Changes

==Ships of the line==

==Ships of the line==

Mounting 60 to 80 heavy guns the battleships of the era, called "[[Ship of the line|ships of the line]]" had to grow bigger.  Smaller and more flexible were the frigates.  Both were redesigned to maximize firepower.  The "Royal Sovereign", launched in 1637, was probably the first three-decked English warship and she proved extremely serviceable. Its builder, Phineas Pett, described its armament in his journal:<ref>Quoted in [http://books.google.com/books?id=YzwIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA249&dq=Phineas+Pett++%22ten+pieces+of+chase+ordnance+%22&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1  William Morgan and Augustin Creuze, eds.,  ''Papers on naval architecture, and other subjects '' (1832) v4 #13 p. 249]</ref>

Mounting 60 to 80 heavy guns the battleships of the era, called "[[Ship of the line|ships of the line]]" had to grow bigger.  Smaller and more flexible were the frigates.  Both were redesigned to maximize firepower.  The "Royal Sovereign", launched in 1637, was probably the first three-decked English warship and she proved extremely serviceable. Its builder, Phineas Pett, described its armament in his journal:<ref>Quoted in [https://books.google.com/books?id=YzwIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA249&dq=Phineas+Pett++%22ten+pieces+of+chase+ordnance+%22&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1  William Morgan and Augustin Creuze, eds.,  ''Papers on naval architecture, and other subjects '' (1832) v4 #13 p. 249]</ref>

: ''Her lower tyre [tier] hath thirty ports which are to be furnished with demicannon and whole cannon; her middle tyre hath also thirty ports for demiculverin and whole culverin; her third tyre hath twentie six ports for other ordnance; her forecastle hath twelve ports, and her half deck hath fourteen ports; she hath thirteen or fourteene ports more within board for murdering pieces, besides a great many loope-holes out of the cabins for musket shot. Shee carrieth moreover, ten pieces of chase ordnance in her right forward, and ten right aft, according to lande service in the front and reare.''

: ''Her lower tyre [tier] hath thirty ports which are to be furnished with demicannon and whole cannon; her middle tyre hath also thirty ports for demiculverin and whole culverin; her third tyre hath twentie six ports for other ordnance; her forecastle hath twelve ports, and her half deck hath fourteen ports; she hath thirteen or fourteene ports more within board for murdering pieces, besides a great many loope-holes out of the cabins for musket shot. Shee carrieth moreover, ten pieces of chase ordnance in her right forward, and ten right aft, according to lande service in the front and reare.''

The frigate was the most glamorous ship in the British navy during the era of Napoleonic seapower. Frigates made up a quarter of the 412-ship royal fleet in wartime, and were kept in active service during peacetime. The frigate had between 32 and 44 guns and a crew of 217 to 297 men. While not as big as the ship of the line, it could outrun anything with more firepower and catch commercial ships, sloops, and corvettes. It could handle a variety of tasks, including raiding coastlines, running down opposing ships, and scouting.  

The frigate was the most glamorous ship in the British navy during the era of Napoleonic seapower. Frigates made up a quarter of the 412-ship royal fleet in wartime, and were kept in active service during peacetime. The frigate had between 32 and 44 guns and a crew of 217 to 297 men. While not as big as the ship of the line, it could outrun anything with more firepower and catch commercial ships, sloops, and corvettes. It could handle a variety of tasks, including raiding coastlines, running down opposing ships, and scouting.  

Frigates were used for reconnaissance, convoys and raids. Sloops were even smaller and cheaper; their 20 guns were enough to overpower any merchant ship, or control rivers and bays.<ref>Robert Gardiner, ''Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Frigates-Napoleonic-Wars-Robert-Gardiner/dp/1591142830/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206348906&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]</ref>  In the [[American Revolution, naval history|American revolution]] [[John Barry]], a 30-year-old Philadelphian and senior captain of the almost-landlocked American navy in 1778 Barry commanded the ''Raleigh'', a 700-ton frigate with 36 guns and 235 crewmen. In late September 1778, the ''Raleigh'' engaged the ''Unicorn'', a 22-gun ship, and the ''Experiment'', a 50-gun ship-of-the-line. Barry lost the ''Raleigh'' and 135 men were captured, but he disabled the ''Unicorn'' and escaped with 86 men.<ref>See [http://books.google.com/books?id=AwNFAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA319&dq=Barry+%27Raleigh+Unicorn&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1#PRA1-PA317,M1  Gardner Weld Allen, ''A Naval History of the American Revolution'' (1913) p. 317-19]</ref>

Frigates were used for reconnaissance, convoys and raids. Sloops were even smaller and cheaper; their 20 guns were enough to overpower any merchant ship, or control rivers and bays.<ref>Robert Gardiner, ''Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Frigates-Napoleonic-Wars-Robert-Gardiner/dp/1591142830/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206348906&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]</ref>  In the [[American Revolution, naval history|American revolution]] [[John Barry]], a 30-year-old Philadelphian and senior captain of the almost-landlocked American navy in 1778 Barry commanded the ''Raleigh'', a 700-ton frigate with 36 guns and 235 crewmen. In late September 1778, the ''Raleigh'' engaged the ''Unicorn'', a 22-gun ship, and the ''Experiment'', a 50-gun ship-of-the-line. Barry lost the ''Raleigh'' and 135 men were captured, but he disabled the ''Unicorn'' and escaped with 86 men.<ref>See [https://books.google.com/books?id=AwNFAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA319&dq=Barry+%27Raleigh+Unicorn&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1#PRA1-PA317,M1  Gardner Weld Allen, ''A Naval History of the American Revolution'' (1913) p. 317-19]</ref>

The era of dominance by frigates ended when "big" frigates like the "USS Constitution" appeared in the waters.<ref>Mark Lardas and Tony Bryan, ''''American Heavy Frigates 1794-1826'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/New-Vanguard-79-American-1794-1826/dp/1841766305/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206348906&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]</ref>

The era of dominance by frigates ended when "big" frigates like the "USS Constitution" appeared in the waters.<ref>Mark Lardas and Tony Bryan, ''''American Heavy Frigates 1794-1826'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/New-Vanguard-79-American-1794-1826/dp/1841766305/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206348906&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]</ref>

Gunnery was a mysterious art because every element was variable. Shot was never uniform, because of careless manufacture and rusting in storage. Gunpowder varied even more in terms of strength and burning rate; the bore of the guns varied in size. Even the mathematical models proposed for predicting the trajectory of projectiles through the air varied among mathematicians. A British scientist, Benjamin Robins (1707–1751), in the 1740s, put forward basic theories and supporting experimental data which put ballistics into the framework of Newtonian mechanics and formed the basis of the science of ballistics. For example, by applying Newton's second law to velocity measurements at varying ranges, Robins measured the air-resistance that slowed balls in flight.  Robins proposed that the bore of the cannon be enlarged, that they be equipped with snug-fitting balls, and that they be fired with decreased charges of powder. This, he argued would increase destructive power, since the larger ball with a relatively low velocity would do more damage than would a smaller one. He further urged that careful attention be given to designing new guns to eliminate unnecessary weight.<ref>Brett D. Steele, "Robins, Benjamin (1707–1751)", ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'', (2004), online from [[OUP]]</ref>

Gunnery was a mysterious art because every element was variable. Shot was never uniform, because of careless manufacture and rusting in storage. Gunpowder varied even more in terms of strength and burning rate; the bore of the guns varied in size. Even the mathematical models proposed for predicting the trajectory of projectiles through the air varied among mathematicians. A British scientist, Benjamin Robins (1707–1751), in the 1740s, put forward basic theories and supporting experimental data which put ballistics into the framework of Newtonian mechanics and formed the basis of the science of ballistics. For example, by applying Newton's second law to velocity measurements at varying ranges, Robins measured the air-resistance that slowed balls in flight.  Robins proposed that the bore of the cannon be enlarged, that they be equipped with snug-fitting balls, and that they be fired with decreased charges of powder. This, he argued would increase destructive power, since the larger ball with a relatively low velocity would do more damage than would a smaller one. He further urged that careful attention be given to designing new guns to eliminate unnecessary weight.<ref>Brett D. Steele, "Robins, Benjamin (1707–1751)", ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'', (2004), online from [[OUP]]</ref>

In ''A Proposal for Increasing the Strength of the British Navy'' (1747) Robins proposed a new naval gun design based on his models, and in 1779, the carronade was invented to incorporate Robins' ideas. These short-barreled, light-weight, large-bore guns used a small powder charge and the same projectile as did the long guns. As Continental scientists like [[Leonhard Euler]] developed Robins' ideas, Navies across Europe hurried to adopt Robins' proposals.<ref>Brett D. Steele, "Muskets and Pendulums: Benjamin Robins, Leonhard Euler, and the Ballistics Revolution," ''Technology and Culture'', Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 348-382 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0040-165X(199404)35%3A2%3C348%3AMAPBRL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 in JSTOR]</ref>  The British put carronades on existing ships and armed many of the smaller warships, such as frigates, sloops, and brigs, entirely with carronades. Similar guns were put into service by the Dutch, French, Spanish, and American navies. The carronade's short range eventually led to loss of interest in it as a naval weapon. In two actions during the [[War of 1812]], this shortcoming was an important factor in determining the victor. In the [[Battle of Lake Erie]], American forces fought with long guns from beyond the range of British ships, and the English commodore reported, "We remained in this mortifying situation five hours, having only six guns in all the squadron that would reach the enemy, not a carronade being fired."<ref>Quoted in [http://books.google.com/books?id=bxkbAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA294&dq=%22We+remained+in+this+mortifying+situation+five+hours%22&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 Theodore Roosevelt, ''The Naval War of 1812'' (1882) page 294]</ref> In another action, the British ships Phoebe and Cherub, armed with long guns, captured the American frigate Essex, which was equipped almost entirely with carronades. Despite its shortcomings, the carronade demonstrated the importance of quick-firing weapons and the need to use projectiles which fitted snugly into the bore of the gun.<ref>Frederick Leslie Robertson, ''The Evolution of Naval Armament'' (1921) pp 112-39</ref>

In ''A Proposal for Increasing the Strength of the British Navy'' (1747) Robins proposed a new naval gun design based on his models, and in 1779, the carronade was invented to incorporate Robins' ideas. These short-barreled, light-weight, large-bore guns used a small powder charge and the same projectile as did the long guns. As Continental scientists like [[Leonhard Euler]] developed Robins' ideas, Navies across Europe hurried to adopt Robins' proposals.<ref>Brett D. Steele, "Muskets and Pendulums: Benjamin Robins, Leonhard Euler, and the Ballistics Revolution," ''Technology and Culture'', Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 348-382 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0040-165X(199404)35%3A2%3C348%3AMAPBRL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 in JSTOR]</ref>  The British put carronades on existing ships and armed many of the smaller warships, such as frigates, sloops, and brigs, entirely with carronades. Similar guns were put into service by the Dutch, French, Spanish, and American navies. The carronade's short range eventually led to loss of interest in it as a naval weapon. In two actions during the [[War of 1812]], this shortcoming was an important factor in determining the victor. In the [[Battle of Lake Erie]], American forces fought with long guns from beyond the range of British ships, and the English commodore reported, "We remained in this mortifying situation five hours, having only six guns in all the squadron that would reach the enemy, not a carronade being fired."<ref>Quoted in [https://books.google.com/books?id=bxkbAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA294&dq=%22We+remained+in+this+mortifying+situation+five+hours%22&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 Theodore Roosevelt, ''The Naval War of 1812'' (1882) page 294]</ref> In another action, the British ships Phoebe and Cherub, armed with long guns, captured the American frigate Essex, which was equipped almost entirely with carronades. Despite its shortcomings, the carronade demonstrated the importance of quick-firing weapons and the need to use projectiles which fitted snugly into the bore of the gun.<ref>Frederick Leslie Robertson, ''The Evolution of Naval Armament'' (1921) pp 112-39</ref>

===Fire ships and mortars===

===Fire ships and mortars===

Naval gunnery focused on the broadside ship and the long guns that served as decisive elements in combat. For other naval purposes, however, other gunnery devices were used. The "fire ship" which was loosed into enemy ship concentrations was a weapon of antiquity. With the development of gunpowder, powder ships were used in preference to fire ships. For example, in a 1693 attack on the French port of Saint-Malo, the British Commodore Benbow loaded a galliot with 100 barrels of powder and 340 chests containing cannonballs, iron chains, large pieces of metal, and other destructive missiles. This ship was cast adrift and grounded on a rock in the harbor where it exploded, blowing down part of the town wall and severely damaging the houses.

Naval gunnery focused on the broadside ship and the long guns that served as decisive elements in combat. For other naval purposes, however, other gunnery devices were used. The "fire ship" which was loosed into enemy ship concentrations was a weapon of antiquity. With the development of gunpowder, powder ships were used in preference to fire ships. For example, in a 1693 attack on the French port of Saint-Malo, the British Commodore Benbow loaded a galliot with 100 barrels of powder and 340 chests containing cannonballs, iron chains, large pieces of metal, and other destructive missiles. This ship was cast adrift and grounded on a rock in the harbor where it exploded, blowing down part of the town wall and severely damaging the houses.

Hollow shells filled with gunpowder proved more effective than fire ships. The powder was exploded by means of a slow match (burning fuse). Bomb ketches were often used to bombard ports and shore fortifications. However, the risk of fire or premature explosion was so serious that captains avoided firing explosive shells from their long guns. In 1788, the Russian navy sent Admiral [[John Paul Jones]] with a flotilla of long boats fitted with brass ordnance to attack a Turkish squadron on the Sea of Azov; the use of explosive shells gave Jones complete victory.<ref>Evan Thomas, ''John Paul Jones: Sailor, Hero, Father of the American Navy'' (2003) pp. 292-312</ref>  

Hollow shells filled with gunpowder proved more effective than fire ships. The powder was exploded by means of a slow match (burning fuse). Bomb ketches were often used to bombard ports and shore fortifications. However, the risk of fire or premature explosion was so serious that captains avoided firing explosive shells from their long guns. In 1788, the Russian navy sent Admiral [[John Paul Jones]] with a flotilla of long boats fitted with brass ordnance to attack a Turkish squadron on the Sea of Azov; the use of explosive shells gave Jones complete victory.<ref>Evan Thomas, ''John Paul Jones: Sailor, Hero, Father of the American Navy'' (2003) pp. 292-312</ref>  

Explosive shells became popular thanks to a French artillery officer, Henri-Joseph Paixhans, who in the 1820s proposed a new system of gunnery. Paixhans showed how the new steam-powered ship could become a warship.  He argued that all guns aboard a ship be of the same bore—and that explosive shells be used, thereby simplifying their use and augmenting their destructiveness. Paixhans demonstrated that explosive shells could destroy wooden ships, and he proposed to protect the ships by encasing their sides with iron plates; this led to the development of armored naval vessels. The French in 1829 standardized on a single caliber (a 30-pounder) which was made in different weights for use on the various decks and classes of ships. In 1837 France adopted a Paixhans-design shell gun, but of much larger bore than the 30-pounder. The Royal Navy in 1839 adopted six patterns of 32-pound long guns, associating with them a few eight-inch shell guns. Other countries quickly added Paixhans-style guns.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=lZf8uwTvhv0C&pg=PA63&dq=Paixhans+dahlgren&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1 John Adolphus Bernard Dahlgren, ''Shells and Shell-guns'' (1856) ch. 3]</ref>

Explosive shells became popular thanks to a French artillery officer, Henri-Joseph Paixhans, who in the 1820s proposed a new system of gunnery. Paixhans showed how the new steam-powered ship could become a warship.  He argued that all guns aboard a ship be of the same bore—and that explosive shells be used, thereby simplifying their use and augmenting their destructiveness. Paixhans demonstrated that explosive shells could destroy wooden ships, and he proposed to protect the ships by encasing their sides with iron plates; this led to the development of armored naval vessels. The French in 1829 standardized on a single caliber (a 30-pounder) which was made in different weights for use on the various decks and classes of ships. In 1837 France adopted a Paixhans-design shell gun, but of much larger bore than the 30-pounder. The Royal Navy in 1839 adopted six patterns of 32-pound long guns, associating with them a few eight-inch shell guns. Other countries quickly added Paixhans-style guns.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=lZf8uwTvhv0C&pg=PA63&dq=Paixhans+dahlgren&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1 John Adolphus Bernard Dahlgren, ''Shells and Shell-guns'' (1856) ch. 3]</ref>

===Projectiles ===

===Projectiles ===

===Naval race===

===Naval race===

Paixhans and his followers immediately realized the need to protect their ships from the penetrating power of rifled shot. Iron plates 7 inches thick proved vulnerable to 8-inch shells. As a rule of thumb, another inch of armor was needed for every inch of shell diameter. Armor was very heavy, so the ship had to be enlarged to carry big guns and thick armor.  The French breakthrough came with the ''Gloire'' (1859), built wood covered by 4.5 inch iron plates from the main deck to below the waterline; the 5600 ton battleship carried 30 6.5 inch guns and boasted a top speed of 14 knots. It was a major breakthrough and but Britain leapfrogged it in 1860 with the ''Warrior'' (1861), which was twice as big and had an all-iron hull.<ref>see  [http://books.google.com/books?id=LPIDAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA344&dq=gloire+warrior&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 William Pole, ed. ''The Life of Sir William Fairbairn, Bart.'' (1877) online ch 20, pp. 344ff]</ref>  

Paixhans and his followers immediately realized the need to protect their ships from the penetrating power of rifled shot. Iron plates 7 inches thick proved vulnerable to 8-inch shells. As a rule of thumb, another inch of armor was needed for every inch of shell diameter. Armor was very heavy, so the ship had to be enlarged to carry big guns and thick armor.  The French breakthrough came with the ''Gloire'' (1859), built wood covered by 4.5 inch iron plates from the main deck to below the waterline; the 5600 ton battleship carried 30 6.5 inch guns and boasted a top speed of 14 knots. It was a major breakthrough and but Britain leapfrogged it in 1860 with the ''Warrior'' (1861), which was twice as big and had an all-iron hull.<ref>see  [https://books.google.com/books?id=LPIDAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA344&dq=gloire+warrior&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 William Pole, ed. ''The Life of Sir William Fairbairn, Bart.'' (1877) online ch 20, pp. 344ff]</ref>  

The battle of the ironclad ''Virginia'' (previously known as the ''Merrimac'')  and the all-iron ''Monitor'' in the [[U.S. Civil War]] in March 1862 was the first battle between ironclads. The Confederacy lacked the resources to build more, but the Union Navy built dozens of turreted ships of the ''Monitor'' type, as well as many casemated ironclad paddle-boats with heavy gus to control the inland rivers. Eirope followed these developments closely, making ''Gloire'', ''Warrior'', and ''Monitor'' the models for ship design until 1900; France and Britain took the lead, with the U.S. trailing far behind Italy and Germany.

The battle of the ironclad ''Virginia'' (previously known as the ''Merrimac'')  and the all-iron ''Monitor'' in the [[U.S. Civil War]] in March 1862 was the first battle between ironclads. The Confederacy lacked the resources to build more, but the Union Navy built dozens of turreted ships of the ''Monitor'' type, as well as many casemated ironclad paddle-boats with heavy gus to control the inland rivers. Eirope followed these developments closely, making ''Gloire'', ''Warrior'', and ''Monitor'' the models for ship design until 1900; France and Britain took the lead, with the U.S. trailing far behind Italy and Germany.

* Brooks, John. ''Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland: The Question of Fire Control'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Gunnery-Battle-Jutland-Naval/dp/0415407885/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203294796&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]  

* Brooks, John. ''Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland: The Question of Fire Control'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Gunnery-Battle-Jutland-Naval/dp/0415407885/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203294796&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]  

* Brown, David K. ''Eclipse of the Big Gun: The Warship 1906-45'' (1992)

* Brown, David K. ''Eclipse of the Big Gun: The Warship 1906-45'' (1992)

* Curtin,  Roland Irvin, and Thomas Lee Johnson. ''Naval Ordnance: A Text-book'' (1915), esp ch 13-15 on gunpowder and shells [http://books.google.com/books?id=zEhAAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:NAVAL+intitle:ordnance&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1&ei=6Ye6R8ODOILusgPRrq2MBQ#PPR9,M1 complete text online]  

* Curtin,  Roland Irvin, and Thomas Lee Johnson. ''Naval Ordnance: A Text-book'' (1915), esp ch 13-15 on gunpowder and shells [https://books.google.com/books?id=zEhAAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:NAVAL+intitle:ordnance&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1&ei=6Ye6R8ODOILusgPRrq2MBQ#PPR9,M1 complete text online]  

* Fisher, Charles R. "The Great Guns of the Navy, 1797-1843." ''American Neptune'' 1976 36(4): 276-295. ISSN: 0003-0155

* Fisher, Charles R. "The Great Guns of the Navy, 1797-1843." ''American Neptune'' 1976 36(4): 276-295. ISSN: 0003-0155

* Friedman, Norman. ''U.S. Naval Weapons: Every Gun, Missile, Mine and Torpedo Used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the Present'' (1983), highly detailed guide   

* Friedman, Norman. ''U.S. Naval Weapons: Every Gun, Missile, Mine and Torpedo Used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the Present'' (1983), highly detailed guide   

* Mulligan, Timothy. "Ship-of-the-Line or Atlantic Raider? Battleship Bismarck Between Design Limitations and Naval Strategy," ''The Journal of Military History'' 69#4 October 2005, pp.&nbsp;1013–1044 in [[Project Muse]]

* Mulligan, Timothy. "Ship-of-the-Line or Atlantic Raider? Battleship Bismarck Between Design Limitations and Naval Strategy," ''The Journal of Military History'' 69#4 October 2005, pp.&nbsp;1013–1044 in [[Project Muse]]

* Parkes, Oscar ''British Battleships: 'Warrior' 1860 to 'Vanguard' 1950 - A History of Design, Construction and Armament'' (1990) Naval Institute, Annapolis

* Parkes, Oscar ''British Battleships: 'Warrior' 1860 to 'Vanguard' 1950 - A History of Design, Construction and Armament'' (1990) Naval Institute, Annapolis

* Ramsey, Hobart Cole. ''Elementary Naval Ordnance and Gunnery'' (1918), textbook for U.S. Navy [http://books.google.com/books?id=IHkDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:NAVAL+intitle:ordnance&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1&ei=6Ye6R8ODOILusgPRrq2MBQ#PPR7,M1 online complete edition]

* Ramsey, Hobart Cole. ''Elementary Naval Ordnance and Gunnery'' (1918), textbook for U.S. Navy [https://books.google.com/books?id=IHkDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:NAVAL+intitle:ordnance&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1&ei=6Ye6R8ODOILusgPRrq2MBQ#PPR7,M1 online complete edition]

* Robertson, Frederick Leslie. ''The Evolution of Naval Armament'' (1921)

* Robertson, Frederick Leslie. ''The Evolution of Naval Armament'' (1921)

* Sondhaus, Lawrence. ''Naval Warfare, 1815-1914'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/109459237 online edition]

* Sondhaus, Lawrence. ''Naval Warfare, 1815-1914'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/109459237 online edition]

* Turnbull, Stephen, and Wayne Reynolds. ''Fighting Ships of the Far East (1)'' (2002), Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1841763861 [http://books.google.com/books?id=D5dGNT9JGE0C&pg=PT21&vq=cannon&dq=fighting+ship+far&output=html&source=gbs_search_s&cad=4&sig=zA7dDeMITS8Zm4rXMx1kSvqxkS8 Google books]

* Turnbull, Stephen, and Wayne Reynolds. ''Fighting Ships of the Far East (1)'' (2002), Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1841763861 [https://books.google.com/books?id=D5dGNT9JGE0C&pg=PT21&vq=cannon&dq=fighting+ship+far&output=html&source=gbs_search_s&cad=4&sig=zA7dDeMITS8Zm4rXMx1kSvqxkS8 Google books]

* Steele, Brett D. "Muskets and Pendulums: Benjamin Robins, Leonhard Euler, and the Ballistics Revolution," ''Technology and Culture'', Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp.&nbsp;348–382 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0040-165X(199404)35%3A2%3C348%3AMAPBRL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 in JSTOR]  

* Steele, Brett D. "Muskets and Pendulums: Benjamin Robins, Leonhard Euler, and the Ballistics Revolution," ''Technology and Culture'', Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp.&nbsp;348–382 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0040-165X(199404)35%3A2%3C348%3AMAPBRL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 in JSTOR]  

* Sumida, Jon Tetsuro. "The Quest for Reach: The Development of Long-Range Gunnery in the Royal Navy, 1901–1912," in Stephen D. Chiabotti, ed., ''Military Transformation in the Industrial Age'' (1996), 49–96.  

* Sumida, Jon Tetsuro. "The Quest for Reach: The Development of Long-Range Gunnery in the Royal Navy, 1901–1912," in Stephen D. Chiabotti, ed., ''Military Transformation in the Industrial Age'' (1996), 49–96.  

==Primary sources==

==Primary sources==

* Noble, Andrew ''Artillery and Explosives: Essays and Lectures Written and Delivered at Various Times'', 1906 John Murray, London ([http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=uukLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover online edition])

* Noble, Andrew ''Artillery and Explosives: Essays and Lectures Written and Delivered at Various Times'', 1906 John Murray, London ([https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=uukLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover online edition])

* Scott, Percy ''Fifty Years in the Royal Navy'' (1919) John Murray, London ([http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=SrwBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover online edition])

* Scott, Percy ''Fifty Years in the Royal Navy'' (1919) John Murray, London ([https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=SrwBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover online edition])

==See also==

==See also==