Hi,
American gun and powder manufacture of the time was inferior to that of the British.
Interesting. I am hard pressed to understand why this should be so. The British guns of the time were not much of anything special, just cast iron tubes bored to take round shot, no rifling, loose fit that got looser as the corrosive residue of burned black powder ate them away. In the same manner, I don't understand why American powder would be in any way inferior to British. Black powder is not a compound, simply a mixture. The purity and fineness of the powder of the ingredients and how well they are mixed determines most of the quality of the powder. Things like the size of the grain determined the burning qualities. All this was well known since black powder had been in use in Europe for about half a millennium.
DuPont had been making powder in the US since 1802 (IIRC), were one of the suppliers to the Navy, and were producing one of the best, if not the best, black powder products of the time -- as good as the French and much better than the British. Or, at least, that is what I got out of a history channel presentation :)
My understanding was that the British were primarily concerned with fleet actions. In spite of Nelson's example at Trafalgar, these were still broadside duels at close range. Aim was of little matter, you could hardly miss a ship at ten yards. Rapidity of fire and steadiness in combat were what mattered, so the British navy of the time did little to practice long range shooting. The fact was that England was deeply involved in a European war and could scarcely afford to use much of its limited supply of powder for gunnery practice. Where were they to turn to buy more? Germany in French hands? Ask the French? Go to their former colonies? Actually, England did buy a fair quantity of powder from the US except during the 1812 -1814 period.
The Americans, OTOH, had a naval doctrine that could summed up as "Outrun what you can't outfight, outfight what you can't outrun." That meant fighting ship to ship duels where both mobility and accuracy at range could be advantageous. And that meant long range gunnery mattered to them.
I remember hearing that the gunners on the American frigates would file smooth the seams and rough spots of the cannon balls so that they would fly more true.
I suspect that more than the equipment, the training in each navy had the greatest effect. Each side became proficient in what they considered important and practiced. Not too unusual a concept :)
--Pete
American gun and powder manufacture of the time was inferior to that of the British.
Interesting. I am hard pressed to understand why this should be so. The British guns of the time were not much of anything special, just cast iron tubes bored to take round shot, no rifling, loose fit that got looser as the corrosive residue of burned black powder ate them away. In the same manner, I don't understand why American powder would be in any way inferior to British. Black powder is not a compound, simply a mixture. The purity and fineness of the powder of the ingredients and how well they are mixed determines most of the quality of the powder. Things like the size of the grain determined the burning qualities. All this was well known since black powder had been in use in Europe for about half a millennium.
DuPont had been making powder in the US since 1802 (IIRC), were one of the suppliers to the Navy, and were producing one of the best, if not the best, black powder products of the time -- as good as the French and much better than the British. Or, at least, that is what I got out of a history channel presentation :)
My understanding was that the British were primarily concerned with fleet actions. In spite of Nelson's example at Trafalgar, these were still broadside duels at close range. Aim was of little matter, you could hardly miss a ship at ten yards. Rapidity of fire and steadiness in combat were what mattered, so the British navy of the time did little to practice long range shooting. The fact was that England was deeply involved in a European war and could scarcely afford to use much of its limited supply of powder for gunnery practice. Where were they to turn to buy more? Germany in French hands? Ask the French? Go to their former colonies? Actually, England did buy a fair quantity of powder from the US except during the 1812 -1814 period.
The Americans, OTOH, had a naval doctrine that could summed up as "Outrun what you can't outfight, outfight what you can't outrun." That meant fighting ship to ship duels where both mobility and accuracy at range could be advantageous. And that meant long range gunnery mattered to them.
I remember hearing that the gunners on the American frigates would file smooth the seams and rough spots of the cannon balls so that they would fly more true.
I suspect that more than the equipment, the training in each navy had the greatest effect. Each side became proficient in what they considered important and practiced. Not too unusual a concept :)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?