Slashdot Mirror
Superguns Helped Defeat the Spanish Armada
Hugh Pickens writes "With the discovery last year of the first wreck of an Elizabethan fighting ship off Alderney in the Channel Islands, thought to date from around 1592, marine archaeologists are revising their ideas on how the English defeated the Spanish Armada. Replicas of two cannon recovered from the Alderney wreck were recreated in a modern foundry, and tests carried out showed that the Elizabethans were throwing shot at almost the speed of sound. Elizabeth's 'supergun,' although relatively small, could hit a target a mile away. At a ship-to-ship fighting distance of about 100 yards, the ball would have sufficient punch to penetrate the oak planks of a galleon, travel across the deck, and emerge out the other side. Tests on cannon recovered from the Alderney wreck also suggest that the ship carried guns of uniform size, firing standard ammunition. 'Elizabeth's navy created the first ever set of uniform cannon, capable of firing the same size shot in a deadly barrage,' says marine archaeologist Mensun Bound from Oxford University, adding that that navy had worked out that a lot of small guns, all the same, all firing at once, were more effective than a few big guns. '[Elizabeth's] navy made a giant leap forward in the way men fought at sea, years ahead of England's enemies, and which was still being used to devastating effect by Nelson 200 years later.'"
It's both fascinating and sad how technology and warfare has been intertwined from the very dawn of man. A lot of "geeks" from way back, Greek philosophers, Leonardo da Vinci, etc. were sponsored by the rich and powerful of their respectable eras in exchange for using their minds to create better warfare technology.
For good or for evil, it seems that's the way it has always been, and likely always will be. We possibly wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for DARPA...
.: Max Romantschuk
Elizabeth big balls
Olden ships
Farting cannons gracefully
The difference is that while EVERYONE had guns that could fire something inaccurately over a long distance these guns had a few rather special features.
Firstly they are all the same, no variability which means that the shot can be made more precisely and firing can be made more accurate
Secondly their recoil was able to throw the gun back into the ship consistently (read straight) due to the level of accuracy, this meant that the guns could be reloaded quicker
These combinations also meant that the guns could be used effectively in a broadside with standardised shot rather than having shot "tuned" to each individual gun.
So while the Dutch may have invented the stock exchange and orange carrots the guns used here by the Brits (strictly actually the English at this stage) were the first "modern" cannons if such a term can be used.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Add to this our current aircraft carriers with no aircraft for them, and our future aircraft carrier that can't take the aircraft being built for it, we rock at this Navy stuff!
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
The author of the article concludes it by saying English gun founders were 50 years ahead of their time, which would seem to indicate a gun capable of firing a mile was unheard of. From my brief perusal on Wikipedia guns mounted on galleons tended to have a range of 1/5-1/4 of a mile. For the person that posted above regarding a kilometer ranged Dutch gun, remember a mile would be an additional 60% or so.
Actually, dutch and french ships were highly valued by the british, since they were better at maneuvering than the english ships. A fairly large percentage of the legendary english ships are actually of dutch or french design :p
The real difference was: English crews/commanders. Many of them were, even during the late 16th and most of the 17th century, out at sea for very long durations, even years. And there was also the process of continuous drills.
Nelson was nobody's fool, he used that tactic because it favoured his technology.
The brits had shorter guns that when fired would roll back into the ship ready to be reloaded. The spanish had guns that had to be loaded by climbing over the side of the ship. This new information that the british guns were powerfull enough make two holes with one shot makes the technological gap even wider and thus more effective.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
No, it's an example of the power of consistency, which is best obtained by sourcing from a single supplier. I highly doubt these warships had cannons from a variety of manufacturers made to detailed open specifications. More likely, navy smiths made all the cannons themselves, with the same tools and same people each time. In a modern context, it'd mean the navy standardising on one technology from one supplier - ie, Microsoft. Nice try though.
That was a stupid test. Pistols have absolutely no power, muskets have long barrels, lots of power and very heavy shot. I'd have liked to have seen a comparison between the musket and a modern rifle.
The British had for almost a 500 years a fairly simple approach to warfare. It's called "shoot the enemy a lot". I'd bet that it comes from their own ancient fascination with the long bow, where, really, you had to just put as many arrows in the air as possible to win and they did win that way at Agincourt.
From that they always worked on the rate and power of their fire, whereas other nations had a more mixed set of priorities. It wasn't just about getting more hits - they also recognized the intimidating effect having a lot of stuff coming your way meant.
But even after their machine gun, you saw British military theorists like Lidell Hart advocating for what the Germans would adapt into their own blitzkreig, and the USA into its Shock and Awe. And, even their commandos and SAS, upon which all the special forces of the world are based, are also really about, "shoot the enemy a lot"...
Bottom line is, if you mess with the British, they are going to shoot you a lot. So its really easier just have them as an ally and keep them working on their bad food and good music and television.
This is my sig.
I don't concur with Rome being peaceful. They were pretty belligerent. If you wanted to be someone politically, you had to server in the army first. If you wanted to raise really high, you had to conquer someone.
And no, crying "the Gaul have weapons of mass destruction" and calling the war of aggression a "retaliation" didn't count then anymore than it does now. Of course, now and then, it gets your population behind your war. For the rest, there is fast food and TV,
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
>>RAF Harriers are currently deployed to our carriers,
And that must cheer the Royal Navy up no end!
>>The new carriers will be ready before the new aircraft.
Precisely, the Harriers will be retired before then!
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
I currently live in Paris, and quickly learnt to be very careful when crossing roads. I even got yelled at once or twice for not crossing fast enough. And parisian drivers just love their horns, they use it any chance they get.
Compare this to cities like Amsterdam where drivers actually slow down when they see you crossing, and I understand easily why foreigners have a bad opinion of french drivers :)
To be fair, it seems to be a parisian thing, as drivers in other French cities where I lived were nowhere near as aggressive as parisians.
Because this is the internet. People dont't ever admit they're wrong here.
Without detracting from your point, you clearly never played Dwarf Fortress. :)
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
Actually on many Frigates and Cutters (smaller fast sailing ships) a small number of guns were often placed in the foredecks as the ships were used for pursing merchant vessels. The idea behind this was to fire chainshot into the sails of a fleeing merchantman.
Ramming was a common tactic from the dawn of naval warfare, many of the first combat ships were dedicated rammers as were the first Ironclads used in the US civil war. Even in Nelsons days it was still common. You forget just how hard it is to actually sink a ship made out of wood, especially when your only weapons are iron balls. Ramming was also a good way for small ships to destroy big ships, sailing ships cant manoeuvre quickly so a small frigate on a ramming course towards a ship of the line would take five minutes to execute but it takes five minutes for a single course change order to be executed on a large sailing ship.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
There NY City and Upstate NY. Update NY are relatively good drivers. The Capital District (Albany, NY) areas where i90 and i87 meet actually have the best traffic for a city/population. The people who mess it up are the Snobs from Saratoga going down for their nice cushy state jobs. And they NYC guys driving up.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Almost everyone seems to be making stuff to such standards nowadays.
How is it not modern? How does it differ from more recent handguns? Modern pretty much means current, or non-obsolete. The fact that it's still being used by the American armed forces and that it's not technically obsolete make it modern.
You just got troll'd!
Actually royal navy subs have a long and proud tradition of becoming caught in fishing gear and attempting to drag the vessel above beneath the waves. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E2D91139F93AA25757C0A964948260 Took ages to get them to admit to it too, until one vessel managed to stay afloat and landed a sonar array, another sadly sank, but an rn sub went back to Faslane with a damaged periscope.
"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
Brits know that God will save the crown, and always incorporate this into any plans.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Nothing like the 405 on a Friday during a rainstorm. We see you bad drivers, and raise you bad drivers who have no concept of how to drive in weather conditions outside of "Sunny and 70!"
The civilization studies I've read believed that once a civilization began any sort of rapid empire building it was already past its peak, and the increased militarism was a symbol of its decline. You can see it in quite a few civilizations.
A country needs some border wars to keep them strong and organized, but if they progress to invading the rest of the world they are on the way out.
So says "A Study of History" anyway.
It's all quite irrelevant when you can launch EMP-hardened cruise missiles from 3,000 miles away and watch the fireworks on satellite television. Navies are for show and for transporting heavy stuff now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I can't believe that the Spanish had not figured that out
Whaling is a much older business than cannon-fighting. While almost any country that whaled from boats threw their harpoons down onto the whales (like Japanese) all the ship based whalers already knew that throwing a harpoon up into the air would carry it a longer distance. The same goes for archery. Chinese and the English archers were firing their arrows into the air in massed volleys for years before the Spanish Armada. I can't understand why the Spanish would not have figured out that the same rule worked for Cannons.
Also note that Galileo's compass already simplified most of the math.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2