'Superguns' of Elizabeth I's navy

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
47,009
5,602
113
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7899831.stm

The English navy at around the time of the Armada was evolving revolutionary new tactics, according to new research.

Tests on cannon recovered from an Elizabethan warship suggest it carried powerful cast iron guns, of uniform size, firing standard ammunition.

"This marked the beginning of a kind of mechanisation of war," says naval historian Professor Eric Grove of Salford University.

"The ship is now a gun platform in a way that it wasn't before."

Marine archaeologist Mensun Bound from Oxford University adds: "Elizabeth's navy created the first ever set of uniform cannon, capable of firing the same size shot in a deadly barrage.

"[Her] 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."

Deadly artillery

Until now, it was thought Queen Elizabeth was using the same cannon technology as her father, Henry VIII. His flagship, the Mary Rose, was ultra-modern for its day.

However, it carried a bewildering variety of cannon - many designed for land warfare. They were all of different shapes and sizes, fired different shot at different rates with different killing power.
Elizabeth's navy created the first ever set of uniform cannon, capable of firing the same size shot in a deadly barrage

Mensun Bound, Marine archaeologist

It is known that during Elizabeth's reign, English sailors and gunners became greatly feared. For example, at the beginning of Henry VIII's reign, the English fleet was forced to retreat from heavily armed French galleys.

By the time of Elizabeth, even Phillip of Spain was warning of the deadly English artillery. But no-one has ever been able to clearly show why this was.

The new research follows the discovery of the first wreck of an Elizabethan fighting ship off Alderney in the Channel Islands, thought to date from around 1592, just four years after the Spanish Armada.

The ship was a pinnace, a small ship carrying 12 guns, two of which have been recovered.

"There's a very good chance this ship fought against the Armada with its revolutionary guns, but there's no proof that all or even some of the others were armed similarly," says Saul David, historian and presenter of a BBC Timewatch documentary about the guns.

"Bear in mind that our ship is a pinnace and not a full-size warship. So it is probably going too far to say these guns defeated the Armada four years earlier.
Saul David and Mensun Bound examine a recovered cannon

"But they certainly represent a huge leap forward in military technology and may have contributed to the Spanish defeat."

Spain attempted to invade England in 1588 with 200 ships. The Spanish were unable to overcome the English navy, but there were also other reasons for the defeat.

The English used fire ships in a night attack, the Spanish lacked a good deep water harbour to load their troops and they were eventually scattered by a storm.

At the time, Spain was Europe's superpower and Philip II wanted Elizabeth's throne and to return England to Catholicism.

Replica cannon

The two cannon were recovered from the Alderney wreck last summer.

Replicas were recreated in a modern foundry, and tests carried out for the Timewatch documentary showed that the Elizabethans were throwing shot at almost the speed of sound.
The only way to learn about their power was to recreate a cannon

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, travelling across the deck and out the other side.

Elizabeth's navy worked out that a few big guns were less effective than a lot of small guns, all the same, all firing at once.

The English navy stood up to the Spanish Armada. But, perhaps more significantly, as England's reputation for naval prowess was growing, Philip abandoned any further attempts at invasion.

"What we have shown is that the English navy and its gun founders were almost 50 years ahead of their time technologically," concludes Mensun Bound. This made Elizabeth I the mother of British naval dominance lasting three centuries.
 

Rockslinger

Banned
Apr 24, 2005
32,773
0
0
danmand said:
Spain attempted to invade England in 1588 with 200 ships. The English used fire ships in a night attack, and they were eventually scattered by a storm.
As I recall, the smaller English ships were able to outmanever the larger Spanish ships in close quarters in the narrow channel. Beaten in combat, the Spanish ships made their escape by heading NORTH then turning south the hands of Providence destroyed them with a huge storm. Britain ruled the seas for the next 400 years.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
24,889
2,938
113
If that impresses you, consider that HMS Warspite hit the Italian battleship Guilio Cesare at a range of 26,000 yards with 15" guns while both ships were moving at top speed. No radar, not electronic fire controls, just optical range finders and mechanical computers. Astounding!!! That is over 23 km... from Scarborough to mississauga!!! :eek:
 

Rockslinger

Banned
Apr 24, 2005
32,773
0
0
nottyboi said:
HMS Warspite hit the Italian battleship Guilio Cesare at a range of 26,000 yards with 15" guns while both ships were moving at top speed.
Did this happen in WW II? Didn't think the Italians had any battleships. A shell from a 15" gun at that range would probably do little damage to a battleship.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
Rockslinger said:
Did this happen in WW II? Didn't think the Italians had any battleships. A shell from a 15" gun at that range would probably do little damage to a battleship.
Yes, the Second World War during the Battle of Calabria on July 9, 1940 or if you are a Regia Marina type the Battle of Punta Stilo, which was fought approximately 48 km east of the “Toe” of Italy

The Regia Marina (Royal Italian Navy) had seven Battleships in three classes, the the Cavour Class and the Andrea Doria Class (two ships each, which were modernized WWI construction) and the three ship Vittorio Veneto class

Not to diminish from this but the 16-inch (406 mm) / 50-caliber Mark 7 naval guns of the U.S.N.’s Iowa-class battleships had a range of 39km (24 miles)!
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
Rockslinger said:
A shell from a 15" gun at that range would probably do little damage to a battleship.
The principle armour on Battleships was on the sides for that sort of long range fire. It was lack of sufficient armour for plunging fire on the Battlecruiser H.M.S. Hood that resulted in her sinking.
 

Rockslinger

Banned
Apr 24, 2005
32,773
0
0
Aardvark154 said:
It was lack of sufficient armour for plunging fire on the Battlecruiser H.M.S. Hood that resulted in her sinking.
I heard that the Hood had only a WOODEN (no steel) deck. WW II marked the end of the age of the battleships and the beginning of the era of the aircraft carriers. The mighty Bismarck was crippled by carrier launched aircrafts and then killed by surface ship gunfire.
 

LancsLad

Unstable Element
Jan 15, 2004
18,089
0
0
In a very dark place
It wasn't just the number and bore of the guns that counted but the discipline and training of the men manning them

A good book I read on Nelsons tactics ( danmand favourite Englishman) was based on the superior rate of fire that the english gun crews produced.


A smaller English ship with say 150 guns so 75 a side firing at two vollies per minute each wa much deadlier than a cumbersome slow moving 200 gun 100/side that could fire once every minute to minute and a half. Thats what gave them the awesome ship tearing ability when they got in close.


It must have been a living hell in the lower gun decks when they were broadsiding at 10 yds apart.



.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
Rockslinger said:
I heard that the Hood had only a WOODEN (no steel) deck.
She had armoured decks but they were never adequate and the development of time delay fuses made them even less so. But it was the old story money and so although her proposed sister ships were scraped, the replacement class was never built.

H.M.S. Hood's deck armour ranged from 44 mm (1.75 inches) to 76 mm (3 inches), but that is as compared with her side armour which was between 178 mm (7 inches) and 305 mm (12 inches) thick.
Rockslinger said:
WW II marked the end of the age of the battleships and the beginning of the era of the aircraft carriers. The mighty Bismarck was crippled by carrier launched aircrafts and then killed by surface ship gunfire.
Absolutely
 

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,703
354
83
The Keebler Factory
Rockslinger said:
The mighty Bismarck was crippled by carrier launched aircrafts and then killed by surface ship gunfire.
Although, IIRC, it took numerous torpedoes to finally sink her.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
24,889
2,938
113
Aardvark154 said:
The Regia Marina (Royal Italian Navy) had seven Battleships in three classes, the the Cavour Class and the Andrea Doria Class (two ships each, which were modernized WWI construction) and the three ship Vittorio Veneto class

Not to diminish from this but the 16-inch (406 mm) / 50-caliber Mark 7 naval guns of the U.S.N.’s Iowa-class battleships had a range of 39km (24 miles)!
No question the Iowa's were the best battleships ever built, but they were built about 30 YEARS after Warspite.....30 freakin years!! Like comparing an F4 phantom to a F-22. BTW don't the Iowa's look suspiciously like the Vittorio Veneto's? Very close in spec as well. I always found that strange. The Iowa's and Venetos are the most perfectly proportioned battleships (Italian Design go figure) perhaps only the Yamato class is equally beautiful.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
24,889
2,938
113
Rockslinger said:
Did this happen in WW II? Didn't think the Italians had any battleships. A shell from a 15" gun at that range would probably do little damage to a battleship.

Are you kidding? With the arced fire that battleships use, the impact speed at that distance is VERY high and with about 1400lb of armour piercing shell, it does a LOT of damage. The Gulio Cesare was badly damaged and lost speed. It had to flee under a smokescreen.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
24,889
2,938
113
Aardvark154 said:
The principle armour on Battleships was on the sides for that sort of long range fire. It was lack of sufficient armour for plunging fire on the Battlecruiser H.M.S. Hood that resulted in her sinking.
Not true, Battleships had very heavy deck armour specifically for plunging fire. The battlecruisers sacrificed armour for speed. Later technology made the tradeoff unnecessary which resulted in massively armoured ships like the Iowas that could also steam at over 30 knots.
 

Rockslinger

Banned
Apr 24, 2005
32,773
0
0
LancsLad said:
It wasn't just the number and bore of the guns that counted but the discipline and training of the men manning them

A good book I read on Nelsons tactics was based on the superior rate of fire that the english gun crews produced.
Admiral Nelson's superior leadership and tactics enabled the British fleet to defeat a numerically larger French fleet at the Battle of Cape Trafalgar. He was able to split the French in two and focus on one half at a time.
 

HAMSTER INSPECTOR

Well-known member
Jun 3, 2005
1,745
41
48
rayfinkel said:
I have nothing to say, I just wanna say HI! to HAMSTER INSPECTOR, whats up Motherfucker?????


Minchia! Ray, your all touchy today!
 

HAMSTER INSPECTOR

Well-known member
Jun 3, 2005
1,745
41
48
Maybe he has a rainbow sticker on his pink car too!:eek:
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
nottyboi said:
Battleships had very heavy deck armour specifically for plunging fire. The battlecruisers sacrificed armour for speed. Later technology made the tradeoff unnecessary which resulted in massively armoured ships like the Iowas that could also steam at over 30 knots.
Yes, that's true (and I certainly never implied it wasn't). Still, the heaviest armour was on the slopes where the most fire could be expected to hit. The Belt armour on the Iowa Class is 310 mm (12.1 inches) while the deck armour is only 190 mm (7.5 inches). The turrets where the most heavily armoured 500 mm (19.7 inches).

H.M.S. Hood had particular problems due to the timing of its construction and developments in naval gunnery and those related to weight and armour protection of the deck.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts