The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: '74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen
boris the romanian    9/1/2004 9:38:41 AM
This is clearly a ludicrous subject as given the right wind conditions a '74 will blow a sixteen right out of the water (especially in close, with double or triple shot), but if becalmed it is my argument that a ramming attack in the bows or stern by a sixteen would break the '74's back.

My brother and I had a Scotch-induced argument, and I just wanted to hear some opinions.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
HorribleSailor    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/1/2004 11:50:44 AM
erm..a 'Sixteen'? Do you meana 16 gun, gun-brig or sloop? In which case, not a chance! As an aside, did you know that the RN persisted in listing waships by number of guns until the first decade of the 20th C. The Invincible class battlecruisers were originally listed as 24 gun warships, a result of their 8 12" guns and 16 12lb guns!
 
Quote    Reply

scholar    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/1/2004 7:30:11 PM
When is ramming ever a good idea? Any Patrick O'Brian fans? He seems to think that with a plucky crew and a bit of subterfuge anything can be pulled off.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/1/2004 7:40:14 PM
Ramming was never a good idea in that period, the tiny exception being spanish or eastern galleys in calm, sheltered waters when a sailing vessel was becalmed. Even then, better to row round to the quarter and shoot it to pieces. I like Patrick O'Brien, but far prefer CS Forrester. Great things, yes, look at Nelson capturing a 100gun ship and a 74 with his own 74 at the Battle of Cape St Vincent, but nothing on the difference scale suggested by boris..
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/2/2004 12:13:05 AM
When I said a 'sixteen' I meant a heavy Late-Hellenestic period galley. You know, one of those 75m long monsters, rowed at two levels, eight men per oar.
 
Quote    Reply

HorribleSailor    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/2/2004 10:28:33 AM
In that case, as I said earlier (accidently using my brother's profile 'Yimmy') the galley would have a small chance. If the 74 was becalmed and unable to move then the galley could row round to the bows, or preferably the stern, and if equiped with cannons in the prow, very slowly shoot the 74 to pieces. Ramming would not be an option, ramming head on or into the stern would not break a ship's back, and attempting to ram the broadside would be suicide.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/4/2004 4:35:26 PM
even trying to attack the stern or bow would be risky for the "chaser guns" placed there would have a drastic effect on something as lightly constructed as a galley. there is also the possibility that the sailing ship placed anchors with her boats allowing her to winch herself about changing her aspect. trying a broadside ram would be nothing less than suicidal. imagine if you would the effects of 32lb carronade balls with a healthy dose of grapeshot on the galley and it's crew.
 
Quote    Reply

evlstu    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/13/2004 1:59:14 PM
Even if there were no "chasers," the '74 still has a alot of marines on board. With many of them up in the rigging, the effect on the '16 would be dramatic.
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/15/2004 4:50:07 AM
"Even if there were no "chasers," the '74 still has a alot of marines on board. With many of them up in the rigging, the effect on the '16 would be dramatic " Actually, I believe that a 'sixteen' could win a boarding fight without too much trouble. Once the sailors fire their muskets the fighting becomes hand to hand, for which the ancient marines were far better equipped and trained. Archers and slingers, having a much higher rate of fire, could deal with any men on the rigging.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/19/2004 10:04:42 PM
Actually, I believe that a 'sixteen' could win a boarding fight without too much trouble. Once the sailors fire their muskets the fighting becomes hand to hand, for which the ancient marines were far better equipped and trained. most of the lads fighting during boarding actions were doing it the traditional way with sharps and pointies. there is an excellent reason that a flintlock pistol is designed to be an efficient club. where the ancients would gain a bit of an edge would be in that some of them were wearing armour and/or carrying shields. mostly not and the effect would be blunted somewhat by the fact that pistol balls would punch through any armour likely to be encountered. it would also be very difficult to board a 74 from a galley due to the relatively huge differences in deck heights. Archers and slingers, having a much higher rate of fire, could deal with any men on the rigging. actually shooting at an individual man with those weapons was probably a fruitless exercise on both sides parts. aside from a few riflemen possibly in the rigging that side was equipped with smooth bore muskets. both sides would i expect have rained down their efforts on the masses of men on deck since shooting into a mass is far more likely to cause damage than sniping for individuals.
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/22/2004 5:27:19 AM
"where the ancients would gain a bit of an edge would be in that some of them were wearing armour and/or carrying shields. mostly not and the effect would be blunted somewhat by the fact that pistol balls would punch through any armour likely to be encountered" Once those single-shot firearms have been fired the ancient marines would be at a huge advantage over their eighteenth century counterparts and not just because of armour. Their arms for hand to hand combat were far better as was their training, and the shields would prove indispensible. Actually, Ehran, you'd be surprised when you read Xenophon's accounts of slingers in action to find out just how accurate and long ranging they were. Firing leaden shot they had an effective, accurate range against a man-sized target of about 100 metres, and a maximum range more than three times that. As the eighteenth-century sailors and marines lacked shields and were completely unarmoured, I think they would be overwhelmed rather quickly in a boarding fight. Some 'sixteens' had a marine comlement of over four hundred soldiers.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/22/2004 1:06:57 PM
i am aware of how lethal slingers are on dry land. throw in a moving target and a bit of wave action however and i think you will find the effective range drops rather drastically. i would wonder why ancient swords would be better than an 18th century cutlass however? light armour and shields make a very considerable difference but they seriously hinder climbing up the side of the 74 to reach the sailors. you may also want to factor in the effect of those little one pounder cannons used to "discourage" would be boarders. imagine shotguns with a one inch bore being fired into a mass of men waiting to climb up to get into the fight. it's not going to be as one sided a fight as you think. i haven't run across any instances of galleys capturing a sailing man o war without first bombarding her.
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen   9/22/2004 8:48:50 PM
"i would wonder why ancient swords would be better than an 18th century cutlass however? " The falcata was made of better steel, and the blade was far more "vicious". Its blows went clean throught Roman "Montefortino" helmets without any trouble and shields were only slightly better protection. The Roman "gladius hispaniensis" had much higher tolerances than any cutlass, and its murderous point was deadly in the hands of a superbly trained marine legionary. "light armour and shields make a very considerable difference but they seriously hinder climbing up the side of the 74 to reach the sailors" The "harpax" grapnel would be very useful in allowing "corvus"-like boarding planks to securely fasten the 'sixteen' to the '74. The swivel guns would be very useful but they wouldn't deal with over four hundred marines. "i haven't run across any instances of galleys capturing a sailing man o war without first bombarding her. " The seventeenth and eighteenth century galleys had a mere fraction of the combat power of the ancient juggernaughts. I don't think they'd stand much of a chance against a 'seven', let alone a 'sixteen'.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy