24 pounder tested against a hull replica of the Wasa warship

twistedSkein wrote:

jgnfld wrote:I see splinters. Unlike Mythbusters apparently.

As I recall, it wasn't that Mythbusters didn't see splinters but that they found the splinters created by the impact lacked sufficient energy to cause more than mild discomfort to the human analogues they placed to catch said shrapnel. A far cry from a flying piece of shattered wood punching through-and-through someone's throat, you know?

There were occasions upon which Mythbusters had carnal relations with a pooch, and this was one of them.

They used a 12-pounder (or possible even a 6-pounder; I don't really recall which) against a replica of a typical merchant ship's hull (i.e., planking about 2" thick). This is a far cry from a 24-pounder or 32-pounder punching through 36" or so of seasoned oak. You get, ah . . . somewhat larger splinters moving at higher velocity from the latter. Neither the round shot nor the planking really fitted what would have happened in a naval action of the period and, in fact, the thinness of the planking undoubtedly skewed the test much more than the lightness of the shot did. (Of course, a 12-pounder probably wouldn't have penetrated a typical mid-18th century liner at all, which also would have skewed the results somewhat. )

It's worth noting that Vasa wasn't really designed to face heavy artillery in a pounding match. As Thucydides pointed out in an earlier post, she was a transitional design from a time at which boarding actions were primary and artillery actions were secondary. By Nelson's time and the "classic age of fighting sail" that had flipped, with the gun becoming primary and boarding either a desperation tactic by a losing opponent or a final "clean up" action to follow the gun duel. As a consequence, Vasa was far more lightly built than a British 74 from, say, 1790, which means that round shot are going to produce much smaller splinters, probably moving at lower velocity, when they hit her timbers than they would when they hit the 74.

One problem of "historical experiments" is that the experiment has to be set in context. If all the Swedes want to know is how well a long 24-pounder (which, BTW, I suspect was shorter than a British 24 of 1780 and definitely would have used "weaker" gunpowder) would penetrate Vasa's side, their experiment's going to be a great success. If they want to look at how splinters were produced by a broadside of 24-pounders or 32-pounders firing at a genuine ship-of-the-line, then they need to build a cross section from HMS Captain and fire a few rounds at that.

One neat thing about the video, though --- it certainly makes the importance of the weather gauge clear, doesn't it? Picture the amount of smoke that single shot spewed out, then imagine a broadside from a 3-decker (or something like the US "74" Ohio with a broadside of 15 long 32s, 16 medium 32s, and 15 32-pounder carronades). Think 46 guns firing round shot a third again as heavy wouldn't make lots of smoke?

Randomiser wrote:Any idea of the range?

For the test shot, it looks to be approximately 20 meters between the gun and the target.

For the guns maximum range, I have no idea.....

Henry Brown wrote:

twistedSkein wrote:As I recall, it wasn't that Mythbusters didn't see splinters but that they found the splinters created by the impact lacked sufficient energy to cause more than mild discomfort to the human analogues they placed to catch said shrapnel. A far cry from a flying piece of shattered wood punching through-and-through someone's throat, you know?

From what I remember about that episode, the Mythbusters were using the only cannon they could borrow, which IIRC was a land based 12 pounder. I remember thinking when watching the episode that historical naval cannon were bigger than what they were using. If they had had a naval 24 pounder I'd bet they would have gotten more powerful splintering.

One other thing to remember, these experiments were conducted on a stationary target on land. A ship would would be adding energy in a very complex way as it flexed. Basically during the age of fighting sail, not all of the energy that would generate the splinters would come from the cannonball.

To be fair to the Mythbusters, IIRC the episode in which they performed that experiment was focused on pirates. With that focus, using merchant hulls and lighter weapons would make sense. Of course if that was their intent then they probably should have been clear about the situation they were replicating.

runsforcelery wrote:There were occasions upon which Mythbusters had carnal relations with a pooch, and this was one of them.

They used a 12-pounder (or possible even a 6-pounder; I don't really recall which) against a replica of a typical merchant ship's hull (i.e., planking about 2" thick). This is a far cry from a 24-pounder or 32-pounder punching through 36" or so of seasoned oak. You get, ah . . . somewhat larger splinters moving at higher velocity from the latter. Neither the round shot nor the planking really fitted what would have happened in a naval action of the period and, in fact, the thinness of the planking undoubtedly skewed the test much more than the lightness of the shot did. (Of course, a 12-pounder probably wouldn't have penetrated a typical mid-18th century liner at all, which also would have skewed the results somewhat. )

runsforcelery wrote:They used a 12-pounder (or possible even a 6-pounder; I don't really recall which) against a replica of a typical merchant ship's hull (i.e., planking about 2" thick). This is a far cry from a 24-pounder or 32-pounder punching through 36" or so of seasoned oak. You get, ah . . . somewhat larger splinters moving at higher velocity from the latter. Neither the round shot nor the planking really fitted what would have happened in a naval action of the period and, in fact, the thinness of the planking undoubtedly skewed the test much more than the lightness of the shot did.

Also, a ship that had been at sea constantly, would not have a lot of wood that were in any way even close to DRY.

And that adds weight to splinters, as well as change how the wood splinters.

It's worth noting that Vasa wasn't really designed to face heavy artillery in a pounding match. As Thucydides pointed out in an earlier post, she was a transitional design from a time at which boarding actions were primary and artillery actions were secondary.

More importantly though, is that the Wasa is a failed design.

I would not classify her as a transitional ship however, the ship simply does not have the attributes of a boarding-focused ship(or perhaps more correctly, those attributes are not primary factors). If nothing else, because the second gundeck precludes it.
It´s effectively a failed design exactly because it was built as an artillery platform first.

It was also built with the knowledge of the demise of the Spanish armada 40 years earlier well in mind, where cannonfocused ships proved the better choice.

The ship was built to carry 48 24lb guns and was in fact rather an early attempt at a 2-decker heavily focused on artillery, than on boarding.

Being built as a Dutch design just by itself clearly shows the preference(as the Dutch outfought the Spanish to a large extent by focusing on artillery early), then, looking at it:
http://www.vasamuseet.se/sv/Skeppet/Vasas-delar/

Compare to this one, half a century earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jacob ... 909%29.jpg

While the rear of the Wasa is still somewhat raised, it is part of the main deck and completely lacks a raised fore- or aft-castle.

There´s also a clearly shown preference from the artillery carried, just 6 heavy carronade-like guns and another 10 light guns(1 and 3lb).

Compare that to how the 2nd ship i linked to was somewhat similar in size but had only 9 24lb and 10 12lb, but over 50 light guns as well as 20 6lb cannons, with over a hundred total. That´s how it looks when you arm primarily for boarding actions.

Tenshinai wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:They used a 12-pounder (or possible even a 6-pounder; I don't really recall which) against a replica of a typical merchant ship's hull (i.e., planking about 2" thick). This is a far cry from a 24-pounder or 32-pounder punching through 36" or so of seasoned oak. You get, ah . . . somewhat larger splinters moving at higher velocity from the latter. Neither the round shot nor the planking really fitted what would have happened in a naval action of the period and, in fact, the thinness of the planking undoubtedly skewed the test much more than the lightness of the shot did.

Also, a ship that had been at sea constantly, would not have a lot of wood that were in any way even close to DRY.

And that adds weight to splinters, as well as change how the wood splinters.

It's worth noting that Vasa wasn't really designed to face heavy artillery in a pounding match. As Thucydides pointed out in an earlier post, she was a transitional design from a time at which boarding actions were primary and artillery actions were secondary.

More importantly though, is that the Wasa is a failed design.
..snip..

Well, originally it was a working design but someone wanted more of everything which made her top-heavy and unstable with predictable results.

Since Vasa never completed her maiden voyage (blub, blub), it certainly was a naval design failure for all the reasons stated in the above posts. But the ship itself is a beauty. The carving and wood sculpting are exquisite. And the Swedes have done a magnificent job of exhibiting the ship and much of its human elements in the Vasa museum in Stockholm. Were air travel more comfortable these days, it would almost be worth a trip to Stockholm just to see that. As it is Stockholm for a week is, in itself, a worthwhile holiday destination.

rdt wrote:Since Vasa never completed her maiden voyage (blub, blub), it certainly was a naval design failure for all the reasons stated in the above posts. But the ship itself is a beauty. The carving and wood sculpting are exquisite. And the Swedes have done a magnificent job of exhibiting the ship and much of its human elements in the Vasa museum in Stockholm. Were air travel more comfortable these days, it would almost be worth a trip to Stockholm just to see that. As it is Stockholm for a week is, in itself, a worthwhile holiday destination.

The time to visit Stockholm is during the summer, winter in Stockholm is very grey and drab.

I visited the Vasa-museum about 6 or 7 years ago and she is a sight to behold. If anyone is planning to visit Stockholm send me a note if you need guide. I don't live in Stockholm myself but it's only 3.5 hours away by car.

MWadwell wrote:

Randomiser wrote:Any idea of the range?

For the test shot, it looks to be approximately 20 meters between the gun and the target.

For the guns maximum range, I have no idea.....

Thanks Matt. It was the gun to 'ship' range I was thinking about. I'm not too good at estimating distances. Clearly, it was at even closer than 'point blank' range, so presumably the shot, going faster, would punch through the hull much more cleanly than a shot at a longer range which had slowed down more?

I've followed the adventures of Horatio Hornblower and Jack Aubrey for years. I had a vague mental image of the splinter shower from a ball that broke through the hull that was way short of what I saw in that video (a true Ohmygod!! moment). And then to read the comments from some of the more knowledgeable folks here that splinters from a 24-pounder passing through a thicker warship hull would be much worse! It makes you wonder how anyone survived on those crowded gundecks