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.
|