An Early Japanese Cannon

[watsonmil]

As promised in a previous post for the study and/or enjoyment of our membership. Here's something I picked up many years ago at the Chicago Sword Show. The two other Nihonto collectors that I attended the show with were dumbfounded that I would spend what few dollars I had with me on a piece of bronze. As for me I was ecstatic ! Having just aquired " Arms & Armour of the Samurai " by Ian Bottomley & A.P. Hopson, I realized that I had just found a very rare item indeed. If you will refer to Chapter Six, The Arrival of the Southern Barbarians ... page 124 you will see illustrated a cannon which is to be found in the Kyoto Arashiyama Museum in Japan. I based the carriage for the cannon barrel on this example given that they both appeared to be about the same size. Using the very best oak I could obtain, along with some brass, and iron rings I set about mounting this lovely original barrel. I would place the age of the barrel to around 1600 - 1650 given it's small size and the numerous casting flaws, .. each of which were carefully filled with bronze at the time of manufacture.

It is well known that the casting of cannon was new to the Japanese, and although the Japanese were well versed in casting, there is no doubt that the perfection of casting large cannon must have been somewhat taxing, especially the bore. Very few large cannon were produced, the Japanese relying on what they could import from European countries for the most part during the early Edo period. Although small in comparison to MOST but NOT all European cannon of the time, these little fellows never the less proved themselves to be extremely versatile. They could be easily moved about by two or three gunners, required only a hand-full of powder thrown down the short barrel, followed by a bag of one monme balls ( .32 inch ) quickly rammed home with a short wooden dowel, a bit of priming powder, and a lit match.

Rate of fire would easily be 5 times the rate of loading a full size musket. The effect of a short barrel throwing a full 1/2 pound ( 72 balls ) would have been devastating at close range. They would have been ideal in both an offensive and a defensive position given the close range that all battles of that time were fought. I can see their particular application in the internal defenses of an Edo period castle, ...where should the enemy breach the wall defense, a raking fire from a few of these little fellows stratigically placed would cut down several intruders with each volley.

 

Here are the measurements of the example pictured: Barrel ... 1 1/4 inch bore, length of barrel 7 1/2 inches. OA length of cannon including mounting is 21 inches. OA weight of the mounted cannon is 30 pounds.

 

Elevation was controlled by coiled rope ( loosening a coil lowered the elevation ). The vertical up-right seen behind the rope simply holds the mounting in place when the gun is at rest. Recoil was somewhat controlled by a rope passing through a ring at the back of the cannon barrel mount and then passing through the two rings on the front of the cannon base plate. ........... Ron Watson

[moss]

Nice one Ron!

I'd hate to get hit by it

 

Cheers Moss

[Bugyotsuji]

Thank you for showing that, and giving us the very interesting cover story!

 

So, calibration of the cannon was done by eye, much like a hand gun, but with a handy coil of rope.

Dead easy once you get your eye in, I should imagine, and fine for short range work.

[Toryu2020]

A fantastic find and a marvelous restoration - few would recognize an item like this and fewer still would have the skills to do the proper restoration.

Hats off to you,

-t

[Lorenzo]

Fantastic story and beautiful piece, as well as your tidy remounting of the missing parts!

 

The barrel simply sit on the wood or it is locked down in some way? Also, there is a hinge keeping together the base wood and the barrel supporting wood or it just lay down?

 

Thank you again for your willingness to share with us this pieces

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Cool. Thanks for sharing.

[IanB]

Ron, A beautiful piece of work - congratulations. The problem the Japanese had using cannons in battles was transport. By and large the terrain and roads prevented them being readily moved around the country. There were however some really big ones on fixed sites such as castles and the defences for Edo and other ports. There used to be a giant bronze cannon, on its lacquered sliding mount in the courtyard of Les Invalides in Paris. This had come from Kagoshima if I remember right. Last time I visited it had gone. There are some very nice ones, including an iron one, at the Yasukuni Shrine, and a couple more at Izumo Shrine.

A pal of mine acquired a small bronze gun a few years ago. It had a bore of about 1.5" and stood about 2.5" high, the lower half being plain and apparently intended to be embedded vertically in wood. It really looked like a rather dumpy inkwell, the top being beautifully cast and decorated, rather curiously complete with sights. The bore was just about as deep as wide. Probably for launching fireworks or some such but a very desirable object.

Ian Bottomley

[loui]

That is very nice! Well, done on the restoration. Looking more and more like we need a firearms section. I am going to look at a some Japanese firearms next week - keeping fingers x'd.

 

Louis

[watsonmil]

To answer Lorenzo,s questions, .... no there is no hinging mechanism between the cannon barrel mount and the base mount. One simply sat on the other, but was anchored ( when in use ) to each other by a rope to assist in recoil. Your second question regarding the fastening of the barrel to the wooden stock: The breach end inserts into a cavity in the Oak and that area is strengthened by a brass band. Also, the barrel is pinned to the stock by a cross pin which can be seen in the first photograph. Exactly the same way as a regular Japanese Matchlock Musket barrel is anchored to it's wooden stock. ... Ron Watson

[Richmond]

Mate that is beautiful, I will be in Kyoto next month and will try and see your cannons brother.

 

Steve L

[John A Stuart]

Ron, That is a very interesting gun. China in the early 16th century started casting swivel guns and Korea subsequently followed suit in the later half of the same century and used them to good effect especially as anti-personel weapons on Yi's turtle ships during the Imjin wars (1592-1598). When I calculate the weight of iron shot for a 1 1/4 inch bore gun it would be classed as a 1/4 pounder, but, 1 1/4 inch bore guns were around 28 calibres long. Your gun is only 6 calibres going below mortar range butting on to old petard range. The casting is extremely thick walled, they must have been not confident in the casting, which is strange considering the Japanese were quite good at casting bronze and with such a short length barrel pressures would be minimal. Where do you think this gun fits in the classical definition of guns? It is a lovely piece. John

[watsonmil]

Dear John,

Generally speaking, ... going back in time the term " gun " was used when speaking of an artillery piece used in the " direct fire mode " .. ie you could visually see your target and aim at it. It was rather long in barrel caliber so that as much velocity could be obtained as possible thus somewhat reducing the effect of trajectory. It was soon learned that although one might see the target, the range was such that a much higher angle of fire was needed to gain a hit. It was soon learned that a shorter barreled gun ( less calibers of length ) with a much lower velocity was more effective in " lobbing " a shell thru a high arch than a high velocity gun with it's flatter INITIAL trajectory. It is hard to explain without drawing trajectory curves, ... so our readers will have to take my word. Now then if you cannot see the target at all, but you have a damn good idea where he is ( possibly on the other side of a hill ), ... you need a " Mortar ". The definition being an " indirect fire weapon ( usually muzzle loading ) having a barrel caliber length of 10 or less calibers. Now we're looking at firing at a rather short distance so that we need even less velocity than a howitzer but an almost vertical drop at the end of our high angle trajectory so as to drop our shell over the hill but not past our target. This would be the " classical " application of artillery.

 

In the case of these small Japanese cannon, ... although of sufficient barrel caliber to meet the definition of mortar, I do not believe they were used for " indirect fire ", but rather in the role of " direct point blank fire " much like a sawed off shotgun. To take it one step further what the Japanese had with these little short barreled cannon were the MODERN equivalent of the " Claymore Mine ". The directing of a large number of projectiles in a SHORT but WIDE dispersal in a CONTROLLED direction. A most effective weapon requiring in the case of the Claymore ... only 1 caliber of barrel length ( the ball diameter ). John you are quite right to say the Japanese cannon does not really fit the classical definition. If anything it surpasses anything we used up until the 20th century ( the claymore mine ) for the purpose they desired.

Much like their swords surpassed European swords !

 

The Japanese were indeed experts at casting, ... but the casting of cannon has ALWAYS been a problem even for the Europeans. Casting a perfectly straight tube of concentric diameter increases in proportion to barrel length. The longer the barrel the more likely it is not going to be perfect. Later the Japanese did cast barrels of greater length ( but never comparable to the European ) with lesser wall thickness in comparison to caliber. This is one of the ways I used in assigning an age to this specific barrel. Taking into account it's size, the casting flaws, it's barrel caliber length, and what few photos exist of original dateable specimens, ... I'll bet I'm bloody close.

 

I want to thank you John, ... for a most interesting observation ( re: caliber length ) and how it fits into Classical context of artillery. I hope my response is not too long winded for the membership ( a proper treatise would be much longer ). Never-the-less I hope I have answered your question. Thank you, ... Ron Watson

[John A Stuart]

Thanks Ron, I don't recall seeing a gun like this before and your explanation makes perfect sense. It would have, of course, limited range, but, devastating at close range and at that rate of fire. John

[Bugyotsuji]

One quick question, Ron. Is it possible in your mind that the gun was hit hard (by enemy fire or an explosion etc.) from the side, and the repairs were for deepish gouges in the exterior of the barrel?

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

In the case of these small Japanese cannon, ... although of sufficient barrel caliber to meet the definition of mortar, I do not believe they were used for " indirect fire ", but rather in the role of " direct point blank fire " much like a sawed off shotgun. ...OMISSIS... The directing of a large number of projectiles in a SHORT but WIDE dispersal in a CONTROLLED direction.

 

It makes sense. Considering how much this chinese one widens at the muzzle, it's possible that "grapeshots" were highly prized in Far East.

 

[watsonmil]

Dear Piers & Carlo,

I will try to answer you in this single post. Firstly to answer Piers, ... I believe the patches ( repairs ) were entirely to do with the inherent problems of casting. I am not an expert in metal casting, but I think whenever one casts a thick object, the problem of tiny air pockets arises. These if tiny enough can be overlooked because they will not significantly weaken the overall structure. I know I've seen these same faults on European brass / bronze cannon ( usually un-filled ). I think the Japanese filled these tiny flaws more for aestetic reasons than for worry about barrel failure.

 

To answer Carlo, ... There are only two explanations for the Chinese gun you picture. 1. Is that this barrel was designed to throw a grenade ( exploding projectile ) over a very short distance. 2. Is the " Claymore Mine Effect " of directing a large number of projectiles in a short but wide dispersal in a controlled direction. The second is the more plausible explanation, and the most effective. I most certainly do believe that man whether in the East or the West used the new Firearm technology to its best advantage, and until the advent of the " rifled barrel ", .. grape shot at close range was your best option in these small guns. .... Ron Watson

[IanB]

All, The catalogue of ordnance of the Royal Armouries includes two small Chinese guns, of bronze, 1' 10" long with a bore of 1.1". Each weighs 40lbs and both are dated 1843. They are inscribed to the effect that the charge is 1 liang 7 ch'ien of powder (1.7 oz. approx) and that they fire a ball of 3.4 oz of lead. There are also a couple of large Chinese cannon. acquired since the catalogue was published, that are massive, about 2' diam at the muzzle and about 7' long but with only a small bore, about 6". I guess the casters of these guns were erring very much on the side of caution.

Ian Bottomley

[watsonmil]

Jesus, ... Ian .... they must not only have invented Black Powder ( low pressure ) .. but Smokeless ( high pressure ) as well :lol:

.... regards, ... Ron Watson