'74 gun third rate vs. Sixteen

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

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

1 2