I have been hitting the books for it seems countless hours of every day trying to augment the thorough detail and insight you have both been adding here. As someone who has studied weapons most of my life, it is amazing to finally have growing understanding of these dynamics.
Fernando, your post of 'interest' in an unusual cannon has led this thread to develop into a diverse discussion on artillery which I think will warrant intriguing discussions on separate threads on these diverse topics.
Gratefully, may I say,well done...again it is exciting to learn from you guys which bolsters the research I am doing as well.

Philip, thank you for your detailed response!
As you note, the psychological effect of these huge guns must have been powerful, as the dramatic effect of gunpowder from its early development in China to the advance of firearms eventually in Europe are well known.

From what I have learned on gunpowder (I know that technically it was 'black powder' ironically not really black but grayish)..this compound of varied components was often termed 'serpentine'.
This goes to the nicknaming of many cannon using that term, and perhaps allusion to fire breathing dragons etc.
With that, the curious gun terms we have discussed brings to mind, the 'dragon' a term for a cavalry (?) firearm, hence the term 'dragoons' for mounted soldiers.

As you have described, it must have been hellish in confined spaces no matter in what degree with the expulsion not only of heat, but the debilitating if not deadly gasses discharged with firing. The shock wave and deafening noise had to have been equally threatening.

In early times and in cultures even into the Middle Ages, the susceptible nature of people to superstition, myth and lore must have brought to mind the same 'hellish' associations as with blacksmiths who worked with fire and mysterious materials in their craft. These aspects of warfare and weaponry are fascinating historically, and certainly come to mind with these huge cannons.

Fernando, absolutely intriguing synopsis of the elements of this discussion and its diverse topics featured. I especially very much appreciate learning more on the appropriate placement of the cannon aboard ships, which is something I don't think is often thought of in the study of naval warfare.
I think the Portuguese were way ahead of the game in these considerations as it seems ships like the 'Vasa' in Sweden toppled over due to improper distribution of weight, most likely the abundance of cannon.
I believe I once read that the curious numbers marked on naval cannon (besides weight) were indicating what position on the ship the guns were to be placed.
Lowering the CG (center of gravity.....I well learned in the airline business with weight and balance for aircraft) is brilliantly noted as well as its additional purpose in hitting the target at the water level ).

I agree that the numbers and sorts of accidents taking place with the firing of artillery must have been many, as the volatility and conditions involved were pretty much the recipe for disaster with the slightest oversight. I think that accidental explosion with too fast reloading and possibility of residual embers sparking ignition was probably a problem. It makes sense that a certain and timely procedure was prudent if not essential to complete the protocols of loading properly.

With the considerations of powder, as has been noted in the Alamo context, the production of gunpowder is a curiously overlooked figment of history as far as many military situations. Saltpeter, an essential component, was a tightly controlled commodity, and while it can feasibly be processed 'naturally' using handy and openly available materials, it takes skill and knowledge to compose it effectively.

I have noted that in the positioning of the Texian forces in the Alamo compound, ironically there were numbers of weapons, guns, and materials captured from General Cos who had previously held the Alamo earlier. Again, ironically, the Texian forces had captured it from him, and in their assault had pummeled the structure with their cannon.

When the decision came to defend the Alamo came months later, the order was to remove the guns and destroy the remaining structure. When Neill, the commander of Texian troops realized he had insufficient means to transport the guns, that bolstered the decision to stay.

Unfortunately , the pummeling of much of the Alamo structures by the Texians had weakened them so they were difficult to fortify when the decision to stand was made. In actuality, the consistent bombardment of Santa Annas weak artillery contingent was more of an annoyance than effective barrage. The guns were antiquated, insufficient in size and the miserable powder (as discussed) was entirely inadequate. Only minimal damage was caused mostly in already weakened sections.

I had though that perhaps General Cos, in his departure from the Alamo, might have purposely 'fouled' the powder stores left there as he had a penchant for disabling abandoned material. However it sounds as if the Mexican powder was so bad that it was hardly necessary to try to make it worse. This store of powder was unfortunately the stock that the Texians had left to use, and one of the reasons the idea of abundant artillery as a factor in a potential siege in this case was pure folly.

On that note, I hope to start another thread on the Alamo topic, pending further research, as has been suggested to keep the focus here on the original topic, which as I say is a fascinating foray into the subject of artillery.

Thank you again guys!!! :)


Wayne, we crossed posts and I just saw yours. Outstanding!! This is just the kind of information I was up half the night trying to find on powder grade and composition...thank you!!!

[fernando]

Wayne, interesting entry and wise words on what concerns risks involving proximity to cannon discharges and fabrication of gunpowder. Let me guess however that your last paragraph/s on powder classification and those 'FF' specs skip over a few centuries to a fresh context ... re-enactment purposes and all :confused:.
On the saluting and warning salvos, i wouldn't know whether (Portuguese) gunners used weaker powder for those or, even if that used with the warning discharges was 'convincingly' accompanied by ammo; i have read about both salvos in chronicles, but it would be such a task to go looking for such details in bulky books.
Still we can not forget that gunners in such (discoveries) period would not leave home without doing their home work. To add that they would be competent enough to empirically deal with the necessary components they had to resource in wherever location with whatever quality out there, when running out of the stocks they took with, at departure ... something i know for sure did happen. We also know that eventually they also taught locals here and there how to mix the stuff; no secrets resist a fair price ;).

[fernando]

... I especially very much appreciate learning more on the appropriate placement of the cannon aboard ships, which is something I don't think is often thought of in the study of naval warfare...
Professor John F. Guilmartin Jr. (deceased) is one that weaved comprehensive considerations about these issues, having eventually present them in congresses. However he is himself the one surprised for such basic historical stuff not being more widespread

... I think the Portuguese were way ahead of the game in these considerations ...
Indeed the Portuguese experienced naval hegemony with such advanced gains ... but for no more than two short centuries. Still, what could they do, coming from a nation the side of a backyard, having to provide for human and material means for the zillion places they were in, at the same time.
Still, they had their moments of glory ... even if ephemeral.

[kronckew]

Wayne, interesting entry and wise words on what concerns risks involving proximity to cannon discharges and fabrication of gunpowder. Let me guess however that your last paragraph/s on powder classification and those 'FF' specs skip over a few centuries to a fresh context ... re-enactment purposes and all :confused:. ...

Picky, Picky,Picky.

the "F" classification was a US thing from the latter half of the 19c & still in use for 'modern' Black powder weapons which are still very popular for target shooting and hunting,
...and re-enactments.

Earlier gradations can be found in the US Ordinance manual. See below, handy thing to keep a copy of, you can download a 20 mb pdf version from the link I enclose below. (too big to attach here)

UK designations:

For larger cannon, a powder designated as "Large Grain" or L.G. was used, until the advent of rifled cannon, at which point a powder called R.L.G (Rifled Large Grain) was introduced. This powder worked well for cannon of smaller calibre, but when guns of 7 inches and larger calibres were introduced, it was found advisable to use a slower burning powder than R.L.G, at which point, Pebble powders (P and P2) were introduced. These were larger grain powders of cubical-shaped grains. P powder grains were about 5/8 inch per side and P2 powder grains were 1.5 inch cubes.

For small arms, a more rapidly burning powder is required, and therefore these are much smaller grains on average than the ones above. In England, there were four grades of powder produced for small arms:

Fine Grain (F.G.) powder to be used by smooth-bore firearms (e.g.) the Brown Bess musket. This powder was also used for the charge of 7 pounder muzzle loading cannon and for the bursting charge of shrapnel shells.
Rifle Fine Grain (R.F.G.) powder, to be used by most rifled small arms, except the Martini-Henry rifle and pistols.
Rifle Fine Grain 2 (R.F.G.2) powder, to be used by the Martini-Henry cartridge.
Pistol powder, to be used by pistols and revolvers such as the Colt Single Action revolver and the Deane-Adams revolvers. This is a quick burning powder and is suitable for shorter barrels, where a slower burning powder would not finish burning within the barrel completely. Since it is a very quick burning powder, it was also used for shrapnel shells.

These powders were classified based on grain size and density and were separated by passing the grains of powder through sieves. Sieves are designated according to the number of divisions per linear inch. Therefore, a 4-mesh sieve has 16 holes per square inch, an 8-mesh sieve has 64 holes per square inch and so on. R.F.G. powder should pass through a 12-mesh sieve, but not through a 20-mesh sieve, and have a density of about 1.6. R.F.G.2 powder should also pass through a 12-mesh sieve, but not through a 20-mesh sieve, however the density is higher than R.F.G. powder at 1.72. F.G. powder should pass through a 16-mesh, but not through a 36-mesh, while pistol powder should pass through a 44-mesh, but not a 72-mesh.

In addition to these powders designated for service small arms, there were also powders classed as "Blank powders", used for training purposes. As with the above powders, these were also made in different grain sizes, (e.g. Blank R.L.G., Blank R.F.G., Blank F.G. and so on). These were made from recycled gunpowder from old shells and broken ammunition boxes and only used for firing salutes and training rounds, where the full power of ammunition was not considered critical.

Serpentine Powder charge table for various bore sizes is attached.

The US Army 1862 Ordinance Manual can be downloaded from:
https://books.google.co.uk/books/download/The_Ordnance_Manual_for_the_Use_of_the_O.pdf?id=ww Y6DT2Sc_cC&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U3EfrxHVVm-xmBmw1ENDvkigVCrZA

It contains the American seive sizings from the period. It also has an extensive section on formulation, chemicals used, actually making black powder from scratch, both dry mix 'serpentine' used thru the 17c into the 18th, and corned.

Serpentine powder charge chart for naval cannon sizes:

[Philip]

I agree that the numbers and sorts of accidents taking place with the firing of artillery must have been many, as the volatility and conditions involved were pretty much the recipe for disaster with the slightest oversight. I think that accidental explosion with too fast reloading and possibility of residual embers sparking ignition was probably a problem. It makes sense that a certain and timely procedure was prudent if not essential to complete the protocols of loading properly.



Yes, Jim, gunnery drill was a pretty intensive exercise requiring a high degree of coordination and teamwork on the part of the crew, with requisite attention to sequence and detail. Elements of the process that modern gun crews are free of include loading and seating the powder, wads, and projectile separately and in correct order from the muzzle, and (due to the lack of recoil-dampening mechanisms) rolling the piece back "to battery" before firing.

Black powder combustion creates not only a thick cloud of smoke, but also deposits a lot of residue in the bore and touchhole, which build up noticeably with each shot. If not properly addressed at prescribed intervals, this can lead to some undesirable effects. Seating the projectile and the wads with the rammer can be impeded; ideally the components should be in contact, without excessive tamping nor (more seriously) air spaces in between which could result in a dangerous rise in internal pressures causing the barrel to burst. A clogged touchhole is a recipe for a misfire.

The residue, being largely carbonaceous, can also harbor hot spots or embers left after firing, creating the hazard that you mention.

The proper and timely use of some important tools made this problem manageable. The cannonier, in addition to his quadrant, firing tables, and other aiming equipment, carried a pricker to clear out the touchhole between shots. The crew needed several long-handled implements besides the linstock, rammer and powder scoop -- these included a stiff-bristled bore brush, a cylindrical swab surfaced with sheeps-wool, and a barrel scraper consisting of opposed semi-circular blades spring-mounted on a staff. Old military prints also show a bucket swinging under the axle-tree of a caisson (the two wheeled ammo and equipment cart hitched to the gun carriage for transport). Water was essential for washing out the bore after use, and also to cool down a barrel which became too hot from firing in succession.

(The messy nature of the propellant made frequent cleaning necessary on users of small arms as well. Since we started out on the subject of India, I'd like to close by mentioning the common appearance of touchhole pricks on little chains attached to the stocks of Indian matchlocks or toradors. On specimens where these are missing, you can often see the eyebolt which held the chain as well as the slender conical metal pocket to hold the pick when not in use.)

[kronckew]

The most common way to clean a BP weapon was with water. In battle, if a soldier's weapon gets fouled & hard to load/fire, they would, if no water was available, urinate into it to flush out the residue. The use of the clever Minie bullet rather than a tightly patched ball not only increased range and accuracy, but it's loose fit made it easier to ram down a fouled musket, increasing the number of rounds you could fire between cleanings.

Touch holes evolved from match locks thru flintlock and percussion locks into using friction primer tubes that cleared the vent as well as poked thru a cloth cartridge into the powder charge for more reliable ignition. The gun captain would insert the primer, clip his firing line to the ring on the primer and, after stepping clear and ensuring the rest of the crew was clear, a tug fired the cannon.

Cannon Rounds were, in the latter years of muzzle loading artillery, frequently made up ahead of time into caseless cartridges with the bagged powder topped with an attached ball strapped to a wooden sabot that could be rammed down as a unit to save time. They also helped avoid the embarrassment of the ball rolling out if you had to depress the muzzle for close range shots.

[fernando]

... Picky, Picky,Picky...
Sorry old chum; just trying to keep things from flying away from the topic context ;).

This is how gunpowder was typified circa 1500's:
"I left in Goa fifty pipas (barrels) of Bombard gunpowder and two of espingarda (musket), In Chaul i left fifteen pipas of bombard gunpowder and two of espingarda, In Cochim three hundred quintais (hundredweights) of gunpowder. In Cananor twenty pipas for bombard and two for espingarda".
(Lopo Vaz de Sampaio, Governor of India 1526-29)

Potentially repeating what has been said, 'serpentine' gunpowder was by far more susceptible of accidents, due to spontaneous combustion, than that more stabilized powder in grain, which was implemented by Portuguese (for one, of course ), in the first half XVI century, where from then, accidents mostly occurred due to users carelessness.
Probably also said that Sulphur, easily inflammable, caused the alteration of saltpeter properties, accelerating its combustion. Climate action could also be a culprit for powder components alteration.
In the siege of Arzila (1509) while wandering to find an adequate place to 'plant' their artillery, the Camel (cannon) ignited and shot itself.
Things were more critical (as already approached by Philip, for one ) in confined spaces. In Santa Cruz do Cabo Guer (Morocco), fire started in a little of gunpowder, which bursted the tower with the whole artillery, where Rodrigo de Carvalhal, his brother and other thirty seven men have died..
According to D. Jerónimo de Mascarenhas (1611-71), a gunner carelessness caused that the gunpowder kept at the (fortification) wall caught fire, which could have caused a serious accident.

On a different note and back to India, attached a new picture of the Jaivana, this time with the advantage of having Mr. Narendra Singh under it, which gives us a more realistic idea of its dimensions. Note that this is/was tagged, not as the largest cannon out there but, the largest wheeled cannon out there ... which makes a 'little' difference.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Philip!
I had wondered why so many crew were needed, but with all the steps and protocols it is completely understandable. Thinking of it, even musket drill was pretty complex.

Regarding tools I think of the notorious 'bombardiers stilettos' of Venice, and the mysterious scales of numbers on their blades. The gunners were a select group, and when the stiletto (used as an assassins weapon) was outlawed, allegedly these scales were spuriously placed on blades to warrant the legitimacy of the holders carrying of it. Thus, anyone could carry one as long as they claimed to be a 'gunner'.

The claim was these numbers were to gauge powder amounts, and the pitted state of some of the blades suggests plausibility due to the corrosive effects of powder. However, others say it was to gauge caliber for ammunition .
In any case, the 'gunner' had a certain mystique and was afforded a level of regard for his skills as I have understood. It seems that in other cases, these guys firing guns were deemed expendable, as the guns and powder were so antiquated, powder compromised and subject to focused attack.

With the prickers you mention, in India many of the officers of the native cavalry regiments had elaborate silver brocade cross belts with plates having regimental devices. On these, I have seen arrow shaped prickers on chains to be used on the flintlock pistols they carried. Whether these were actually used or vestigial like their shoulder chains I dont know.

[Philip]

Regarding tools I think of the notorious 'bombardiers stilettos' of Venice, and the mysterious scales of numbers on their blades. The gunners were a select group, and when the stiletto (used as an assassins weapon) was outlawed, allegedly these scales were spuriously placed on blades to warrant the legitimacy of the holders carrying of it. Thus, anyone could carry one as long as they claimed to be a 'gunner'.

The claim was these numbers were to gauge powder amounts, and the pitted state of some of the blades suggests plausibility due to the corrosive effects of powder. However, others say it was to gauge caliber for ammunition .


Oh, here we go on yet another digression, I'm sure the Topic Police / Relevance Constabulary will be raiding this thread soon...

May I refer you to a wonderful little article, one of few focusing on gunners' fusetti (and in English, thankfully) -- "Gunner's Daggers" by Marcello Terenzi, published in the anthology Arms and Armor Annual, Vol. I (and may I add, the only volume) ed. Robert Held, 1973, pp 170-79 Just about everything you wanted to know about these things is there. The author was a renowned expert on Italian firearms in general. This article on the daggers is especially instructive because he includes examples of fake fusetti from various periods, a great resource for collectors because the majority of these in the marketplace are spurious, in ways that are obvious to anyone who really understands them.

Given your interest in Spanish firearms and the importance of Cataluña in arming the Spain's New World colonies, the book also contains Eudaldo Graells' "A Primer of Ripoll Gunlocks" in English translation which is most welcome since most of this author's writing has been published in Spanish or Catalan and are difficult to locate on the antiquarian book market.

[Philip]

*** Philip is right in that the Constantinople crowd ran for their lives over Mehmed's massive cannon firing endlessly on the walls, but maybe the effect from the assailants side was not so unbearable, specially spaced by the extremely slow rate of its reloading; adding by the way that (as i've read), its imprecision gave the besieged the opportunity to repair most of the damage after each shot, limiting the cannon's effect.
Is such story plausible, Philip ?

.

Nando, the incident with Mehmet's cannon that I summarized in the earlier post was taken from Turkish chronicles much-quoted by historians such as Runciman, Babinger, and Lord Kinross writing about Mehmet the Conqueror and his career. The description was not from a siege memoir, but rather focuses on the pre-siege test-firing of the largest gun (named Basilisc) that the renegade Hungarian Orban made for Mehmet at the foundry at Edirne (former Greek Adrianople, by then in Ottoman hands). The populace had been warned of the test shot in advance and told not to panic, but apparently the noise (said to be audible for 100 stadia or 10 miles) and the massive amount of smoke did cause a lot of consternation. Measurements in the chronicle allow us to picture a 26.5 foot barrel with a bore roughly 30 in. in diameter, shooting a stone ball weighing 12 hundredweight (over half a ton). Fifteen yoked pair of oxen and 700 men were required to shlep this thing from foundry to test site and ready it for firing. The first shot was said to propel the huge sphere for about a mile, and it buried itself six feet into the earth on impact.

It is believed that the guns used to batter Constantinople's Theodosian ramparts (visible in restored condition today) were not mounted in carriages as we know them, but rather propped on earthen berms to provide the requisite elevation. As such, accuracy was nil but Orban was not idly boasting when he told the Sultan that his creations could batter the walls of Babylon into ruin. The projectiles did tremendous damage when they did connect. A slow rate of fire and susceptibility to damage (such as bursting) also compromised the effectiveness of these cannon. Basilisc only managed three shots daily, and became inoperative after several weeks.

Nando, your observations are spot on. The effect on defenders' morale, not to mention that of the civilian non-combatants within the walls, must have been horrendous. Weapons of this size and power were a relative novelty to most people of the era, even seasoned soldiers. It's true that a very slow rate of fire allowed the defenders to shore up the breeches to help repel infantry assaults, but repeated exposure must have been wearing. Considering that...

...According to historian Steven Runciman, under 7000 Byzantine soldiers and foreign Christian volunteers and mercenaries had to defend 14 miles of walls and gates(counting both landward and seaward defenses) against some 80,000 Turks (inclusive of elite troops, regular troops, and irregulars) who attacked on land and water, with the help of cannon. Guns which Orban originally offered to the Byzantine emperor, who refused to pay his asking price!

One would imagine that the Turkish rank and file got used to the presence of these monsters especially the infantry who saw how they could make the job of taking a massively-walled city somewhat easier on them. However, as in Europe, guns and the men who served them must have engendered fear and mistrust for reasons given in prior posts. Another history of the siege which I have read states that Basilisc actually exploded at one point -- reinforcing the idea that the dicey metallurgy and design of early cannon could make them as dangerous to shooters as to the intended targets.

Which brings me to admit an oversight that I made earlier -- in that the bombards used in Europe, with their forged wrought iron stave-and-hoop construction, were quite a different breed of cat from Orban's creations. The period documentation indicates that Mehmet's siege cannon were cast -- in the case of Basilisc, in a foundry at the Ottoman capital. Although Basilisc has not survived, a huge Turkish cannon made just a decade or so later has -- the so-called Dardanelles Gun which can be seen today at Ft. Nelson, above Portsmouth. It's safe to conclude that its construction mirrors that of Orban's designs (he didn't live beyond the year of the siege). Even more remarkable is the fact that this gun, and smaller ones of the era still existing in Turkey, are of two -piece construction, the chamber section is screw-threaded into the barrel proper with remarkable precision for the day. Amazing!

[fernando]

...The description was not from a siege memoir, but rather focuses on the pre-siege test-firing of the largest gun (named Basilisc...
News for me: i realized that Basilisc was a type of large cannon and not the name of Mehmet's beast. The famous "Tiro de Diu" kept in the Lisbon Military museum (to revisit) is equally tagged as a basilisc.


... only managed three shots daily, and became inoperative after several weeks...
Oh boy, given all troubles managing this monster, cited above and under, it takes a lot of determination to include it in the operations. If only the Sultan had to maneuver it himself :rolleyes:.

...Which brings me to admit an oversight that I made earlier -- in that the bombards used in Europe, with their forged wrought iron stave-and-hoop construction, were quite a different breed of cat from Orban's creations. The period documentation indicates that Mehmet's siege cannon were cast -- in the case of Basilisc, in a foundry at the Ottoman capital...
Timelines are more or less coincidental. Around this period the Duchy of Burgundy, the greatest military power around, engaged in relations with the Portuguese Kingdom and great numbers of material were received, namely 134 fire mouths (cannons), from which some were in bronze. It is evident that this material was used in the North African campaigns, when looking at the Pastrana tapisseries. It is natural, quoting General Barata that, soon after, between end Dom Afonso V realm and beg. that of Dom Manuel I (1480-95) bronze cannon manufacture was initiated in Portugal.

... Although Basilisc has not survived, a huge Turkish cannon made just a decade or so later has -- the so-called Dardanelles Gun which can be seen today at Ft. Nelson, above Portsmouth. It's safe to conclude that its construction mirrors that of Orban's designs (he didn't live beyond the year of the siege)...
I was reading about this one the other day; among some confusion over both being 'allocated' to the Constantinople siege episode, the Dardanelles one would have being cast by Munir Ali in 1464, notwithstanding in an Orban's fashion. Also its weight is impressive; when coming to comparisons like that with the Mons Meg, we are talking about more than the double weight, despite their other specs being (almost) similar. Alright, the Mons Meg is in iron and this one is bronze, but the difference, i guess, resides more in its massive (thickness) construction.

... Even more remarkable is the fact that this gun, and smaller ones of the era still existing in Turkey, are of two -piece construction, the chamber section is screw-threaded into the barrel proper with remarkable precision for the day. Amazing! ...
Yes, this idea to build it in two halves, apparently to facilitate its transport, is genius ... screwing cog rings and all. What one may be not so sure of is if, while this was a rather smart logistic asset, its susceptibility to gases escaping would not be a serious issue.


.

[kronckew]

Mons Meg: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_Meg

Another Photo broadside, and of the section that failed, retiring the weapon (It's just a flesh wound). Looks like a hoop failure. Apparently range was around 2 miles, balls have been found that far away from it's firing point. note the holes for tools used in re-assembling the screwed parts. Probably a slightly bigger set like the coupling tool also below.

[fernando]

...In any case, the 'gunner' had a certain mystique and was afforded a level of regard for his skills as I have understood...
They were a selective bunch indeed; even sometimes considered wizards, due to their extreme importance. A master gunner or, in determined circumstances, a 'simple' gunner, would have to be able to use the pendulum, the square and the quadrant, for the calculation of projectiles trajectory. Knowledgements like how to use fireworks and artillery foundry processes were also required. They also would have to be able to read, write ad count, as well as to make gunpowder, scorch saltpeter, fabricate charcoal and other powder components and know about weights and measurements.
Eventually they were not considered as military but as artisans (at least in Portugal in early times), although they were prized by their superiors, materially and with privileges, to make them do a good job.

[Jim McDougall]

Oh, here we go on yet another digression, I'm sure the Topic Police / Relevance Constabulary will be raiding this thread soon...

May I refer you to a wonderful little article, one of few focusing on gunners' fusetti (and in English, thankfully) -- "Gunner's Daggers" by Marcello Terenzi, published in the anthology Arms and Armor Annual, Vol. I (and may I add, the only volume) ed. Robert Held, 1973, pp 170-79 Just about everything you wanted to know about these things is there. The author was a renowned expert on Italian firearms in general. This article on the daggers is especially instructive because he includes examples of fake fusetti from various periods, a great resource for collectors because the majority of these in the marketplace are spurious, in ways that are obvious to anyone who really understands them.

Given your interest in Spanish firearms and the importance of Cataluña in arming the Spain's New World colonies, the book also contains Eudaldo Graells' "A Primer of Ripoll Gunlocks" in English translation which is most welcome since most of this author's writing has been published in Spanish or Catalan and are difficult to locate on the antiquarian book market.


PERFECT analogy Philip!!!
Actually long ago I learned that very good discussions may often meander off their course with sometimes even tenuously connected subjects, but that is the powerful learning aspect of such interaction. I have often made many key discoveries through pure serendipity, which led to other searches while giving the topic at hand far broader perspective .
While the 'curiouser and curiouser' quote (also from Alice) was of course playful linguistic use in Carroll's book, it has become the defined as 'eagerness to learn or know something'. ….exactly as being one here :)

Having said that, thank you very much for the references on the 'gunners daggers', and as always for providing such detail on these important sources.
The reason I had brought these 'stilettos' up was due to the more mundane use of these thin bladed daggers to 'spike' the touchhole of cannon in case of abandonment. As we had been discussing the 'tools' used by these gun crews I thought of this action along with all the measuring, positioning, calculating range etc. required as part of the duties of these gun crews.

Turning again to the comparison I mentioned in my earlier post of the huge cannon used in the 1957 movie, "The Pride and the Passion", I have found that the Jaivana cannon was actually the inspiration for the 1933 novel "The Gun" by E F Forester which the movie was based on.

Fernando thank you again for the resounding detail and information on the Mons Meg phenomenon, and especially the images associated. I had neglected to thank you for the important perspective suggesting the probable 'political' nature of the unfortunate bursting of the gun in 1680. This discussion had brought forth key insights into the nature of this huge gun with the construction using iron staves...which seems to be the manner of construction of the breech loader deck or swivel guns of 16th-18th c.
I found it interesting that the term 'murderer' was used for Mons Meg, and one form of the deck guns (with stave construction) was also termed 'the murderer'.
Wonder if any connection?

To colloquial nicknames for guns, the 'Baselisk' again falls into the serpentine simile as this is a legendary snakelike creature in medieval lore, so deadly even its glance can cause death.

The photos attached from the 1957 movie.

Fernando and Wayne, well observed on the sectioning of the Mons Meg is indeed logistically advantageous, but with possible issues as Fernando notes with escape of gasses etc.

[fernando]

On the Dardanelles cannon Michael Kritoboulus, a Greek dude that wrote the history of the Ottoman conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire under Sultan Mehmet II, describes the (some) foundry details of the cannon but kept silence on the technique used to cast the screw parts.
All we know is that its threads were sharp and clean as they were on the day they left the foundry and, according to naval officers who unscrewed the breech in 1868, it took a total power of 40 tons of jacks and man power to dismantle it.
Although we ignore what tools the Turks used for the operation, providing this ever took place, it is evident that the means used to unscrew it in 1868 were not properly a set of pipe wrenches. Also my theory on the gasses escape meets no case.

.

[Philip]

On the Dardanelles cannon Michael Kritoboulus, a Greek dude that wrote the history of the Ottoman conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire under Sultan Mehmet II, describes the (some) foundry details of the cannon but kept silence on the technique used to cast the screw parts.
All we know is that its threads were sharp and clean as they were on the day they left the foundry and, according to naval officers who unscrewed the breech in 1868, it took a total power of 40 tons of jacks and man power to dismantle it.
Although we ignore what tools the Turks used for the operation, providing this ever took place, it is evident that the means used to unscrew it in 1868 were not properly a set of pipe wrenches. Also my theory on the gasses escape meets no case.

.


Today's engineers and production managers can still marvel at this two-piece design connected by reasonably precise male and female threads, fabricated on a ponderous scale in a pre-mechanized age several centuries past.

I also wonder about the design of the apparatus built by the Ottomans to assemble these guns, and dismantle them as needed. The 1868 effort in Britain undoubtedly utilized the best resources of Victorian-era engineering and manufacturing, but that would be stacking the Industrial Revolution against medieval technology.

Pipe wrenches... yes, Nando, probably not :) however the underlying principles still involve leverage and rotational movement, generating enouth torque. The rows of circumferential lug-recesses, and very substantial ones at that in thick mouldings dedicated to the purpose, show us that Orban and his Turkish students had thought things out carefully. Barring the discovery of an illustrated Otto treatise on the manufacture, care, and feeding of these monsters, perhaps we can get an idea of what sort of mechanism was used from ancient texts dealing with mechanical subjects, by notables such as Archimedes, Vitruvius, et al. We do know that Islamic scholars of the Middle Ages were avid students of classical works on mathematics and the sciences.

Now, to your question of leakage of combustion gases from the joint. It would depend, I suppose, on how precise and tight those threads actually were. After all, in use the two components would be tightly screwed together much like the breechplug to the barrel of any muzzle loading pistol or shoulder gun. In other words, a "fixed breech". There shouldn't be any leaking of gases if the threading is suitably tight (ignoring for now the inevitable and small loss of pressure via the vent or touchhole).

Looking forward to other breech designs and how designers coped with gas leakage, it seems to me that this became a problem with breech-loading systems, which involved either a removable chamber-piece (the Portuguese berço cannon and its north European and Oriental equivalents being an example) , or a breechblock that pivoted, rotated, or slid in any number of directions depending on the system (Lorenzoni, Hall, Westley-Richards, Dreyse, Chassepot, ad infinitum) This is because with any movable-breech system, explosive gases will trump the best manufacturing tolerances.

Engineers kept trying different workarounds -- the Prussian Dreyse bolt action needle-fire gun (so named for its slender extended firing pin that pierced a paper cartridge to hit the primer) was a notorious gas leaker but its designers provided a chamfer to the barrel stub that fitted a rebated bolt face that directed most of the gas and particulate matter away from the shooter's face -- at least if there wasn't a headwind. The Frenchman Chassepot improved this greatly by designing his bolt action with an obdurator seal on the bolt head, made of a rubber like substance.. Worked like a charm but the gasket had to be replaced after so-many shots and a soldier's kit contained a special spanner and a packet of spares.
Early breech loading cannon with interrupted-screw hinged breech units would leak gas because the threads were interrupted to allow the opening of the breech and these channels negated the sealing action of screw threads (see above). Believe it or not, this principle was explored by several inventors way before the 19th cent. Discovery of rubber and like substances in the industrial age allowed the breeches to be fitted with obdurator seals analogous in function to the bolt gasket on the French needle-fire guns, and voilà , the result was quite functional.

The magic pill that cured gas leakage was the perfection of the metallic cartridge case, which contained projectile, propellant, and primer in a single, fixed unit. On firing, the explosion expanded the case enough to seal the breech effectively, and the inherent sturdiness of this "fixed ammunition" made for all sorts of possibilities in the way of repeating-fire arms, and ultimately those capable of fully-automatic rapid fire.

[fernando]

Filipe, what a treatise !!!
Definitely your luggage of these things scares me off discussion.
Still, the only experience i have in this particular, is an article (where i was most kindly appointed co-author) on the Westley-Richards (Monkey tail) pistols, of which i had a couple at the time; a version that ended up being only produced for a Portuguese contract (1000 units). Incidentally their failure to be accepted by the British Board of Ordnance was not a gas leakage issue, described the Board as "absolutely gas tight", but their non military advantage.
Back to early artillery, i dare realize that those Orban/Munir Ali guys were smart enough to circumvent problematic solutions like those applied to Berços, for one ( direct plug into barrel and quarter turn rotation), or any other pivoting systems. A screwing principle; not just a quarter or half turn method but, the whole of four threads rotation. This prevented their minds to predict the advent of the gasket or the washer. And adding to the fact, according to the Brits that, the threads were impeccable, i wander if even Lucifer could escape through them. This still not excluding some lubricating/sealing resource, like organic grease.


.

[Philip]

Obrigado, Nando, pela reintrodução ao sistema retrocarga "rabo da macaque".

Quite an interesting system since it was apparently self-lubricating.

Back to the screw breeches of the Orban cannon -- you mentioned some organic grease as possibly having utility as a backup sealant if the threads were not fitted tightly enough. I'm thinking, in such eventuality, the natural tendency of black powder to form all that dense residue during combustion would have served the purpose quite well since it would have built up during successive shots without the breech being opened each time.

The observations made by the British, and the Greek expert you mentioned, about the quality of fit of these screw threads (as pertaining to the so-called Dardanelles gun) is still an amazing thing. Considering the era in which it was made and the nature of measuring tools and fabrication processes at the time.

And especially when you compare these achievements with the Portuguese introduction of their methods of gun making to Asia. The armory at Goa improved greatly on the basic processes in use at the time, and brought the concept of threaded breech plugs for musket barrels to the Orient. However, as historical literature and surviving guns show, Asian cultures did not take naturally to the turning of screw threads despite their skill in other aspects of metal craft.

It was a difficult lesson. In Iran, the Persian gunsmiths did not even trust the method (maybe to hide their lack of motivation to master the skill?) and through the 17th cent. preferred to use forged-in-place plugs (often anchored with a cross pin), saying it was stronger. The Japanese were almost allergic to screws, they used similar means to seal their barrels and even avoided all screws in constructing their gun locks, which were made all of brass to better suit the assembly methods they preferred (same for the Malays). A scholar writing a PhD thesis on the introduction of guns to Korea shared a Japanese text with me, describing the earliest attempts to cut threads in iron in that country -- the craftsmen tried to use chisels to shape the spiral, which was doable but far from ideal for male threads but virtually impossible for the female threads.

Indian and Chinese artisans eventually got somewhat comfortable with screw threading thanks to repeated experience with European technicians, but when it came to firearms, the tendency to avoid it was still apparent into the 19th cent. Very few Indian toredors or matchlock muskets use anything other than pins or rivets to secure their parts.

So we have to give those 15th cent. Turks A LOT OF CREDIT.

[Philip]

. A master gunner or, in determined circumstances, a 'simple' gunner, would have to be able to use the pendulum, the square and the quadrant, for the calculation of projectiles trajectory. Knowledgements like how to use fireworks and artillery foundry processes were also required. They also would have to be able to read, write ad count...

Yes, Nando, it's true that the first gunners were looked at with a mixture of awe and fear, for having this powerful and frightening thing in their hands, whose noise, fire, and sulphurous stench suggested ties to the Devil. But it wasn't long before modern science began to take over and thus we see the huge advances in artillery design and practice during the 16th cent. all over Europe. We must look to Renaissance Italy as the starting point:

1. Metallurgy and metal fabrication -- Vanoccio Biringuccio's Pirotecnica (1540) is a lucid and detailed compendium of 10 books, over 400 pages' worth in a modern English translation, of the state of the art as of the first half of the century. Book VI, of 10 chapters, covers gun- and bell-founding with tables of standard sizes and weights, and Book VII covers furnaces and molds, and also the making of cannon-balls and the designs of cannon carriages. The author (born 1480) who devoted his adult life to working in the metals industry, including the casting of large cannon. This book is a landmark in technical writing, standing out for its just-the-facts prose, avoiding the inclusion of lore and superstition, as well as flowery allusions to classical mythology, which characterised the literature of the era. The work has seen several editions through the centuries, including partial translations into other languages including Latin and Spanish.

2, Mathematics: Gunners had to do more than just be able to count. During the first half of the 16th cent., the practice became more science than art with the development of powerful tools created by the Venetian mathematician Niccolò Fontana "il Tartaglia" (his nickname The Stammerer came from a speech impediment caused when a French soldier cut his head with a sword when as a kid he had the misfortune of being in a war zone). Tartaglia revolutionized the study of ballistics when he, an avid student of the Greek thinkers, was able to prove mathematically that a projectile traveled in a parabolic trajectory. Not, as Aristotle posited, going straight through the air and then dropping abruptly to earth when its inertia was spent and gravity took over. From this, he was able to calculate the correlation of projectile range to barrel elevation, all else being equal. The figures were compiled into books of tables which became must-have field references for gunners all over the Western world and were disseminated to Eastern armies whose artillery corps were coached by mercenary trainers from Portugal and elsewhere. Tartaglia's studies were also the bases for the invention of several devices for the accurate aiming of cannon, the most important being the gunner's quadrant, which had a service life of over 3 centuries, and which is depicted in military manuals and art from as far away as India and China.

[kronckew]

They also made use of wedges, and with spare pre-loaded breeches, could maintain a certain amount of rapid fire. I imagine they were rather unpleasant to stand next to as they must have been fairly leaky when fired.

Irritating computer generated voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRGCSSeBatI

[fernando]

... Tartaglia's studies were also the bases for the invention of several devices for the accurate aiming of cannon, the most important being the gunner's quadrant, which had a service life of over 3 centuries, and which is depicted in military manuals and art from as far away as India and China...
So Filipe, it makes sense that, in a coincidental period and as i quoted above General J. Manuel Cordeiro in his "Apontamentos para a História da Artilheria Portugueza – 1895", gunners in North Africa were already familiar with the quadrant, besides other abilities.
At this point a parentheses should be open to remind that, in this ongoing period gunners, as well as foundrymen, were increasingly required in a number far greater than what the nation could provide, for the need to import them from other countries was obligatory. There were highly qualified Germans, Flemish and others. At a certain stage Germans had a brotherhood, São Bartolomeu de Lisboa, were thousands of them were inscribed. More than a thousand have fallen in the battle of Alcacer Quibir (1578).


...They also made use of wedges, and with spare pre-loaded breeches, could maintain a certain amount of rapid fire. I imagine they were rather unpleasant to stand next to as they must have been fairly leaky when fired...
Wayne, You are right in that the cadence of fire was an asset that largely compensated breech loading flaws.
... And mind you, whatever collateral issues could arise from an 'ancestral' berço like the one in that tube clip, may not be compared with later ones in bronze, improved during evolution imposed by King Dom Manuel, where materials and metallurgic accuracy would achieve a better plug sealing. Also there was no need to stand by the gun side. The one gunner stood safely behind it, at a distance provided by the gun aiming 'tail' (tiller).
On another hand it appears that, the guy shooting the various loaded breeches in that clip, introduces the (simulated) projectiles into the vases, which is a recurrent false case. They are instead stuck into the barrel chamber. All that the breech takes is a gunpowder load ...eventually sealed with wax.

.

[Philip]

... in this ongoing period gunners, as well as foundrymen, were increasingly required in a number far greater than what the nation could provide, for the need to import them from other countries was obligatory. There were highly qualified Germans, Flemish and others. At a certain stage Germans had a brotherhood, São Bartolomeu de Lisboa, were thousands of them were inscribed. More than a thousand have fallen in the battle of Alcacer Quibir (1578).
.

Of course, Nando, and not only in the case of artillery but small arms too. As a certain Luso-German arms expert of our time and your acquaintance has pointed out in a book he wrote, the musket with snapping matchlock that reached mature form in Goa as the Indo-Portuguese espingarda was a concept originating in the German lands, most probably Bohemia or Bavaria. Portuguese and Indian artisans improved on what began as a fairly crude device to create the most long-lived and widely used of all matchlock types.

As early as the reign of Dom Manuel "o Venturoso", there was an influential German expat business community in Lisbon, involved in trading valuable commodities between Portugal and northern Europe. A German with some artistic talent made rough sketches of a rhinoceros in Dom Manuel's private zoo which might have been forgotten in the dust of history had not... the King wanted to give the animal to Pope Leo X (following up on a previous gift of a baby elephant), but the boat sank off the Italian coast and it drowned. The drawings ended up in Bavaria, where the famed print-maker Albrecht Dürer used them as the basis for his slightly fanciful but still impressive woodcut "Rhinocerus" dated 1515 -- an image that appears on things like T-shirts and coffee mugs even today.

Also, consider Spain. The Marcuarte lineage of gunsmiths descended from Bartholme Marquardt of Augsburg. His sons Siegmund (Simón) and Peter became established in Madrid in the second half of the 16th cent., and the earliest existing signed patilla miquelet locks are attributable to Simón the Younger, ca. 1625. Is there any coincidence that the action of the patilla mainspring (pushing upwards on the heel of the cock's "foot"), and the operation of a sear moving horizontally through an aperture in the lockplate, are exactly analogous to what we see on the Bohemian snap matchlocks of the 1470s that were sold to Portugal in large numbers during the Age of Discoveries?

It is probably superfluous to cite another example of an immigrant German gunsmith who made an excellent name for himself south of the Pyrenees -- Nicolás Bamproyssen y Bis.

Oh, you mention Flemish. I may be repeating something you know very well, that a sizeable part of the population of the Azores claims those roots. It's evident in the appearance of those Terceirense, Jorgense, and Michelense folks who maintain their distinct communities here in California. Tall people with fair skin and hair, with a variety of surnames like Dutra, Bettencourt, Laranjo (L'Orange), Abreu (Evreux). Silveira (Van der Hagen), etc. Also the little capelas attached to their Irmandade do Espírito Santo halls are so often built in the "gingerbread" style that we associate with the Netherlands and adjoining parts of Germany and Belgium. But I digress... down yet another rabbit hole.

[Richard G]

Another big one is the ZamZamma in Lahore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamzama
Regards
Richard

[fernando]

As it appears Filipe, it was pondered that, a better idea was to bring the (artillery) specialists over to the country, managing with them a vital interaction towards skilled production, instead of buying the guns in the international market, exposed to quality imponderables and no specific author to blame.
Afonso de Albuquerque has often made mention to his German gunners good services. Dom Lourenço de Almeida (India Vice-Roy's son) lost and was killed in the battle of Chaul (1508) for, together with other nobles, not accepting his gunner master (Condestável), a highly competent German, the suggestion to position the ships in a determined manner, so that he would take down the enemy's fleet before night fall. This refusal being justified by the fact that, gunning down the enemy's ships would make them assume the Portuguese were not courageous enough to beat them on a face to face boarding. So much for Dom Lourenço's fate :shrug:.


.

[fernando]

... Another big one is the ZamZamma in Lahore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamzama...
Good catch, Richard;that's quite a big one indeed.
Yet you could browse on an even bigger thing, the Bijapur Malik-E-Maidan. Its specs are impressive; not so lengthy with 4,5 mts but, with a 55 tons weight, 1,5 mt diameter and a 700 millimeters bore.

Concerning guns with inscriptions, like the ZAMZAMMA, i can not go without showing the TIRO DE DIU, so called due to its use in the First Siege of Diu in 1538.This basilisk was cast in bronze in 1533 during the reign of Sultan Bahadur Shah of Gujarat
It cast in one solid piece and has no ornaments whatsoever except for some laudatory Arabic inscriptions that can be roughly translated as follows:

From our Lord the Sultan of Sultans of all ages; life-giver of the tradition of the Prophet of the Merciful God; the one that fights for the exaltation of the precepts of the Koran; the destroyer of the arguments of the supporters of wickedness; the one that casts away the houses of worshipers of idols; the Victor of the day when the two armies will meet; heir to the kingdom of Solomon; the one who trusts in the God the Benefactor; the possessor of all the virtues – Bahadur-Shah.

After the defeat of the Muslim forces, the gun was sent to Lisbon to serve defense purposes. Later in 18th century it was sent to the Arsenal in Lisbon to be melted so that the metal could be used to cast a statue of king D. José I. However, a religious scholar noticed and translated the Arabic inscriptions on the gun and, once discovering the historical value of the piece, the gun was spared.
This non wheeled beast weighs 20 tons, measures 6,12 mts (5,90 mts core) with 91 cm width (incl. trunnions) and 24 cm caliber.

It is now on display on the Cannon yard at the Military Museum of Lisbon.


.

[fernando]

I should ask for tolerance over approaching once more the tremendous ambiance that surrounds a combat of artillery; but i could not resist to quote the great historian and grammarian João de Barros (1496-1570), describing the (unsuccessful) attempt, by Nuno da Cunha, to take over the fortification of Diu in 1531 (India). Tolerance also requested for not being able to translate (interpreter) his fascinating words in the exact sense.

" Given as a signal from the skiff of by D.Vasco de Lima, a volley with a piece (cannon) that ours call espalhafato (fuss), due to being very furious, started the sea, the land and the air shaking and changing their quietness; because the sea boiled, its waters jumping over with the falling of volleys which came from town and the boats, where there was great number of musketry, in a way that the shots were like rain, and in the water and the air they met. The land was all put to dust, raised by our shots at beating the fortification. The air was a smoke of sulphur so dark and thick that asphyxiated men, and blinded them, and from it some sparks of fire, that looked like coming from hell. All was a darkness without any light, only a terror, an astonishment to the eyes, torment to their ears and a confusion of cheer, the men not knowing where they were and whether was a dream what they were seeing, or truth ".

.