Why the Armada couldn't shoot straight

[Ithoriel]

Interesting (well interesting to me at least!) little piece about a marine archaeologist who among other things suggests the Armada was issued with shoddy guns!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26545418

[Hertsblue]

Very interesting, especially the bit about the Spanish guns. I knew the Spanish had difficulty reloading their guns because they had no mechanism for running them in and out, but if the guns themselves were so badly made one wonders if they hit anything at all.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Thanks for that.

ianS

[Techno]

What sort of range did these have ?
Or was the tactic to get as close as possible , and blast away at point blank range ?
Cheers - Phil

[Ithoriel]

Spanish tactics seem to have been to close with the enemy, fire a broadside and then board, relying on their skill and reputation for infantry combat.

The English, not having implemented the 1557 EU directive on Naval Warfare thanks to their 1587 "King of Spain's Beard" opt-out clause, used mostly smaller, lighter, faster and handier ships than the Spanish and unsportingly opened the range so as not to be boarded.

As a result the game went into extra time and the English brought on Fireships from the subs bench.

While the ref wasn't looking the Spanish were fouled most cruelly by Weather.

Final score England 66 - Spain 8*

*Technically an own goal as the English set fire to them

[FierceKitty]

I understand that the Brits tried to design long culverins to be effective ship-smashers at long range, and wasted a lot of time with ineffectual distant shooing before discovering that the same guns had the unexpected side-effect of penetrating very effectively at close range. A bit like finding that 88m anti-aircraft guns were excellent anti-tank weapons, or that you could melt down centurions to make Mexicans.

[Ithoriel]

My understanding, possibly entirely flawed, was that the English stood off to avoid being boarded until Drake plundered the Rosario and discovered how difficult it was for the Spaniards to reload due to gun design and the clutter of supplies on deck. So, at Gravelines, they changed to closing to the point where the Spaniards were tempted into ineffectual long range fire, rapidly closed the range, thereby luring many of the gunners into the ratlines ready for boarding, and then pounded the Spanish ships at close range before sheering off just as the Spaniard reloaded. Rinse, repeat, profit!

[FierceKitty]

The stories are not mutually exclusive.

[Techno]

Ta chaps.

Cheers - Phil.

[fsn]

... that you could melt down centurions to make Mexicans.

What? No! No! No! 

[marie]

too much wine....and bad sailors

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

As to range question - the shot would carry for roughly three miles - it's why territorial waters were set at that by Henry 8th.

IanS

[Techno]

Stroll on !........Must have been a particularly lucky (brilliant ?) shot to hit anything at that range, with the ship moving up and down on the swell !
Cheers - Phil

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Phil - I didn't say hit any thing - I said carry that far. 300m for the English Culverin would be good, and at that range it would be pushed to penetrate the Spanish hulls.

IanS

[Techno]

That's what I'd assumed Ian. 

Did the gunners ever try and hit anything at long range, or would that have been considered to be a waste of shot and powder ?
Cheers - Phil

[Ithoriel]

The reason the Armada suffered so little damage as it made it's way up the Channel seems to have been that the English remained at long range (we're talking closer to 300 yards than 3 miles here) to avoid being boarded and as a result did very little damage to the Spanish. The English were very short of powder and shot (government cut backs - too much to hope the current government is remembering this?  ) and one of the reasons Drake seems to have given for slinking off in the middle of the night to loot the Rosario and San Salvador was that he was replenishing his stocks (no doubt he had to move the gold, silver and jewels on to his own ship so they could get at the ammo    I've no idea if the English were forced to reduce their firing rate to conserve stocks. The Spanish seem to have still had large amounts of ammunition on board as the made the run round the North of Scotland so presumably their rate of fire was indeed pretty slow.

For the record, Rosario and San Salvador seem to have simply collided rather than being the victims of English gunnery.

Once they'd broken up the Spanish fleet formation the English were more willing to close and as I said before seem to have tempted the Spaniards to fire at long range so they could close and do some damage while the Spaniards reloaded.

So, yes both fleets tried long range fire but with little or no success.

[Fenton]

 I think the Spanish commander was trying to save ammo as the guns were to be unloaded when they landed in England to be used on the land...I could have dreamt this info though

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

I might also have been dreaming, but I once heard the Spanish managed three shots an hour compared to the British twelve (which was considered high)!

[Ithoriel]

I might also have been dreaming, but I once heard the Spanish managed three shots an hour compared to the British twelve (which was considered high)!

I remember the same statistics though I couldn't tell you where they came from.

However, George Gush "Renaissance Warfare" has the following to say about land based artillery:

Part 4: The Artillery : Effectiveness

Accuracy was very limited over about 300 yards (¼ inch windage was allowed between shot and bore) and rates of fire were not high, probably because guns were loaded with shovelfuls of loose powder from a barrel (usually closed with a leather cover with a drawstring). Cartridges, though known, were not apparently used much until the advent of Gustavus's regimental guns, which, using them, achieved rates of fire of up to three rounds a minute - faster than a musket. William Eldred, in The Gunners' Glasse (1646) gave eight rounds per hour as the average, though other evidence seems to show that quite large 17th Century guns such as culverins could manage ten rounds an hour; 'Drakes' (guns under 5 pounders) of the same period achieved 15 rph. For safely, a gun was supposed to fire only a limited number of shots per day, or at least before having a cooling-down period (for example, a 20 pounder culverin of Henry VIII was limited to 36 rounds a day).

I would imagine naval guns would be slower to fire

[Hertsblue]

The 60pr guns mounted on Venetian galleys of the period were effective up to 1,000 yards. However, at that range the margin of error was 100 yards each side of the target!