The Jaigarh Fort and its cannon ...

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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]

Originally Posted by Philip

... 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]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... 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 ? .
Keep well .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

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 ? .
Keep well .

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]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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 ...


.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by fernando

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

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.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Philip

... 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.