Avatar feed
Responses: 2
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
3
3
0
MAJ Ron Peery
MAJ Ron Peery
6 y
Here is a link to the real reason. https://history.army.mil/html/faq/salute.html
The author of the article got a few things wrong. Ships were never built with precisely seven guns. The general principle for arming a ship seems to have been "more is better." But the size of the ship determined how many guns it could safely mount. This took a bit of trial and error, and at least twice resulted in tragedy (Vasa and Mary Rose). Guns were not "turned toward the sky". That's pretty much impossible with guns mounted on a sailing ship, partly because of the limited elevation which the mounts and gun ports allowed, and also for safety. Firing guns on the weather deck skyward tends to set the rigging alight. The salute was fired by selected guns on the side of the ship away from the ship or port being saluted. Usually, before entering a port, ships would send an officer ashore to coordinate with the local authorities to ensure that they would, indeed, return the salute, to avoid any unintended or intended insult. On land, an honor guard would fire the salute. In all cases, the number of guns fired was dependent upon the rank of the recipient of the salute. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, at least in Europe, the standard was head of state, 21 guns; Admiral (or general) 19 guns; Commodore, 13 guns.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CSM Clifford Fargason
1
1
0
The article does talk about a 21 gun salute for heads of state. But the photos and other parts of the article lead one to believe that the rifle salute is also a 21 gun salute. It is not. It is three volleys and in most cases there are not seven people firing.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close