Nelson & His World

Just one of those random questions that comes into my head from time to time.

i.e. we know that many captured ships were assimilated into the British Navy.

Would they have left the French/Spanish (or whatever) guns in place or replaced them with British ones?

MB

Hello,

They replaced the captured cannon. For one thing the French and Spanish used different diameter barrels so if they retained the originals they would find it difficult to find ammunition (much the same reason why the British army stopped using the SLR - the Americans use a smaller bullet and our SA80 uses the same smoothing logistical co-operation). Naturally they would keep the original until they got back to a dock.

They would do a lot of work on the hull as well.

An interesting reference to this occurs in William James. One of the US arguments in the 1812 war was that though the US/British calibres were the same the British used larger cannon balls than the US hence the British shot a larger broadside and so the British 18 pdrs would shoot a much closer broadside than the US 24pdrs (!). James was fairly scathing about this but referred to the US using a cannon ball, from the Java to prove this. One of James's points was that the Java was a French capture (late 1811) and several French balls may have remained and the French did have larger shot and it is these the Americans were using as their comparison.

Joss

Mark,

I largely agree with Matrim here, and the guns were not the only thing that were changed. The masts and rigging were often not up to RN standards either - and of course, very often captured ships had few masts anyway, and had to be replaced! So practically everything was usually altered, and even the lines of the ship were usually taken off - very often to be incorporated in new and modified designs!

To return to the guns, I believe it was also generally thought that French cannon were not so well cast, and more liable to explode, than British guns. Presumably in this regard they were tested by the RN. Test firing of new British cannon at the Woolwich Royal Arsenal, as we saw on another thread, was pretty rigourous – the amount of powder for each charge for example, being significantly more than the gun used later in service. I'm not sure how the French (or Spanish) tested their cannon, but seemingly the British weren't particularly happy with the results!

On the human level, I would imagine the seamen were aware of the shortcomings of enemy guns although, if any were used, perhaps it might have amused them to turn them on their former owners!

A factor in the different calibres and sizes of shot mentioned by Joss was that the French pound or livre was about 10% heavier than the British. Hence a French 24 pound shot was larger than a British one. However, French windage was smaller than British. Windage was the amount the diameter of the cannon bore exceeded the shot used. Perhaps this was a factor in the worries about French cannon exploding? My guess is that English shot could be used in French cannon without much loss of effectiveness. Does anyone know if this was so?

Another point is that the French typically used 36-pounders rather than 32-pounders. The difference in the pound meant that a 36 pound shot weighed almost 40 English pounds - one reason why the French rate of fire was slower than the British.

Thanks for putting me straight on this.

The issue first came to mind when I was thinking about the provenance of the guns that were used as the bases of the gaslights at the corners of the Nelson statue in Birmingham.

i.e. I am sure that some British guns were sold off before the end of the war, for various reasons, but it then occured to me that the majority of guns sold at that time might actually have been enemy ones.

I have now tracked down a few newspaper ads which support that logic. And will attach a copy of one at the end of this post in case it is of interest.

There is an additional irony here as the British ship doing the capturing looks as if it might itself have been a captured vessel!!



MB

Mark,

The boat action took place on 27th June 1803, and a clasp to the Naval General Service Medal was later awarded in 1847. The four iron guns captured were 18pdrs; I don't know if that helps with your investigations.

Le Loire was indeed a captured French 36 gun frigate, commanded at the time by Captain Lewis (Louis) Maitland, who of course later went on to command the famous Bellerophon, and receive the surrender of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1815.

Kester

Wow! I never thought to investigate the capture of Le Venteux. Thank you for doing that!!

As things stand I don't think it will ever be possible to trace the actual provenance of the "Birmingham" cannon. In looking at these ads I was more interested in the general source that they might have come from rather than specific.

Having said that when I was speaking to the owners they did say they might be prepared to have them "x-ray" scanned one day to see if there are any markings still evident under the corrosion. Now that really would be fascinating.

I am going to attach a picture of one of the cannon which was taken on Sunday.

Is there any way of telling from this photo if they are British or Foreign-made?

(Obviously ignore the carriages as they have been purpose made by the present owners)



MB

I'll have a look at my arming and fitting book later (someone else will probably have a quicker response). Anyway the gun is interesting in that it does not appear to have a 2nd reinforce just a first reinforce and a chase. From memory most British cannon of that period had the distinct first and second reinforce then the chase. The gun could be older than the period captured though (quite easily). Plus it could be a trick of the photograph hiding the second reinforce....


Joss

Mark,

According to the 'bible', Brian Lavery's 'Nelson's Navy', and the diagrams, both the Armstrong pattern guns (approximately 1720 to the American War of independence, although some were in service until about 1808) and the later Blomefield pattern (1780's to Trafalgar and beyond) had a 'first reinforce' ring approximately mid-way between the trunnions and the breech, which would appear to be missing here or is somehow hidden.

The former also had a 'chase astragel' ring just forward of the 'second reinforce' ring near the trunnions. This would also appear to be missing. Both guns had a 'muzzle astragel' ring, set back from the er, muzzle, the Armstrong gun appearing to have it set further 'aft' then the Blomefield version – and much as in your photograph. However, I am not convinced this is an older Armstrong pattern, and I don't think it can be a later Blomefield gun either, since the tell-tale loop to take the breeching rope, is not present.

Therefore, and unless I am completely wrong, I am surmising that these are indeed two of the captured French guns, and which were originally set around Nelson's statue. However, to date I haven't found any diagrams of French cannon to check whether this is likely. When the owners get the guns scanned, it might be a good idea if they checked the ends of the trunnions. This is where any markings are likely to be, certainly on British guns.

Nice looking carriages, by the way, even down to the different sized trucks.

Mark, what size are these guns? They look very small, but I can't really tell from the photo. Are they nine-pounders?

Thank you very much for the replies folks.

The odds are definitely increasing on these being captured guns.


Tony,

It's very remiss of me but I don't know for certain. I was told somewhere along the line that they are fourteen pounders but I don't know where that information originated from. I wish now that as well as my camera I had taken a tape and I could have taken some measurements.

If anyone is interested I will attach another couple of photos that show the cannon. The first was taken just before the salute outside the Council House. And the second was taken as they were being loaded back on to the lorry that was conveying then to and fro.

Mark,

Well, they're obviously not 32 pdrs! Nor seemingly, 24's.

You say that it is thought they are 14pdrs, but I'm not sure this was a standard RN size, since (again according to Nelson's Navy) below the 24pdrs were 18, then 12, then 9. So, if that assessment is accurate, is this a French size?

Besides their length, it might also help to know how much they weigh. Perhaps the owners know, or maybe even the guy on the crane had an idea – although he might have said that they were '****** heavy!'

Dear All

It is impossible to say what type of gun was shown in Birmingham until someone measures the length of the piece and the diameter of bore. As far as I understand it, during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, nine pounders came in six sizes varying from 9' 6 " to 7' in length and fired a ball with a diameter of 4"; whole twelve pounders varied from 9' 6" to 8' and fired a ball with a muzzle diameter of 4.4" - so to guess at the calibre from a picture is difficult.
To me, the Birmingham guns look like twelve pounders - but.......

Brian

Kester/Brian

Up until this year I hadn't taken a great interest in these guns. It was mainly when I realised that there might be some markings on them and therefore some idea of their provenance that I decided to look into them a bit further.

The chap who said about them being 14-pounders seemed fairly knowledgeable so I took him at his word at the time.

But I think the thing to do now is to take some more accurate measurements and see what information that throws up. Unfortunately that may now be Trafalgar Day 2012. But if I can get anything sooner I will of course report back.

I'm not sure how easy it will be to get an accurate measurement of the inner diameter of the barrel. You can probably see from one of the photos that they had been adapted to take the gas supply and supports for the gas lights above. But I will do my best.

Thanks again for your interest and very valuable information.

MB