Anyone here who owns a cannon / plans to get one?
I've made up my mind to buy a full size 2.25 inch bore (1 1/2 pounder) cannon barrel for $2k and spend an additional thousand or so on building a carriage and buying ammo and accessories for it
if you can buy a 250 pound cannon for the price of a single luger, then what's holding you back
No place to store them.
A 6 oz. can full of concrete and wrapped in newspaper does a hell of a job on car doors.
i mean, if the carriage is properly treated, and you attach something to it to lock it to the ground, you could probably just keep it outside decoratively
they're usually made to be dissasembled aswell, the cannon barrel comes off and so do the wheels, and all the parts can just be lined up on a garage wall or in a shed
i wont deny it would be a massive pain though
If I left it outside crackheads would find someway to frick with it.
also, theres fortress/naval carriages which are way smaller and could fit through a door, i just dont like them because it limits your ability to take it out on your land and wheel it around, and it also makes the cannon much less intimidating
yea, its really only an option if you live out on a suburb or on the countryside, but you can atleast take precautions, like having a muzzle cover locked over it and a covered vent hole
You also need a good way of securing them. Friend had a nice hole patched on the side of his house where one entered the sitting room.
Teh twitchies would find a way. We're slowly losing public statues and anything with any value is getting stripped.
yea, its easy to take for granted the fact that museums can do it without locking up their cannons, but theres a sense of security in a museum that keeps robbers away, while my front yard just has a garden gnome
i atleast have enough space in my basement to display it but even that will require taking apart the carriage each time i want to move it outside or inside
transportation for a field gun is also a massive pain in the ass, i do reenacting and whenever i see the artillery units i always realize the time they hate their lives the most is when they have to deal with the logistics of transporting 5 different 1000+ pound guns with their 500 pound carriages and 300 pound caissons to their homes which are usually more than an hour away
By securing I meant whn firing. He decided that a full charge load would be fun and the wheel chocks for the naval carriage were not up to the task. REcoil can be fun with a several hundred pound cannon running across a porch.
How did they do it back in the day?
I know more modern cannons had these plows so they rammed themselves into the ground when shooting.
>How did they do it back in the day?
Depends how much room they had. You either build a platform so heavy it doesn't move far back, or you let it roll back further.
>It also makes the cannon much less intimidating
from a looks standpoint yeah
i mean any gun with a bore of over an inch will always sound like a bomb going off when you shoot live rounds, but as far as cannons go field carriages are way cooler looking
on a naval carriage, you do what, just roll it back or forward? maybe turn it slightly or elevate it? you cant do much other than shoot it with it
but with a full carriage with the caissons and everything, they're so large that they can be used as a mini fortification to hide behind as cover
not shitting on the design of a naval carriage from a practical standpoint, its just not as cool
You should just build a casemate in the front wall of your house and sit the gun there in a fortress carriage.
keep it in the entrance of your house pointed at the front door. people will think it's just a funny decoration, but if the glowBlack folk try to beat down the door you can greet them with grapeshot.
>JUST AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED
See a lot of signal ones for sale but dunno if they're safe to fire with ammo.
Webley and Scott used to make a 2" naval gun but I think they stopped due to lack of sales. You could try contacting them.
>sold for 25k euros when it was produced
i cant imagine what inflation would make it cost now, theres no way in hell i could afford that
if you want to fire it with cannon balls safely you need an absolutely massive area. like, miles.
yea, or a really good backstop
but i have a friend with quite a large amount of land and he has a range with a massive steep hill for a backstop which at its farthest could probably be pushed to being shot at from 1000 yards with a rifle, so i think if i aim at the base of the hill i could probably avoid ricochet, and if not theres also the option of using grapeshot or canister shot instead to reduce the range
he also has a creek which i could fire solid shot into, which should cause it to dig into the mud
>massive steep hill for a backstop
If using cast iron shot it will be dangerous to shoot into dirt. You want a sand trap or something more effective, and beginners should never shoot them that far, as the trajectory is wildly unpredictable at those ranges for most cast shot.
Stick to concrete for shot and keep distance to within 500 yards or less.
its a nice and recreational sport for everyone in Germany
interesting looking group and cannon, and that front sight looks like its made from wire?
Contact your local re-enactors groups, I have a buddy that does it and they pitch in to help store the cannons when not in use and transport them to and fro. Whoever's got the most garage space at any given time basically
>local re-enactors groups
Literally the only worthwhile advice ITT.
People use cannons regularly, find those people and see what they do
Say hello to my little friend
cute little feller. Would put toy soldiers out and shoot at them with that.
I wish some channel would do proper testing with a full size or even half size cannon. The most you'll get is the occasional video of something in punt gun/swivel gun calibers or an ancient history channel video of them shooting buckets of water or a car.
I want to know figures like how thick of a steel plate they can punch or how many level IV vests it takes to stop one. Even something like how deep into a big pile of wood they could punch would be very interesting.
It would be cool to compare with things like 50BMG and 20mm rifles.
when i get the cannon i wanna hit up taofledermaus to see if he wants to frick around with the cannon and trying different things to see how they act in slow motion
theres things i want to see like whether a massive rifled slug out of a cannon would perform better than a cannon ball, penetrating shots, slow motion of a cannon ball skipping over a field and tearing through targets, etc.
Before you even think about it, talk to people from an local reenactment group. Those guys who actually got experience with using these things. Ideally you even join an artillery group have fun and learn everything from your own experience. Then you might be ready for a purchase.
i already do reenacting for a dismounted cavalry group, so while i cant really join an artillery group, i'm on friendly terms with a few of them so i'll probably speak with them the next time i go to a reenactment
but the artillery they shoot is on an entirely different level from what i'm trying to shoot, a small 250 pound light cannon doesnt even begin to compare to a 1250 pound napoleon that with its equipment took more than 6 horses to pull, it would be like comparing a .22 lr with a 12 gauge
of course, that doesnt mean i wont listen to them
Is there any reason why you couldn't load such a cannon with some (FS)DS projectile? Ramrods can be constructed in a way that they wouldn't damage the spike.
you definitely could, but it probably wouldnt work unless the cannon was rifled, which some are
in a smooth bore they would probably tumble after a short distance
Anon, do you even know what "discarding sabot" means? And what twist rate modern tank barrels have?
no not really, shill it to me i'm interested
i've never been too well versed in how modern cannons work
Modern tank guns are generally smoothbores, anon.
The primary ammunition is tungsten or depleted uranium darts roughly an inch in diameter and a couple feet long. There's no way you can spin a projectile like that fast enough to stabilize it, so instead they have fins on the back, like an arrow.
Until they exit the barrel, the dart is encapsulated in a sabot, basically a multi-piece bushing that seals to the bore (typically around four inch diameter). holds the dart centered, and drives it forward. After it exits the barrel, the sabot pieces fall free, and the dart flies alone to the target.
This type of ammo, called APFSDS, Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding-Sabot. does not need spin for stabilization, but if they are fired from a rifled bore, the spin doesn't really prevent them from working.
The cool thing about them for the purposes of this thread are that there's no legal issues stopping the serious hobbyist from rolling their own equivalent, scaled to fit whatever black-powder ordnance they're experimenting with.
Another common type of tank ammunition, HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank), works on the shaped charge principle. These projectiles are typically fin-stabilized as well, but unlike APFSDS, spinning them is not merely unnecessary, but significantly reduces the effectiveness. But obviously the barriers to legally playing with explosives are significant, so I'm only mentioning it to point out the real reason modern tank guns are smoothbore instead of retaining vestigial rifling
so if most modern artillery isnt rifled, then why did rifled cannons work so much better in the civil war? unless you're talking specifically about darts not stabilizing from spinning and not shells in general
Tank cannons, not artillery cannons
Modern artillery is generally rifled, and fires spin stabilized shells.
Modern tank guns don't normally fire conventional shells, and are optimized for two specific types of drag stabilized ammo as detailed above, though they also have other options, like 20 pounds of tungsten buckshot.
No, though your gains in velocity and penetration might be less than you expect without a longer barrel. Higher than a sphere obviously, but you're not going to see the classic "eroding" effects you would with a high velocity projectile.
from my estimates, a black powder fired sphere shouldn't be able to penetrate more than half it's length (i.e. it's radius) in hard armor, and even that requires a huge proportional powder charge, and very long barrel.
Until someone actually performs the test for me, using my estimate that means that a 12 pound cannonball could only penetrate a maximum of 2 inches of armor of similar hardness to the ball, and realistically much less when fired from a real gun. A "Dart" fired from the same gun could conceivably penetrate substantially more than 2 inches, though how much more probably depends on the exact construction of the dart, it's length to width ratio, etc. The absolute velocity ceiling for black powder is somewhere around mach 2, I believe that record was set by a long barreled .45-120 rifle firing a round ball rather than a longer, heavier bullet.
Someone could perhaps plug these things in to one of those impact simulators, but those are notoriously difficult to get good data out of if you're not an expert.
i dont think cannons will really follow those rules of only penetrating half the sphere's length
to start with, you're shooting steel balls (cast iron is what was used back then, however steel balls are even cheaper today so you might aswell use them) which dont at all act like lead balls.
not only are the steel balls going nearly twice as fast as lead due to the lighter weight, but its also going to keep much more of the energy rather than dumping it into the target since its not malleable.
also, the amount of energy a cannonball has goes up considerably the larger the diameter is, lets say a 3 inch cast iron ball which only weighs 4 pounds penetrates only 1.5 inches
however, if you go up to 4.6 inches, you're already at 12 pounds despite not being 3 times as large as the 3 inch ball, and considering that they would often be going the same velocity, theres no chance a 12 pound ball wouldnt penetrate more than 2.3 inches when a ball with a quarter of its energy is penetrating 1.5 inches
>3 inch cast iron ball which only weighs 4 pounds penetrates only 1.5 inches
>however, if you go up to 4.6 inches, you're already at 12 pounds despite not being 3 times as large as the 3 inch ball, and considering that they would often be going the same velocity, theres no chance a 12 pound ball wouldnt penetrate more than 2.3 inches when a ball with a quarter of its energy is penetrating 1.5 inches
What's your charge, 10 grains of powder? kek
I've seen 3.6" cannons shoot completely through a 2-3ft diameter hardwood tree, after the ball skipping/hitting the ground.
i was responding to his idea that all cannonballs would only penetrate half the diameter of a material the same as the cannonball and explaining why he was wrong by using a theoretical example
how much a 4 pounder actually penetrates has nothing to do with the example
We're talking about penetrating iron/steel armor of similar hardness, i.e. iron against iron, steel of various grades against comparable steel.
>to start with, you're shooting steel balls
my estimate was for metallic armor of roughly equivalent hardness, i.e. hardened steel for hardened steel, iron for iron. I also want to reiterate it's for the theoretical upper limit of black powder speeds.
>also, the amount of energy a cannonball has goes up considerably the larger the diameter is, lets say a 3 inch cast iron ball which only weighs 4 pounds penetrates only 1.5 inches
>however, if you go up to 4.6 inches, you're already at 12 pounds despite not being 3 times as large as the 3 inch ball, and considering that they would often be going the same velocity, theres no chance a 12 pound ball wouldnt penetrate more than 2.3 inches when a ball with a quarter of its energy is penetrating 1.5 inches
You're forgetting to adjust for sectional density, or surface area contacting the armor plate relative to total mass.
A sphere is an extremely *inefficient* penetration of armor for exactly this reason. As you increase mass (and therefore energy) you also increase surface area dramatically. The wider the ball, the more metal it has to "move out of the way" to even get to the depth of it's radius. Even a small increase in diameter creates exponentially more resistance when trying to force a barrier out of the way
Consider the following image.
you have two arrows: one is two feet long, the other is one foot long, but they have the same tip, and width. They're both moving at the same speed, so naturally the two foot long arrow would tend to penetrate better, as it carries more energy and more momentum focused on the same area.
Now consider if I thickened instead of lengthened the arrow, and blunted it's tip. It's gains over the smaller arrow would be far less than the lengthened arrow.
Now obviously with an arrow there are more things to consider, like the shaft breaking, but this is an analogy, you see.
>Even a small increase in diameter creates exponentially more resistance wh
Jesus wept, no it doesnt. Please go look up naval armor formulae and then say 3 Hail Satans to our lord and master Isaac Newton before posting on this topic avain
most people wouldnt care or know anything about cannons until they've gone to a reenactment and actually seen how big of a scale these weapons are on
The same principles are also valid for small arms though.
thats probably true, but you can atleast get used to guns, but whenever i'm around a cannon going off, each shot makes me feel the same way i did when i first experienced it
The argument is about misunderstanding physical principles, not big booms being awesome (beause there's nothing to argue about that).
oops i meant to reply to
not
>Higher than a sphere obviously, but you're not going to see the classic "eroding" effects you would with a high velocity projectile.
Sure, that's why I didn't write "AP", but if we consider a regular cannonball just punching a hole in a dude's chest, imagine what a really fast (at least faster than from a non-powdered thrower) arrow could do to not just one, but several dudes.
>yfw the entire file next to you takes an iron arrow through the body
Sure, it's a cool idea, though I will point out that even a relatively small cannon should punch straight through more than a couple of men.
I wonder how many curiasses and men a field gun would go through. You'd never get an example of it because in those days armored men were not in deep infantry formations, but it'd be a cool test for some show to do with dummies full of meat or ballistics gel or whatever.
its strange to think how advanced civil war era artillery was
sure, most cannons were smoothbore muzzleloaders, but they really excelled with the ammunition they were using, its insane to me that they could make reliable chemical fuses that would set off after a certain time or on impact, and i think some were even adjustable, and not only that, but shells completely replaced solid shot meaning that they were very reliable
barely 60 years before during the napoleonic wars, they were firing solid ball and shells that had a fuse sticking out the end that they had to light mannually
?si=hQxRsX0njnulFHWq&t=218
Relevant. Precision was taking off in that era
Make sure to load it with grapeshot and put it at the top of your stairs
I want to know if it's possible to shoot DU sabots out of one of those
Theoretically yes.
Practically, Where the Hell are you getting a DU sabot?
2k is reasonable.
If it were me, I'd make a modern carriage and just paint it up to look older, otherwise the entire thing will be an enormous asspain.
You might also want a hard mount so you can put in on the back of a pickup
how would a modern carriage differ from a historical one? you would probably be using amish buggy wheels for it either way, maybe steel instead of wood but it wouldnt look too different, but the rest of the carriage would have to be pretty well made out of hardwood
pic rel is the only real modernized example i could think of making, which isnt really much different from the original, just lighter weight and less parts
does anyone know why civil war artillery used such light charges?
they had
>the mountain howitzer with a half pound charge for a 12 pound ball
>the field howitzer with a pound charge for a 12 pound ball
>the 6 pounder with a 1.25 pound charge
>the 12 pounder napoleon with a 2.5 pound charge
where as traditionally the ratio of charge to ball weight was more like 1:3 for cannons
the mountain howitzer could only fire a solid cannon ball at about 550 feet per second while a rifle could be pushed to shoot a bullet twice that speed
was it because they almost exclusively used explosive charges and canister with artillery?
I'd assume it was because of unreliable production, and because there's a substantial difference in cannons and rifles as far as "safe loads" are concerned, what with the weight of a regular bullet vs. a cannon ball etc.
I also remember one cannon that was produced not of cast anything, but basically of layers of steel fit to make the barrel or something, which iirc made them more reliable than the rather brittle cast ones.
i know you're talking about the traditional method of making cannons, but i've been wondering what would be stronger, bronze cast over a steel liner, or a steel liner fitted into a larger steel tube but with a welded breech
i found a way to source a steel tube with a 5.5 inch outer diameter and 3 inch inner diameter, which i think would be great as a liner but wouldnt work on its own, and i want to find a larger steel tube that could fit over it and weld the two together
Wrap steel sheets around the smaller diameter pipe until it fits
Ah, finally found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-inch_ordnance_rifle
>The company's superintendent John Griffen proposed manufacturing a cannon by welding together a bundle of wrought iron rods and then drilling out the bore.[2] Later, the process was refined by winding a bar spirally around the bundle. Two additional bars were wound around the bundle and then the mass was subjected to welding heat. Finally, trunnions were added and a bore was drilled out.
>The Griffen gun was subsequently fired 500 times with no apparent damage. Then the gun was fired nine more times with increasing numbers of shot and heavier gunpowder charges. The gun finally burst on the tenth shot when the bore was filled to the muzzle with 13 shot and 7 lb (3 kg) of gunpowder.
However,
>Reeves soon discovered that using Griffen's original technique produced only one good gun out of three attempts. A modification to Griffen's process still resulted in 40% of the gun barrels being unusable.
but then
>He started with a hollow tube or solid bar of wrought iron and wrapped it with sheets of iron until the pile was the diameter of the gun's bore.[5] Sheets of iron were wrapped around the pile and forged and welded to the pile. The finished gun block was then bored out, removing almost all of the original pile.
The stacked tubes is stronger and safer. How most are made now.
This thing is so sexy, and it looks so much fun.
What is it that makes artillery so much more appealing to some than small arms (beyond the bigger boom of course)?
no, its definitely the sound, its absolutely terrifying in person, which is why i love it
the sound of the blast will genuinely echo for atleast a mile and often more, and that just in my experience at reenactments where they're shooting blanks
they have a reenactment every year in a countryside town and the cannons are going off next to buildings and near a street, and it seems like the echo is amplified by the lack of trees to absorb the sound and the sound waves bouncing off buildings
when the enemy side's cannons go off 500 yards away you can see them go off before the sound reaches you and yet the noise is still overwhelmingly loud
now, if you live fire the cannon, not only will it be much louder, but if you go to the timestamp 0:30, you can hear the bolt ripping through the air as it ricochets
heres a really good video aswell
Yeah, absolutely terrifying, and now imagine you have to charge TOWARDS that
to make it all better, artillery was always discouraged from dueling with enemy artillery because it wasted resources and time
so you're going up against artillery alone
at the very least, i think cavalry had some effectiveness against artillery, but i still wouldnt doubt a well trained company's ability to wipe out a mounted unit 700 yards away
>artillery was always discouraged from dueling with enemy artillery because it wasted resources and time
Except when your gun is THAT good:
>The 3-inch ordnance rifle was also capable of extraordinary accuracy. During one of the battles of the Atlanta Campaign in 1864, a Confederate gunner in Lumsden's Alabama battery reported that one of his guns was placed in a fortification with an embrasure about one foot wide. Within a short time, three shells came through this opening from a 3-inch ordnance rifle without exploding. The first struck the gun between the trunnions and vent, gouging out some metal. The second damaged the left cheek of the gun carriage. The third struck the gun's muzzle, crushing it inward, making the gun impossible to load and putting it out of action.[2]
thats true, rifled cannons were new technology and it was a race to field more of them to hit enemy artillery
but that made smoothbore artillery want to duel even less with enemy artillery because of the risk
ordnance rifles were probably the best of the war and seems like they could hit accurately to nearly twice the distance
I found this video that goes into some nice detail, about smoothbore vs. rifled, ammunition types and fuse technology and such, pretty interesting:
I wish someone would produce coehorn repos.
>take steel slab
>drill a hole in it
>put it on a pedestal
>???
>PROFIT!
https://www.1898andb-4.com/guns/coehorn-civil-war-replica-mortar-kits-you-finish/