If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Britain's first WMD: An Elizabethan cannon that could punch a hole through four inches of solid oak (w/photos)   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 66
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

20949 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2009 at 9:33 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-04 09:20:51 AM
We have to stop them from giving the secrets of this technology to the Iranian government, else our moderately thick walls be destroyed.
 
2009-03-04 09:36:44 AM
Honestly, if something CAN'T shoot a hole in wood, does it really deserve the name "canon"?
 
2009-03-04 09:37:19 AM
Weapon of moderate localized destruction?
 
2009-03-04 09:37:39 AM
Well shiat, I mean "cannon." I guess it would be a bit much to expect that kind of firepower from your camera.
 
2009-03-04 09:37:47 AM
Cockpuncher to the Stars: Honestly, if something CAN'T shoot a hole in wood, does it really deserve the name "canon"?

Only if you play it at weddings.
 
2009-03-04 09:37:58 AM
I remember reading somewhere that Elizabethan England was the Rogue Nation of the day, and that most of the cannons used by the Spanish ships in the Armada had been made in England, in that they sold weapons to whoever had the money..
 
2009-03-04 09:39:28 AM
Cockpuncher to the Stars: Honestly, if something CAN'T shoot a hole in wood, does it really deserve the name "canon"?

Long bore, gunpowder charged, weapon for firing large balls of either metal or stone. Thats fairly canonical.
 
2009-03-04 09:40:24 AM
Four minutes to reload the thing? I hope they (a) carried several of them per ship and (b) aimed right the first time, because otherwise this is the equivalent of America dropping its second atom bomb on Japan and hoping like hell they don't know we haven't got a third.
 
2009-03-04 09:41:08 AM
That's my best chat-up line.

"My lamb-cannon could punch a hole in 4 inches of solid oak"

/failing that "mutton musket"
//for the modern take, the "meat-seeking pissile"
 
2009-03-04 09:41:20 AM
mie cannon is fyte!
 
2009-03-04 09:41:58 AM
So if you fire a Canon-brand cannon while playing a canon, is that considered canon?
 
2009-03-04 09:44:24 AM
I would have expected more of a change in military capabilities in 500 years. I mean, the shipboard weapons are not that much better today.
 
2009-03-04 09:45:34 AM
Cockpuncher to the Stars: Honestly, if something CAN'T shoot a hole in wood, does it really deserve the name "canon"?


penetrating 4 inches of oak at a distance is pretty impressive.
 
2009-03-04 09:46:02 AM
Cockpuncher to the Stars: Honestly, if something CAN'T shoot a hole in wood, does it really deserve the name "canon"?

canon
img5.travelblog.org

cannon
upload.wikimedia.org

Any questions?
 
2009-03-04 09:46:45 AM
chrisco123: I would have expected more of a change in military capabilities in 500 years. I mean, the shipboard weapons are not that much better today.

Fifteen rounds per hour versus twenty-five rounds per minute, and you don't think that qualifies as an improvement?
 
2009-03-04 09:51:20 AM
Not my specialty, but it appears to be just a culverin, which was a fairly standard type of cannon at the time.
 
2009-03-04 09:51:27 AM
Did anyone else read the article and think of Humpty Dumpty?
 
2009-03-04 09:52:02 AM
chrisco123: I would have expected more of a change in military capabilities in 500 years. I mean, the shipboard weapons are not that much better today.

I'm pretty sure this
www.navy.mil.nz
(which is standard equipment on modern RN and USN ships) could actually shoot down a shot fired by one of those old cannons. So yeah, I would say that naval technology has improved a bit.
/Link is hotter than the lead coming out the barrels.
 
2009-03-04 09:52:10 AM
Firefly4F4: Did anyone else read the article headline and think of Humpty Dumpty?

I need coffee...
 
2009-03-04 09:53:14 AM
blazemongr: So if you fire a Canon-brand cannon while playing a canon, is that considered canon?

I dunno, but if you don't stop farking around and get back to work, that's a cannin'.
 
2009-03-04 09:55:03 AM
Posts in here and TFA irritate me. Why? The plural of cannon is cannon, not cannons.

/too early to be anything but a grammar nazi
 
2009-03-04 09:56:05 AM
Firefly4F4: Firefly4F4: Did anyone else read the article headline and think of Humpty Dumpty?

I need coffee...


Humpty Dumpty was used during the English civil war, a few decades after Elizabeth. Aside from that, though, I can see why you'd think that.
 
2009-03-04 09:59:06 AM
grinding_journalist: Posts in here and TFA irritate me. Why? The plural of cannon is cannon, not cannons.

/too early to be anything but a grammar nazi


the nazis weren't around in the 15th century, when that usage was accepted.

what about grammar horde?
 
2009-03-04 09:59:15 AM
I'm really failing to see what the big deal is over a 4 lb long gun.

Is there something that I'm missing?

Besides, I'd take a carronade and the weather gauge anytime.

/OHP FTW!
 
2009-03-04 10:00:56 AM
blazemongr: So if you fire a Canon-brand cannon while playing a canon, is that considered canon?

Only if it's done by a Canon. (new window)
 
2009-03-04 10:01:04 AM
Blazemongr

Fifteen rounds per hour versus twenty-five rounds per minute, and you don't think that qualifies as an improvement?

I know there's a big difference, but we're talking 500 years.. I would think that 500 years from now cannons would be a thing of the distant past.
 
2009-03-04 10:01:06 AM
Your cannon mean nothing to us, Britain.

img21.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-04 10:04:12 AM
HMS_Blinkin: chrisco123: I would have expected more of a change in military capabilities in 500 years. I mean, the shipboard weapons are not that much better today.

I'm pretty sure this

(which is standard equipment on modern RN and USN ships) could actually shoot down a shot fired by one of those old cannons. So yeah, I would say that naval technology has improved a bit.
/Link is hotter than the lead coming out the barrels.


I seem to remember during my days before the mast that the Phalanx system was a pile of shiate. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth during test fires when it jammed frequently.

/it also sounds like a fart when going off.
//snicker.
 
2009-03-04 10:10:15 AM
MadCat221: Your cannon mean nothing to us, Britain.

HAHAHAHA! Good reference.
 
2009-03-04 10:11:03 AM
Some years prior to that (13th century, I think), Edward I ordered the construction of a massive trebuchet called the Warwolf for his siege at Stirling Castle.

The defenders were so afraid of getting hit by the Warwolf that they tried to surrender. Edward I refused; he wanted to test his toy out anyway, destroying large sections of castle wall with accurately-placed 300-500 pound stones.

Earlier, and more terrifying. For my money, this beats Liz's popgun.
 
2009-03-04 10:11:40 AM
Cockpuncher to the Stars: Well shiat, I mean "cannon." I guess it would be a bit much to expect that kind of firepower from your camera.

Not for Saiga.
 
2009-03-04 10:12:09 AM
HMS_Blinkin:
I'm pretty sure this

(which is standard equipment on modern RN and USN ships) could actually shoot down a shot fired by one of those old cannons. So yeah, I would say that naval technology has improved a bit.
/Link is hotter than the lead coming out the barrels.



Is that pic a Phalanx or a Goalkeeper? The Brits use the GAU-8 in their CIWS, pretty big difference between that and the vulcan in the Phalanx.

The land based version of this (C-RAM) can shoot down mortar shells and rockets, and sounds like a cross between a foghorn and a giant blowing its nose, followed by a loud *pthbbbbtt*
 
2009-03-04 10:12:28 AM
This was totally NOT the point of the documentary (which was shown last week).


The reason this was a "superweapon" was that it was mass produced and fired a standard size shot. Before that the ships were armed with a hodge-podge mixture of guns of all different calibers so quite often ships would run out of ammo of some size or other rendering some of their guns useless.

With standardized cannons, supplying and stocking of ammo became much easier, and training of gunners was more effective. That's what you need if you want to build an efficient navy to rule the world.

PS: Yes, earlier guns were quite capable of breaking a bit of oak.
 
2009-03-04 10:12:52 AM
chrisco123: I know there's a big difference, but we're talking 500 years.. I would think that 500 years from now cannons would be a thing of the distant past.

Don't bet on it. With luck, by then the Royal Navy will be in outer space, where you can still do more damage with a micrometeoroid travelling at half the speed of light than you can with all the x-ray lasers money can buy.

No matter how far you travel, human warfare always boils down to two lines throwing rocks at each other.
 
2009-03-04 10:13:00 AM
Zounds!
 
2009-03-04 10:14:27 AM
It was the combination of cannon and trained crew that made British ships so feared. Their cannon had longer range than Spanish carronades, but less penetrating power. They were much more accurate, though, so the British ships could target masts and other vulnerable areas and stay out of range of the shorter ranged Spanish guns. Spanish guns were heavier and could smash a hull quickly, but had very short range. Plus, British crews were more disciplined and could fire the guns faster, and they wouldn't abandon their weapons when they took casualties.
 
2009-03-04 10:15:42 AM
blazemongr: chrisco123: I know there's a big difference, but we're talking 500 years.. I would think that 500 years from now cannons would be a thing of the distant past.

Don't bet on it. With luck, by then the Royal Navy will be in outer space, where you can still do more damage with a micrometeoroid travelling at half the speed of light than you can with all the x-ray lasers money can buy.

No matter how far you travel, human warfare always boils down to two lines throwing rocks at each other.


Except that some of the rocks are rather explosive now.
 
2009-03-04 10:22:18 AM
Blazemongr

No matter how far you travel, human warfare always boils down to two lines throwing rocks at each other.

You're right.
 
2009-03-04 10:24:39 AM
But they never gave them a full load of powder, or they'd blow up eventually...
 
2009-03-04 10:24:41 AM
HMS_Blinkin:
I'm pretty sure this
(which is standard equipment on modern RN and USN ships) could actually shoot down a shot fired by one of those old cannons. So yeah, I would say that naval technology has improved a bit.
/Link is hotter than the lead coming out the barrels.


It probably wouldn't do all that much against solid shot except deflect it slightly, I assume it's designed to destroy (relatively) fragile missiles.
 
2009-03-04 10:28:47 AM
blazemongr: No matter how far you travel, human warfare always boils down to two lines throwing rocks at each other.

Approves:
media.us.macmillan.com
(hot like incoming)
 
2009-03-04 10:30:10 AM
shogun: HMS_Blinkin:
I'm pretty sure this
(which is standard equipment on modern RN and USN ships) could actually shoot down a shot fired by one of those old cannons. So yeah, I would say that naval technology has improved a bit.
/Link is hotter than the lead coming out the barrels.

It probably wouldn't do all that much against solid shot except deflect it slightly, I assume it's designed to destroy (relatively) fragile missiles.


Nah, the CIWS (Close in Weapons System) also called the "Phalanx" fires so fast that the sheer volume of metal would probably rip the shot apart. Furthermore, our modern CIWS are usually armed with explosive projectiles to handle less-fragile payloads. We currently have them mounted on trucks in Iraq and Afghanistan to counter mortar attacks.

/Always understood that CIWS stands for "Christ! It Won't Shoot!"
//They used to jam a lot
///slashies!!!!!
 
2009-03-04 10:34:17 AM
Damned English Oak.
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2009-03-04 10:40:17 AM
Four minutes to reload the thing? I hope they (a) carried several of them per ship and (b) aimed right the first time

Recommended practice in Nelson's era was to load before entering combat, sail right up close to the target, and fire at point blank range. Potential enemies avoided fighting the English because they were crazy enough to make this work.
 
2009-03-04 10:51:48 AM
MadCat221: Your cannon mean nothing to us, Britain.

winner.
 
2009-03-04 10:56:15 AM
MadCat221: Your cannon mean nothing to us, Britain.

Hah, your silly painting will nt save us from burning down your brown house. May i suggest when you build it again you paint it white ?
 
2009-03-04 11:11:43 AM
Bendal: It was the combination of cannon and trained crew that made British ships so feared. Their cannon had longer range than Spanish carronades, but less penetrating power. They were much more accurate, though, so the British ships could target masts and other vulnerable areas and stay out of range of the shorter ranged Spanish guns. Spanish guns were heavier and could smash a hull quickly, but had very short range. Plus, British crews were more disciplined and could fire the guns faster, and they wouldn't abandon their weapons when they took casualties.

You've got it half-right. It was the training of the British crews that made them superior to those of other nations. However, the Brits were quite fond of the carronade, it being a British invention. British ships often carried almost as many carronades as their "official" number of cannon. And the Brits were quite fond of close-range warfare - standing off was considered to be fairly useless. It was the British desire to turn each battle into a close-range knife fight - broadsides fired so close by that ships' rigging often entangled with that of their opponents - that often destroyed the morale of their opponents. Finally, firing at the rigging was a French tactic. The Brits fired low, into the hull, in an effort to kill as many crewmen as possible.
 
2009-03-04 11:18:35 AM
lotustuned: MadCat221: Your cannon mean nothing to us, Britain.

Hah, your silly painting will nt save us from burning down your brown house. May i suggest when you build it again you paint it white ?


What was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of Connie running your blockade and shooting up two more of your ships.
 
2009-03-04 11:24:30 AM
ZAZ: Four minutes to reload the thing? I hope they (a) carried several of them per ship and (b) aimed right the first time

Recommended practice in Nelson's era was to load before entering combat, sail right up close to the target, and fire at point blank range. Potential enemies avoided fighting the English because they were crazy enough to make this work.


Sounds like my crew on the FSM in Farkistan (new window), with the supid browser game we play.

/Armed opponant to anarchy in 15 minutes, or your money back!
 
2009-03-04 11:25:15 AM
lotustuned: MadCat221: Your cannon mean nothing to us, Britain.

Hah, your silly painting will nt save us from burning down your brown house. May i suggest when you build it again you paint it white ?


Oh, I forgot about the renovation you guys did. We were too busy wiping out your Napoleonic veterans using an untrained, locally-raised army in New Orleans in one of the largest one-sided victories in history. But if it makes you feel good that you burned down DC and stopped us from invading Canada, that's fine too.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report