Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Carronades
Message-ID: <7338@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 10 Jun 89 05:40:35 GMT
References: <7030@cbnews.ATT.COM> <7127@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)
The description of carronades as short barreled, short range
weapons is accurate.  The British favored them while the
French leaned more heavily on long guns.  Correspondingly
the French had lighter, faster ships and favored the leeward
line of battle so they could keep the British within their
long gun range but stay out of carronade range.

The British, on the other hand, built stouter ships and favored
the weather line of battle so they could descend downwind onto
the French and Spanish, get a good melee going toe to toe.
Thus came one of Nelson's aphorisms -- definitely rooted in
the weapons and tactics of the time -- about his captains could
do little better than heaving alongside the enemy and blowing
the ____ out of him.  

As history shows, the British tactics generally were superior.
About the only strategically significant battle where they didn't
work was at Virginia Capes.

Rex Buddenberg