What is the difference between a 16th century warship and a 19th century warship? (pre-steam/pre-ironclad)
Arr rook same
What is the difference between a 16th century warship and a 19th century warship? (pre-steam/pre-ironclad). Arr rook same
What is the difference between a 16th century warship and a 19th century warship? (pre-steam/pre-ironclad)
Arr rook same
The internal structural frame of later ships is much stronger and allowed for heavier cannon on the top decks, older ships would have shorter barrels as the guns went higher to cut weight, but this would also cut range.
they do not look anything alike unless you think anything with sails looks the same
depending on the country and purpose, ships can vary wildly.
Better hull geometry allowing higher load of cannons, better speed, maneuverability etc.
Better rigging/sails, also improving maneuverability and speed at different wind conditions.
Heavier, longer range cannons.
>an 1750 house looks similar to a modern one
>they're just the same
If you're a cave or hut dweller and you've never been in a house before it'd be a reasonable question
Lots of changes in cannon and projectile design. Improved hull shapes and forms. Greater displacements. Incredibly thick planking that could shrug off cannonballs at range. Metallic sheathings and/or magazine armor.
But it really depends, because pic rel is a 19th century warship as well. If you really want to explore Naval history, Drachnifel is probably the best.
Development of Shells:
Development of guns:
Development of Ironclads, transitioning away from ye olde ships of the line towards pre-dreadnoughts:
Those should get you started.
Connie and her sisters changed the game, as all of a sudden you could have packs of frigates that were really annoying to kill. Bit of a Dreadnaught effect tbh, since the US never made enough to capitalize. Luckily though we planted a forest in case we wanted to and that keeps Connie afloat. SUCK IT VICTORY
WITH A SWIFT SAILING VESSEL AND TEN CARRIAGE GUNS
There is a port-o-john on the deck at the front of of the ship. You can see the roof.
The poop deck
>Bit of a Dreadnaught effect tbh
Lol no. Besides, if the real navies wanted a powerful frigate, they would just turn an old third rate into a razee that would rape ships like the original six.
>Chesapeake: humiliated in Leopard Affair, later captured by British
>President: Fricks up Little Belt Affair, Captured by British
>United Staes: One notable action, takes a city that wasn't at war, flew a traitors flag
>Congress: A career of being out running around of doing little of note
>Constellation: A career of little note
The whole concept of the frigates going out and commerce raiding was unsound and they ultimately accomplished very little.
The President being captured by the Brits and then spent the rest of her career as HMS President patrolling near the American coast is a bit of cheeky fun
it was SOP to use the same name for captured ships wherever possible; that's how we got Temeraire for example, which was considered cool enough that the RN later commissioned a ship of the line with the same name.
It was also expedient to use HMS President against the American Navy, since here was a ship that one could be assured was materially the equal of the American frigates
>Yet Connie endures
Different Connie.
(Connie being Constellation. Nobody calls Old Ironsides "Connie).
>ultimately accomplished very little.
I see we're just going to ignore the Barbary Wars, Just because the frigates didn't sweep the Royal Navy off the seas in every engagement doesn't mean they didn't fulfill their purpose: projecting American power and protecting American commerce. Also, their resemblance to razees was superficial. They were faster and had thicker hulls than any razee.
The American frigates were built as a hard counter to British naval doctrine. If the Brits wanted to play with the Americans they would have to bring their ships off the line.
They did exactly that.
>built as a hard counter to British naval doctrine
>fails to counter British naval doctrine and spend most of the war running like hell from entire squadrons of frigates
Nah. They were broke as frick and knew they could only afford a few boats, so they tried to make those boats as decent as they could for the money. That's it. No big brain doctrine, just pure budget constraints.
There's a reason that the first thing the Navy did after the War of 1812 was build ships of the line.
No,
is correct. They were built that way mainly due to budgetary constraints. Not enough money to build a squadron of line of battle ships; the best they could do with the resources available was to make some heavy frigates. Also, the original six were ordered in 1794, nearly 20 years before war with the UK. They were built as a preventive measure to protect American shipping. The early governments of the US were not so stupid, and knew that the country depended on international sea-trade as its economic lifeline and to establish legitimacy. The frigates ended up seeing more significant action against the Barbary pirates than in the war of 1812 anyway.
Also, there was no "hard counter" to the RN, which at that time had literally hundreds of ships of the line and hundreds more frigates. The idea was not to defeat the entire RN, or even go toe-to-toe with it, which were out of the question, but to protect American shipping and give a little back to the UK's commerce raiders.
This book is all about the procurement, design, construction, and eventual use of the ships. Very interesting read. https://www.amazon.com/Six-Frigates-Epic-History-Founding/dp/039333032X
Technological progress is a mistake, this is peak kino era.
>civilians had the same firepower as state militaries, if not more since the state often couldn't afford more experimental repeater designs
Yeah it really was. Mid-19th century was a good place to stop.
Wooden ships are pretty but shipworms are a b***h. There's a good reason we switched to steel and fiberglass
Literally everything. Rigging, hulls, decks, guns, and everything else.
That's why you copper the bottoms of your ships.
Didn't change shit, no Dreadnought effect
Constitution was basically a razeed ex-fourth-rate but built from ground up, and her reputation comes from defeating other frigates, not in any fight against ships of the line
Endymion defeated President and was a better frigate
Qrd on ship of the line?
>ship of the line
Ships with thicker hulls, and more and heavier guns, that were strong enough to fight in the grand fleet battle, where they would have to resist heavy fire while returning fire of their own. Fleets fought in a line so that they could bring the maximum number of guns to bear on the enemy; hence the line was called the "line of battle", and ships that could "stand in the line of battle", were called "ships of the line", or "line of battle ships". "Battleship" is a shortening of "line of battle ship". And yes, line tactics were still used as late as WW1, at Jutland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_the_line
Frigates were NOT ships of the line. Frigates could not fight in the line of battle, they were weaker and carried fewer guns, but were cheaper and often (not always) faster. The disparity was stark; ships of the line could trade salvoes with each other for hours, but a frigate could be wrecked by a single salvo from a ship of the line.
As usual, over time technologies evolved; newer ships could beat the shit out of older ships, which is what the Constitutions managed to do. In the same way that a 1970s frigate is very much not the same as a 2010s frigate.
The Constitutions were a kind of semi, built with a "battleship"-grade hull near the waterline, but with frigate-thick hulls further upwards. They were also very big compared to other frigates, thus able to carry more guns and more men, and regarded as "super-frigates". However the British and French also had their version of "super-frigates", and in the war of 1812 the RN deployed them against the Constitutions, with successes such as HMS Endymion taking the USS President.
Hence, although USS Constitution is nicknamed "Ironsides", and indeed in some places she had abnormally thick hulls, in truth she wouldn't have stood up to a proper battleship of the line.
neat
>crossing the T
I've never heard this in my American lifetime.
>crossing the T
is a term only used in naval combat of this sort really, and don't worry, it's almost childishly simple to understand.
look at a sailing ship. it can carry far more guns on its sides than its ends. so obviously you point its sides at the enemy, to maximise firepower. also obviously, when you have many ships, you want to have them all point their sides at the enemy. this forms a line.
also, a cannonball passing across the width of a ship can hit less stuff inside, whereas a cannonball passing longitudinally down the length of a ship can hit more stuff. also, when ships are in a line, obviously they are all firing "sideways", and only the lead ship can fire ahead of the line, and that with a tiny percent of its onboard firepower.
so obviously, combining these two concepts, what you want to do as fleet commander is to try to manouevre so you have your fleet in a line, pointing sideways at the enemy, while the enemy is in a line, but with the line pointing at you, so your firepower is maximised and the enemy's firepower is minimised. Both fleets thus form the shape of a T, in which your far superior fleet is the crossbar. Hence, "crossing the T"
>obviously this is a most ideal situation and IRL it was a lot more difficult, since EVERYBODY understood this and strove to avoid such a condition
p.s. watch this video, it's the best video I've ever seen explaining the parts of an 18th century warship
>is a term only used in naval combat of this sort really
it also applied to turreted warships as the same difference in the firepower that could be brought to bear applied, Jellicoe crossed Scheers T twice at jutland and the japanese did the same to the russians at tsushima.
guy in the 1500s figures out that if you sail your ships with cannon in a line rather than sailing the whole fleet at the enemy in a lump you can decisively shoot the enemy ships with your fleet in coordination
this point fleet battles were "sail a giant lump of ships into another lump, ships devolve into brawls mano a mano against another ship
evolve to fight in lines better, with more guns on either side and bigger, sturdier hulls to hold them
>>this is where "crossing the T" comes from
formations were more complicated than 'giant lump of ships even before the formalisation of line of battle tactics.
also Nelsons great contribution to naval tactics was the realisation that line of battle tended to produce relatively indecisive battles and that given the royal navies individual superiority breaking the enemies cohesion even at the cost of your own might be worth while, hence the decision to use two columns charging into the french and spanish and forcing a general melee
>it also applied to
naval combat including at Jutland, as I said in the earlier post.
By
>of this sort
I obviously meant to exclude carrier and missile combat of the 20th century, and boarding and ramming combat of the earlier centuries...
The USN also crossed the T (really, more like "camped the T") at Surigao Strait.
Fascinating stuff. I never understood navies.
neat
>look at a sailing ship. it can carry far more guns on its sides than its ends. so obviously you point its sides at the enemy, to maximise firepower. also obviously, when you have many ships, you want to have them all point their sides at the enemy. this forms a line.
Thats what you think but just wait till you see my new battleship that sails sideways-foreword.
1st rates were 100+guns and most navies didnt have many in commission at any one time,
2nd rates were between 80 and 100 guns and were also uncommon.
1st and 2rn rates tended to have 3 gundecks
3rd rates were the commonest ships with the 74 being the most common, particularly in british service as the 74 was held to have the best mix of firepower durability and speed 3rd rates had 2 gundecks
4th rates were smaller ships of the line and were the smallest ship expected to stand in a line of battle 50-60 guns but seldom built and rather uncommon, mostly used away from the main fleets on distant stations.
5 rates were the classic frigate for the most part, 28-44 guns mostly single gundeck
6th rates were the lightest frigates mostly.
anything less than 20 guns was unrated
>most navies didnt have many in commission at any one time
literally a handful out of hundreds of rated ships
the RN at one point didn't have any first rates I believe, and only 1 or 2 at other times
>4th rates
in the early 18th century they were considered ships of the line, but not by 1750; an example of the shifts in technology
>5 rates were the classic frigate for the most part, 28-44 guns mostly
and supposed to have a single gundeck
the RN favoured 28-gun and 38-gun frigates building several successful types
40-50 gun "frigates" included razees and two-gundeckers (an ambiguous subclass of very-large-not-quite-frigates), some of which were very successful
by 1820 more "super-frigates" had been built mounting ~50 guns and the 28-gunners of 18th century would have looked pretty feeble in comparison
technologies and definitions march on...
>european guy in the 1500s figures out that if you sail your ships with cannon in a line rather than sailing the whole fleet at the enemy in a lump you can decisively shoot the enemy ships with your fleet in coordination
>before this point fleet battles were "sail a giant lump of ships into another lump, ships devolve into brawls mano a mano against another ship
>ships evolve to fight in lines better, with more guns on either side and bigger, sturdier hulls to hold them
>this is where "crossing the T" comes from
It's a little subjective, carracks and galleons are usually deeper, round-bellied ships with sweeping angled quarterdecks
By the 18th and 19th centuries you've got several different kinds of ships but they're not defacto standardized
>sloops, frigates, etc are usually sleek-hulled smaller boats with a single row of guns, intended as scouts, communication craft, and for fighting in smaller bodies of water like the Great Lakes
>Clippers are narrow, long ships intended for speed since longer ships are faster
>Ships of the line/"Man-o-war"s are multi-deck ships with large hulls holding lots of guns, not the fastest or most agile but the heaviest-hitting.
I'm familiar with the Napoleonic Wars onwards, but what I don't get is why the earlier ships you posted have such deep round hulls, compared to the longer ships I'm familiar with, they look really odd
It's mostly to do with construction methods, the very deep-hulled carracks and galleons were designed to be better suited for oceanic travel. Earlier ships were much less sturdy and stable, suited more to coastal waters or smaller seas, like the Baltic or Mediterranean.
Here's what the predecessor to a Carrack looked like as far as "typical" european ships go, it was called a Cog, and you see some of the Carrack's features beginning to form. It's got a stern rudder rather than a hand tiller, it's got a raised quarterdeck and a rounded hull, but there's one major difference between this and what becomes a Carrack. The difference is that this hull is "Clinker" built, where the edges of boards making the hull overlap each other like shingles. This is an old way of doing it and it's how the vikings made their ships, but by the time you get cogs the vikings were only 1-300 years ago.
Later ships were made with a more efficient construction method, which was "Carvel" built hulls, where all the boards lay smooth against each other. This allowed for larger, faster ships, it was more efficient in how wood was used and caused much less drag than a clinker hull.
Why do burgers worship this thing so much? Ran like a little b***h every time it encountered a real warship and struggled to beat up a couple merchantmen.
they bought the "Ironsides" meme hook line and sinker, without stopping to reflect that those selfsame "iron sides" on the President were easily penetrated by RN frigate armament
USS President was taken after running aground and springing serious leaks.
Centuries later and still absolutely SEETHING at THREE WINS IN A ROW. Sorry Xer Majesty's Finest :^)
Connie still floats too. Victory will never see water again.
Once again the RN is humbled by the Constitution
The USN is like the Disney remake version of the RN
It's big budget and everywhere; but it's standing on the shoulders of giants and despite its megabucks-funded efficiency it feels hollow, empty, soulless, and inside everyone wishes for the old version, talks about the good old days, and only ever sees the newcomer in reference to the original
granddad's axe syndrome
>uh we totally got strongest navy in the world ya yanks
>look we made some switchel for your imminent captur-BLIMEY
>I-I-I beat the Royal Navy mmkay!
>th-that means you should respect ME!
>why don't you respect me?!
NTA but this is a moronic take. The USN stands tall in its own right. It has fought in some of the largest and most important naval actions of the modern era and played a huge role in shaping modern warfare. It was also ahead of its time in recognizing the value of naval aviation and carrier ships. It conducted the largest scale amphibious operation ever, it fields some of the most kino aircraft in existence, I could go on and on. This is not to discredit the Royal Navy and its legacy, but how dare you bong.
You didnt read his message did you?
>despite its megabucks-funded efficiency it feels hollow, empty, soulless, and inside everyone wishes for the old version
The US Navy is simply the superior fighting force. This talk about "feelings" and "soul" is female-brained nonsense to cope with the fact that a single carrier group would wipe the floor with your entire military.
The post wasn’t lost on me, I’m just not moronic.
>muh heckin soulerino!
Nothing more soulless than a cuck ramp is there?
The USN is undoubtedly the best navy in the world today.
But tell me who you want to be - Thomas Cochrane, or Raymond Spruance?
John Paul Jones
Raphael Semmes
>You can run
>picks on some whalers for inconsequential results
>first real fight gets skullfricked within an hour
your hero sucks
A traitor and a sore loser
>einitieiripirise
The least you could do is post a real photograph of a USN warship instead of AIslop
Nevermind I'm moronic.
>But tell me who you want to be - Thomas Cochrane, or Raymond Spruance?
Willis Lee
>It has fought in some of the largest and most important naval actions of the modern era
The US Navy fought the largest sea battle in history.
Yeah, and just like George Lucas the British raped the corpse of their legacy when they sold out by scrapping Warspite.
No guns no opinions LOL
No she really didn't. She was a just heavy frigate, something that already existed in the British and French navies. It's worth noting that the first thing the US did after the War of 1812 ended was to build several 74 gun ships of the line.
The real stars of the US Navy during the War of 1812 were the sloops of war like the Wasp and Peawiener.
>no topsails
>muh commissioned tallship
How the mighty have fallen.
Rifled guns.
Explosive shells.
Bagged, corned powder, charges.
larger
sleeker
lower profile
lower draft
faster
better suited for bad weather and prolonged voyages at sea
much more maneuverable
way more durable thanks to the type of wood, iron paneling and stratified hull
higher number of cannons, cannons way more precise and powerful
roughly all the same caliber
safer magazine beneath the water's surface
way more men
more lances
much more defined roles among crew, officers and marines
does not have merlons, towers or machicolations like a castle
does not have multiple bridges one on top of the other
does not carry a crapload of statues, stucchi, or other tacky shit that would compromise buoyancy and make the ship heavier for no reason
has proper storage of provisions and always a stock of fresh vegetable to combat scurvy
For me it's the humble Snow
Later ships are faster, with the HMS victory in particular being noted for her distressingly quick pace through the water
Many a frigate captain was convinced to surrender simply by the sight of the first rare he was expecting to outrun with ease actually gaining on him in open water
If anyone here has been bit by the sailing ship bug and hasn't read them, the Aubrey-Maturin series are fantastic.
talk about throwing them in the deep end, your grass-combing Dutch-built galliot
noobs should always start with Hornblower
O'Brian is a better writer and Master and Commander is a very easy book to get into.
>O'Brian is a better writer
"better" doesn't necessarily mean "easier to read"
>Master and Commander is a very easy book to get into
you're joking
HMS Surprise is way easier than Master and Commander, O'Brien visibly dialled back on the period language when M&C took off and he started on the sequels
>thicker hulls than any razee
>thicker hulls than a literal cut down ship of the line
WDHMBT
Just because you struggled with them doesn't mean that I did.
>just start with HMS Surprise bro
No. M&C is too good to just skip. Post Captain isn't my favorite, but it certainly isn't bad either.
Don't presume to tell me what I did and didn't enjoy again.
You're this fragile about your vaunted literacy I see
Fragile? I seem to remember you coming at me first. Again, just because you struggled with them doesn't mean that I did. I'm no great intellect either, so that doesn't reflect well on you.
I said that you ought to introduce noobs to easier books first
You took that as a reflection on your own reading prowess and reacted accordingly
Not only does it seem you have little consideration for others with less ability in this area, you also appear to be overly sensitive about your own achievement, seeing personal insult where there is none, and lashing out defensively over a perceived slight
in other words, the lady doth protest too much
It's more that I quickly tire of the typical PrepHole oneupmanship that you're displaying right now and intended to insult you. I like the A-M series, I recommended them, and I will continue to do so. I do not care that you didn't like them and/or couldn't read them (that again was a purposeful insult).
Now feel free to take that however you wish and psychoanalyze me to your heart's content.
>I quickly tire of the typical PrepHole oneupmanship
>proceeds to engage in typical PrepHole oneupmanship
from the start I was simply saying that I liked the books too but that in my opinion, one could achieve one's objectives of introducing Age of Sail fiction to new readers better by starting with Hornblower
you got triggered by a mere contrary opinion, I know not why
>it was all you, I dindu nuffin
Right. And I'm sure that in the next distant thread where I recommend the A-M series, you won't attempt to have this exact same "argument" with me again.
See you then I suppose.
Depends if you're still so easily triggered and decide to pick a fight out of literally nothing.
It could all have easily gone away if you'd just said
>"Yeah Hornblower is easier to read but I really really really like Aubrey-Maturin"
>thicker hulls than a literal cut down ship of the line
According to an English eye-witness who examined the United States in drydock, her timbers were thicker than those of an 80-gun British ship of the line. If you want to get all autistic about it and cherrypick that one detail from my post, then fine, I will concede there were certainly some razeees with thicker hull planking. However, you know damn well that the 6 frigates were made of extremely hard timber and that a RN razee of the period was likely to be a half-rotted old piece of shit.
>her timbers were thicker than those of an 80-gun British ship of the line
at the waterline they matched any first rate, but the topsides and especially the upperworks were built to more regular frigate dimension
>the 6 frigates were made of extremely hard timber
given the timeframes of their construction, it's unlikely they could season the wood longer than RN timber
>a RN razee of the period was likely to be a half-rotted old piece of shit
this is true though, contemporary razees would have less strength if only due to age
The Frigates were made using Southern Live oak which is an extremely hard material, and not available to British shipwrights at the time.
Black person, the Americans literally had access to Southern Live Oak and layered that shit in with regular oak at opposing grains. That shit was the chobham armor of its day.
Hornblower is better. Aubrey is the remake.
I wouldn't go that far
Aubrey is a lot more detailed
doesn't change the fact that her sides were penned, and penned deeply
Endymion closed on President from the stern and raked her, it was not a side to side slugfest like Constitution and Java or Guerriere. Also, President's damage wasn't just the sprung masts. Hours of getting pushed around on the sandbar also caused so much damage to her keel and planking that it's a miracle she made it out to sea to begin with.
Most 16th Century warships were galleys, and the name of the game wasn't cannonades but getting close to the other guy's boat to shoot your crossbow/arquebus/light cannons at him and board him. There's also little maneuvering and coordination, with battles degenerating into medieval tier skirmishes on the water.
18th Century ships meanwhile do most of their fighting with their huge guns and utilize maneuvers.
a 16th century warship looks like this, it's a carrack that may have a handful of light guns, 2-4 pounders maybe, firing stone balls. Most of its fighting will be done with a mix of arrows, handgonnes, and pikes.
A 17th century warship looks like this. It's bigger, fatter, as much for cargo as for war, and it carry more guns, usually of several different bore sizes and lengths. Cannons in this period are far from standardized and highly decorative, still firing a mix of stone and iron shot.
Forgot image
Galleons had their roots in the 16th century but survived well into the 17th, and by the 18th century what you recognize as a "pirate ship" has become the standard in design.
18th century warships had guns up and down their length, often several superceding rows, with varying design philosophies. Some opted for standardized guns on each deck, others had larger, heavier guns lower down on the ship where their stability and firepower were best suited. This general design remains the same until the latter half of the century, though ships of this design will slowly incorporate things like steam engines and explosive shells.
thanks
can you explain the differing hull forms to me?
that's one thing I never understood
19th centruy ships had a wheel for steering, 16th century still used a tiller
How did they not get all of the ropes tangled?
Lots of drilling.
t. Sailor
If you mean in combat, then they did. Ships could get locked together from ropes tangling.
All things considered, a 1st rate SOTL would still punch a clean hole all the way through through 3ft of solid oak like butter.
>punch a clean hole all the way through through 3ft of solid oak like butter
at point blank range with 32pdrs, maybe
if you look at the comparatively rare reports where ships actually stayed in the fight and duelled to the death, slugfests could last several hours. that would not be the case if ships were hulled that easily. for example, Bismarck lasted 1 hour from first gun to the decision to scuttle, and was pounded to scrap. Victory at Trafalgar was shot at for 1 hour by four ships before even engaging, and although she was damaged, it wasn't extremely severe. Most of her ~200 casualties were suffered in the ensuing battle.
the RN had access to oak seasoned for 2 to 4 years.
even allowing for some variation in oak species, Constitution and her sisters can't have had a long time to season.
in any case, Endymion punched through President's hull no problem, Southern Live or no Southern Live. And President being completed last ought to have had the full benefit of timber, shipbuilding experience, and stores.
>layered that shit in with regular oak at opposing grains
Not a practice unique to American frigates, my dear.
>They did exactly that
No they didn't. They just brought their own modern large frigates. The extra speed was necessary, ships of the line would have found it hard to catch the fast Constitution class ships.
>Bismarck lasted 1 hour
homie. Your point isn't wrong, but come the frick on.
i wish i could have been there to witness the demise of wooden warships
Same.