Gunnery, Guns & Ammo in the Age of Sail (1650 -1815)

» HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT MILITARY HISTORY VISUALIZED «
(A) You can support my channel on Patreon: / mhv
(B) Alternatively, you can also buy "Spoils of War" (merchandise) in my online shop: www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
» SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS «
facebook: / milhistoryvisualized
twitter: / milhivisualized
tumblr: / militaryhistoryvisualized
» SOURCES & LINKS «
Gardiner, Robert: Guns and Gunnery, in: Gardiner, Robert; Lavery, Brian: The Line of Battle - The Sailing Warship 1650-1840, p. 146-161
Tracy, Nicholas: Naval Tactics in the Age of Sail, in: Stilwell, Alexander: The Trafalgar Companion.
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
The Counter-Design is heavily inspired by Black ICE Mod for the game Hearts of Iron 3 by Paradox Interactive
forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Since some people can't distinguish between "bronze, which was usually called brass" and "bronze is brass", here is what I said with emphasis added: "In terms of materials, the guns could be from iron or bronze, which WAS USUALLY CALLED brass."

[@btCharlie_]

I've thought bronze is and always has been an alloy of mainly copper with a little bit of tin, while brass is an alloy of copper an zinc. Is it it really just a case of people unable to tell them apart? Is the strict separation a modern day thing? It's kinda interesting.

[@420JackG]

I guess that maybe we can take it that "brass" was originally a term to help distinguish grades of bronze or maybe differentiate between specific bronze alloys?

[@Canadianvoice]

You forget on youtube everyone is a history professor specializing in naval munitions. Dont stoop to an idiots level and argue wi th them

[@MBKill3rCat]

@@btCharlie_ Brass for cannon often did contain a small amount of zinc

[@stevemcqueen1096]

Lots of interesting information. No annoying music. What a cool concept.

[@Halo_Legend]

But annoying accent

[@UNKNOWNUSER-fv6nk]

@@connorbranscombe6819 no ...it's not good ... and the dude making these videos is not nice ... i left a comment ... and he very angrily answered to a normal "advice"

[@yvc9]

@@UNKNOWNUSER-fv6nk not all "advice" is welcome. Especially from some random dude.

[@olkoo]

@@UNKNOWNUSER-fv6nk I don't understand the criticism towards you. I couldn't agree more. Amazing content reduced heavily by poor diction of the author

[@joshanderson3961]

@@olkoo you and unknown user are such stereotypical English speakers, Learn a second language and try to pronounce it perfectly. idiots.

[@aperson4811]

It is always amazing to see how much logistics goes into everything.

[@Sgt_Chevron]

"Amateurs talk about strategy and tactics. Professionals talk about logistics and sustainability in warfare" -Robert Hilliard Barrow Making sure everything is fed and oiled is just as important as using it. Makes sense if you think about it. Oh I'm sorry for responding four years late, I didn't see the date.

[@androo9320]

“-Which ultimately led to the creation of Judas Priest and Iron Maiden in the 20th century.” As awesome as it is subtle. Just one of many reasons I’m a subscriber.....

[@johnthomas7517]

Exactly. Superior content, pleasant surprizes.

[@jaewok5G]

that wacky German sense of humor that they're famous for!

[@DeputatKaktus]

jim ewok Nein, das ist not wacky. 😂

[@Nitro1000]

That line was gold 🤣

[@martinwalker9386]

The original ordinance safety precaution for these guns read, “When ye gonnor shall apply ye match to ye cannon, he shall step smartly to one side lest it roll back and spoyle him.” This was in one of my Navy safety manuals.

[@ajconstantine3593]

Martin Walker ... Does that book happen to note the difference between ‘ordinance’ and ‘ordnance’? ... juss funnin 😀✌️

[@MrSimonw58]

The gonnor gets to eat the weavles before Roger the cabin boy

[@stefanmilosevic1238]

boi, as non english speaker, its hurts like hell to listen to him for first two minutes.... And i watched thousands of hours on youtube....

[@pretzelbomb6105]

It’s always nice to find something straightforward, as opposed to padded with excessive gobbledygook.

[@chapiit08]

@@stefanmilosevic1238 It really does hurt.

[@MrMaffy96]

*as valid as Gaijin BR You got my like again

[@woobyvr9654]

MrMaffy96 same here

[@SuperibyP]

I laughed so hard at this. I'm glad to be subscribed!

[@cesarfelipe7138]

"Russian bias is just a myth" *Entire german team gets shot down by LaGG-3's

[@Katniss218]

Still better than current tier "balance" in world of tanks.

[@PorWik]

César Felipe it’s nothing to 109e1

[@Thane36425]

I saw somewhere that toward the end of this period, and after the adoption of the flintlock firing mechanism on the cannon, at least a few ship were beginning to use a kind of concentrated aimed fire. It worked like this: a section of guns on the line, three or four, were chosen to be sighted together. Marks were made on the deck denoting angles to make all the shots in the section hit the same point at a given range. The officer would tell the crew which lines to use and once ready, the guns would fire at the same time (made more reliable because of the improved firing mechanism). Theoretically, the section's shots would hit close to each other and the damage would be concentrated and thus made worse, particularly as far as penetrating the hull went (note that I'm not saying the same exact spot or hole, just much closer than would be in a regular broadside). Supposedly this tactic was used a time or two, though I don't recall where though I do think it was in the American Revolution or the War of 1812, somewhere in that time period and area. According to reports, the tactic worked as intended and the targeted ship were more badly damaged and faster than ordinarily would be the case. I remember seeing this on a history program, back when these were still being made (well) in the US, so it has been a long time, and only saw it the one time. It might be something to look in to. I also think that this tactic was developed shortly before rifled cannon became the norm. The greater range and power of those guns against wooden hulls probably obviated the need for this tactic so it was forgotten. It may have been useful later against the armor plated ships that followed though.

[@aleccrombie7923]

Great information. Thank you

[@asterhubble4984]

Fun fact: Culevrin comes from the french ''Couleuvrine'' wich basically means grass-snake-like since they were long and thin. Their lighter weight, and especially the weight of their ammunition, made them very popular with the highly mobile ground forces.

[@cmr2153]

The one with Maiden and Judas Priest got me lying on the floor. Good vid

[@goki6548]

CMR i think you will say did i did a comment to this video? When you see this comment hello from 2020

[@yvc9]

Always a treat to watch your videos. Thank you for sharing them

[@commissarcactus1513]

"There were no sights and aiming was very approximate [uber no scope];" Well I have to give a like now.

[@seanrea550]

sighting methods were possible and were largly a function of angles and lining up the bore. trained and experienced gunners could be comparatively accurate shots for the system. this would be nessisary for targeting the key points of a ship like the mast or rudder, other wise the main damage would be agianst the crew or general damage to the hull.

[@seanmalloy7249]

@@seanrea550 Gunner was a highly skilled position. Being able to judge the delay between triggering the lock or touching the match to the hole and when the cannon actually fired was crucial, because timing a shot to the roll of the ship made such a big difference to the aim of the cannon. Beyond that was the skill of judging the roll of the ship against the target range to adjust the quoin so that the desired line of fire was within the range of the ship's roll. This was one reason why the Royal Navy tended to engage at short ranges, where the additional training given to gun crews would give them a rate of fire advantage over enemy warships without requiring careful adjustment of aim, which could significantly slow down rate of fire.

[@thethirdman225]

@@seanrea550 The Royal Navy usually tried to cross the stern of enemy ships so that they could fire down along the gun decks. The stern galleries were not nearly as heavily protected as the sides of the ship. This required good seamanship and the Royal Navy had an edge on its enemies because it spent about twice the amount of time at sea.

[@ardaonen4968]

this is simply a phenomenal video

[@kalamaroni]

Just a minor detail: at 3:09 the data for bronze and iron cannons switch sides. Not really a big deal, but if you are looking for suggestions on how to keep things from becoming confusing, that would be a minor detail which can make a difference.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

good point, I think I had it right, but then changed when I looked at the script. Forgot to change the text in the script around. Was a bit sick when doing this vid... funny fact same goes for the other naval video in this era.

[@tommy-er6hh]

Sea sick?

[@GeritDriessen]

Great to see some pre-1900 history!! Thank you for this :).

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

Fun Fact the Term *Hot Shot* refers to the practice of heating a cannon ball in a furnace until it glows cherry red then firing it at the enemy thus setting their ship on fire

[@briandady9030]

Very informative, thank you for posting.

[@sabeda1647]

"As valid as Gaijin's BRs" Savage.

[@WildBillCox13]

Useful comparisons. Thanks for posting.

[@southronjr1570]

The use of caronades enabled a substantial increase of number of guns while saving weight. They also usually used the same projectiles as the cannons and thus simplified logistics, not to mention that in close actions, the caronades were absolutely terrifying with grape or cannister to sweep the decks or clear the rigging of enemy personnel.

[@MrMartinNeumann]

If anyone is interested on how the positioning of the gunports affected the ship design I can recommend a visit to the vasa museum in Stockholm. The vasa was a ship of the Swedish marine build in 1626, it originally was planned with a single gun deck half way through production it was decided to add another one. This made the ship so unstable that it almost capsized just by people running from one side to the other. It sank on its maiden voyage in the harbor of Stockholm. It was recovered 1961 and is almost completely intact. In the museum, they have a computer program where you can try designing ships yourself to get a feel of the mechanics itself. (unfortunately It's not available on the web as far as I know. Its easy to find some more information about this on the internet. Here is a random video on youtube I found: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZKYZmStlrSta6c

[@richard343s]

I've been there that ship was impressive, well worth the visit.

[@johnnypopulus5521]

2021 Rewatch & still excellent content. Bernhardt, you really do make top tier educational & entertaining content. Say hello to Bismarck & Dr. Toppel from America, please.

[@johncox9660]

THX for posting.

[@WollongongWacko]

great video dude

[@Jacob-yg7lz]

Actually iron and bronze are both 2000 pounds per ton.

[@OgreDogre]

Jacob Furrow were or are?

[@masonperry9178]

Oskar Karlsson its a pun

[@richard343s]

haha

[@Jacob-yg7lz]

Probably just part of the language barrier.

[@raygiordano1045]

No friends, it is a logic question that I first heard when I was about 6 years old: Which is heavier: A pound of feathers or a pound of lead?

[@kaseyfreudenstein4970]

could you do a video on ship hulls? I believe I watched a video on "master and commander" that described the development on faster hulls and even the differences in wood armor. However I can't find it, and I think a video detailing the development of ship hulls would be amazingly enlightening. love your videos, btw. Don't stop!!!

[@joelstanhope7231]

Shore batteries would often heat the cannonballs so they would start fires on the wooden ships they impacted. Several old forts or fortresses still have the wood fired heaters in place

[@cbremer83]

Excellent METAL reference around 3:50.

[@roccovitiello7031]

very good info

[@AECoH]

Massive fan, you're the only content maker I'm excited to see in my sub box at the moment. Please could I request video on urban combat tactics employed in Stalingrad and how they evolved and were later employed in the Battle for Berlin? Maybe as a 24 part anthology haha ;P Sorry got greedy But yes epic content, thanks so much! Also your English mishaps add to the charm, please don't get too good at speaking it.

[@prestonroberts2941]

A follow-up to this, covering the rest of the 1800's, would be great.

[@michaelschmitt4819]

awesome topic!

[@TheAerosolNinja]

Love it.

[@Jockrtotalwar]

Sir, Sorry for my English, I really love the Age Of Sails, If you could show more about ship building and how the models could change the ships, Thanks for listen.

[@MartinPlanner2]

good video learned a lot, will you make a similar one on later naval guns?

[@chapiit08]

Quills from the wings of large fowl were also used as cannon fuse by filling them with fine gunpowder.

[@kennethconnors5316]

useful information

[@apudharald2435]

could you give some form of breakdown of the crew of a ship of the line ,just like you did with an artillery unit? it could be a good subject for a follow up video.

[@MikhaelAhava]

I agree!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, noted I guess I will do a video on the various ship types to give an overview and compare some values, like crews, guns, etc.

[@devmaster3214]

Agreed

[@apudharald2435]

So many gunners, this number of boarders, that number of sailors to move the ship, a general overhead for command and control, some specialist artisans from surgeon to carpenter. I feel kind of dumb for never bothering to ask what all those 700-900 people on board of a ship of the line might actually be doing that warrants having them on board at all.

[@seanrea550]

you would have three basic variants for men on a ship, the sailors, the men responsible for the handling of the ship, the gunners, the men responsible for the handling of the guns, and the marines, the men responsible for boarding opposing vessels and resisting boarding by other vessels. the marines could also be used for a shore raid agianst land targets. there would be further brake down from this and the men could fill multiple roles when not in combat.

[@wat8437]

RE; a propellant called brown powder or cocoa powder was eventually introduced. it was made from brown charcoal, straw etc, hence the name.

[@stevewindisch7400]

There is often confusion between Canister and Grape shot. Canister, or Case Shot, are dozens or even hundreds of small iron or lead musket or pistol balls in a container that breaks apart as it leaves the barrel, spreading like a gigantic shot gun. Grape shot are iron and larger; perhaps 1/3 or 1/4 the size of the gun's normal cannon ball and there are far fewer of them per shot (maybe 4 to 6 in a cloth bag). These Grape Shot balls still have a chance of breaking though a ship's side or doing significant damage to rigging, while the Canister does not, but could take out far more enemies in the right circumstance. Grape also had a longer range. Both could be devastating to tightly packed crews, especially when they were concentrating on deck preparing to board or repel boarders. One well-aimed shot from the quarterdeck or forecastle carronades could stop such a boarding attempt alone by killing or wounding dozens (the main reason carronades were mounted). They were also used to suppress large numbers of prisoners on a captured ship with only a few guards; they would aim the carronade with canister or grape internally at the hatches so if the prisoners tried to rush up on deck and overcome the guards the first group would be obliterated... since no one really wanted to be in that first group, it worked very well. Guns were often "double-shotted" for shorter range work, with first a cannon ball and then a bag of grape shot in the same barrel. The term Case Shot was often used for canister in the Navy, but once the Shrapnel invention came out its meaning eventually changed to be short for "spherical case shot" which were what the first Shrapnel shells were called. Those were used on land, because at sea getting the shot bursting timing right was too difficult, and also because a cannon ball caused a horrible amount of wooden splinters anyway (the greatest cause of casualties in Age of Sail battles).

[@joeerickson516]

"Arrgh!" 🏴‍☠️ ☠️ 🦜

[@womble321]

also crew size varied on the expected area the ship was sent to and apparently many guns were often put below decks to give more room in peace time and greatly improve ship performance in bad weather Master and Comander gives a good indication of what a ship would realy be like often having live chickens, pigs, sheep and even cows on board they would all be thrown in the sea before battle

[@simey5639]

Nice dude

[@portugueseeagle8851]

Could possibly on day make a video about the Age of Discouveries and how countries like Portugal or Spain explored the world, ie, the kinds of ships, how the crew lived, the tactics they used, etc?

[@profharveyherrera]

Judas and Iron Maiden XD Naval warfare must had been a real clockwork, just loading and shooting sounds like a lot of job, I can't imagine how captains managed to maneuver the ship, apply tactics, issue orders to the crew and stay calmed!

[@Domina7ion]

Bloody love the complicated Symbol

[@sonkmachine5837]

"as valid as Gaijins BRs" Killed me

[@fredericrike5974]

Practical ranges (ranges at which a gunner could hit a target reliably) were mostly less than 200yards, a little over 60 meters. Ships move up and down as well as across. making anything much over this range rather more likely a waste of shot and powder. The longer guns were usually fore and aft "chasers" for either chasing a fleeing enemy or discouraging a following foe- and although some had a "theoretical" range of 2000 yards, were seldom used at half that. On the whole a fairly good over view of the subject!

[@thomaslaustsen4034]

bronze (copper and tin) and brass (copper and zink) are two different alloys as far as i know it was mostly brass that was used in guns

[@Exotichyena]

Just a quick suggested amendment to your point at 2:37, brass and bronze are different alloys - the former is copper and zinc, the latter is copper and tin. Love the video, very well made!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

listen to what I said: "In terms of materials, the guns could be from iron or bronze, which WAS USUALLY CALLED brass." Emphasis added for you.

[@Exotichyena]

I heard what you said the first time - from that it's not clear if you were conflating bronze with brass. You provided no explanation why bronze would be called brass when both alloys would be known at the time, and it was a point I was hoping for clarity on, because I was interested. You adding emphasis does not clarify the point, and furthermore comes across as bad-tempered, which seems odd given the fact I made a point to tell you how much I liked your video. If you are going through a hard time at the moment then I am sorry about that, but please do not take it out on me - I'm only here to learn :)

[@mikec64]

2022, this video is still a fantastic resource, thank you. When you say 6 crew were assigned to a gun, do you know if that includes others fetching round shot and cartridges?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you, sorry can't really remember.

[@TheSuperhoden]

A bit late, but loved it

[@DaSaintDemon]

3:40 a very smooth pun

[@battlefieldcustoms873]

I-ron great video as always haha.

[@irtazaazam2573]

I'd love to see a video on pre dreadnought ships, and dreadnoughts

[@Pyotyrpyotyrpyotyr]

brass is zinc and copper. Bronze is tin and copper.

[@cykablyat5611]

Whats shinier?

[@naverilllang]

You are correct. However, it is only fairly recently that the distinction is made. Historically, bronze referred to any shiny yellow metal that wasn't gold, which included brass and pure copper.

[@kodingkrusader2765]

@@naverilllang copper is orange not yellow

[@naverilllang]

@@kodingkrusader2765closer to red than orange, but not the point. Most metals are various shades of gray in color.

[@kodingkrusader2765]

@@naverilllang your point was they referred to any shiny yellow metal not gokd as brass then included copper You need to make your point better because i was replying to the words of your comment. If thats not what you meant thats your own fault

[@hal6165]

anyone know where I can find the book mentioned in this video? I can't find any listing of it on the internet via Google or even the ISBNdb.

[@carlosgonzalez2706]

11:45 When you say the royal navy assigned 5-6 men(10-12) later on. Does that mean per gun? And if so how would their work be assigned?

[@kylestanley7843]

Considering how gunners tended to massively outnumber sailors and marines, I'm gonna go ahead and say per gun. The fact he says this effectively meant 10-12 for each side, though only one side was engaged, also implies this.

[@seanmalloy7249]

Working from memory, you have the gunner, then separate people to swab the cannon, load the charge, load the shot and wad, ram the shot and charge, an assistant gunner, and the remainder to haul the lines to run the cannon out after loading or spike the gun around if it had to be trained away from square. Normally a ship would only fight on one broadside; if it had to engage both, the crew would be split, with half going to each side. One of the tactics a captain could use would be to load both broadsides, fire the first one, and maneuver to allow the second to be fired faster than a broadside could be reloaded.

[@labradoodleandpalz]

11:10 "MOM, GET THE CAMERA!! GET THE FUCKING CAMERA, MOM!"

[@Telsion]

1:44 complicated.de = German Superior Engineering confirmed? XD

[@ericsbuds]

so interesting

[@thethirdman225]

My understanding of carronades is that they were usually at least as accurate as iron guns because the used a new process of drilling and finishing the bore, which reduced the windage. It also mean that the the shot travelled further for the same relative weight of shot. Carronades were also about half the weight of iron guns for a given weight of shot and were mounted on pivots so that they could be aimed much more effectively. Also WRT the comment that a ball could penetrate 0.76 metres of oak, this is why the Royal Navy at Trafalgar sailed between enemy ships in two columns (one led by Nelson and the other by Collingwood) instead of engaging in broadsides. This meant that they were firing through the stern galleries and along the gun decks, which were little more than light timbers and glass and offered no protection to the crews, who could not fire back. This naturally relied on a high level of seamanship to be able to outmanoeuvre the French and Spanish lines.

[@Shtumpyy]

Can you do some videos on First World War battle tactics and unit co-ordination for various countries?

[@qck1234]

I am not sure about other navies, but the US navy tended to use carronades on the spar deck and cannon on the gun or lower deck: During the War of 1812, Constitution's battery of guns typically consisted of thirty 24-pounder (11 kg) cannons, with 15 on each side of the gun deck (note this class of ships were considered quite large for frigates). A total of 22 cannons were deployed on the spar deck, 11 per side, each a 32-pounder (15 kg) carronade. Four chase guns were also positioned, two each at the stern and bow. I believe this was because the cannons were significantly heavier and so better to put them on the lower deck. The sister ship USS United States: thirty-two 24-pounder (10.9 kg) cannon; twenty-two 42-pounder (19 kg) carronades; and one 18-pounder (8 kg) long gun. I believe that the heavier armament of the USS United States affected if handling negatively.

[@thethirdman225]

Constitution was a bit of an exception. Other navies didn’t really pursue the heavy frigate concept but the designers of Constitution learnt everything from the experiences of the other navies. Carronades were much more useful on the upper deck than they would ever have been on the main deck, simply because they were so much easier to manoeuvre. On the other hand, their overall height and bulk would have made them very difficult to handle on the gun deck where their only option was to fire through a small gun port.

[@MBKill3rCat]

5:30 You missed out the Carronade. *EDIT: I should watch the video before commenting.*

[@fierylightning3422]

Darn right ya should

[@dancrane3807]

That's harder than it should be. Done the same myself.

[@bezukaking6860]

hello, I just wanted to ask if you knew the case after the battle of Marengo, French troops(I'm guessing under Desaix) urinated into their muskets to get them to work again, and probably the Consular Batteries had to do the same.

[@AldanFerrox]

Some people also tried to use hotshot on ships (a technique normaly used for fortress guns against ships).

[@hihi-fi8by]

AldanFerrox work or not

[@AldanFerrox]

***** Yeah, having multiple burning furnaces onboard is not fun. Plus that handling the red glowing cannon balls is a pain in the ass. Its pretty dangerous.

[@theoderic_l]

Somehow I find this phrase particularly entertaining.

[@thethirdman225]

Some shovelled hot coals in after the shot.

[@ror359]

Very good video. The only thing more to say is that you didn't really discuss that being under the receiving end of a ships's broadside could result in massive crew casualties, even if the ship wasn't sunk. For example at the Battle of Trafalgar, the Fougueux suffered an 84% casualty rate without sinking. Nelson's flagship suffered a 19% casualty rate, and he won!

[@thethirdman225]

It’s possible _Fougueux_ was one of the ships hit in the first pass by either Nelson or Collingwood. I’ll have to look it up. Unlike the Hollywood version of events, captains preferred not to engage in broadsides if they could do better. Tactics never get a look in for these things… The two British columns crossed the French and Spanish columns at right angles and Nelson instructed his crews to ignore the stoutly built sides of the enemy ships and fire through the very vulnerable stern galleries and along the gun deck, where a single cannonball could knock down gunners like so many ninepins.

[@patrickaalfs9584]

subscribed,please do something on Gustavus Adolphus's contribution to military advancement. It is something that very few Americans know very much about. Or, you could include the reign of Karl the twelfth and discuss the short lived Swedish Empire.

[@freshfresh5205]

Carronades I thought, had similar combat ranges to standard cannon. However the crew did not know how to aim them and thus they usually missed at longer combat ranges. Thus you can say they had a short range because of the way they were used. However if the crews knew how to aim them properly they would have had longer range.

[@davecrupel2817]

2:20 its pronnounced in two ways "Hoe-moe-jeen-ee-ous" (long vowels) Or "Ho-maw-jenus" (short vowels)" :)

[@kylestanley7843]

I believe he pronounced it correctly later in the video.

[@jeffreynelson2660]

What was the propellant that was stronger than black powder?

[@Firestorm2900]

Loving all the little jokes you adding into the videos as of late. From that Rainbow Dash joke a while back to now the Iron Maiden pun and complicated.de. It really adds a good bit to the videos. Derping out here, but what are you referring to with "Gaijin's BR"?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Gaijin makes the Game War Thunder and the use Battleratings (BRs) to "balance" which aircraft fight each other, the problem is that those values often are just pure bonkers. I often made the joke on /r/warthunder that the BR department consists of drunken coke-fueled monkey throwing dice.

[@hoegild1]

Do you have any data on the usual range, in which navies preferred to engage? I recall reading about an engagement between the entire Danish and Swedish fleets, who pounded each other for for 4 hours... without any casualities because the distance was too great.

[@thethirdman225]

In short: close. Any more than a couple of hundred metres was too difficult to score critical hits. Cannons of that era couldn’t elevate much either. Later, in the time of Nelson, the tactic was often to attempt to ricochet the ball off the water by deliberately bouncing it at about two-thirds the distance. Another thing that’s widely misunderstood about naval combat in this time is tactics, which rarely get a look in on these discussions anyway (you should read tank discussions sometime…). People never really think beyond two ships slugging it out, broadside to broadside and probably in very close company. A largely pointless exercise. But if you read about things like the Battle of Trafalgar, you will find that Nelson and Collingwood led their columns _between_ the lined up French and Spanish ships so that they crossed them at right angles. This allowed them to fire down the vulnerable stern galleries and along the gun decks, causing a great deal more consternation that they would have had they simply exchanged broadsides. This was, of course, conducted at near point blank range. None of these things precluded fighting at close quarters and indeed, that was how Nelson was mortally wounded; shot at short range by a sniper in the fighting top of the French 74 _Redoubtable,_ during a close in fight. By and large, these old iron smoothbores were pretty inaccurate and short ranged. That changed to some extent with the introduction of carronades but as long as the bore was smooth, the tolerances very loose and the shot round, the options for any sort of range were limited to say the least.

[@piercegalactic]

Your Iron Maiden joke earned a like

[@DaGamesPlaya]

Great video, I would like to make a subject suggestion... a video on the way warfare changed with the introduction of muskets, let's say from when the musket was first adopted in the army, up until 1815. Be it formations video or a tactics video or anything in general (yes I know about the Napoleonic Wars video, I'm saying from the beginning of musket warfare, the transition from sword to gun, and anything in between). Of course this is just a recommendation, there's no need for you to do it but anyways, Danke für reading this and for the nice informative videos.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

probably in 1-3 years. All non-ww2-Europe Videos usually take about 5-10 hours more than anticipated, because I need to check more or feel less confident with the sources. So doing such a huge topic would requite a lot of side-checking and reading, which would be "deadly" considering that regular output is necessary to keep the channel going. The plan is basically to establish a vast amount of knowledge + proper literature base in the first years and then do more complex videos later on, when I know my stuff around. After all, I often don't know very much about certain topics before I do the videos.

[@DaGamesPlaya]

Yes true, I understand. My "expertise" in history is 20th century as well (Mostly WW1 & 2 stuff), that's why I asked, but yeah now that I look back and think about it- especially the way you conduct your research, it's very time consuming and energy demanding not to mention the process of actually creating and recording the video. It's cool though because you chuck out some very interesting and in depth topics, so I'm not complaining :)

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

What was the supposed "more powerful" propellant introduced in the middle of the period?

[@daredemontriple6]

Pretty old video I know but it seems to have missed one important factor about stone shot. Unlike iron, it often shattered forcibly on impact and in doing so essentially became a frag grenade. Given how most casualties on a ship were caused by splintering hull rather than the shot itself this seems to be a fairly notable benefit to stone balls although I suspect iron shot caused a significantly higher amount of splintering/damage so perhaps that makes up for it's own lack of fragmentation.

[@andrewfraser4863]

Wonder why stone costs more ? I would of thought it was cheaper

[@stevewindisch7400]

@@andrewfraser4863 The labor to work it into a near-perfect sphere

[@MrMaffy96]

Keep up the good work! Do the same video but in WW2 period, showing how naval combat worked!

[@leakycheese]

Definately, although it would be interesting to cover the whole age of armoured warships from Monitor / Virginia through to the dreadnoughts of WW2.

[@MrMaffy96]

leakycheese that's an huge topic, it needs at least a whole video for itself, also carrier operation would be interesting

[@thethirdman225]

A single video on WWII naval combat would barely be an adequate intro. Then there were the different theatres, which had very different types of naval combat. I cantimagine where to start.

[@juru552]

Maybe you should add info about why the number of steel cannons was so small (remembering, that iron was cheaper from bronze) ;)

[@joeerickson516]

"Arrgh!" 🏴‍☠️ ☠️ 🦜

[@Birkbecks]

three miles was about the maximum range which is where we get national waters limit from around the coast line the range which your cannon can defend

[@arminioification]

hey, your doing a great job here man. can you make a video about the modern yugoslavian wars maybe?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

unlikely, too hot, but I have one on a former yugoslavian command submarine.

[@ph5832]

One other subtopic is the way different Navies used the different kind of ammo. You alluded to it but the French (and Americans) generally preferred to disable the enemies rigging and the board her. French ships tended to have a larger crew to capture enemy ships. The Brits tended to blast away with round shot to disable as many enemy crew as possible. Then board her. This assume that all the Patrick O'Brien novels I read are correct.

[@thethirdman225]

Yes and no. The British took more prizes than the others (the Americans learnt a lot of their tactics from the French). To “take her a prize” meant that you intended to keep the ship and take it home. That basically meant doing the minimum damage require to encourage the other ship to surrender.

[@brianwyters2150]

7:32 One could argue that hardtack would be more effective.

[@Ric885]

by the way brass is an aloy of copper and zinc and not the same as bronze witcch is an aloy of copper and tin

[@torinjones3221]

James II liked his new cannon so much he he stood next to it when it was fired. It blew up and killed him.

[@cshairydude]

For clarification (I'm sure you know this), this was James II of Scotland. James II of England (and Ireland, VII of Scotland) died in exile in the court of King Louis XIV of France of a brain haemorrhage.

[@mariebcfhs9491]

so basically the Cannon is the equivalent of "derp guns" in the age of sail?

[@tigertank3024]

How do you do your videos with wat apps?

[@GnaedigerJupp]

one shot at glory \m/

[@TheNecromancer6666]

Iron Jockel .....In the crossfire ....

[@pradyumn2692]

Good

[@sarcasmo57]

I'm so going to use this information someday......somehow..

[@ThebelgiumgamerFTW]

I am curious how you found all those statistics on how many guns they had :)

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

when you list the different cannon types, why do you name those specific calibers? as i understand it, there where cannons of all sizes arround, like 4 pounder, 6 pounder, 8-9pounder, 12pounder, 18 pounder, 24 pounder, 32 pounder, 36 pounder and 42 pounder to name only some common calibers. and all of those had different gun weights from maybe 1.5 tons up to 5-6 tons per gun.

[@blatherskite9601]

Bronze is and brass are different alloys of copper - tin & zinc. So, the names were not interchangeable.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Listen again

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

listen to what I said: "In terms of materials, the guns could be from iron or bronze, which WAS USUALLY CALLED brass." Emphasis added for you.

[@blatherskite9601]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Maybe if you expressed yourself clearly, you WOULDN'T NEED TO USE CAPITALS AS EMPHASIS.

[@punman5392]

Hell yeah! Maiden🤘

[@FluffyFishy69]

Where did you find the book you quoted from so much here? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

amazon, there are also amazon links to both books in the description. (as nearly always)

[@FluffyFishy69]

Thank you, I was being a bit special and looking for it as a book on its own, my mistake, great video by the way :)

[@JosheyG34]

Is this Bismarck? That plays IL2 and other flight gamea

[@yuripantyhose4973]

3:50 hahaha YOU FIRE YOUR MUSKET BUT I WILL RUN YOU THROUGH! damn now I have to listen to metal for a few hours.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

;)

[@leodhasw-s3739]

"Uber no scope"

[@user-lv7ph7hs7l]

Anyone interested in the age of sail should give Naval Action a try. Very fun and pretty realistic combat.

[@kosta7084]

Does anyone know how much men it took to operate a average naval cannon in the late 18th century?

[@thethirdman225]

Depends on the size and weight of the cannon.