50 cal Machine gun on sloop vs. 38 gun frigate... who would win?

[Gifted]

You've got a .50 caliber machine gun with unlimited ammunition. Put the gun at 45 degrees and hit 'em beyond cannon range. Use API and tracers, and rain fire on 'em till the ship goes down. One or two rounds may not go through the wood - but when you start pumping a few hundred rounds into the same area, the structure's pretty severely compromised.

I'm reminded that nobody's answered one of my first questions-most machine guns are designed to put their bullets on a "beaten zone". You rarely get a bullet going through the previous hole, especially at range. So, question is, at the ranges we're talkign about(1500 yards plus), what kind of dispersion is the M2 giving? I'd have imagined that the people who have shot the gun would have answered by now.

 

[SnWnMe]

DM for those of us who have not tried shooting little machine guns at things in the middle of the ocean, it is hard to grasp the BIG difference between land and naval gunnery.

 

[nelson133]

Maybe I missed it but there is one thing that would be blindingly obvious to sailors of that time that everyone seems to have missed. If you loaded the .50 with tracers, the fight would be over very quickly. The sailing ships of those days were extreme firetraps with all of the dry wood and canvas and everything being covered in tar and pitch. The greatest danger to any ship was any accident involving fire.
When the Virginia attacked the blockading ships before the Monitor arrived, they weren't sunk by holing the hull, they burned from fires started from shell fragments. That was the end for wooden warships when exploding shell came in. You wouldn't have to be accurate, just spray the tracers and set fire in 100 different places.

 

[SnWnMe]

As was pointed out earlier, at the range that the sloop has to keep, the tracer/incendiary bullets would've burned out their pyro material already by the time they arrived at the frigate's location.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

Really the fact that the 50 is on a turret pretty much ends the battle before it begins. The agility of a sloop can keep it away from the broadsides and it can lay constant fire on the frigate from any angle (think monitor vs merrimak (sp)).

What are we thinking? I do not understand the references to the Monitor vs. Merrimac? Neither ship won the engagement they both retired from the fight. The big advantage the Monitor had was that most of her structure was below the water line making her a harder target. Having a couple of guns in a turret gives you no advantage over 20 plus guns of equal size, Turrets are useful because they allow you to trade a lot of smaller guns for great big guns and then still have traversal of those big guns.

 

[brerrabbit]

You might want to rethink the frigate being a firetrap also, while a fully engaged fire can gut a wooden ship quite readily, allowing one to get to that point likely is not going to happen.

I doubt if an incindiary bullet would ignite a sail as it passed through it due to the length of time the sailcloth was exposed to the heat..

Pitch does burn readily when ignited, but to get it to ignite takes quite a bit of time and heat.

Igniting timbers? Try starting a railroad tie on fire sometime. While it will burn quite well if you can get it started, it aint going to start from a small source of heat that burns out in a second or two especially if the fire your trying to start is at the closed end of a two foot long hole in the hull being blocked by the bullet itself. I have accidentally started fires on railroad ties before with thermite, they tend to burn very slow because of the limited surface area and likely would take considerable time if ever to develope into a full conflageration. I imagine ship timbers would act much the same.

The fire on the Virginia quite like had a lot of help getting started from the kindling provided the exploding shells.

What are we figuring as the true effective range of the .50 cal at sea?
What are effective range of the frigates guns?
Is there an effective fighting range for the sloop that is outside the range of the frigates guns?
How long would it take the frigate to close that distance.
How much damage would the frigate take from a .50 cal in that time and at that range.

Figuring a one knot difference in speed, the frigate will close at a rate of 33 yards a minute. Any manuvering by the sloop changes this all the way up to 466 yards per minute closing rate.

The sloop may be more manuverable, but it is not faster than the frigate. I doubt if the sloops manuverability, making a nominal 23.3 feet per second, will allow it to dodge projectiles moving at a nominal 1400 feet per second.

 

[Geronimo45]

"You rarely get a bullet going through the previous hole, especially at range."
Not the same hole - same general area. Let's take a piece of ice. You can't (hypothetically) punch through a 2-foot slab of ice, so you hammer away with a pick. You don't hit the same spot each time - but you're tearing up the surface all the same. Continued hits weaken the structural integrity, and with enough time your pick will go clear through the ice. I see the same thing happening with the M2 and a wooden ship.

In answer to another question, I have no experience with frigates, sloops, smoothbore cannon, or M2 machine guns - on land or water. I'm armchair admiralling here.

 

[Gifted]

THing is, I'm pretty sure(unless someone can say otherwise), that you'd be getting a three or four foot patch that the bullets are hitting, possibly more. Then you have to add in the pitch and roll of the ship and all that crap. If the beaten zone is even bigger at 2000 yards, you get even less concentration of power that you need to cause problems.

 

[Shaughn Leayme]

You guys have me dredging up things from memory I haven't needed to think about in years

As I recall for the .30 cal, burst fire (4-10 rds) had an effective beaten zone of 55 yard long by 4 yards wide on level ground from a fixed position at 2000 yards on a calm day. With the gun sandbagged down on a heavy tripod, not a pintle mount.

The 50 cal will be similar, but because of a larger allowed mean accuracy rate, 10 - 12 inches at 600 yards versus 7.5 inches for the 30 cal and 7.62 Nato it will be larger.

Add in the movement of the ship, wind, deflection,time of flight of bullet in relation to target's movement, variation in barrel's, lot's of ammunition and the gunners and you are going to have to fire a lot of rounds to be able to inflict any kind of serious damage.

When the ship rides up a wave and rolls, this will both lengthen and widen the cone of fire and the point of impact changes in relation to the sights, when the weapon is anything but vertically aligned, canted, the bullet is going somewhere other than where it was aimed, not a lot at close ranges 1-200 yards, but when you are talking 2000 yards it adds up and no I am not going to do the math

 

[c_yeager]

THing is, I'm pretty sure(unless someone can say otherwise), that you'd be getting a three or four foot patch that the bullets are hitting, possibly more. Then you have to add in the pitch and roll of the ship and all that crap. If the beaten zone is even bigger at 2000 yards, you get even less concentration of power that you need to cause problems.

Uh yeah. Are we forgetting that these exact same factors apply to the gunnery of the Frigate as well? The exponentially greater accuracy, range and rate of fire of the .50 still place the gunnery advantage unto the sloop. You dont have to engage at 2000 yards, you only have to engage beyond the effective range of the frigate. Considering that the frigate is fighting in identical conditions to the sloop with inferior weaponry (in terms of range and accuracy) then the advantage will remain with the smaller ship.

Remember that the frigate cannot put fire on the sloop without placing the sloop to it's broadside. The smaller ship doesnt have to out manuever the guns, it only has to out turn the frigate, and it will do so all day long, particlarly with the sloop's ability to tack up wind, in which case it is in fact much faster than the square rigged frigate.

The sloop may be more manuverable, but it is not faster than the frigate. I doubt if the sloops manuverability, making a nominal 23.3 feet per second, will allow it to dodge projectiles moving at a nominal 1400 feet per second.

I dont understand the assumption here that the frigate is always going to be faster than the sloop. In nearly all sailing conditions save for a perfect wind off the stern, the sloop is faster than the frigate. Put a square rigged ship into the America's cup and the winners will be home in their beds before it is halfway through the trip. Have you *ever* seen a square rigged ship even participating in a race in the last 200 years? Why not? Because sloop rigs are faster under more varied conditions than square rigged ships, period. The only condition in which the frigate will outpace the sloop is if the wind is dierectly to it's stern, that means that the frigate is faster for only 10-20 degrees of the compass. That leaves 340 degrees in which the sloop is the faster ship. The sloop is better armed, faster, and more maneuverable than the frigate. The fight is over before it starts and if the skipper of the frigate knew the firepower aboard the sloop he would put his stern to her and hope that the wind was in his favor.

There is a reason why sloops, ketches, yawls,and schooners etc. survived well into the age of steam and square-rigged ships didnt. They were a technological improvement. Even in the age of fighting sail, the only dissandvantage that the sloop has is severly inferior armament. We solve that problem quite happily with the inclusion of the ma deuce.

 

[Shaughn Leayme]

In the America's cup we are talking about the absolute refinement of the sloop, not the case in 1812, the Frigate could put guns on the sloop, because no ships captain would be chasing from dead astern, he will set up so that a bow chaser can be brought to bear. In a stern chase, the captain, could and would manhandle a large gun around to it's maximum allowable arc, to get the biggest gun he could to bear on target.

The normal maximum range of the frigate guns is 2000 yards, without skip shotting, which can extend that range to 2900 yards, the preferred maximum range is 1600 yards, with the closer the better.

The cannons of the age were not inferior and were quite accurate and they only need a few hits, to do serious damage to the sloop, because a sloop at 70 tons is a whole lot lighter than the 2200 ton USS Constitution, then too the limited crew onboard the sloop versus that of the frigate.

Historically the speed of a sloop was anywhere from 10 - 14 knots, which is the same speed as most of the frigates, many larger first and second rates were capable of 9 knots under sail.

Try to call the fall of shot of 4-10 .50 cal bullets beyond 1600 yards, when the trace element is burnt out or almost burnt out, then do the same thing with a 9,12,18,24 pounder cannon, I know what is easier. Also reference the beaten zone in previous post, 55 yards long = 165 feet by 4 yards wide= 12 feet for a burst, this means you are shotgunning at this range with burst fire or even sustained fire, adn this without figuring in the movement of the sloop and other problems associated with long range firing.

The captain of the frigate will also be firing on the uproll, when both the bow is climbing the next wave and rolling slightly, he will do it at the exact same point, from his much stabler platform and the splash of the round shot is much easier to see at range.

A sloop is better armed and a frigate will run from it?

Armament of the sloop of the day (1812), not the later upgunned and better designed sloops of the 1830's and onwards, was up to about 16 guns (depending on source quoted) with the standard being 4 pounder, but 6 pounder's were sometimes encountered, the standard armament of even a light frigate, was 9 pounder bow chasers and 12 pounder longs, the larger ships had 18's, 24's and 32 pounders, not counting carronades and mortars, that sometimes found there way onto ships.

The sloop with a .50 is no more a threat to the frigate, than it was with the 4 or 6 pounder guns, because it has to get close to do any type of significant damage and that plays right into the hands of the Frigate. any attempt to beat upwind of the frigate, play's into the hands of the frigate, with it's greater weight of steel. He just need's to place you within range of his gun's and will alter his course to do that.

The reason that the sloop, ketches, yawls and the like remained viable was they were small, easily handled and fast, while at the same time could handle a fair sized cargo and operate close inshore. The larger ships, disappeared directly due to steam and the wooden sailing warship disappeared, due the introduction of both exploding shell's and steam. Though many navies retained them much longer, because of the cost of replacing them, for unlike a commercial venture, the government derived no income from the construction of new ship's to help defray construction cost's.

 

[brerrabbit]

Yeager,

In order for the sloop to stay clear of a broadside while the frigate is turning, It would have to be able to turn and then clear about (pi)*.5 nautical mile during the time it takes the frigate to turn to bring a broadside about to be able to stay clear of the frigates guns. This is figuring a initial 2000 yard engagement range, the distances the sloop has to move to stay clear of a broad side get larger the farther the sloop is away from the frigate up to the effective range of frigates guns.

 

[c_yeager]

The cannons of the age were not inferior and were quite accurate and they only need a few hits, to do serious damage to the sloop, because a sloop at 70 tons is a whole lot lighter than the 2200 ton USS Constitution, then too the limited crew onboard the sloop versus that of the frigate.

The cannon of the age certainly is inferrior to modern weaponry, thats why we dont use them anymore. A .50 BMG will likely penetrate better than any roundball fired from a cannon of the 19th century. Again, this is why we switched.

The normal maximum range of the frigate guns is 2000 yards, without skip shotting, which can extend that range to 2900 yards, the preferred maximum range is 1600 yards, with the closer the better.

Yeah, in the same way that the maximum lethal range of a .22LR is over a mile. The actual range at which one could effectively employ the weapons (as in actually hitting their taget) was significantly less, are are talking about smoothbore roudball being fired from a cannon that is aimed by "walking in" here. The effective range may well be 2000 yards, meaning that the ball is still moving fast enough to hole a ship, but the range at which the cannon can be aimed and expected to hit the target is more like 250 yards. Take away that mythic 1600-2000 yard range and the battle swings back to the sloop which *can* put effective fire into the ship at that range.

For a better illustration of the effectiveness of the 50BMG against wooden boats one could consider that WWII aircraft with the same armament could easily straffe a wooden boat to oblivion in short order. The gun is capable of the job, has longer range than cannon of the era, and fires at an exponentially higher rateof fire.

[Try to call the fall of shot of 4-10 .50 cal bullets beyond 1600 yards, when the trace element is burnt out or almost burnt out, then do the same thing with a 9,12,18,24 pounder cannon, I know what is easier./QUOTE]

As far as walking in your shots the rate of fire of the .50 compared to the bow chasers of the frigate is going to make the job easier for the sloop. Yes, the splashes will be harder to see, but rather than firing and spending the better part of a minute reloading, the sloop is laying a constant stream onto the frigate to make the job a lot easier.

 

[GEM]

How soon do you have to replace the barrel on the 50 BMG and how does that interact with giving the frigate time to do whatever? Does the sloop have unlimited barrels?

 

[brerrabbit]

Yeager

You gotta remember, the effective range of that .50 cal at sea is not going to be 2000 yards either, IIRC from other posters from experience, it was used at ranges of around 300 to 400 yards. How much penetration is the .50 going to have at 2000 yards?

While the frigates guns were generally used at much closer range historically, they were also fighting much heavier armored ships also and needed to be that close. At 2000 yards, I imagine a 24 pound ball would still penetrate the sloops hull quite readily, if its skipping, it will be penetrating very close to the waterline.

Figuring 38 guns, the topic premise, 19 guns on each side, and a 90 second reload cycle, the frigate can effectively shoot a new cannonshot every five seconds continuosly. I imagine the cannon crews will have the range ball parked pretty quickly. How long till they get lucky enough to hit an object with the dimensions of the sloop?


I understand that technology changes, and that black power cannons are antiquated, but just because the .50 cal is a modern weapon does not make it all powerful compared to all older weapons, weapon systems and superior manpower. It is like saying that one guy with a ma duece can fight off 600 men with black powder rifles coming after him.

 

[Shaughn Leayme]

The barrel of a 50 cal is figured to be burned out at 3000 rounds when used in a sustained fire role.

The engagement range is taken from period pieces that list several battles and if the guns were so inaccurate and inefficient then the navy's of the time would not have developed such detailed firing charts and determined the most effective and maximum ranges, the information is out there, in print.

The evolution of the cannon is ongoing, smooth bore rather crude to whitworth rifled breach loaders and parrot rifles, to 16 inch guns on a battle ship and from the napolean 12 pounder to modern 105 mm howitzers and other guns, that is why we quit using the original, they became obsolete, but it was not an instant change.

But the effectiveness of your 50's was because there was 4/6/8 guns mounted in the wings and the plane was coming in at a high rate of speed and in most of the wooden ships and freighter's had no real means of repulsing the attack, and it was several strafing runs at close range, so I don't see the relevancy. put 1 50 on the plane and see how long it takes, you would probably run out of ammo before you sank it.

We have acknowledged that the 50 can do damage, but what we are discussing is how effective it can be at range and even if you are using the 50 in the sustained fire role, what about the beaten zone at 2000 yards, the fact that the ships are moving the fact that the frigate is not going to be sitting there letting you shoot unmolested, the fact that you are going to need to somehow constantly figure the range and deflection and walking fire onto a target at sea, the effective trace is only about 1600 yards with you bobbing up and down is not easy.

The maximum point blank range according to charts of the British /Spanish and French navies for a gun in the 18-32 pounder long barrel cannon was 1700 yards and maximun know range to a hit was 2000 yards.

So we have a 50 with a shotgun pattern at 2000 yards, but then at 1600 yards we still have a shotgun pattern and we are now within the pointblank range of the ships cannons.

How many minutes would it take for a competent gunner to range on a target at 1600 yards, he already knows where his gun shoot's at 1600 yards and at 2000 yards and with careful addition or subtraction of powder and maybe a little elevation adjustment, he is going to take very few shots before he is on and the sloop is in trouble.

The 50 caliber is not a cannon and it's value is in short range engagements, reason why cannons 20 mm or larger generally fill the need for medium antiship roles and for early anti air role.

 

[c_yeager]

You gotta remember, the effective range of that .50 cal at sea is not going to be 2000 yards either, IIRC from other posters from experience, it was used at ranges of around 300 to 400 yards. How much penetration is the .50 going to have at 2000 yards?

Probably not much, but the point here is that all the factors that limit the range of the .50 are limiting the range of the frigates guns too, only more so due to the nature of 18th century gunnery. If the .50 is going to be unusably innacurate at 400 yards then the frigates guns will be even more limited.

 

[dm1333]

[There is a reason why sloops, ketches, yawls,and schooners etc. survived well into the age of steam and square-rigged ships didnt. They were a technological improvement.]

c yeager,
The sloop of 1812 was gaff rigged with canvas sails, hemp rigging, etc. The reason why the frigate is going to be faster is the longer waterline length and the ability to set more sail. The formula for calculating hull speed is as follows: 1.34 x (square root of the waterline length). A vessel with a 100 foot waterline has a theoretical max hull speed of 13.4 knots or about 15.41 miles per hour. A vessel with a 50 foot water line has a speed of 9.38 knots or 10.8 miles per hour. A knot or nautical mile per hour is 1.15 mph.

[Have you *ever* seen a square rigged ship even participating in a race in the last 200 years?]

The speed of a clipper ship was about 17 kts on average. For quite a while the transatlantic and transpacific speed records where held by Yankee Clippers even though steam power had come into use. Given the choice of crossing either ocean in a race against a modern sloop in the 50 to 60 foot range I would take the frigate. Or better yet, the Coast Guard Cutter Eagle.

[For a better illustration of the effectiveness of the 50BMG against wooden boats one could consider that WWII aircraft with the same armament could easily straffe a wooden boat to oblivion in short order. The gun is capable of the job, has longer range than cannon of the era, and fires at an exponentially higher rateof fire.]

The wooden boats you are talking about were PT boats or small wooden trawlers or yachts converted for wartime use. PT boats were made of plywood. Frigates had hull thicknesses measured in feet.

You brough up some good points but if you go back to the original post you will see that we are talking about a frigate and sloop from the same era. A modern large racing sloop may be able to outsail a frigate but not the type of sloop that was around in 1812. The simple physics of hull length and drag give the speed advantage to the frigate. Because the have the same sail and hull and rigging materials the sloop will not be able to sail that much closer to the wind to make a difference, and on a reach or run it will be soundly trounced.

As far as the ineffectiveness of a cannon vs the .50, I'd rather stand behind 3 feet of oak and have someone shoot at me with a .50 from 2000 yards than stand behind 1 foot of oak and have someone shoot a 32 pound cannon ball at me from the same range.

 

[Shaughn Leayme]

The point you may be missing here is that the Frigate is a much more stable platform in an equal sea state versus the sloop, so while you are bouncing around (for the sake of brevity) more on the sloop and most likely heeling somewhat more due to the press of sail, since you are trying to keep out of the frigates optimum gunnery range and still be able to engage with the 50, the frigate is not rolling any where near the same and while the 50 has to keep firing when in the trough or coming up the crest of the wave, which will play havoc with your target acquisition (no compensating gunsight or mount and plain old iron sights), the frigate can choose to fire at the most advantageous moment, thereby cutting down the variables and if anything improving the odds of getting a solid hit.

The time frame 1800, saw a rather large leap in gunnery, sights and flintlock firing systems were beginning to be common place, more care in casting the guns (metallurgy) and shot were being employed, the early introduction of exploding shell's and even the employment of hot shot while at sea double shotting and the various forms of nastiness that were being fired out of the cannons and carronades, bar shot, chain shot, cannister and on and on.

It was the start of another arms race and many of the basics of naval gunnery used today started and were refined in the 18th century.

 

[c_yeager]

The sloop of 1812 was gaff rigged with canvas sails, hemp rigging, etc. The reason why the frigate is going to be faster is the longer waterline length and the ability to set more sail. The formula for calculating hull speed is as follows: 1.34 x (square root of the waterline length). A vessel with a 100 foot waterline has a theoretical max hull speed of 13.4 knots or about 15.41 miles per hour. A vessel with a 50 foot water line has a speed of 9.38 knots or 10.8 miles per hour. A knot or nautical mile per hour is 1.15 mph.

Right, the hull speed for the frigate is higher than the sloop. Noone is denying that. The difference is sail layout, and that difference is what makes the sloop faster in most conditions than the frigate. The frigate cannot tack into the wind as the sloop can. As I said before, in all circumstances save for a tailwind, the sloop is faster. Hull speed doesnt make a vessel faster than it's sails.

Additionally, the quick-and-dirty method for calculating hull-speed assumes that all other factors are equal. Assuming that the two ships are of identical proportions then it gives accurate enough results. The dimensions of a sloop and a frigate are not proportional, and therefore the comparison is far from perfect. But yes, the frigate does have a faster hull speed, just not as much faster as it may seem, and again, irrelevant outside of a vacuume.

 

[CornCod]

Reminds me of a Saturday Night Live sketch from the 1980's when Kirk Douglas was a guest on the show: "What if Sparticus Had a Piper Cub"