Mid 1860 Naval Artillery

[John_Ford]

Federals had the Dahlgren Smooth Bore Smashers and Parrot Rifles,   Confederates had the Brookes Rifles.    Not knowing about the Royals Navy and Continental Powers.   What was the best Naval Artillery of the mid 1860’s?

 

Edited March 5, 2024 by John_Ford

[sunday]

2 hours ago, John_Ford said:

Federals had the Dahlgren Smooth Bore Smashers and Parrot Rifles,   Confederates had the Brookes Rifles.    Not knowing about the Royals Navy and Continental Powers.   What was the best Naval Artillery of the mid 1860’s?

The guns used in the Crimea War could be a good approximation. After the introduction of the Paixhans, and their great show at Sinop, that was one of the time periods when gunnery was quickly evolving.

[Argus]

It depends 
AIUI there were essentially two schools and many shades of grey.
Paxihan's shell guns got their explosive performance at the sacrifice of penetration. Essentially he was trying to throw the biggest shell he could with a gun of approximately the same weight as 32pdr-ish gun, and still have 'can hit the broad side of a battleship at 1,000m' ballistics, IIRC that worked out to be about an 8" shell.  
This was all well and good until people started firing Paxihans shells against wooden ships, seeing exactly how bloody effective they were and thinking about what it all meant. With everyone now scrambling to find some means of off setting this new and terrible weapon, the predictable three schools emerged; 1/ the long range - get your shots in first from beyond the other guys reach, 2/ more is more - its going to be ugly but worse for the other guy, and 3/ those cranks in the corner muttering crazy talk about 'armour' as if iron plates can float.
So of the 'System Paxihan' everyone loved the shell but identified the ballistics as its weakness.  
Thus as each nation brewed up its own version, they skewed the design to however they saw the ideal compromise between explosive and ballistic effect, the Dahlgren being a prime example of such, with its own approach to gun architecture into the bargain. 
Except the Royal Navy who in typical Victorian fashion just doubled down and adopted a full weight 8" gun that could fire shell all day but also solid shot, eating the increased costs in everything as the price of doing business and covering all three bases in one go. 
This would have pissed of everyone, if only they'd not gone and jumped not their own individual hobby horses generally iterating up the size scale, from 8 to 9 to 10 to.... 

If you want to punch armor then IMHO the 68pdr is the way to go and it'll do a good enough job at everything else you can ask of a gun - if the weight and cost are acceptable. The French originals were the most efficient shell throwers if that's what you want, Dahlgren's are a pretty good compromise too, Rodmans sure.... rifles are just different game.

Edited February 27, 2024 by Argus

[Arminius]

Mid 1960´s????

Typo?

IIRC Mid 1960´s was still lots of 5"/38 in USN ...

Hermann

[John_Ford]

7 hours ago, Arminius said:

Mid 1960´s????

Typo?

IIRC Mid 1960´s was still lots of 5"/38 in USN ...

Hermann

Yeah,  that was a typo.

[Josh]

Tangentially related, but I never realized until recently how many iron clad river boats were used in the western campaign of the U.S. civil war and how decisive they were in several river valley battles.

[Steven P Allen]

On 3/4/2024 at 9:17 PM, John_Ford said:

Yeah,  that was a typo.

Drat.  I was looking forward to a nice discussion of the 8" Mk 71 MCLWG  ( 🦆 and cover)

[Steven P Allen]

On 3/6/2024 at 8:12 AM, Josh said:

Tangentially related, but I never realized until recently how many iron clad river boats were used in the western campaign of the U.S. civil war and how decisive they were in several river valley battles.

Poor Ft. Henry.  But Donaldson gave as good as it got.

The entire Vicksburg campaign depended on ironclads.  What a mess the Yazoo River expedition was!  And the Red River.