Nelson & His World

Discussion on the life and times of Admiral Lord Nelson
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:45 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: loose canon
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:28 pm
Posts: 145
I was watching one of the many documentaries about Nelson’s navy. It said that one of the things the crew feared most, besides fire, was a loose canon.

It did not say what that meant exactly. Does that mean the whole canon and the undercarriage are running loose over the deck according to the moving of the ship? I can imagine it can cause a lot of damage to ship and crew. How did they put it back in place again, in a swelling sea?

Sylvia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:44 am
Posts: 168
Location: Woodbridge
In bad weather the guns had to be secured; normally the gun and its carriage were held in position by what were known as breeching tackle (ropes secured to bolts). In case of bad weather the guns could be secured by a number of different means, all of them a variety of extra ropes and placing chocks under the carriage.

If not secured the gun and carriage would roll across the deck, with the potential of smashing a hole in the side.


Captain Glascock in "The Naval Officers Manual" says he witnessed two occasions of a loose cannon. The first was in a frigate in which the gunner had failed to properly secure the guns; the ship was labouring in a heavy sea when one of the guns pulled the securing bolts out, and rolled across the deck, crushing one mans leg, from which he died, and then pitched down a hatch to land in the fore hold smashing several water barrels.

The second was in a ship homeward bound from the West Indies in a gale; despite being secured, one of the guns broke free of its tackle. It was quick thinking by the master that saved any damage; he took two or three rolled hammocks, and when the gun "with fearful force" was thown against the side, he leapt forward and stuffed the hammocks under the gun carriage, jamming it, and allowing others to help in re-securing it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 25
Location: Toronto
Imagine something that weighs in excess of three and a half tons, that is on wheels, rolling about on a pitching ship! Men were squashed, other cannons loosed, and it's been said, although I've never heard of it actually happening, that a loose cannon could punch a hole in the ships hull!
I can see why, next to fire, that a loose cannon would be one of a crew members worse nightmares.
I've also always thought that an exploding cannon would be an extremely frightful thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Did guns ever become loose when they were being used in action? The recoil must be phenomenal; is the force capable of releasing a gun from its secure position?

Also, how were gun crews organised in a battle when gun crews would almost certainly be depleted? In an emergency, could a smaller crew be used? Or would they form new full crews firing fewer guns?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:44 am
Posts: 168
Location: Woodbridge
"Also, how were gun crews organised in a battle when gun crews would almost certainly be depleted? In an emergency, could a smaller crew be used? Or would they form new full crews firing fewer guns"

Guns crews were carefully organised, with each man being given a number and each allocated a specific task; Captain Riou's orders for the Amazon in 1799 include a very detailed set of orders, with diagrams. Nine men and a boy were needed for a full crew, but he also states that the duties could be exercised by a reduced crew of only seven men, with the men 'doubling up' on jobs - each must be trained to do another's task.

I believe that the usual practice was to continue to work the gun with the men you had; it would take longer of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 97
Location: Salmo, British Columbia, Canada
"Loose cannon" is also used figuratively, to describe a person who may be effective, but who is unpredictable and therefore potentially dangerous.

I can't resist adding rather playfully that a "loose canon" would mean something different - maybe a clergyman of questionable morals?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:11 am
Posts: 1376
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
It might be worth pointing out that a gun crew was responsible for two guns, that is to say a gun one side of the ship and its opposite number on the other side.

The number of men allotted to a lower deck 32 pounder for instance on one side of the ship was 7, a 24 pounder 6 and so on, the number decreasing, as you would expect, with the decrease in the size of gun. Since it was very unusual, although of course it sometimes happened, for a ship to be engaged on both sides at once there was thus a 'doubling-up' of the number of men that could be used on the one gun. Thus one 32 pounder, for instance, could theoretically call on 14 men and of course, again theoretically, there would be 'spares' to cover losses.

All the gun crew had a number, the even numbers being stationed on the starboard, (right) side of the gun, the odd numbers on the larboard (left). The more important members had the highest, thus No. 1 would be the gun captain, stationed on the larboard side at the rear of the gun and who was responsible for priming, aiming and firing; No. 2 was the first loader, whose duties were sponging out, ramming home the shot, running out the gun and so on. The higher numbers hauled on the side tackles to run out the gun and they often leant a hand to the crew of the gun next to them in hauling if required. No. 12 by the way was the powder monkey, who had his own tasks!

Regarding the securing of guns and because they were lethal if they managed to break loose, crews did as much as they could to keep them under control at all times, especially in heavy weather. When a gun was not in use, even if it the weather were moderate, the quoin - the large wooden wedge which elevated the barrel - was withdrawn and the elevated barrel was then lashed against the ship's side using two ringbolts situated just above its gunport. The side tackles and breech rope were also lashed tight, so that the gun would have as little movement as possible. Even so, as has been commented upon, guns often broke loose especially in heavy weather and did on occasion break through the bulwarks. In such cases of course the gun was very dangerous and it often took some time to subdue it. (I believe there is a passage in one of the Hornblower books, illustrating such an episode).

Kester


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The loss of the Royal George
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
The loss of the 'Royal George' in 1782 was not as a result of guns breaking loose but because they were run from one side of the ship to the other during repairs to a leak below the waterline. The ship had been heeled to raise the leak above the waterline. The starboard guns were run to portside and a loud crack was heard, whereupon the ship sank almost instantly with the loss of 800 men.

Presumably there was too much weight on one side of the ship resulting in the disaster.

The real cause of the disaster was concealed for some time, I believe. Certainly in William Cowper's poem 'The Loss of the 'Royal George'' ( anyone else have to learn this at school?) which begins 'Toll for the brave, the brave that are no more...' the reason for the tragedy is described thus:

Eight hundred of the brave
Whose courage was well tried
Had made the vessel heel
And laid her on her side,
A land breeze shook the shrouds
And she was overset
.
Down went the 'Royal George'
With all her crew complete.

Can anyone explain why a 'land breeze' should have such disastrous consequences?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
One theory was that a sudden squall of wind caused the ship to heel too far. William Cowper's 'land breeze' doesn't convey that particularly well!

Another theory was that the extra weight of the 300 women on board was not taken into account when heeling the ship. Another theory was that everyone was drunk. Another was that the Lieutenant in charge was incompetent. The Court Martial decided that part of the ship's frame gave way. Was that just a convenient explanation?

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Salvage
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:07 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
A quick look at the ever-fascinating Times Digital Archive shows that the 'overset' explanation was current in fashionable London in December 1785 - in the edition of Dec 27th it is reported that 'a morning paper compared Mrs Abington to the Royal George and says she is preparing new rigging. The comparison is rather unfortunate as the Royal George was overset in her old days and at a time when she was repairing and careening.'

Also in the TDA are reports of plans to weigh up the Royal George:

'from a letter from Gosport 15 June 1785:

'a clergyman of the west of England possessed of very great mechanical genius has contrived a plan to weigh up the Royal George and intends to make an attempt, provided government will afford him any encouragement'.

A report on 26th July July 1785 refers to the 'ingenious Mr Braithwaite and his two sons who some time ago took up the anchors and some of the guns belonging to the 'Royal George'....

A Mr Spalding, subsequently killed in his diving bell, also raised several guns of the Royal George, 'sunken in deep waters off Spithead.'


Last edited by tycho on Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:11 am
Posts: 1376
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Amongst many sites regarding the sinking, I came across this one which I thought quite in depth:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A894215

Kester


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 100 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by p h p B B © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 p h p B B Group