bronze/iron cannons and the british navy

[bell47]

What did the british navy use during the late 1700's Iron or Bronze? What did british naval ships have of value on board? Did they typically carry any gold, or supply of coins to buy supplies? I'm interested in the time period following the Revolutionary war, 1780-1790. Is there anyway to possibly identify a ship from this period? Is there a list online anywhere of missing or sunk british ships in american waters during this time? Thanks, bell47.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[wwwtimmcp]

bronze was considered to be better than iron but they used what they could get. bronze was hard to come by but held up better than iron did. until a better way of making iron was invented bronze guns were stronger.

yes most ships carried money aboard for buying supplies,food,water,barrels,oil for lamps,or whatever. some were used to transport supplies to remote bases and money for crown transactions, buying land paying rent on housing for troops, buying neccessary sundries for armies/navies, paying laborers building forts/housing for troops. and for the building of ships at the remote base.

anything used to do anything was carried on ships incuding cattle,arms,cannons for forts,cooking/eating utensils,household supplies,uniforms,swords,gunpowder,building materials/tools,heating/cooking stoves, medical supplies/instruments,nails,spikes,hammers,saws,axes,adz's,barreled grain, meat, and just about anything.

as far as what is something worth, it depends on how rare it is and how much is there. remember smuggling was rampant so anything goes. if the british considered the cargo expensive it might still be or not. I doubt 100 barrels of rotten pickled beef is going to be worth anything but a general cargo of rare items or a payment or equipment or weapons or even building supplies might be.

after watching the antiques road show, it has shown me a few things. the rarer it is the more it is worth, and some things, that I would not even bother with could be priceless. I saw a lady pay $8.00 dollars for a $250,000.00 clock at a yard sale and it looked like trash to me. all it really takes is 1 item to pay off and you're set.

I hope this helps, don't be afraid to ask me anything if you want.

 

[Smithbrown]

By the 1770s the British Navy was armed entirely with cast-iron guns. Britain had one of the most up-to-date iron industries in the world, capable of producing 1000s of good quality cannons in time of war.

Smithbrown

 

[wwwtimmcp]

the process I'm talking about was developed by henry bessemer in 1855, it removed carbon from the iron making it much stronger. in john mullers book, "a treatise of artillery 1780" he writes of the superior quality of brass or bronze cannon as well.

the simple fact that brass or bronze doesn't rust and corrodes very slowly in a marine environment makes it superior in quality and it was much less likely to burst as iron cannon were known to do. the bronze guns had a longer life span as well, after a certain amount of use cannon were retired to be cast again.

 

[Smithbrown]

I am sorry am not not disputing what you write but I am answering the question which was asked- what kind of guns did the British Navy carry in the late 18th century and the answer to that is cast iron.

The reason the Navy was able to build so many ships was beause they could afford to arm them, with cheap, massed produced cast-iron guns. And the introduction of boring guns out of the solid in the 1770s certainly improved the quality- the number of cast-iron guns failing the proof at Woolwich fell dramatically by the end of the century. Moreover by late 18th century Britain had little capacity for casting bronze guns. In the end it had little to do with quality and everything to do with economy. So more expensive, less ability to cast them- the authorities did not care what John Muller wrote and continued to order more and more cast-iron guns. Indeed the move in the later 18th century was to replace the few bronze types of guns still in service- mortars, howitzers and field guns -with iron if they could get away with it. And of course let's not forget the introduction of the carronade- another cast-iron gun intended for the navy...

Smithbrown

 

[mad4wrecks]

Smithbrown, thank you for answering the original question and providing additional insight. It is always nice to have a professional researcher on the forum. I always look forward to your posts.

 

[bell47]

thanks alot guys, bell47

 

[VOC]

Smithbrown is correct about the ships being issued with Iron guns but you may still find the odd bronze gun onboard but they will normally be of foreign origion.

Many captains would keep a bronze gun or two from any vessel it captured if they had any.

This was a point of pride to show to visiting officers.

 

[ivan salis]

military low bid circa 1800's --use the cheapest thing you can get away with --if it blows up oh well its only a few seaman --but think of all that money we'll save!! --the more things change over time the more they don't --jamming M -16's in nam --- unarmored vehicles sent to iraq -- cheap military moves that cost lives nothing new there --- cast iron was the gun of the british military -- 32 lber was the standard naval gun -- a bronze gun was a status symbol--- by the way cast iron cannons due to their bad cost of upkeep and proper preserving are a white elephant of sorts - best to leave them be in place.

 

[Smithbrown]

Ivan, you are being too cynical!

Although I said cheaper, I also stressed the improving quality. They were concerned with value for money.

In the 1770s when the British Ordnance got word that guns sold by the Carron Company to Denmark had failed at proof, they instituted tests and when they were unsatisfied with the results, they pulled in all and destroyed guns already in service and never bought a long gun from Carron for 25 years. And the Carron company went on to invent the carronade to fill the void in their order books.

It was the habit of the British services to investigate the source of any guns which failed on service, certainly from the mid-18th century onwards.

Smithbrown

 

[piratediver]

We have found over 40 cannons on the WHYDAH which sank in 1717 and all are iron and many are still loaded. We have also found a number of 6' wide rolls of lead which was used for various patching jobs and to cover the touch holes on guns to keep them dry.


Pirate Diver

 

[Smithbrown]

I have seen the drawing of one of the guns in Barry Clifford's book. It was cast at Ashburnham furnace on the Kent/Sussex border in the Weald, c1698-1716.

Using lead to keep the touch-hole dry is quite common.

Smithbrown

 

[wwwtimmcp]

john muller 1699-1784 first published a treatise of artillery in 1757

the united states captured several bronze cannons from the british in the war of 1812, so I'm pretty sure they were still being used in 1770.
http://www.history.navy.mil/cannons/cannons.html
heres one from an 1808 british wreck the astrea
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320211732903
and another 1808 gun by f.kinman
SUPERB AND RARE BRITISH NAVALBRONZE CANNON BY F. KINMAN DATED 1808.
This truly magnificant bronze British naval cannon has developed a deep green smooth patina overall, and is in near mint condition. The weight of the cannon is marked on the breech 2-1-6 which comes out to 256 pounds. A crowned George III is present just ahead of the touch-hole. F. Kinman (maker) and date 1808 on the first reinforce. John Second Earl of Chatham, Master General of Ordnance on the chase with a prominent crown. 3 feet 4 inches long, with a bore of 3 inches. Finest bronze cannon we have had the pleasure to offer, and perfect size for home or office.

Price: $29,500.00

Sold!
a little more info on cannons
http://www.thepirateking.com/historical/cannon_smoothbores_of_the_later_period.htm

considering the british had just won north america from the french, it would be very easy to see french bronze guns on a british warship. the british also purchased bronze guns from several other countries as well.
the british also used bronze coehorn mortars in the war of 1812, one is in the rutherford b. hayes museum in fremont ohio.
http://www.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/hayes/appendixe.html


Second War with Great Britain, 1812-14. A bronze Coehoorn

mortar with the British coat of arms and King George's royal

cipher, captured during the Second War with Great Britain

I know they made and used them well into the 1800's, and several examples still survive as proof so I think it is at least a possibility cannons on a 1770's british ship could be bronze.

 

[Smithbrown]

Dear wwwtimmcp

I do not dispute when or what Muller wrote, but I am disputing the authorities took a blind bit of notice of it. His book is mainly a plea for the redesign of the British gun which was ignored, although I do wonder if it had some influence on the design of the carronade.

I did state that bronze continued in used for certain types of guns- mortars, howitzers and field guns and these are exactly the guns you mention- the howitzer in Washington, the mortar in Ohio and the 3 pounder field gun by Francis Kinman (I am afraid this is not a superb naval gun at all, despite the selling hyperbole). But these for land service and are not the armament of the British navy which the original question was about.

There is a good reason for not using foreign guns on British ships and this was that they used a different calibre system, so you had to have the right type of ammunition. Where possible, captured guns were taken back to Britain and bored up to the nearest British calibre and then redeployed but more usually on garrison duty, rather than on British ships. And increasingly towards the end of the 18th century, other foreign navies- French, Spain, Dutch,- were also using more and more cast-iron guns, rather than bronze. Which countries did Britain buy bronze guns from?

it is possible that the army guns could be being carried on Naval ships, but by the later 18th century the Ordnance preferred to used armed hired ships for that purpose.

Finally thank you for drawing my attention to the Astrea gun which I have not seen before. However it is not an official British pattern; this may well be an example of the sort of thing VOC mentioned, of carrying "souvenir" guns.

Smithbrown

 

[wwwtimmcp]

the question is what did they use. fact is some bronze were built,bought and used. I find the statement that the british navy only used iron or were only fitted with iron to be lacking. bronze guns were used well into the mid 1800's. there are still foundries making exact copies of the british 1816 naval cannon today.

http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/archives_gun.htm british bronze 1816 naval gun

http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/988/Guns/Rifles/Cannons.htm

the british 4 pounder cannon the navy captured in the war of 1812 was not a howitzer.

 

[JOe L]

No matter what, I am learning quite a bit of interesting information here about Cannons, Thanks

 

[Smithbrown]

Dear wwwtimcp

I am sorry to tell you, although I suspect you won't believe me, that the Vancouver gun is also a field gun. You can see it rather better here: http://bp2.blogger.com/_G3uqod07bvo/RxTwtWRbW7I/AAAAAAAAA10/-djfbdGhPSs/s1600-h/IMG_0667.JPG
I am amused that apparently noone told them that Henry and Cornelius King were the MasterFounders at the Royal Brass Foundry, Woolwich.

The easy way to tell the difference on a field gun and a naval gun from this period is that the field guns have a loop under the cascable which is threaded to take the elevating screw from the field carriage, while naval guns have a smooth loop above the cascable to take the breeching rope.

I am sorry that you find my replies "lacking". I only post here when I think I have something valuable to add to the topic from my years of working amongst the unpublished records. I would point out that you stated that Britain bought bronze guns from other countries and I asked for details of this. I find your response to that point "lacking", too. The 4 pounder is not a howitzer, but then it's not British either- the shape of the muzzle and the breech tell you that and they do seem a little vague about how it came into their collection- they only state it was "likely" to have been captured at sea.

If you want to know more about the subject, I would suggest Brian Lavery's The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815 as an easily avalible and authoritive work.

Smithbrown

PS- thanks for the vote of confidence, Mad4wrecks- Respect!

 

[fortunate]

I found a nice bronze cannon once.
I was in Honduras in '86' checking up on Howard Jennings ridiculous book..'The Treasure Hunter'. I was walking the...'camino reale' as they called it there..from a coastal village , called palacio..or was it plaplaya?,,something like that..
we were only about 10 -15 minutes out of town when I saw the cannon on the edge of the trail. It was close to a mans bamboo hut and he happened to be there as we were walking. The guy leading us told me it had been there 'forever'. At closer examination, I saw the clear markings of a crown and a date on it...1822.
I had a camera and got a nice photo of it...I was with my ex at the time...and ..of course she has the photos now....I will try to cajole the fotos out of her and the fotos of the fortymile river gold dredging...
happy hunting.. fortunate

 

[wwwtimmcp]

hms looe carried five captured french bronze cannon 1744
hms macedonian carried at least 4 bronze guns 1812
hms victory carried bronze guns 1765

hms success built in 1790 in burma had 19 bronze guns on her

not every english ship was built in britain. some were foreign contract ships, some were prizes caught by british naval or privateer vessels. often the british even left the name the same and ran up a union jack.

the facts are they did build,capture,buy, and use bronze guns.
p.s. I have read lavery's books

 

[Smithbrown]

At the risk of being boringly repetative, the query was for the late 18th century, so that what HMS Looe carried in the 1740s does not change my argument, since she was not in service by the 1780s.

I am glad you have Lavery's book, since if you look up page 87, you can see where he states that despite being the biggest ship in the British Navy in 1765, the Victory was not alloted brass armament and he lists the guns she carried in 1808 on page 278, all iron.

The HMS Success in service in 1790 was a 32 gun frigate of the Thetis class, built in Liverpool in 1779 and armed with iron 12 pounders, 6 pounders and swivels. I assume you have confused her with the so-called convict ship, the Success which was built in Burma, but in 1840, not 1790, and was never in the British navy. There is a short article and photos of her here: http://www.aandc.org/research/success.html

I have nothing on the Macedonian as to why she alone of that class of frigate would be carrying bronze guns, so you will have to give us some more references for that, please.

And I am still awaiting concrete examples of Britain buying bronze guns in this period.

Smithbrown