|
|
Post by travis1836 on Oct 28, 2010 17:21:15 GMT -5
I'm currently a student at the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell AFB, AL and am taking a Naval History elective. For my research paper, I have to write on something navy related, so I followed our passion of the Alamo. I was hoping to tie in how the Navy (any Navy) directly/indirectly supported the siege and battle. Specifically, I wanted to tie the origins of the cannon, back to the navy somehow. Since we classify the artillery used there in naval terms (18 pounder, 4 pounder, etc), does anyone have any idea if there are naval connections to the artillery used during the siege and battle? Did some of the artillery have a previous life as naval weapons used on ships?
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 28, 2010 19:46:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by travis1836 on Oct 29, 2010 19:28:15 GMT -5
Thank you for the link. . .it was very helpful. However, I'm looking for more definitive proof that any of the cannon at the Alamo during the siege were fired from a naval vessel and not merely transported from one location to another.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 30, 2010 10:41:06 GMT -5
Thank you for the link. . .it was very helpful. However, I'm looking for more definitive proof that any of the cannon at the Alamo during the siege were fired from a naval vessel and not merely transported from one location to another. The long nines are instantly recognisable as naval guns - army nine pounders had shorter barrels, while the gunnade was also peculiar to the sea service, with no army equivalent |
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Oct 31, 2010 11:18:19 GMT -5
The long nines are instantly recognisable as naval guns - army nine pounders had shorter barrels, while the gunnade was also peculiar to the sea service, with no army equivalent Somebody, somewhere, commented that the gunnade was an army version of a naval carronade, and mentioned the differences between a carronade and a gunnade.  I don't have a clue on this. I agree with you, that the exsisting 9 pounders do appear to be naval long nines. The 18 pounder might be a possibility, but 18 pounders were common to both services. |
|
|
|
Post by martyb on Oct 31, 2010 13:08:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 31, 2010 13:30:31 GMT -5
The long nines are instantly recognisable as naval guns - army nine pounders had shorter barrels, while the gunnade was also peculiar to the sea service, with no army equivalent Somebody, somewhere, commented that the gunnade was an army version of a naval carronade, and mentioned the differences between a carronade and a gunnade. I don't have a clue on this. I agree with you, that the exsisting 9 pounders do appear to be naval long nines. The 18 pounder might be a possibility, but 18 pounders were common to both services. No such thing as an "army" version. The Carronade was originally designed as a very heavy naval gun with a short barrel, otherwise known as a "smasher". It was mounted on a traversing slide carriage and intended for quick firing at short range where accuracy didn't matter. Normally it was mounted on top of the fo'castle of warships, but it was soon realised that it could also be used as a cheap and cheerful anti-piracy weapon on merchant ships, who needed a close in defence against boarders rather than a long range duelling gun like a long nine - hence the gunnade, which was a carronade with trunnions mounted on a conventional truck carriage rather than the more complicated (and expensive) traversing slide mount used on warships. Curiously enough in Northwest Passage, the cannon captured at the start of the attack on the French fort, although a conventional artillery tube is mounted on a carronade slide which had yet to be invented! |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Oct 31, 2010 14:08:29 GMT -5
The folks at Perry's Victory have a functioning replica carronade which they use for living history firing demo's. Got to see it working up close duringthe NPS Historic Weapons Safety training School a few years ago--saw it live fired and believe me it is most impressive...
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 1, 2010 10:02:15 GMT -5
- hence the gunnade, which was a carronade with trunnions mounted on a conventional truck carriage rather than the more complicated (and expensive) traversing slide mount used on warships. Thanks, that makes so much more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by travis1836 on Nov 1, 2010 16:42:18 GMT -5
Thanks all for the interesting points. Is there any documented evidence that reveals that any of the Alamo's artillery had been used in combat aboard a naval vessel and not merely transported from point A to point B? If there is a naval gun made for the navy, that is ok, but is there evidence it might have actually been used in either combat or weapons testing of some sort?
|
|
I don't have a clue on this. I agree with you, that the exsisting 9 pounders do appear to be naval long nines. The 18 pounder might be a possibility, but 18 pounders were common to both services.
