View Full Version : 'Superguns' of Elizabeth I's navy


Knight-Dragon
Feb 21, 2009, 11:12 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7899831.stm

The English navy at around the time of the Armada was evolving revolutionary new tactics, according to new research.

Tests on cannon recovered from an Elizabethan warship suggest it carried powerful cast iron guns, of uniform size, firing standard ammunition.

"This marked the beginning of a kind of mechanisation of war," says naval historian Professor Eric Grove of Salford University.

"The ship is now a gun platform in a way that it wasn't before."

Marine archaeologist Mensun Bound from Oxford University adds: "Elizabeth's navy created the first ever set of uniform cannon, capable of firing the same size shot in a deadly barrage.

"[Her] 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."

Deadly artillery

Until now, it was thought Queen Elizabeth was using the same cannon technology as her father, Henry VIII. His flagship, the Mary Rose, was ultra-modern for its day.

However, it carried a bewildering variety of cannon - many designed for land warfare. They were all of different shapes and sizes, fired different shot at different rates with different killing power.

It is known that during Elizabeth's reign, English sailors and gunners became greatly feared. For example, at the beginning of Henry VIII's reign, the English fleet was forced to retreat from heavily armed French galleys.

By the time of Elizabeth, even Phillip of Spain was warning of the deadly English artillery. But no-one has ever been able to clearly show why this was.

The new research follows the discovery of the first wreck of an Elizabethan fighting ship off Alderney in the Channel Islands, thought to date from around 1592, just four years after the Spanish Armada.

The ship was a pinnace, a small ship carrying 12 guns, two of which have been recovered.

"There's a very good chance this ship fought against the Armada with its revolutionary guns, but there's no proof that all or even some of the others were armed similarly," says Saul David, historian and presenter of a BBC Timewatch documentary about the guns.

"Bear in mind that our ship is a pinnace and not a full-size warship. So it is probably going too far to say these guns defeated the Armada four years earlier.

"But they certainly represent a huge leap forward in military technology and may have contributed to the Spanish defeat."

Spain attempted to invade England in 1588 with 200 ships. The Spanish were unable to overcome the English navy, but there were also other reasons for the defeat.

The English used fire ships in a night attack, the Spanish lacked a good deep water harbour to load their troops and they were eventually scattered by a storm.

At the time, Spain was Europe's superpower and Philip II wanted Elizabeth's throne and to return England to Catholicism.

Replica cannon

The two cannon were recovered from the Alderney wreck last summer.

Replicas were recreated in a modern foundry, and tests carried out for the Timewatch documentary 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, travelling across the deck and out the other side.

Elizabeth's navy worked out that a few big guns were less effective than a lot of small guns, all the same, all firing at once.

The English navy stood up to the Spanish Armada. But, perhaps more significantly, as England's reputation for naval prowess was growing, Philip abandoned any further attempts at invasion.

"What we have shown is that the English navy and its gun founders were almost 50 years ahead of their time technologically," concludes Mensun Bound. This made Elizabeth I the mother of British naval dominance lasting three centuries.

Timewatch: Elizabeth's Lost Guns, BBC Two, 2000 GMT, Saturday 21 February. Watch more clips at the BBC Timewatchwebsite.

Cutlass
Feb 21, 2009, 05:36 PM
That's interesting. Naval warfare seemed to have changed very little for so long, and then switched to change so rapidly things were obsolete by the time they were completed.

privatehudson
Feb 21, 2009, 06:22 PM
Interesting article but I'd hardly say that the British enjoyed three centuries of naval dominance from then onwards since that requires a rather selective study of naval history. The Dutch gave us a right hammering a few times in the 17th century for example.

Shaihulud
Feb 21, 2009, 07:02 PM
I watched "Battlefield Detectives", and it was in their opinion after some testing that the guns, called culverins could not have been much of a factor in the victory of the English against the Spainairds. It was quite inaccurate and only a direct shot might penetrate the wooden hull of a ship, coupled with the limited ammunition and loading time.

Dachs
Feb 21, 2009, 09:44 PM
Interesting article but I'd hardly say that the British enjoyed three centuries of naval dominance from then onwards since that requires a rather selective study of naval history. The Dutch gave us a right hammering a few times in the 17th century for example.
And the French, too, albeit briefly (and quickly reversed by Barfleur-La Hogue).

Oda Nobunaga
Feb 22, 2009, 12:13 AM
I watched "Battlefield Detectives", and it was in their opinion after some testing that the guns, called culverins could not have been much of a factor in the victory of the English against the Spainairds. It was quite inaccurate and only a direct shot might penetrate the wooden hull of a ship, coupled with the limited ammunition and loading time.

On the one hand, we have the history channel telling us this. On the other hand, we have hand-written accounts from the Spanish, English and Dutch that makes it plainly clear that (especially after Dunkirk) several warships were out of fighting condition thanks to the gunfire. And that british cannonballs were coming in the ship from one side and out the other.

The logical conclusion: the history channel messed up.

Cheezy the Wiz
Feb 24, 2009, 11:52 PM
I wish the article had told us the caliber of the "supergun."

Trafalgar
Feb 25, 2009, 04:36 PM
I wish the article had told us the caliber of the "supergun."

"The gun is a 7 foot long, cast iron, smooth bore, muzzle loader of 3½ inch bore and 14 hundredweight (1568 lbs)."

This link gives more info on the guns and the wreck.

http://www.alderneywreck.com/node/28

Cheezy the Wiz
Feb 25, 2009, 10:13 PM
"The gun is a 7 foot long, cast iron, smooth bore, muzzle loader of 3½ inch bore and 14 hundredweight (1568 lbs)."

This link gives more info on the guns and the wreck.

http://www.alderneywreck.com/node/28

That is not the caliber. I wanted to know how heavy the shot was. Your article did say, though, that there was a lack of standardization of shot back then, so I guess that answers my question. Kind of.

Bugfatty300
Feb 26, 2009, 01:21 AM
I believe the weight of the shot as measurement of caliber of the gun didn't appear for quite a after Elizabethan age.

A 3.5in caliber would be something like a 6-pounder or 90mm.

So the round shot for that gun would be a little bigger than a standard baseball.

Trafalgar
Feb 26, 2009, 10:49 AM
That is not the caliber. I wanted to know how heavy the shot was. Your article did say, though, that there was a lack of standardization of shot back then, so I guess that answers my question. Kind of.

I would guess at a 4 to 6-pounder.

Depending on the type of gun (Sakar/Minion etc.), the individual ball (regarding quality of the iron), the individuality of the gun (bigger/smaller bore), and the preference of the gunner (shot chipped to size?).

There is so little information on this period it is difficult to be precise.

nokmirt
Apr 26, 2009, 11:56 PM
On the one hand, we have the history channel telling us this. On the other hand, we have hand-written accounts from the Spanish, English and Dutch that makes it plainly clear that (especially after Dunkirk) several warships were out of fighting condition thanks to the gunfire. And that british cannonballs were coming in the ship from one side and out the other.

The logical conclusion: the history channel messed up.

The range is the factor the English at first kept their distance from the Spanish Armada, and attacked the wings of the cresent formation, in line of battle, so there broadsides would bear for maximum fire power. However, the guns were inaccurate at extreme range. The English knew the Spaniards loved to grapple onto ships and board them with superior numbers. The English fleet was trying to negate this advantage at first. Later they realized how slow and unmaneuverable the Spanish galleons were, and decided to get in closer. Then, there guns started to tell against the armada. They also had the advantage in gunnery, because most Spanish ships had more priests on board than gunners. The English could fire at least three to four broadsides to one for the Spanish. At this range the culverin did alot of damage, but not critical damage. I remember of hearing of only one crippled ship, that was dead in the water, which was left behind, and soon after looted. So there were alot of casualties from the English culverins, actually demi-culverins, and I believe most of these fired a three pound cannonball. I am not sure if they tried to double or triple shot their guns, my guess is probably not. It also seems the English did not try to immobilize the enemy vessels, destroying rigging and masts. I think the theory was to kill men inside the enemy ship, and knock out their guns, so probably most guns were fired above the waterline, but into the opponents hull. I could be wrong I of course was not there, but from what I have watched and read, this is what I gather.

nokmirt
Apr 26, 2009, 11:59 PM
That is not the caliber. I wanted to know how heavy the shot was. Your article did say, though, that there was a lack of standardization of shot back then, so I guess that answers my question. Kind of.

3 pounds my friend watched battlefield Britain and thats what they said. On the average some guns may have fired heavier ammo

citedon
Apr 30, 2009, 10:49 PM
Have any of you read Garrett Matingly's "The Armada"? The book is about 30 years old, but it is a fantastic account of the battle and extremely well written. I believe that he was the first to dispell the myth that the British navy became more powerfull than the Spanish navy as a result of the defeat of the Armada, but was actually superior prior to that battle. The article about the guns would seem to support this. Matingly wrote that the true significance of the Armada is that it was the first modern naval battle. Ships fought as ships. This might not have been the tactic that the Spanish had intended (they probably would have prefered to board the enemy ships and fight hand to hand) but they were forced into that type of a fight by the more maneuverable British ships. BTW the book starts out with a very memorable depiction of the beheading of Mary Queen of Scotts which is cited as the incident that inspired Phillip of Spain to attack England in order to restore it to Catholicism.

vogtmurr
May 05, 2009, 01:31 AM
It seems to me the full culverin fired 12 pound shot 2 or 3,000 yards. The Spansih guns more often fired heavier shot at closer ranges.

BC1871
May 11, 2009, 06:02 AM
Naval warfare is a cruel mistress, with innovation often times being the deciding factor!

Sharwood
May 11, 2009, 10:52 PM
Naval warfare is a cruel mistress, with innovation often times being the deciding factor!
Same goes for pretty much every kind of warfare.