Slashdot Log In
Superguns Helped Defeat the Spanish Armada
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Feb 25, 2009 04:38 AM
from the nobody-expects-the-spanish-armada dept.
from the nobody-expects-the-spanish-armada dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking of a Brit I am always humbled at my nations level of mastery of naval tactics, from the early 'near supersonic' artillery mentioned in this article, to the modern... "Just ram the fuckers with a submarine" approach that we employ today... *wipes tear*
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:4, Funny)
I blame the French for driving on the wrong side.
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently neither of you have been to Massachusetts ...
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
"Here are some places, peopled therein. The State of New York. To the south The City of New York, bounded by sea , whose influence comes ashore. To the North the land of Adirondacks, with Saratoga therin. Between, in the center, the Upstate of New York."
"Those of the Center motivate vehicles with precision unheard of in other parts."
"Wherin two roads, i90 and i87, meet in the land of Upstate. The dwellers there, bounded by parkland and plenty, consider their blessings."
"Not expensive wagons driven Southwards from Saratoga to labour for the Rulers, nor the dwellers of The City, proceeding away from home, consider those they find about."
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
Our taxis not only crash with you in it, they drive over you, shoot at you, shoot at each other, ignore road laws at every turn, indicate after turning - if at all, pack 60 salty-water-sacks per taxi designed for ~12, are ignored by law enforcement or bribe 'em, stage mass action fucking up everyone's schedule, belong to violent gang-like groups who regularly take each other out, kill bus drivers for stealing their business, etc...
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
I am currently living and working in India..... and I approve this message.
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a clip I found sometime back. An intersection in India, a must see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpVRC5dJsNA [youtube.com]
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
Dont forget about "Windows for Warships"
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
to the modern... "Just ram the fuckers with a submarine" approach that we employ today... *wipes tear*
That approach was first invented by the US Navy, though. However, applying it to another submarine instead of some random fishing vessel is quite a refinement.
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Actually, standard practice (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Actually, standard practice (Score:5, Informative)
It's more than that. The British had developed gun making tech to the point that their guns had more uniform bores and had tighter tolerances twist bore and shot, so they could fire more shot with less powder and less danger of blowing up; their guns were lighter for their caliber than the French and Spanish, hence ships carried larger guns. These were carronades, short barreled, and shot best from close distances. I believe one British ship, firing down the stern of a French ship as each gun came to bear, killed or wounded one third of the French crew in just the one pass, at either the Battle of the Nile or Trafalgar.
The British also trained far more than The British and Spanish and could reload about 3:2 times as fast. The shorter length helped reload inside as noted.
Parent
Re:Actually, standard practice (Score:5, Informative)
This book [amazon.ca] describes Nelson's tactics in full gory detail. No ramming. His aim was to bring the broadside of his ships-of-the-line against the bow or stern of the enemy ships. It exposed them to fire as they approached, but put them in a short-range position where all of his guns on one side (52 cannons?) could be brought to bear, with the enemy unable to fight back effectively. The book I mentioned relishes in describing the tactic of "raking", where cannon balls from broadsides are sent from one end of the enemy ship out the other end, destroying everything in it's path: splintering wood and shattering humans. The decks of the French and Spanish ships were flooded with blood, with some crews almost completely wiped out. The shots that were "making two holes" were actually problematic at times, specifically when an enemy ship had a British ship along both sides - at that point the British gunners would have to reduce the amount of gunpowder lest their shots passed right through the enemy ship and into a friend.
Parent
Re:Actually, standard practice (Score:4, Informative)
I never heard of ramming being used by Nelson. Also, given the layout of ships at the time it would have been all but impossible to ram and shoot an enemy vessel.
Parent
Re:Actually, standard practice (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
You know that "decimated" means that a tenth was taken... so it was more than decimated...
More specifically [askoxford.com],
Yeah, yeah, I know. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation, the roads and the word 'decimate', what else have the Romans ever done for us?
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Funny)
'Protestant Wind'? Errr...so their other secret weapon was beans for dinner? Those bastards!
Gerry
Parent
Japanese Examples (Score:5, Funny)
Then we just put the battleships in space, you dolt! Strap a star drive to the Missouri to counter some other ship of the era, and launch the puppy.
The USAF and USN are currently working on a technology to allow space-bourne Battleships and Carriers to transform into giant man shaped fighting machines as well.
Now, if you want to decry a weaponized space, how do you think we are going to deal with extra-terrestial enemies? Oh, I know, you'll want to sing them to death with your love songs.
Now, get off my lawn you damned dirty ape.
Parent
There were 3 cannons to replicate (Score:5, Interesting)
Two cannons were shown on the programme being lifted from the sea bed to join a 3rd that had been lifted earlier.
They wanted 3 cannons to make sure that a matching pair was not a fluke. A matching triple is much less likly. It was also interesting to to note that all the cannon balls lifted were of the same size.
Re:There were 3 cannons to replicate (Score:5, Informative)
It was because the ship only carried one size of shot that he theorized the canon were identical in the first place. On any other wreck he would have expected to find lots of different sized shot.
The musket they found on the ship, when replicated, also punched through a sheet of steel the thickness of a contemporary breast plate, which a modern 9mm handgun couldn't get through (the round just mushroomed over and dented the plate).
Parent
The breastplate test (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The breastplate test (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:There were 3 cannons to replicate (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Right in spirit, wrong in facts (Score:5, Informative)
You are right in spirit and intention, but wrong in details.
* Pistols are sub-sonic .45 ACP rounds are subsonic.
--- In fact, most of modern military handgun rounds are supersonic. Some of the
* fire bullets that are mostly made of lead
--- In fact, today revolvers remain the only handguns with lead rounds made for them, and even those are not in the majority. Most have at least partial copper/brass jacket. Rounds made for military are almost exclusively fully jacketed (FMJ). If you meant that the cores are made of lead, then it is no different for long guns. Few cores are made of steel. Steel cores contribute to premature barrel wear.
* They have a ton of stopping power
--- In fact, they don't. They are notoriously poor stoppers. That is why police carry shotguns in the trunks of their cars in the US. One blast of 00 buckshot is devastatingly more incapacitating compared to almost any commonly used handgun round. The only way you can reliably stop an attacker with a handgun round short of hitting the central nervous system is to cause sufficient disruption in blood circulation to the brain. Due to their small diameter, it is not easy to achieve with one shot with a handgun.
* almost no penetration
--- Depends on what you are penetrating. For a human being, a FMJ 9mm has a tendency to overpenetrate. Not only can that result in injuries to bystanders, but it lowers the effectiveness of the round on the attacker. Hence the development of the hollow point rounds.
* the bullets, even milspec, are rounded at the front. It's designed to mushroom like that
--- It is primarily, not even, in the milspec. Rounded FMJ rounds penetrate more reliably than mushrooming (hollow point) rounds. This requirement for a rounded FMJ stems from the Hague Convention and the fact that reliable penetration is more important to the military who often face purpose-built or improvised obstructions in the path of their projectiles.
Other than that, I agree with you.
BTW, it's a pity DL lists do not work in /.
Parent
Technology and the Art of War (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the funny thing is: only because our history textbooks are still fascinated with conquerors, ignore civillian progress almost entirely, and kings which built up the economy instead of going to war are presented as weak kings. So yeah, you only get to hear about the stuff used in war.
But if you look as far back as the dawn of civilization, the advances which made those armies and empires possible in the first place were almost invariably civillian technology. E.g., you wouldn't have had those empires rising and falling in Mesopotamia without irrigation and timekeeping and a bunch of other things. I'm hard pressed to see how irrigation might have been developed for warfare.
Or if you look at ancient Egypt, their greatest advances were made before the Hyskos invasion, while Egypt was still shielded by the desert from any noteworthy warfare. Their only concerns were minor border fights against raiders and nubian tribes, and they didn't waste much of their GDP on the army or even on fortifying their cities. In fact, none of their cities had a wall at all. And yet in this age they developed construction, medicine, etc, to an extent far beyond their warring neighbours.
Romans, if you look at them, were actually a remarkably peaceful civilization. With some few exceptions, like the last war against Carthage, Rome almost never started a war of aggression. They just defended what was theirs and honoured their alliances to the letter. But when attacked, they hit back _hard_. Among other things because they hadn't ruined their economy and manpower with pointless wars before that. The vast majority of their conquests were actually done in counter-attacks.
But anyway, while everyone drools about the Roman legions, few people give thought to the economy that could afford them in the first place. There were advances in engineering, administration, construction, etc. There was stuff like the aqueducts that allowed Rome to have that monstruous manpower to throw at an enemy. Most of that stuff was civillian tech. Nobody built an aqueduct as an offensive thing.
Parent
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
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,
Parent
The gaul wars were a mixed bag (Score:5, Interesting)
The gaul wars were a mixed bag and Caesar was going to be investigated by the Senate for it, when he decided to attack Rome instead.
But even there, it all started when the Helvetii attacked some gallic tribes which were allies and clients of Rome. The next two major interventions there followed the same pattern: someone attacks the allies of Rome, Rome smacks back hard.
It has nothing to do with crying "the Gaul have weapons of mass destruction", and everything to do with your allies being actually attacked first. Big difference.
Parent
Did they need it, though? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, certainly everything is possible, and it did happen at least once off the top of my head. But I think that _most_ of the time they didn't actually need to fake anything, and it would have been hard to fake it anyway.
For example the Daci had raided into Roman lands across the Danube since the times of Caesar (i.e., for more than 150 years) by the time Trajan had enough and finally conquered them. It's easy to fake one attack, but it's hard to fake 150 years of your settlers being attacked and your settlements sacked.
For example at the other end, did they really need to fake, say, the attacks of the Picti in Britannia? Britain ended up needing 3 legions and IIRC a whopping 20% of the auxilia in the Empire just to keep the picts from raiding south. Not only were these a financial burden, but it was a source of civil wars too, as whoever commanded 3 legions and that many auxiliary regiments soon got the idea that he can march with them upon Rome.
I.e., if that was done to fake a need to push the border farther north of Hadrian's wall, it would have been the most piss-poor and expensive fake in history. The area between Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall just wasn't worth the cost of such a "faking". So, no, I don't believe that was faked.
For example, going back in time a bit, to the time of the Gallic Wars, the Helvetii had attacked the Romans and their allies before. (And indeed used that pre-existing history as a bargaining chip to try to get Caesar to back off.) Do we need some elaborate conspiracy theory there? I'll apply Occam's Razor and say there probably was a genuine attack there.
Parent
Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Funny)
Bottom line is, if you mess with the British, they are going to shoot you a lot.
Speaking as an Irish man, you don't even have to mess with them. Just being in their general vicinity can be enough.
Parent
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
During the American Revolution, the British were also apparently upset by the fact that the American army didn't always stand out in the open to get shot at a lot, like a proper army should. Instead, the Americans hid behind trees and rocks, and rather than shooting back a lot, they just shot back a bit, at the British officers. It was a pretty effective strategy when faced with an enemy who likes to shoot a lot, and has the guns for it. It still works today, too.
Parent
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Interesting)
While amusing the situations you describe are rather less clear cut than your (albeit funny) post suggests. I'll take one example, Agincourt.
Agincourt was a crowd control nightmare for the French made worse by the disproportionate number of heavily armoured french troops. The reason the English didn't have so many heavy troops was in part that archers were cheaper. Some accounts suggest the French had trouble moving (or even lifting their weapons) in the poor, near boggy conditions. A longbowman on the other hand, is lightly armoured, and does not need to close on you to use his weapon.
The French knights viewed war as their vocation. The English archers on the other hand viewed war as their profession. The English were a more professional force, a more disciplined force. It turned out that 'breeding' was no replacement for hours of practice each day.
Leadership played a important role as well. While the Henry V of Shakespeare never existed, the real Henry V had the loyalty and trust of his men. He had led them through France, and they had done rather well financially out of it. Less valiant but still effective was his instruction to his men (now effectively trapped) that they would not be ransomed themselves if captured, and that they had best fight for their lives. It is rarely wise to fight an army that is prepared to fight to the death. Henry was also highly pragmatic, executing valuable prisoners when he feared they might rearm themselves. Amusingly while the French chroniclers didn't seem to have much of a problem with this, it was probably rather unpopular with Henry's own army.
The list of factors that affect the outcome of a battle are numerous. And English grand strategy (of that time or any other) probably isn't best summarised by "shoot the enemy a lot", any more than the strategy of the Byzantine Empire is best summarised by "assassinate, assassinate, assassinate". Of course there is a nugget of truth to any funny summary of grand strategy. We can probably trace modern doctrines such as overwhelming fire-power and air superiority right back through to notions similar to the English focus on archers during the time of Henry V or the notions of naval superiority that arose in the post Elizabethan England (and later Britian).
As with most conflicts, one is looking at a long list of factors, and strategy and tactics vary depending on circumstances.
Parent
Dramatic recreation of the event.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Informative)
Since you can't be arsed to read the article, let me quote the pertinent part for you.
The point isn't the size or type of cannon. It's the notion of using a bunch of identical ones as opposed to a variety.
Parent
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:4, Funny)
the guns were not very special. It's the way they were used that was special.
That's what she said.
Parent
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Interesting)
"We Dutch had the same guns on our trade- and war ships in that time"
The Spanish were notably impressed by Dutch gun makers, and commissioned lots of cannon and ammo for their armada from them. Unfortunately, the fact that they were occupying Holland by force at the time meant that the Dutch hated them, so archaeologists have found Dutch cannonballs on Spanish wrecks that had been "accidentally" made just slightly too big or just a smidgeon too small for the intended cannon.
These differences in tolerances were small enough to ensure that they looked as if they were the right size to Spanish inspections. Attempting to fire them at the English however would have had tragi-comic results such as swearing gunners being unable to force some cannonballs into the muzzles of their guns, while others formed such a poor seal that most of the gases from the burning powder went round them, so the initial "bang" was followed by the sound of a ball rolling sluggishly along the muzzle, and then a "plop" as it fell into the sea.
The strangest part of all this is of course that archaeological evidence from non-Spanish wrecks indicates that the Dutch ammunition tolerance problem didn't occur in stuff they made for themselves or sold to countries who weren't occupying them at the time. Some historians believe that this notable discrepancy may well have been behind the famous rant from King Philip II, where he threw his throne at a courtier while screaming "I'll kill those fucking Dutch!"...
Parent
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Interesting)
That only happened near the end of the 17th century - well after the start of the decline of the Dutch empire. Earlier that century, the Dutch did defeat the English at sea - three times.
So whatever advantage these guns gave, it wasn't very long-lasting.
The Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, so maybe everybody else had caught up by the mid 17th century?
Parent
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Interesting)
The dutch had a problem: they sea exits were very shallow, which put serious limit on the size of ships they could build and run domestically. They even invented cumbersome floating drydocks to help "fly" large east indiamen over reefs, but eventually trade and commerce went to the brits and the french, just like the german Hansa alliance lost most of their lucrative trade about 150 years beforehand.
Otherwise, english victory over the Spanish Amrmada was due to two factors mostly: wind conditions made it impossible to land the big spanish ships on british mainland and the english made iron cannonballs were of much higher quality owing to the slow cooling process applied after casting.
The spanish just threw their freshly minted cannonballs into a bucket of water, which made the metal brittle, so it shattered when hitting the outside of a sailing ship's thick timber, making little damage inside, if any. The english buried their hot cannonballs into charcoal, taking days to cool to ambient temperature, so the resultsing piece of iron was almost as soft as a piece of lead, staying in one piece while it went throught the timber of spanish ships, sometimes even coming out on the opposite side of the impact! (Whatever was in-between got almost totally destroyed).
On the other hand, one should not overestimate the role of artillery in late XVIth century sea combat. Accuracy was nil and reload times / repeat fire rates were nowhere near the Nelsonian standards. The Lepanto sea battle only a decade before, fought between venetians + spanish crusaders and the ottoman turks, was mostly sword and knife gore.
Let's say bad winds and substandard or outright bad seamanship was 75% of the 1588 spanish defeat, their commander actually never been to the sea before, he was simply a close relative of the king, that's why they appointed him to the post. (The russians made the very same mistake in 1905, earning the catastrophic Tsushima defeat.)
Parent
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Informative)
Another advantage of cooling off iron in charcoal is that the exterior absorbs carbon. You know what iron + carbon is? Steel. It's called case-hardening.
Parent
Re:Benefits of Standardization (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent