which one is better?
You've asked a pointless question with so many variables and situations that it is rendered moot and an act of time wasting to even discuss it. Cannons are for long range engagements, carronades are not.
>>65372961not necessarily, because the type of gun also changes the strategy. which implies there's abetter strategy between the two, either move close and use carronades, or pick the target from afar with cannons. so, again, which one is better?
>>65372953Want accurate fire at longer range, and higher velocity projectiles, but are willing to have more weight up high in your ship, pay more per gun, have bigger crews per gun, and sacrifice a small amount of reloading speed? Get cannons. Willing to sacrifice range and projectiles velocity to offset all the above drawbacks and increase total broadside weight with more guns that each weigh less? Get carronades.
>>65372953Carronades. sailship engagements happened at point blank 90% of the times anyway, and cannons are still obscenely inaccurate
>>65372953Cannons. Close engagements are based on the luck alone. Almost always the smaller and weaker navies tried to force the close fight as a way to level the field with stronger opponent. With more and better cannons, with better crew and ships you could multiply your chances of hit at the distance while reducing risk of being hit by the enemy.Carronades are cope weapon for sea guerrillas like fuerzas sutiles or cheap way to massacre reef niggers and pirates trying to climb into your merchant ship. Great to have one, but if your going to war, cannons are better.
>>65372966>>65372969In practice there were no difference in effective range between them.Gunnery tests showed that cannon had like 90% hit probability against frigate size taeget at 1000 meters. But if Cannon was fired from land.When fired from actual ship at this range cannon had 5% hit probability because of the ship's roll throwing aim off. So effective range where you could expect hits was like 400-600 meters. Carronades had no problems reaching such range.
>>65372991Fun fact: age of wooden ships was ended by Paixhans gun that had barrel length of 13 calibers.Cannons had 20 calibers length.Carronades 7 calibers.
>>65372966Except for the fact ships would have a mix of both because carronades were much lighter and could be mounted in upper decks higher in the ship while cannons would remain in the lower decks.
>>65372991>Almost always the smaller and weaker navies tried to force the close fight as a way to level the field with stronger opponent.Except that the strongest navy preferentially did this and wtf are you talking about?
>>65373007Wooden ships were already hitting the limit of size and they were functionally a dead end regardless
>>65372953Mortar. vast majority of cannon and carronade shots are absorbed by the water. but a mortar has a much larger range, a much larger target, and shoots at an arc. a single shot can set the entire ship on fire.
>>65372953Iirc the brits experimented a bit with all-carronades frigates but quickly abandoned them as those ships were tactically very limited. However carronades saw much succes as purely defensive armaments on merchant ships and more importantly as additional guns on ships of the line, which gave them far more "umpf" in close quarters engagements.>>65372966In practice both many ships of the late 18th and early 19th century had long guns and carronades. >>65373014This. It's not an "either this or that" question.
>>65372966US super frigates (President?) tried the all carronade loadout. The brits just kited it right out of their range and brought their relatively lighter but longer range guns to bear and ended up capturing it.
>>65372971Only in movies. Most warships fired at about a mile or so.
>>65372995Are you retarded? Age of sail gun crews had far greater than 5% accuracy. They drilled constantly, and achieved a high rate of accurate fire. Naval ballistics were a solved problem until the the advent of smokeless propellants and high velocity shells at the end of the 19th century. Pitch and roll were compensated for by gunnery. Whatever "test" you refer to was conducted by people who had not spent the last 20 years of their lives drilling daily with real cannon on real ships under way.
>>65372953>>65372971Cannonballs tended to skip. It was more likely on flat ground but reasonably flat ocean would work just like a flat rock skipping over a pond. This gave gunners a much better margin of error when firing the higher velocity cannons. Not so much with the Carronade. The muzzle velocity was lower and the firing angle steeper.
>>65372995Anon Cannons lose hull penetrating power at much lower range than that.
>>65373392Nah dude, age of sail gunnery hit percentage was actually very fucking low. Think of fencers dancing around each other, but at hundreds of yards until they think they can go in for the weight of shot kill shot.
>>65372953ayo tyrese send these niggas a volley
>>65373175>US super frigates (President?) tried the all carronade loadoutno they did notboth USS President and HMS Endymion had loadouts of, essentially, half carronades and half long gunsthis battle is also notable because it is the only time that the best and most modern of the British frigates - what the French would today call a "1st rank frigate" - met an American peer.at the other notable duel, between the Chesapeake and Shannon, the American "super-frigate" or 1st-rank frigate was defeated by an inferior "2nd-rank" British frigatesort of like the difference between Clemsons and Farragutsultimately, the Brits won because the Americans had 6 "super-frigates" and the Brits had 15 "super-frigates", and over a hundred second-class frigates (some of them captured French frigates)>>65373205they *began* firing at one mile, which indeed is not depicted in Hollywood, but had to close to a quarter mile for the killing blows>>65373150>Iirc the brits experimented a bit with all-carronades frigates but quickly abandoned them as those ships were tactically very limitedit was just that one mega-autistic chad on the HMS Glatton, who as far as we can tell used his personal influence to carry all-carronades on his frigate, and he used it extremely successfully - once.but even for that one successful engagement, the after-action review showed that the risks had been too high, and subsequently HMS Glatton was re-armed with half long guns and half carronades, just like the other British (and American) shipsthe French tried but couldn't develop a working carronade in time
>>65375388>HMS Glatton,>Lower deck – 28 × 68-pounder carronadesAbsolute Chad
>>65375814Dude you what?
>>65375825>virgin poking with 18 pounders from mile range vs Chad 68 pounders 100 feet broadside
