Ignorant question about cannons on ships

[hellas1]

Hi all,

I know that ships of this time period had bronze cannons and that later on they were iron or steel or something like that. (sorry)

I also know that ships had cannons on the port and starboard sides respectively.

Why didn't any ship have cannons in front, on the prow or rear of the ship. like the renaissance galleys did? or in a similar fashion, like Byzantine prows had pumps and siphons for greek fire.

Do you think we can do this for our ships, at least in the early part of the game?

hellas1

[roy34543]

Well it was usually inefficient to put any cannons there as youd rarely be ever attemtping to fire FROM there, youd always be firing from the side to make full use of cannons.
If you had a really large ship and the enemy had many small it might be useful, but you generally dont allocate it there, most ships had very few cannons enough as it was.

[hellas1]

Hi Roy,

If this period start in the early 17th C. Why couldn't this happen?

Also:
What? Not enough cannons?

Man, every portrait of a sea battle I've seen from this time period shows about a hundred cannons on every ship of the line, from the Brits to the Danes to the French. These weren't canoes.

What are you talking about? I don't understand. Could you clarify what I've seen in oil paintings of this time period? Thanks.

hellas1

[Elzabar]

Hi Roy,

If this period start in the early 17th C. Why couldn't this happen?

Also:
What? Not enough cannons?

Man, every portrait of a sea battle I've seen from this time period shows about a hundred cannons on every ship of the line, from the Brits to the Danes to the French. These weren't canoes.

What are you talking about? I don't understand. Could you clarify what I've seen in oil paintings of this time period? Thanks.

hellas1

Most paintings of sea battles wouldve been between ship-of-the-line's, or the artist wouldve added more cannons to make the painting more glorius. I'm quite ignorant of this era to be honest, but thats my opinion anyway. But some ships I think did make use of cannons at the back, to slow down enemy followers and stuff.

[roy34543]

Well some top of the line ships had a hundred or so cannons. But i believe the majority had a reasonable amount.
Even then most would prefer 100 cannons to broadside then 99 to broadside and 1 to the front, i dont believe one cannonball usually hurt ships very much on its own anyway.

[Erwin Rommel]

coz the bow will take the recoil thus slowing the ship down??

or the tip of the balance thus slowing the ship.........

[Willor]

Want to see a film soon how the battles will be done in the sea.

[Georgy Zhukov]

There were canons on the front or back of the ships but they were used mainly to give warning shots for the front ones, and for the back to try to delay or damage however you could a pursuing ship.

[Elmar]

Partial copy and paste job from an answer I gave to another post from Hellas1 on this same issue (in the customize ships thread)


It's erroneous to say that they had no guns in the bow or front. They usually had a couple of guns in both bow and stern. The number depending on ship size. Typically two at each end for frigates and smaller ships, sometimes more for ships of the line, especially at the stern. Called stern/bow chasers, they were most often employed during a chase during which they were employed to try and slow down the ship that was fleeing or giving pursuit.
But they in no way resemble the bristling of guns for and aft that were the renaissance era galleys.

You can stuff the bow of your ship with all the guns you can fit, you'd never be able to match the broadside weight of a ship of like size. And what such a design would do to the sailing properties of a ship doesn't bear thinking about. Also it's important to keep in mind why it was so very undesirable to get an enemy ship firing at your stern. Not just that you are outmatched cannon wise (bow/stern chasers v whole broadside) but that any round shot fired into a ship in that manner will bounce the entire length of the target, smashing all in it's way until it gets stopped by something. Think about the sailors packed tight, manning their guns, and solid shot passing through that crowd the entire length of the ship! It couldn't possibly fail to inflict great carnage or hit something important.

Admittedly the galleys popular in the Baltic and in the Med in the Empire age come somewhat close to what you have in mind. They had their main armament in the bow or stern because of the banks of rowers to the sides. Typically the armament was big in calibre, but feeble in number. Think 1-4 guns. Great for privateering, but you wouldn't want to fight a fleet engagement with it. Only reason the Baltic navies stuck with their galley frigates so long is that they operated in narrow waters where trusting on the wind alone would be a very foolish thing. The Barbary coast powers on the other hand weren't really interested in naval dominance. There wasn't a profit in it for them. Piracy however... Beating up on slow under gunned merchants, that would be a galleys forte.


Also, unless it has changed, Empire is expected to start at 1700 or thereabouts. Not early 17th century.


Another little thing, bronze guns and iron guns were mostly contemporaries of each other. Bronze guns were to be preferred though, but were more expensive. Iron guns were apparently more likely to burst when heating up from prolonged use. And the nature of the burst would be far worse too. A bronze cannon would typically rupture, with relatively few fragments being flung about, whereas an iron gun was prone to shatter into many pieces, endangering any crew nearby.

[GunnyG]

Around the middle of the 19th Century, the US Navy at least, began to mount their heavy guns on pivoting mounts. And, of course, the turreted Monitors had pivoting mounts. But even in WWII, engagements were generally side to side so the ships could bring all the guns to bear.

[Alwyn]

Welcome to TWC, GunnyG. I didn't know that ship-to-ship engagements were generally side to side as late as the WWII.

[Sar1n]

Welcome to TWC, GunnyG. I didn't know that ship-to-ship engagements were generally side to side as late as the WWII.

Broadside was favored because of gun layout. There were some attempts to change the layout (Nelson class battleships) but they didn't prove more effective than conventional fore and aft turret layout.

Main reason why the "age of sail" tactics weren't prominent in WWII was the lack of numbers-the battles rarely had more than one or two battleships or battlecruisers on each side. Largest naval battle of WWII, Leyte Gulf, saw last use of traditional "line of battle" tactics.