Can we get a Veeky Forums naval thread going here?
Anything goes -- From rowing and ramming stuff in antiquity and medieval periods, broadside cannon voleys and boarding aaction from the age of sail, ironclads and how the fuck they even managed to fight each other, surface/submarine/aircraft carrier battles from the World Wars.
>Who are some underrated naval commanders?
>What are some underappreciated or badass naval battles?
>Any Veeky Forums approved navy film/tv/literature you like?
>you will never witness an epic naval battle between Egyptians and Sea People at the gates of the Nile
>you will never row a ship up the Seine and go hold Paris for random
>you will never use your traditional Polynesian sailing skills to across a thousand miles of open ocean in a hollowed out tree
>you will never unleash Greek fire upon barbarians
>you will never sink the ARA Belgrano
>you will never hit Italian ships with radio guided bombs before they can defect to the allies
As a person who enjoys sailing, I sometimes find myself awash in these feels.
Savannah has an "h" at the end.
...
Is the Hornblower tv movie series Veeky Forums-approved naval fiction? It looks kind of cool.
>The first Union ship to be engaged by Virginia was the all-wood, sail-powered USS Cumberland, which was first crippled during a furious cannon exchange, and then rammed in her forward starboard bow by Virginia. As Cumberland began to sink, the port side half of Virginia's iron ram was broken off, causing a bow leak in the ironclad. Seeing what had happened to Cumberland, the captain of USS Congress ordered his frigate into shallower water, where she soon grounded. Congress and Virginia traded cannon fire for an hour, after which the badly-damaged Congress finally surrendered. While the surviving crewmen of Congress were being ferried off the ship, a Union battery on the north shore opened fire on Virginia. Outraged at such a breach of war protocol, in retaliation Virginia's now angry captain, Commodore Franklin Buchanan, gave the order to open fire with hot-shot on the surrendered Congress as he rushed to Virginia's exposed upper casemate deck, where he was injured by enemy rifle fire. Congress, now set ablaze by the retaliatory shelling, burned for many hours into the night, a symbol of Confederate naval power and a costly wake-up call for the all-wood Union blockading squadron.
I had no idea ramming was still done at this time. Anyone have more info about ramming from the 1600s-1900s?
>Anyone have more info about ramming from the 1600s-1900s?
en.wikipedia.org
Japan also bought an ironclad designed for ramming.
Anyone got the book Guinness History of naval warfare in pdf?
It seems like most ironclad still have masts from what little I know. Why wouldn't they just have gone without them like the Virginia and monitor?
From what I understand the idea was that ocean going ships needed sails as a backup to steam power for long voyages. The Civil War ironclads were exactly what Monitor's name suggests - they were monitors, meant for littoral combat and not intended to operate in open water.
Later on, those masts also were helpful for spotters and communication, so they stuck around long past the point where sails were necessary or even feasible.
>las malvinas son argentinas
>Kuk ships
ARA Rivadavia is my battleshipfu
Memes aside Austria's little navy has always been interesting.
I'm interested in Japanese naval history in the 19th century and early 20th.
What were their ships like? Were their officers trained by the British?
What were they like in their wars with China and Russia? IIRC the Japanese fleet smashed the Russian one.
Yes, this was basically it.
Really, the steam engines were the backups. Ships would sail for the most part, but if the wind died down or, in the case of warships, they went into battle, they would kick the steam engines on.
It wasn't really until the advent of the screw propeller and more efficient engines such as gas turbines that you saw many ships without sails.
They did have some neat ships
Huh I can't believe I forgot about that one. I've actually been on the replica of the Esmerelda that they have in Iquique. It's a really nice city.
Do you have more pics of Austrian ships?
That was very cool to read about, thank you man
If anyone has a question about 15th-17th century naval warfare feel free to ask me.
Only a couple.
How common were boarding actions during the age of sail and broadside cannon-style battles?
Was it still used in the midst of pitched battles on occassion?
If yes, did the Marines aboard the ships lead boarding parties or was it generally a Navy officer like a Lieutenant? From media it seems like it was mostly navy officers and sailors while Marines fired their muskets/rifles from their own ship.
Were crews trained for close melee combat in the event of boarding? What weapons would have been used aside from firearms and swords?
arrrrg ye matey
Well it went from the main way to take out enemy ships in the 15th century to increasingly rare by the time steamships with sails and explosive shells were around. The age of the sail is too long a time stretch to give a definitive answer.
During the mid 17th century Anglo-Dutch wars the ratio of ships captured to ships sunk was still quite close (close to 1:1.5). Possible due to the fact that a fleet sized melee rather than the line of battle was tried when possible by the Dutch. During the Napoleonic wars boarding was also extensively done.
A thing to keep in mind is that boarding also happened in surprise attacks close to the shore or when an enemy struck its colors after a firefight. Boarding in a battle might sound dangerous but realize that large fleets could cover multiple sea miles and that battles lasted hours. The vanguard could have already been shot to shit or boarded while the rear barely fired a cannon.
Who was on the boarding party differed by nation and time. In some nations marines were around by the 15th century while others only organized them in the 17th. An often overlooked weapon for shipboard fighting is the boarding pike, essentially a short pike or spear that was useful to defending narrow passages or keeping enemies of the ship. It saw use everywhere from 17th century colonial naval warfare to Napoleonic battles. Aside from those bows were also in use by several non European powers as were grenades.
...
...
Although it's more late-18th century, do you have insight into the usage (how often, the weapons, tactics, etc...) of boarding operations from, say, the American Revolution through the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars?
In, say, the Royal Navy were these more likely to be led by naval officers or the marine detachment? How about the French or Spanish at the same time?
Did the regular non-commissioned seaman on ships in this era get training in the use of the cutlass, boarding pikes/axes or pistols? What about officers? I've read that the weapons would mostly be kept in racks and only grabbed when needed, but it seems like the officers tended to carry their own swords -- did they buy their own weapons instead of using whatever the ship was stocked with?
Finally, something that may be more in your wheelhouse given the time. Did the Dutch Republics Navy at the height of its power have any particular qualities, strategies or unique organization in their ships or crews that made them successful? Did they utilize marines aboard with muskets or did they rely on cannons, boarding with melee weapons and maybe even ramming? And lastly, the Dutch East India Company was the best of its time and was given quasi-military power and governance over it's territory on land and sea. Do you know anything about how their fleets might have fought, being technically civilian corporation ships, whether it be against pirates or anyone else interfering in their business or territory/shipping lanes? Would they have been equipped and do battle at sea similarly to the actual Dutch Navy or would they have their own peculiarities?
>deck a foot above the water's edge
Is the ship sinking or is that a feature?
Yes and yes.
The 18th century isn't really my strong point and the specifics of the cutlass drill are something someone with a HEMA background might know more about. I recall reading that standardized drills for the cutlass only came about during the Napoleonic wars.
The Dutch republic during the 17th century had the biggest merchant navy in the world at the time, easily twice the size of the English one. They never really had a shortage of experienced seaman or captains, using a somewhat (though not entirely) meritocratic approach to appointing officers also gave them something of an edge. The industrial capability of the republic also allowed them to built ships faster and cheaper than other nations, cost cutting measures and mechanization helped in bringing their navy up to the size of larger neighboring countries.
In the Anglo-Dutch wars the English purpose built navy ships were bigger, carried more cannons and carried heavier ones. The shallow Dutch coastal waters essentially put a hard cap on the maximum size of their ships and hence their ability to put a larger number of heavy cannons on them. The flagship of the Dutch fleet had a firepower (in weight of shot) comparable to an English third rate. This made the line of battle a rather poor tactic for facing the heavier English ships. Though the Dutch did occasionally fight in the line of battle and won it was preferable for them to engage in a pell mell battle where individual captains directed their ships and fought ship against ship, this is where the experience of the captain and his crew could make the difference rather than sheer firepower alone.
That said battles were not always decisive in the Anglo-Dutch wars and more often than not both fleets took a lot of damage before limping back home to get repaired again for the next battle. At the end of the day the Dutch won the second and third by having superb admirals that pulled off strategic victories until the English came suing for peace.
By the 18th century heavy ships fighting in the line of battle and the economic stagnation of the Dutch republic led to them becoming a second rate naval power.
The Dutch East India company is another fascinating topic but I know little about how they fought other European powers. When facing Asian powers their tactic was to either adopt a line of battle or a looser formation. Despite Dutch ships not being the most heavily gunned European ships there was little in Asia that even came close to them. In battles with the Chinese you often see a single Dutch ship taking on ten or twenty Chinese junks and absolutely destroying them. For non-European powers boarding and fireships were the only realistic options, outgunning them was not possible. That said even boarding was hard since European ships had high freeboards and were loaded with cannons and crews.
During the first half the distinction between armed or converted merchantman and purpose built warships was a little more vague than in the second half of the 17th century or the 18th one. While the Dutch East India company certainly had purpose built warships equipped along the lines of the official navy they also made use of armed merchantman.
Aside from that it is important to note that both the Dutch East India company and the Navy used a large array of smaller ships that went under various names such as yachts. The lack of rating system can make identification of some of these hard for me.
This might be a weird question, but does anyone know when/why the tradition of boxing aboard naval vessels among crews came about? It seems to be mostly an American or perhaps British thing.
PS, yachts back then were typically 200-500 ton vessels with a 76-200 sized crews and around 30 guns.
Anyone have any knowledge about WWI submarines and the tactics they used?
No but they do look rad.
Here are some more photos
Does anyone else love the look of eary US Monitor's? Why are they so... flat looking???
Anyone ever hear of the story of the USS Monadnock? It was literally a river monitor that the United States somehow took across the pacific to the Philippines. How did they even pull this off?
Pic related
How the fuck did enemy ships even hit or damage these to sink them? Like when monitors in the American Civil War came against each other. Did they ever actually successfully sink one another? The only thing I can imagine maybe working is mines.
Are there any naval movies that can compare to Master & Commander?
Not really. Not Age of Sail type naval movies anyway. The Hornblower series is pretty damn good/fun though. And Das Boot is probably the best navy movie ever made, even though it's about a u-boat crew.
The famous battle of the Monitor vs. the Merrimack, they just pinged cannon balls off of each other ineffectively and then left.
lolol didnt one of them try to ram the other? Why do I find these ships so sexy...
>After fighting for hours, mostly at close range, neither could overcome the other. The armor of both ships proved adequate. In part, this was because each was handicapped in her offensive capabilities. Buchanan, in Virginia, had not expected to fight another armored vessel, so his guns were supplied only with shell rather than armor-piercing shot.[60] Monitor's guns were used with the standard service charge of only 15 lb (6.8 kg) of powder, which did not give the projectile sufficient momentum to penetrate her opponent's armor. Tests conducted after the battle showed that the Dahlgren guns could be operated safely and efficiently with charges of as much as 30 lb (14 kg).[61]
>The battle finally ceased when a shell from Virginia struck the pilot house of Monitor and exploded, driving fragments of paint and iron through the viewing slits into Worden's eyes and temporarily blinding him.[43] As no one else could see to command the ship, Monitor was forced to draw off. The executive officer, Lieutenant Samuel Dana Greene, took over, and Monitor returned to the fight. In the period of command confusion, however, the crew of Virginia believed that their opponent had withdrawn. Although Minnesota was still aground, the falling tide meant that she was out of reach. Furthermore, Virginia had suffered enough damage to require extensive repair. Convinced that his ship had won the day, Jones ordered her back to Norfolk. At about this time, Monitor returned, only to discover her opponent apparently giving up the fight. Convinced that Virginia was quitting, with orders only to protect Minnesota and not to risk his ship unnecessarily, Greene did not pursue. Thus, each side misinterpreted the moves of the other, and as a result each claimed victory.[62]
Also, both ships were really slow. Like, you could run faster than their cruising speed.
what was the point of building the monitor so close to the surface of the water? Its almost like a semi submarine
Keep in mind that these were not well thought out, heavily researched ships.
The reason Americans built the first monitors before the British did is that both the Confederate and Union navies crapped out ironclads after a few months of design and construction.
It was bleeding edge technology at that point.
Virginia and Monitor class were coast and river ships, they could rely on engines completely, but ocean going vessels still needed/wanted sails. Most monitors were scrapped after the war for exactly that reason
His interests me as well
Trafalgar is still my favorite. Apparently during the capture of a Spanish ship, when the British brought the prisoners on board, one of the sailors was an actor in full Harlequin outfit because he had been press ganged after a performance the night before.
What kind of sources do historians use when writing about ships from the Age of Sail and how they functioned? I think I've seen them called the largest machines in the world at the time.
>What kind of sources do historians use when writing about ships from the Age of Sail and how they functioned?
First hand sources? Its not like Navy Admirals and shipbuilders didn't keep records and diaries.
Pirates of the Caribean
What were naval battles like before gunpowder invention?
Any suggestions, or good books by historians on life at sea?
HMS Pinafore was great
Saw it about a week back
>kotetsu
That ship history is bonkers!
Alvaro de Bazan really is underrated, after Lepanto and the siege of Malta, the old mad man won this against all odds (pic related).
>Anyone ever hear of the story of the USS Monadnock? It was literally a river monitor that the United States somehow took across the pacific to the Philippines. How did they even pull this off?
>Pic related
Super cool story user thanks.
en.wikipedia.org
>Monadnock departed Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 5 October; with USS Vanderbilt, USS Tuscarora, and USS Powhatan. Temperatures in the fire-room ranged from 120 to 140 degrees Fahrenheit (49–60 degrees Celsius) near the equator.[2] Stokers collapsed daily from heat prostration and special inducements of extra pay and spirits were offered to men to take their place.[2] During part of the trip, her crew rigged a single square sail and jib which increased speed by 1.5 knots.[2] After stops at numerous South American ports, she transited the Strait of Magellan and arrived at Valparaíso, Chile while a Spanish squadron was bombarding the town during the Chincha Islands War.[2] Peru later purchased American monitors Oneota and Catawba for use in the War of the Pacific.[2] Monadnocks arrival at Acapulco coincided with Mexican attempts to end French intervention in Mexico.[2] The squadron continued on to San Francisco, anchoring off that city on 21 June 1866. On 26 June she proceeded to Vallejo, California and entered the Mare Island Navy Yard where she decommissioned 30 June.
>Temperatures in the fire-room ranged from 120 to 140 degrees Fahrenheit (49–60 degrees Celsius) near the equator.[2]
>Stokers collapsed daily from heat prostration and special inducements of extra pay and spirits were offered to men to take their place.[2]
WEW LAD