From Mon Sep 29 11:32:35 1997
>Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 02:33:00 -0400
>From: Patrick McSherry >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U)
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>Subject: Re: Pre-dreadnought revolution
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>Mark Hayes wrote:
>
> > I spoke with John Reilly about this, and he stated that guns developed
> > during the brown or black powder era could not simply fire the same size
> > charge of smokeless powder (my incorrect assumption). The slower > combustion
> > rate of smokeless powder led to greater pressure near the muzzle than the
> > gun was designed for and, at times, resulted in a burst barrel. Finding
> > what size charge would be safe took time, and may not have been worth it in
> > the end. It seems likely, then, that even though smokeless powder was
> > available in the U.S. Navy, the only guns to use it were the newer ones
> > (3pdrs?) and (as Mike stated) the guns of the new British built > NEW ORLEANS.
> > If anyone has a definitive answer, I would certainly welcome it.
>
>The Report of the Bureau of Ordnance in the Secretary of the Navy’s 1898
>report sheds light on this issue. Its states “After many difficulties
>the manufacture of a purely smokeless powder, made by the Bureau’s
>formula from soluable nitrocellulose dissolved in ether alcohol, uniform
>in character, and possessing good keeping qualities has become an
>accomplished fact. Considerable quantities have already been provided
>and a few vessels have been given complete outfits; all vessels fitted
>out hereafter will, if time and money permit, be supplied exclusively
>with smokeless powder…”
> “The Bureau could have supplied considerable qunatities of smokeless
>powder to various vessels during the late war, but, as owing to lack of
>time it was impracticable to supply complete outfits, it seemed useless
>to supply it in part, as a few guns using brown powder would nullify the
>advantages gained by the use of smokeless powder in others.”
> “The Burean has now in process of manufacture a large > quantity and will
>endeavor to accumulate a sufficient supply to gradually introduce it
>into all vessels in the service.”
>
>Elsewhere, the same report comments: “When smokeless powder was first
>introduced for minor-caliber guns using fixed ammunition, some difficuly
>was experienced on account of hang fires. This has been entirely
>overcome by the use of a specially designed long primer.”
>
>You are correct in brown and smokeless powder not being able to be used
>without experimentation. Alden comments in _American Steel Navy_ that
>”The new powder burned more slowly, inparting a much higher velocity to
>the projectile without a significant increase in chamber pressure…”
>Ranges would vary considerably from the standard range tables, and
>changes would be needed.
>
>As you noted, the overwhelming amount of annecdotal evidence points
>toward the use of brown powder in ship guns of larger size (6 pdr & up).
>One example follows. At the battle of Santiago, Capt. Clark of the
>OREGON reported that “The Spaniards turned to the westward, breaking
>trhough our line or crossing it….both sides opened fire promptly and
>fired rapidly, and a dense smoke soon obscured the vessels…..Just then
>the smoke lifted or broke away to the left, and I discovered the
>BROOKLYN…” Later, he commented that when the TEXAS appeared “I could
>not really tell whether I saw the bow or the stern of the TEXAS. I just
>saw this great, large object loom up out of the smoke…”
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Patrick McSherry
Posted via email from mahan’s posterous