Henri Grace a Dieu vs U.S.S. Constitution

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-12-01 03:37am

Henry VIII's flagship Henri Grace a Dieu vs Constitution.

Great Harry:
186 guns, 44 of which are what we would consider "cannons", including a couple monster 66 pdrs.
142 swivel guns, purely anti-personel devices.
1000 ton carrack built in 1514.

The scenario is in harbor, dead calm conditions at 400 yard's range.

On whom do you place your money?

(edit) I know there've been a couple Constitution threads, but I've wanted to do this for while. So why not while everyone's thinking wood.....err, not THAT wood.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-12-01 05:45pm

Constitution is probably going to have a huge advantage in volume of heavy fire, and at 400 yards the swivel guns won't be much of an issue. Constitution also has a much stronger hull, the hulls of those Carracks just have too many holes. I'd expect Constitution to win, though with a fair amount of damage. Even at 400 yards and when fired slowly from weak cannon 66 pound shot is going to hurt.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-12-01 06:20pm

For years I subscribed to the school of thought that the cast bronze cannon and demi-culverins of the 16th and 17th century were as effective as 18th and 19th century cast iron weapons.

Apparently, with assumptions being suspended and actual research being applied, this thinking is being shown incorrect.

Part of what led to this assumed parity was the length of a demi-culverin's barrel, after all, a longer barrel means better accuracy.
Now, ignoring the obvious fallaciousness of that line of thought (these barrels were not rifled, they fired round shot that "bounced" along the length of the gun, and their length could not impart accuracy), it is becoming apparent to modern researchers that this barrel length wasn't there to improve accuracy, but to increase barrel strength close to the muzzle.

That's why I set this at 400 yards, close to maximum practical range for early 16th century guns, and most likely outside the range of the "murder pieces" in Great Harry's castles.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-12-01 07:21pm

Frank Hipper wrote:For years I subscribed to the school of thought that the cast bronze cannon and demi-culverins of the 16th and 17th century were as effective as 18th and 19th century cast iron weapons.

I wasn't aware such a school of thought even existed.... All I've ever read, and most of its in books more then 25 years old, indicated that cannon of that period where very weak relative to there size and later weapons. Simply the nature of the black powder of the time, which was finely ground and tightly packed, would make equal effectiveness impossible, as most was simply blown out unburnt.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-12-01 07:51pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
I wasn't aware such a school of thought even existed.... All I've ever read, and most of its in books more then 25 years old, indicated that cannon of that period where very weak relative to there size and later weapons. Simply the nature of the black powder of the time, which was finely ground and tightly packed, would make equal effectiveness impossible, as most was simply blown out unburnt.

It comes from Mahan's assertions about equating navies of the Anglo-Dutch wars to those of the Napoleonic wars.
And "school of thought" is my own description.

Really good article.