Damage to friendly ships
Posted 14 October 2015 - 05:17 PM
Posted 15 October 2015 - 09:10 PM
"A ship is in contact with another almost bow to bow, and some one wanted to stern rake one ship is there anything about causing damage to a friendly ship."
No. The situation described would not effect the friendly ship since the roundshot would easily expend themselves within the mass of the target ship. Also, gun crews of the period were generally quite good at putting the rounds where they wanted. The same would apply in the case of two ships side by side as well (it would take a very energetic roundshot to blow through both sides of a ship of the period).
Posted 03 December 2016 - 09:23 PM
In reading A TREATISE ON NAVAL GUNNERY 1855 (a book worth picking up from Amazon.com for those interested - only $30+ per book or $40 or so direct from Amazon), it was stated that the normal full charge could EASILY penetrate both sides of a ship's hull. From reading it in general, I had the impression that a normal full charge might penetrate deeply, but as the gun grew hotter, less powder was used with the shot for gun crew safety reasons. It also indicated that it wasn't uncommon to use lesser powder at closer ranges so as to not over-penetrate. One thing that puzzled me however, was the reference to the fact that when raking a ship, the gun crews deliberately went full charge because they wanted to inflict maximum damage down the length of the ship.
I'm thinking it was POST CAPTAIN version 5 rules that indicated that double damage from a rake was a "myth". I can't help but wonder if perhaps there was a grain of truth to that "myth" if the crews were loading a huller charge weight for raking shots?
In any event, the book has formulas worth looking into - velocity of a round based on charge weight and weight of ball (there's a square root involved and multiplying by 1600 to get feet per second I believe. The other thing that was informative was the information on the production of splinters and experiments that explained why it happened. The analogy used in the book was the difference between firing a high velocity pistol shot through a pane of window close up (clean hole) or firing a slower round or from further back (or both) and shattering the window. There was even a discussion on the ratio of powder to shot where above a certain point, the shot was too clean, and below a certain point (ratio wise) it produced splinters. There are all kinds of information in that book and I'd heartily recommend it to people to pick up. Gotta love Amazon.Com these days!
Posted 05 December 2016 - 11:48 PM
"I'm thinking it was POST CAPTAIN version 5 rules that indicated that double damage from a rake was a "myth". I can't help but wonder if perhaps there was a grain of truth to that "myth" if the crews were loading a huller charge weight for raking shots?"
The overstatement of the destructive power of the rake has been a article of faith in the gamer community for a long time. The problem is, based on extensive reading of period reports, that just isn't so. While certainly a rake can be materially destructive, the evidence does not support the hallowed gamer notion. The results in Post Captain are based on a careful analysis of contemporary reports.
BTW, the book you mentioned was one of many that was consulted in designing the game.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users