"Artillery Recoil" Topic

I stumbled across this recently and though the subject is ACW artillery I think it still quite relevant to our period

YouTube link

Though the whole thing is quite interesting (listen to the sound of shot approaching and the amount of smoke from the gun) for me, the second half of the video taken from the gun position is quite revelatory. There has been debate before about how far guns ran back with recoil. Well here is the real thing.

I am surprised about how short a distance the gun recoiled and it was on firm ground. I suspect that it would be a bit shorter in the mud. The gunners would not have so far to run the gun back up, but long repetition, especially in mud would soon tire them out.

I am not sure how relevant it is to gaming but it was fascinating!

I guess it depends on what you expect. My question would be on the size of the powder charge. Powder is expensive, and these guys aren't in combat, so what percentage of an actual combat charge are they firing?

Some tables (Prussian guns in the 1820s) here:

link

Average recoil (full charge) on solid ground:

6pounder 5 Fuß 3 Zoll
12pounder 6 Fuß
7pounder howitzer 5 Fuß 2 Zoll
10pounder howitzer 6 Fuß 10 Zoll

Average recoil (full charge) on sandy ground:

6pounder 2 Fuß 9 Zoll
12pounder 3 Fuß 2 Zoll
7pounder howitzer 3 Fuß 4 Zoll
10pounder howitzer 4 Fuß 5 Zoll

1 Fuß (31,385 cm) = 12 Zoll

Wonderful view of the hollow on those wheels too.

Trying to pick up on the conversation and the ranges achieved, I think it looks pretty much like full charge.

For me, the point is that in my imagination I saw such guns 'leaping back' 9 feet or so. Indeed this was based purely on imagination and accounts lacking in detail (contemporaries probably knew what the reality was). A brief dose of reality is always energising and informative.

Oliver, thanks for the chart. What was a Prussian Fuss equivalent to? Was it about an Imperial foot?

1 Prussian Fuß, of 12 Zoll, was 31,385 cm

Vielen Dank.

The one thing movies of the period of muzzleloader cannons never have is recoil.

If you look closely you will see the gun wheels are standing on boarding and there's blocking behind the trail.

Thus preventing the wheels digging in which makes running the gun up easier and limiting the full extent of the recoil via the block.

I suspect the boarding makes re-sighting the piece less of a pain too, by keeping things level.

The one thing movies of the period of muzzleloader cannons never have is recoil.

see here, 0:50 ff.

YouTube link

However it seems the recoil comes half a second too late ;-)

Still it is nice to see artillerymen aiming their gun, and no silly officer waving his sword in ordet to give a signal for firing.

The huge exploding fireworks are inevitable, I fear. The only realistic effects of gun fire I have seen, are in "Master and Commander".

A good recoil here, 50 years later, at 4:20 ff.:

YouTube link

From the video alone, I don't think i could tell much about the ordnance being used. Modern replica of what type of shell design? Modern powder no doubt? Charge? Percussion only fusing?

Nice demonstration. Has anyone seen written details on the event?

Cannon of the time may have been very heavy (ie much inertia) relative to the blast coming out of the muzzle, but there was absolutely nothing to reduce the recoil. No spades sunk into the ground, none of the springs and various hydraulic tubes (recuperators?), above or below the barrel, which reduced the effect on the carriage.

Even with the limited recoil shown, notice how the crew have the sense and training and discipline to keep well back. We have to base our figures and guns, so they all end up within inches of a very substantial piece of iron and woodwork, that could smash them to bits in a second!

…there was absolutely nothing to reduce the recoil.

That is not exactly correct. When Gribeauval designed his gun carriages, they were constructed with a definite crook or bend in the carriage that would carry some of the force of the shot into the ground and not straight back which did reduce recoil.

It was also noted that the ability and knowledge to reduce the charge by one-third also reduced recoil and allowed the gun tubes to be much lighter.

See 'The Systeme Gribeauval' by Howard Rosen.

During sieges, the recoil had the advantage that usually the muzzle of the barrel would get behind the embrasure of the siege as well as the defensive works, so that the gun wouldn't have to be pulled back for reloading it.

Surprisingly accurate – far more direct hots ona smallish target than you would expect.

I did enjoy Brechtel's point. The shape of the carriage.

It never ceases to amaze me how ingenious was much of the design work in the pre-Industrial Age. Franklin's British Artillery demonstrates that with some superbly detailed diagrams of carriages, limbers, Ammo carts etc

Now strikes me that a disadvantage of restricting recoil becomes obvious. Unless there is some way of preventing the recoil of the barrel being transmitted to the carriage (obviously impossible with contemporary trunnion design) any restraint of the carriage moving back means it has to be one very solid structure! far better to have a lighter carriage that can roll back than one fixed to the ground weighing tons!

I think…………….Newton and action and reaction etc…….

Ever seem what happens behind a recoilless rifle, like the old Wombat?

Spot the Wombat!

YouTube link

Notice no one stands behind the breach!

Yeah, standing behind an M40 is one of those bucket list items you shouldn't attempt until pretty close to the end.

Ever seem what happens behind a recoilless rifle, like the old Wombat?

Ever fired the 90mm Recoilless Rifle? Emplaced it is close to the ground and fires a 90mm tank round. It is quite impressive. The concussion incurred from firing is notable.