I’d bet this happened within hours of the invention of the cannon.
I seem to recall some ships used steam cannons, but I can´t find a cite right now.
High-pressure steam hoses were used as a method of repelling boarders in the early days of steamships, and occasionally as a less-lethal substitute for machine guns later on, but I’ve never heard of a steam cannon. I’m sure it could be done, but it doesn’t seem very cost-effective.
Just to add to the slew of links, this page shows a carronade right below a fairly typical mortar.
Cannon balls skip skip fairly naturally. They are round objects, and when fired along a flat surface such as the ocean or a battlefield from a fairly low elevation, they would often bounce along whether you wanted them to or not. I remember reading a soldiers account of the battle of Blenheim that mentioned this phenomenon, and not fondly, since instead of shredding a few men and then stopping in the earth, the ball would bound along cutting a swathe through the ranks. This tendency was particularly pronounced if you managed to set up a defilade and fire along the enemy’s line or fortification, when it could get very nasty indeed.
I’m sure you all know what I meant. Please translate that into working code in your heads :smack:
I read an account of a haphazard AA weapon onboard WWII merchant ships in the Atlantic, it might have been steam powered but I don’t remember too well. It was supposed to fire a projectile up at an aircraft, but wasn’t powerful enough most of the time.
And to hijack slightly, the idea of loading a cannon with anything to hand reminds me of a BBC comedy series. One of the heroes finds himself in a duel with a man likely to kill him. He reveals his secret weapon, a blunderbuss the family had for years. When asked what it fired, he produced a bucket of nails and other rubbish, when duelling, the gunshot wiped out his opponent and everyone witnessing the fight for him 
Although it’s true that Paixhans invented the first reliable explosive shell for use in naval warfare, the British Army adopted the Shrapnel shell in 1803 as an anti persolnel device which was fired from canon. It was very effective at the Battle of Waterloo.
A random fact: one of the things naval gunners had to take into account while firing was the roll of their ship. British tactics were to aim for the hull of enemy ships while the French preferred to go after the rigging and sails on the opposing ship. Therefore, the Brits fired “on the downroll” or when their side of the ship was rolling downwards. The French fired on the uproll.
Not really Cannon, but the British had reasonably effective Rockets from the start of the 19th century- they were used, with little effect, at the battle of Isandhlwana.
They had more success using them in the Maori Wars in NZ, and in the Sudanese Campaign, where they could be employed against static targets (fortifications), rather than mobile forces of armed Native Warriors…
I’ve been listening to the tapes of Simon Schama’s ‘A History of Britain’
In it he clearly states that at the time of the Armada British ships could fire one broadside per hour and Spanish ships one broadside per day.
Both rates of fire sound ridiculously low - I assume it is something to do with cooling.
It’s certainly counter to everything we’ve seen in the movies as of late.
What? Pirates of the Carribean isn’t a historical record?
Also possibly to do with the speed and maneuverability of the relevant ships- the Armada’s ships were rather slow and ungainly, the British ones somewhat quicker.
It could take hours to for a Spanish ship to get into position where they might be able to unleash a broadside at the British, whereas the faster British ships could move much faster, and spend more time in positions where they’d be able to unleash a broadside in good order…
What, burning down large parts of Copenhagen and assorted US cities doesn’t even rate a mention?
Whoa! That’s a pretty neat weapon. Might have been worth mounting a steam generator on a sailing ship to make use of that, although it would be a bit vulnerable in a battle.
Well the speed, size and manouverabilty of Spanish v English ships is supposed to be one of those myths.
I was brought up believing that UK ships were small fast things that darted in underneath the cannon of galleys, but fairly recently I heard that the technology was the same. If nobody else recognizes this I’ll go digging.
I agree – that sounds absuirdly low. The impression I’ve gotten – from Forester and O’Brien books and from visiting historic sites and the like – was that you fired the guns as quickly as you could sponge them out and reload, and that they certainlty did get hot. One shot per hour seems ludicrous (and if cooling was the limiting factor, that would be truie for land cannon, too).
I don’t buy it.
I*m not going to hammer you for a cite to two fictional series, because both authors were pretty good at getting the factual parts right. And you are correct that ships in the Napoleonic period fired much faster – about every 2 minutes with a well-trained crew, IIRC.
What I will do is point out that the Armada was 200 years before the Napoleonic period. Cannon technology had improved considerably, and that included rate of fire. (I have no information on whether it was as slow as one broadside a day, though. That does seem odd.)
An account I saw on a documentary had it that the English simply were better trained and the Spanish Armada consisted of more soldiers and less sailors. The English were able to fire from a longer range, but found it hard to make much of an impact on the galleons, something to do with the quality of their weapons.
The same documentary looked at the ships used and the galleons were great at carrying troops but that left them unwieldy at sea, the English ships were designed primarily to be warships and were faster. But it didn’t mention whether or not they darted in under the cannon, in fact the English wanted to stand off from the galleons to avoid being boarded by superior numbers of Spanish.
According to the ever reliable Wikipedia
Hmmm. From here
And yes, trying to extrapolate from Napoleonic era capabilities is not appropriate - a 38 gun frigate of 1800 or thereabout would probably have been far more powerful than any ship deployed during the armada action.
I saw a history program that showed that India, when fighting the Brits back in the day, used mini-Congrieve rockets. Instead of a wooden rudder, they’d have a razor sharp metal rudder. When the little rockets (they were like a foot or so long) reached their apex, they’d tumble back to earth end-over-end, striking the opponent(s) and hacking limbs off.
You know, I don’t LIKE warfare, but necessity is the mother of invention. People come up with some amazing ways to hurt/kill/maim each other.