While listening to diverse podcast in the naval months, one of the reasons of the superiority of British naval gunnery should have been the better British powder compared to the French and Spanish.
While I cannot comment on the Spanish, I cannot see anything wrong with French gun powder - assuming they used the same as the French land armies did. It was perfectly adequate to do the job. What should be so superior of the British gun powder??
Next, how was the powder stored on ships to prevent humidity ??
Lastly it is mentioned that the British guns had flintlock mechnisms and that those enabled a more calculated shot. I was under the impression that only HMS Victory had so and then again I see not that great advantage compared to the usual firing tube insterted into the vent which did ignite all of a sudden compared to lints.
Naval warfare is not something I'm entirely confident to say much about either, although my wife is distantly related to Henry Digby who commanded HMS Africa at Trafalgar but that does not, of course, add to my meagre qualifications.
Looking further into the subject of gunlocks I see the first RN trials with gunlocks were in 1755 on HMS Invincible and 12 other ships but not approved by The Admiralty for general use until 1790. They seem to have been in general use at The Nile in 1798 when they were, apparently, reported on favourably. I am fairly confident that Victory was not unique in this context in 1805.
Be that as it may, there seems to be something in the claims about quality of powder and the effectiveness of gun locks but, on the other hand, a French gunlock dated "An 13" (1804) came up for auction in 2015. So where does that leave the claims that the French and Spanish navies relied on linstocks at Trafalgar? I really don't know.
Like Jena, there is certainly a lot of popular repetition of received wisdom where Trafalgar is concerned, and possibly also The War of 1812 which strikes me as a 'score draw' as far as the actions between frigates, sloops and brigs are concerned.
Returning to Trafalgar though, you have to remember too that Nelson remains a national hero, which tends to elevate the status of everything connected with him. There is nothing, for example, like Trafalgar Square or Nelson's Column to celebrate Wellington (yes he did get Waterloo Station but a railway station it is not quite the same thing) or, I dare say, any other British historical figure.
I think The War of 1812 may be subject to as much received wisdom as Trafalgar or Jena.
Anyway, have a look at this article which has number of contemporary pieces in it from primary sources. I think you'll find it interesting:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21533369.2005.9668349
Let me know what you think of it.
My understanding is that the British superiority in gunpowder was less due to the specific mixture of constituents, and more to better 'corning'. Corning was the process by which the material, in the correct proportions, was made into tiny granules, called corns. Apparently the British had devised a process to make smaller and more uniform corns than their competitors, making for more rapid and efficient detonation. Unfortunately, I cannot now remember where I saw this, but I think it makes sense.
I meant to say from around the middle of the 18th Century. The adoption of the gunlock by the RN seems to have started in either 1745 or 1750 depending on who you read but by Trafalgar they were, apparently, in general use on RN ships.
Hi Hans-Karl, I understood that the RN started using gunlocks on its cannon from around the middle of the 19th Century. Where did the information about HMS Victory come from in this context?
Thanks, still so far I cannot see why the British gunpowder should be superior to the French or Spanish one, and that it would be a deciding factor in a sea battle, seemingly no eye witness statements are available.
Composition of Gunpowder in Various Countries.
Country
Saltpeter (%)
Sulphur (%)
Charcoal (%)
1810
England
75.0
10.0
15.0
1810
France
75.0
9.5
15.5
1810
U.S.
75.0
9.0
16.0
1810
Sweden
75.0
9.0
16.0
1810
Poland
80.0
8.0
12.0
1810
Italy
76.5
11.5
11.5
1810
Russia
70.0
11.5
18.5
Source: Lewis, Berkeley R. Small Arms and Ammunition in the United States Service. (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vo. 129.) Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Inst., 1956. P. 26
Sorry about the formatting
Gunpowder (composition, in parts)
Country
Date
Saltpeter
Charcoal
Sulphur
France
1794
76
15
9
Prussia
1800
75
13.5
11.5
Britain
1781
75
15
10
Source: Artillery: Its Origin, Heyday and Decline. O.F.G Hogg. (Hamden, CT: Archon, 1970)