|
The ship hated all Danes equally; the thought of being captured by Danes was unbearable enough to make it explode.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
JcDent posted:The ship hated all Danes equally; the thought of being captured by Danes was unbearable enough to make it explode. As is proper, you can't trust those loving swede ships 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I thought you doused the galley etc during battle because of the fire risk. Or is it worth the risk? Yes, they doused the galley fires before battle. Wooden ship sailors were super paranoid about fire, especially during battle when powder was inevitably outside the magazine. Heated shot in ship to ship combat is mostly a myth, it might have been done anecdotally, but carrying red hot balls through cramped gun decks - never mind heating the fuckers - wasn't practical at all. Not an historian, just what I've read somewhere, I'd have to do research to come up with sources... and most of my library is about steel ships, mostly of the cargo carrying kind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
david_a posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Add in the difficulties of handling the red hot iron ball on a waving and shaking ship and you have some prime PYF OSHA content.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Heated shot was definitely a thing, but unsurprisingly it was coast artillery thing more than a shipboard thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
I was casting around for images of T-72's and i found the following gem. I cannot stop laughing at that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 14:26
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Heated shot was definitely a thing, but unsurprisingly it was coast artillery thing more than a shipboard thing. Yeah you'd need some heavy duty furnaces and specialised gear as well as very steady terrain to use heated shot. Can you imagine the horrible antics of powder monkeys running around deck with the drat red hot thing awkwardly being balanced in something that resembles a coal scuttle? poor little bastards have enough to worry about in the heat of battle as it is.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Wouldn't getting a round really really hot dramatically change its diameter and ballistic characteristics?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
It probably wasn't a snug fit before anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Wouldn't getting a round really really hot dramatically change its diameter and ballistic characteristics? Not enough to be more than a rounding error in the math of shooting a round ball from a smoothbore muzzleloading cannon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
I imagine that is one of the reasons why they used the much heavier bulkier coastal artillery pieces for it. But yeah, that poo poo really fucks with the metal of the barrel and you can't really use it too much. Unless you want to pay for a new cannon!
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Has anyone done modern experiments to see how effective heated shot actually is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Has anyone done modern experiments to see how effective heated shot actually is? Not to my knowledge. Which isn't terribly surprising as there's not exactly a massive surplusage of coastal forts with shot furnaces and wooden ships.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Siivola posted:You joke, but that's actually a depiction of peasants during the famine in the 1890's. People still slashed and burned back then. I only ever took one anthropology class, and one thing I did learn was swidden agriculture is actually perfectly sustainable, even healthy for the forest, given a large enough forest and small enough population.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Not to my knowledge. Which isn't terribly surprising as there's not exactly a massive surplusage of coastal forts with shot furnaces and wooden ships. It shouldn't be that hard to heat up some shot in a furnace and shoot it at some blocks of wood. You'd have to be careful to do it safely, of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I only ever took one anthropology class, and one thing I did learn was swidden agriculture is actually perfectly sustainable, even healthy for the forest, given a large enough forest and small enough population. That's one hell of a caveat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
You don't need a forge, let alone a furnace, to get iron to a red heat, and iron can still ignite wood at a black heat. A regular fire will do it no problem if it is kept fed. Having a single stable brazier near a cannon would be adequate in terms of getting the shot to the cannon in plenty of time. Airflow over the cannonball would cool the outside some but the core would still be blazing, and would keep radiating the heat outward once the ball got stuck. You can't see in the ice melting video, but as someone who's made heavier, compact iron objects I can tell you that even if you quench in icy water the outside can go black but if you let it sit in air for a moment it will gradually return to a red heat. I can't speak to the safety of it, which would be a huge problem, but there's no issue whatsoever on the thermal side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
So does anyone have a cannon handy, and I guess, not much concern for personal safety? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
This heated shot talk has me thinking, has someone ever made a graph plotting weapons by their dangerousness to user vs. dangerousness to target? Sort of a therapeutic index for weapons I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Heated shot sounds ridiculous for all kinds of practical reasons, but the one that strikes me is how do you keep a ball hot enough to ignite wood from setting off your powder charge before you're ready? Even if you're using some kind of wadding, it seems like the odds of going off while some poor dope is loading it would make it not worth the risk. But I guess maybe they did pull it off in coastal batteries, so what do I know 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Siivola posted:You joke, but that's actually a depiction of peasants during the famine in the 1890's. People still slashed and burned back then. Fangz posted:So does anyone have a cannon handy, and I guess, not much concern for personal safety? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_lqdQzxBW6o
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Siivola posted:You joke, but that's actually a depiction of peasants during the famine in the 1890's. People still slashed and burned back then. One of the kinda-misunderstanding about slash and burn agriculture is that it's seen a primitive and so on. As long as there's not a huge population doing it, it's going to make people rich as hell. The returns on it are far greater than conventional pre-industrial agriculture. A usual rule of thumb is that for every seed planted, you get back 3-6 grains. For s&b agriculture, that figure is 18-30. The Savolax region in Finland was rich as poo poo (comparatively) during the 16th century.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
david_a posted:I can't help on the "incendiary shot" mystery (the Swedish term used unhelpfully translates to "fireball") but I did find a video of a reproduction 1600s cannon firing at a reproduction segment of Vasa proving that, yes, the cannons could mess up the ships pretty bad: I looked up age of sail naval surgery after seeing that cloud of splinters and this is a interesting/horrible read on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2388509/ quote:Stenhouse, surgeon of the Glasgow at the Battle of Algiers, describes the case of the captain of the foretop who had his leg carried away by a cannon ball except for a strip of tissue by which it was attached. He grabbed a rope to lower himself on deck, but half-way down his flail limb became entangled among the rigging and he was obliged to pull himself up with his arms and disengage the wounded limb with the assistance of the sound one. He then quietly descended on deck and reached the cockpit at the moment when the bugleman's wife, who was attending the wounded, heard her husband had been killed by a cannon ball. The wounded seaman was quick to comfort her: 'Come on, Poll', he said, 'cease to grieve; you shall not remain a widow long'. And he kept his promise! e: it's really striking how often they have to relearn stuff. aphid_licker fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
SR tanks Queue: Soviet tractor tanks, HTZ-16, Char B1 bis, Char B1 ter, Strv 103, 02SS Aerosan, Pz.Sfl.IVb, CKD TNH and LTP (Tanque 39), Emil and KRV, M3A1 Available for request:  T2E1 Light Tank Combat Car M1 Howitzer Motor Carriage T18 M10 Wolverine  A1E1 Independent Infantry Tank Mk.I  LTP T-37 with ShKAS ZIK-20 T-12 and T-24 Wartime modifications of the T-37 and T-38 SG-122 76 mm gun mod of the Matilda Tank destroyers on the T-30 and T-40 chassis 45 mm M-42 gun SU-76 prototype LPP-25  L-10 and L-30 Strv m/40 Strv m/42 Landsverk prototypes 1943-1951 Strv m/21 NEW  Trials of the TKS and C2P in the USSR 37 mm anti-tank gun  Renault NC Renault D1 Renault R35 Renault D2 Renault R40 25 mm Hotchkiss gun  PzI Ausf. B PzI Ausf. C PzII Ausf. a though b PzII Ausf. c through C PzII Ausf. D through E NEW PzII trials in the USSR Pak 97/38 7.5 cm Pak 41 Hummel s.FH. 18  LT vz 35 LT vz 38 Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
M3A1 please!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
STB-1 plz
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Has anyone done modern experiments to see how effective heated shot actually is? I think you'll find that it's good, but doesn't do much if the other guy starts to build Cannon Galleons
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Animal posted:STB-1 plz There aren't any articles on the STB-1, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
So, I had a thought. We've seen missiles get more and more advanced and it is easier to build better radar then to build stealth planes. Does anyone foresee a future where airpower is much curtailed, if not obsolete?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
General China posted:I've seen coastal defences slide into the sea and disintegrate in the north east of England. That's basically coastalnortheast.txt Everything up here ends up in the sea eventually. Mycroft Holmes posted:So, I had a thought. We've seen missiles get more and more advanced and it is easier to build better radar then to build stealth planes. Does anyone foresee a future where airpower is much curtailed, if not obsolete? You've had a similar thing happen with the proliferaton of infantry AT weaponry and ATGMs. It doesn't make tanks obsolete as much as it makes them more restricted in use. It's also worth noting that a lot of modern military equipment tends to have a disproprotionate focus on survivability because we're not fighting pitched wars as much as trying to curb stomp underequipped forces with as few politically problematic losses as possible. So, in case of a full scale conflict, assuming everyone doesn't die in nuclear fire or capitulate from strategic bombardment, I would expect production to focus on cheaper, easier to produce tanks which can be affordably sacrificed. And possibly the same with aircraft. It's hard to really reconcile modern high tech equipment with cold/world war levels of production. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Another thing that occurred to me re: the "incendiary shot" they describe. It didn't have to be heated shot as we're thinking of it, i.e. big cannon balls. You could very well heat up a fistfull of 1 inch steel ball bearings - or even scrap iron, basically anything that would be fed into grapeshot - and fire that. As long as it has enough thermal mass to ignite wood once it embeds it could be useful. AS useful as a cannon ball? Maybe not, but this is also the early days of gunpowder gunnery on ships so I'd be willing to buy a lot of sub optimal experimentation going on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
Not a directly applicable comparison. Combat reports from the Crimean conflict show that modern tanks are nearly invulnerable to anything a solider can carry, with the only effective AT weapons in that conflict being tank cannon and bomblet artillery. Top-attack missiles (which neither party was using) will probably change that somewhat, but a top-attack profile is vulnerable to the active defenses being implemented on some newer tanks. Aircraft can't usually carry enough armor to keep out a dedicated missile (MANPADS are another story, because the weight of the warhead is sharply limited) and the rise of laser weapons is a much more serious threat to a target that relies on speed and agility instead of armor. Aviation is going to be thrown into major flux to some degree soon, but how much is hard to tell, especially if Stealth technology proves to be this generation's "Fast Bomber".
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:That's one hell of a caveat. Also a pretty comprehensive list of things in modern-day Finland before something like the 1970s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Heated shot sounds ridiculous for all kinds of practical reasons, but the one that strikes me is how do you keep a ball hot enough to ignite wood from setting off your powder charge before you're ready? Even if you're using some kind of wadding, it seems like the odds of going off while some poor dope is loading it would make it not worth the risk. I heard that they used damp wool as wadding. If you were too slow in firing then the result was that the steam had dampened your powder and it wouldn't fire at all, rather than the heat penetrating the wadding and detonating the powder prematurely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So does anyone have a cannon handy, and I guess, not much concern for personal safety?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Not a directly applicable comparison. Combat reports from the Crimean conflict show that modern tanks are nearly invulnerable to anything a solider can carry, Isn't this in conflict with videos of every single tank type under the sun getting mega owned by ATGMs in Syria?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Heated shot sounds ridiculous for all kinds of practical reasons, but the one that strikes me is how do you keep a ball hot enough to ignite wood from setting off your powder charge before you're ready? Even if you're using some kind of wadding, it seems like the odds of going off while some poor dope is loading it would make it not worth the risk. There is no "maybe", that it was used is historical fact. Wikipedia says a wad of wet clay was used between the bag and the ball, but I don't know. I reckon even a soaked wooden plug would work, and probably less fiddly. Cyrano4747 posted:Another thing that occurred to me re: the "incendiary shot" they describe. It didn't have to be heated shot as we're thinking of it, i.e. big cannon balls. You could very well heat up a fistfull of 1 inch steel ball bearings - or even scrap iron, basically anything that would be fed into grapeshot - and fire that. As long as it has enough thermal mass to ignite wood once it embeds it could be useful. AS useful as a cannon ball? Maybe not, but this is also the early days of gunpowder gunnery on ships so I'd be willing to buy a lot of sub optimal experimentation going on. It was almost certainly round shot around the size of a normal cannon ball. There was coastal artillery in the early 15th century, so this was not in the early days of using guns *against* ships by any means. There are a lot of reasons why 1 inch balls wouldn't be great in most circumstances: They wouldn't penetrate very deep and might drop out, they'd probably lose too much heat beyond point blank range to have any effect, they'd need to be in some kind of sheet iron can or you'd have to feed them in one by one (dangerous and slow, and the can would probably be more expensive than the drat balls). Random bits of scrap would suffer from the same problems and depending on size and shape might get stuck in the cannon. In the battle described only the third problem is relevant, but that is still a tremendous problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Not a directly applicable comparison. Combat reports from the Crimean conflict show that modern tanks are nearly invulnerable to anything a solider can carry, with the only effective AT weapons in that conflict being tank cannon and bomblet artillery. Neither side employed anything close to a modern antitank weapon in Crimea
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
Thanqol posted:Right now, the personalities and politics. edit: The Count-Duke of Olivares: The Statesman in an Age of Decline is a big fat bio that also gets into the weeds of Spanish politics. You may also like Religion and Politics in the Age of the Counterreformation: Emperor Ferdinand II, William Lamormaini, S. J., and the Formation of Imperial Policy. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Feb 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 00:12
|
|