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!!!