>"These cumbersome vehicles were as convenient as if dinosaurs had survived to be used by cowboys for driving cattle." - Barbara Tuchman
>you are like a cowboy riding a dinothis is a compliment
>>17430977Yeah I’m not seeing the own here
>>17430857Okay, so how else would you design a warship in a time before metalworking was good enough to make turrets?
>>17431097See pic.
>>17431305why post a ship that requires another technological leap to create. These are not contemporary ideas
>>17430857>as convenient as if dinosaurs had survived to be used by cowboys for driving cattleBad ass. Imagine herding dogies on T-rex. Boy howdy.
>>17431305>I'll just make my boat twice as heavy and unwieldy, that's definitely a huge advantage in a time before incendiary shells when big ships can already absorb a huge amount of the most state of the art artillery
>>17431320That ship in >>17431305 was entered service in 1859. There was ships of line that were made after that after that ship. In fact it was the first effort by the French to move away from ships of the line. If you want to talk about different options from before the 1850s, there was steam frigates starting around 1833. Before that, yes ships of the line were the best option.>>17431401It did come in at about about 1.4 times the weight when compared with say the Suffren-class ship of the line they had better sailing trains over all. >that's definitely a huge advantage in a time before incendiary shells The start of new gun types begins in 1823 with the Paixhans guns. New model explosive shells were a massive issue for ships of the line before the incendiary shells of the late 1830s. Ships of the line had to be redesigned to survive Paixhans gun trades with each other.
I like Russian ones
>>17430857She has always been an idiot.
>a stronk wimen claims something>verbal response
>>17431707>>17431806Based>>17431913>>17431946>>>/r9k/
>>17430857Ive been on board this recently Its 4th rate so still a ship of the line , doesnt seem cumbersome at all
>>17431707>The start of new gun types begins in 1823 with the Paixhans gunsStill, not an issue during the Napoleonic wars, War of the Spanish Succession, or any of the other conflicts with which ships of the line are associated.
>>17430857Apparently this quote is from "The First Salute : View of the American Revolution". Does anybody know the context of said quote?Anyways; Ships of the Line are cool af
>>17432709It's the end of a much larger quote (paragraph) that I couldn't find online in its entirety unfortunately. I'm too lazy to type it out since I'm phone posting kek
>>17432709>>17432922Pg. 125 of the paperback version if anyone cares to hunt down the whole thing
I wonder if it would have been possible to just outrun them at every turn and pick off their reinforcements/supply ships, leaving them essentially sitting alone in the sea, with no way to get more food. Like a slow siege, but with a fortress of wood in front of you.
>>17432936>just ourtun themWith what? A smaller ship? You're still beholden to the wind as much as they are and the bigger they ran the thicker their timbers, leading to cannonballs just bouncing off their sides kek
>>17432360They were still making ships of the line up 38 years after the intro of the Paixhans guns. Thing is that it was know that ships of the line need a hard rework to function a mere 5 years after the intro date of 1823. The stronger caused them to need to move away from angled inwards curving walls, a tumblehome , to up right walls. It did buy ships of the the durability to keep function the same way for another 15 to 20 years, but at great cost to its seaworthiness. Turns that a 80 gun ship of line from the Napoleonic wars could make a post-Napoleonic ship could not make. To add to this is increasing draft and improvements smaller convectional ships. Heavy bodied frigates like the Artémise Class from the French Navy did show that ships of the line were losing secondary roles well before they stopped making them. The example class is from 1828, around the same time as the first ships of the line to come out with the up right walls which would be the Suffren class.Over on the Royal Navy side of things they started to talk about no longer ordering new ships of the line in 1839. Yet they got their last one in 1861. By 1861 ships of the line were dinosaurs.Look ships of the line worked for about 180 years but that does not mean it was not held when past the date they should of let go of them.
>>17432937Smaller ships weigh less and generally travel faster on the same winds, as they have less drag below the water line. You wouldn't get within shooting distance, just shadow the larger ship with a few smaller ships and engage with any reinforcements or supply ships that try to get to the larger ship. Then - wait for them to surrender and leave their ship, or watch them starve to death.
>>17432985>what is a fleet convoyDo you know anything about sailing during this period?
>>17432925Thx for the page. Perhaps I can find a digital version somewhere. Or could you perhaps roughly summarize this passage?>>17432936You know that a Ship of the Line can move, right?
>>17432709Its Likely pointing at the success of the smaller ships of the American Navy against the larger ships of the Royal Navy. If I had to guess it was also trying to link with the large American frigates used during the war of 1812, which were designed to counter ships of the line is the difficult sailing condition off of the eastern coast of the US.They worked to a degree, but not to the needed amount. Have pic of the largest of them, the USS President (1800).
>>17432936This is similar to how they dealt with the Spanish Armada, with the English using their longer range to take favourable engagements while avoiding a decisive battle with the Spanish.
>>17433267Wasn't there also an instance where an english razeed 4th ship of the line clapped one of those heavy frigagtes of the US navy? >the success of the smaller shipsShips with a lesser draft could more easily operate in the coastal waters and thus be more suitable for bombardment and supply missions, true.And yet, for the successful Battle of the Chesapeake (which enabled the total encirclement of Cornwallis' forces), the french ships of the line were absolutely necessary.>>17433294It's not. The english fleet did decively engage the spanish fleet in gunnery duels - for which the english fleet was purpose built while the spanish ships were still optimized for the melee/boarding action.
>>17433366Yes, there is a reason that the 1500 tons of the USS President (1800) would end up becoming overshadowed by frigates built in the late 1820s. frigates in the 2400 to 2700 tons range became the norm at that point.
>>17433366>Battle of the CapesA man of taste, I see.
>>17430857Sailing ships don't seem fast in the modern day. Historians need to reevaluate their concept of speed to be period accurate.HMS Victory 11 knotsUSS Constitution 13 knotsCutty Sark 17.5 knotsAustronesian Proa 18 knotsA full rigged First-rate ship-of-the-line still has over 60% of the speed of an Austronesian Proa or a clipper ship, the fastest vessels of that age.
>>17433158Fuck it, I'll just phone post it. Picrel cuts off the first half of the first sentence."Since medieval days of the sixty-pound suit of armor, in which, for the sake of combat, men roasted and could not arise if they fell, no contrivance for fighting has matched in discomfort and inconvenience and use contrary to nature the floating castle called a ship of the line in the age of fighting sail. With its motor power dependent on the caprice of heaven and direction-finding on the distant stars, and its central piece of equipment - the mast - dependent on seasoned timber that was rarely obtainable, and control of locomotion dependent on rigging and ropes of a complexity to defy philosophers of the Sorbonne, much less the homeless untutored poor off the streets who made up the crews, and communication from commander to his squadron dependent on signal flags easily obscured by distance or smoke from the guns or by pitching of the ship, these cumbersome vehicles were as convenient as if dinosaurs had survived to be used by cowboys for driving cattle. The difficulties men willingly contend with to satisfy their urge to fight have never been better exemplified than in warships under sail. Not a few contemporaries were bemused by the curiosities of naval warfare that had inspired M. Maurepas' conclusive judgement as 'piff poff'". - TuchmanBoiling it all down to just "le men fighting" is obviously a boldly reductionist take, but then as an accomplished academic writing at the end of a lengthy career I guess you're afforded some flowery prose kek god knows it was probably exactly what the average Tuchman reader in the late '80's was looking for.
>>17434718FUCK, why does this shithole Himalayan basket weaving for yetis forum always do that with camera pics
>>17430857>>17434718What a fucking idiotic statement for an academic historian to make. Ships-of-the-line weren't built to be fast, not even remotely. That wasn't even an afterthought in the grand scheme of things. They were built to pulverize fucking forts into submission. Tuchman herself even says, in this very book (no idea the page number), that land-based forts almost never had the same caliber of cannon in their bastions. They would have cucked little 5 and 6 pounders while a ship like the HMS Bellophoron had twenty-fucking-eight (28!) behemoths launching 32-pound balls. These were floating artillery batteries doing what no land-based force could ever achieve because you simply couldn't easily navigate a fucking 32-pounder cannon weighing several tons across the dirt tracks they called roads back then. Loveher writing, but Tuchman completely misses the fucking point here. These weren't the cavalry units of the seas, these were the bunker-busting artillery teams that laid siege to forts the world over. The fact that men were testosterone-fueled animals willing to spend months at sea eating literal pea gruel without even salt most days of the week and drink stagnant water so that they could bake in the open-ocean sun while yanking on ropes, all for the chance to shoot cannonballs at each other's sails at sound barrier-breaking speeds is just icing on the cake kek
>>17434718Damn, what tripe. She gets every statement about ships of the 18th century and how any european navy operated wrong. >>17435622>that land-based forts almost never had the same caliber of cannon in their bastions.That is new to me. Got anything to back that up?
>>17435726I severely underweighed them by saying 5- and 6-pounders, but the cannons Henry Knox pulled out of Ticonderoga were mostly 12- and 18-pounders, with the sole exception of a single 24-pounder. Gage, by contrast, had like six 24-pounders that he used when fortifying Boston against the colonists. Napoleon standardized the 12-pounder for field use during the Continental Wars and during the War of 1812 the standard sizes were 6- and 12-pounders for artillery use. The HMS Victory by contrast (and as mentioned before the 74-gun Bellophron) had 30, 32-pounders, and 28, 24-pounders, along with numerous smaller sizes.I'll see if I can find the page in Tuchman where she discusses this, but like I said it was simply easier to load a 32-pounder onto a ship-of-the-line than it was to haul it into the frontiers of Pennsylvania to place at Ft. Pitt or into the NY wilderness at Ticonderoga. I'm not arguing that *by default* any given fort couldn't have 32-pounders and smaller, I'm just saying that moving a 2-3 ton cannon from it's foundry to a nearby barge and then to a ship-of-the-line was a fucking hell of a lot easier than moving it overland to a remote fort, especially when it came to colonial ventures with minimal roads to speak of. The fact that the British Navy regularly "decomissioned" it's ships-of-the-line during peacetime by stripping them of their sails, masts, etc. also speaks volumes to how much economical it was to use an old sheer hulk (a ship that had been de-masted and converted into a floating crane) to re-fit a ship of its full compliment of masts and rigging than it was to just keep them afloat in service.
>>17435622If you can load up a ship with 32 pounders you can do the same with a fort. Ships of the line just weren't used for attacking the forts and batteries guarding cities and the mouths of major rivers.
>>17435821>you can do the same with a fortYou're genuinely retarded if you think so.
>According to historian Fernand Braudel, some of the finest and largest Indiamen of the late 18th and early 19th centuries were built in India, making use of Indian shipbuilding techniques and crewed by Indians, their hulls of Indian teak being especially suitable for local waters. These ships were used for the China run. Until the coming of steamships, these Indian-built ships were relied upon almost exclusively by the British in the eastern seas. Many hundreds of Indian-built Indiamen were built for the British, along with other ships, including warships. Notable among them were Surat Castle (1791), a 1,000-ton (bm) ship with a crew of 150, Lowjee Family, of 800 tons (bm) and a crew of 125, and Shampinder (1802), of 1,300 tons (bm).[3]>SSAAAAAARRRRRRRRMemes aside, triple-deckers were so insane as a concept. Literally a floating wall of cannons.
bump
