General Tactics

[Sir Beane]

I do so much enjoy these discussions.

The thing about Heavy Frigates and Razees is that their gun compliment was of heavier caliber higher up on the ships than the Ships of the line. That enabled them to have more firepower at longer range than the larger ships.

While I would never close on an undamaged SOL I do think that a small squadron could for the most part do them serious damage from long range.

I can not find much data on the gun ranges. We know that the large Carronades were short range low velocity pieces. The data I did find stated that the long 24#s could shoot about a mile at max elevation (long shot) but there max effective range was deemed at 1200 yards/meters. 18# and 24#s seem to have also been used as chasers, leading me to the conclusion that these were the most accurate and longest ranged of the guns.

With four or so ships staying out of range until a favorable opportunity presents it self for a rake or transom shot I think you could give the larger more powerful, but slower fleet a real run for their money. Especially in heavy seas!

As I said it is something I would like to try. It may prove totally unsuitable but to me it is worth the investigation.

Excellent information!

My take on Frigates vs. SOL's is that frigates should be able to win against an SOL given the right combination of circumstances and player skill.

In most conditions Frigates could travel faster and turn faster than a SOL, this sort of manoeverability should in theory allow a group of them to beat a more heavily armed SOL (I love that acronym, so easy!) by forcing the larger ship to fire broadsides at disadvantageous positions.

By using quick turns, good timing and feints and a lot of luck a group of frigates shuold be able to goad an enemy ship into firing at them at innefective ranges or angles where they can then quickly close in and fire a broadside during the time it takes to reload and prime another broadside.

If the frigate captains have any sense they could also use chain shot to cripple the masts and sails of the SOL to further increase the advantage they have in turning and speed. Of course this tactic works both ways, since the SOL could use its superior firepower to cut down the frigate's sail.

This kind of tactic would be difficult to pull off and require horrendous amounts of micromanagement, it would probably only work in small scale engagements as well. It would however be exactly the sort of thing worth experimenting with so you can show it off in multiplayer

Like Fisherking I want to experiment to find unorthodox tactics that are not obvious, and then use them to crush my foes. (human or A.I)

I'm very much a naval commander at heart

[Ishmael]

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?

[Sheogorath]

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?

It would generally depend on the battle and positioning of artillery.

However, up until Napoleonic times, artillery tended to be a bit lonesome on the field. The idea of the 'Grand Battery' (whether French or Russian) only came about in the late 1700's, so prior to that large concentrations of cannon would be pretty rare.

But, either way, I understand that it was preferable to capture cannons, sort of like taking an eagle or a regimental banner. You could drag them home and mount them in front of your barracks, or use them, depending on the situation.

So, I'd say that, at regular ranges, it would be unlikely to see 'artillery duels' in the 1700's. Cannons just weren't accurate enough to hit specific targets behind the lines, so a few 'potshots' when the chance presented itself might be made, but I would imagine they would stick to the convenient targets...like large masses of infantry in dense formation.

The development of a 'grand battery' gives artillery a bigger target in the enemies artillery which, IMO, makes the occurrence of 'artillery duels' more likely.

I am, of course, only speculating on this. Anybody with actual records is welcome to present them :P

[Fisherking]

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?

In all likelihood the first time Counter Battery fire took place was the first time artillery showed up on both sides of the field. (think rocks if you will)

The 1650 book by Kazimierz Siemienowicz "Artis Magnae Artilleriae pars prima" was one of the most important contemporary publications on the subject of artillery. For over two centuries this work was used in Europe as a basic artillery manual. If you can find it you might get your answer.

Believe it or not artillery fell out of fashion after the musket became widely used. As Sheogorath points out it was a prize to capture and it was deemed too vulnerable to the charge, and too difficult to lug around.

Frederick II of Prussia developed the first real light artillery, and as stated Napoleon developed and perfected massed battery fire. He used it as preparatory fires before the attack.

[Oleander Ardens]

I can not find much data on the gun ranges. We know that the large Carronades were short range low velocity pieces. The data I did find stated that the long 24#s could shoot about a mile at max elevation (long shot) but there max effective range was deemed at 1200 yards/meters. 18# and 24#s seem to have also been used as chasers, leading me to the conclusion that these were the most accurate and longest ranged of the guns.

IMHO

a) Given that manpower set a practical limit to the size and weight of the cannons
b) Given that at certain stage the large amount powder needed to propel a large cannonball to a high velocity and thus long range would require very stable and thus very thick barrels and thus very heavy guns
c) Given that momentum is the key to penetration power a larger cannonball is generally more effective than a smaller ball
d) Given that space is a very limiting factor on a ship.

we can assume that were "sweet spots" of calibers which combined large momentum, good accuracy with long range and good rate of fire while still being managable by the crews. The design of the gun decks and the dimensions of this "sweet" calibers influenced each other.

P.S: Cannons with long barrels were more efficient and accurate than shorter cannons, but more awkward to handle and slower to reload. It would certainly make sense to create fast, stable ships with relatively few, but heavy and longranged guns for raiding, small skirmishes and independent actions.

In a new SOL such a change would make far less sense, because new ships had to fit into the existing strategies used with the existing ships. A SOL was also expected to enable proficient close combat, where a high ROF from many guns was more important than longrange power and accuracy. So it should have been subject to more compromise than a heavy frigate.

[CBR]

The thing about Heavy Frigates and Razees is that their gun compliment was of heavier caliber higher up on the ships than the Ships of the line. That enabled them to have more firepower at longer range than the larger ships.

While I would never close on an undamaged SOL I do think that a small squadron could for the most part do them serious damage from long range.

Height of gundecks has very little to do with range of guns as they could change the elevation of guns. IIRC Nelson judged it took 3 frigates to equal or have a chance at outfighting a SOL.

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?

Yes, especially the heavier guns ("battery pieces") and howitzers would engage in such a role. The lighter guns ("battalion pieces") would be more for local support.


CBR

[Fisherking]

Height of gundecks has very little to do with range of guns as they could change the elevation of guns. IIRC Nelson judged it took 3 frigates to equal or have a chance at outfighting a SOL.


CBR

Ah! But it surely does if the seas are not perfectly calm. It was often impossible for the three dickers to open their lower gun ports. Having the heavier guns where they could be of use in other than calm weather would make a big difference.


I may not have made that line of thought clear in my original post.

Even with a larger ship, if they could only fight with 12#ers or less, who do you think has the advantage?

[CBR]

Ah! But it surely does if the seas are not perfectly calm. It was often impossible for the three dickers to open their lower gun ports. Having the heavier guns where they could be of use in other than calm weather would make a big difference.

Even with a larger ship, if they could only fight with 12#ers or less, who do you think has the advantage?

Yes in bad weather the lowest gundeck could not be used. But the big SOL's still had 24 pounders on the deck above and the smaller 74's had 18 pounders. A heavy frigate or razee were still lighter ships with thinner hull so even if it could use heavier guns the actual difference in fighting power would be less than if just comparing 24 versus 18 pounders.


CBR

[Fisherking]

Yes in bad weather the lowest gundeck could not be used. But the big SOL's still had 24 pounders on the deck above and the smaller 74's had 18 pounders. A heavy frigate or razee were still lighter ships with thinner hull so even if it could use heavier guns the actual difference in fighting power would be less than if just comparing 24 versus 18 pounders.


CBR

As to hull thickness you could be right. I did find it interesting that the Heavy Frigates carried about the same number of 24#s as the First Rates.

As I said earlier I intend it as a tactical experiment. Seldom did two Heavy Frigates work together. I would just love to see what a squadron of them could do.

[CBR]

As to hull thickness you could be right. I did find it interesting that the Heavy Frigates carried about the same number of 24#s as the First Rates.

As I said earlier I intend it as a tactical experiment. Seldom did two Heavy Frigates work together. I would just love to see what a squadron of them could do.

They had pretty much same length as a SOL so they had the room. The biggest problem was if they could carry the weight of such gun because it added a lot of stress to the deck. That was the problem for the French when they experimented with their 24# heavy frigates. Even SOL's had trouble as some were given 36# that really were too heavy for them.

USS Constellation started out with 24# but it seems that was reduced to 18# later on. Wiki mentions trouble with top weight so that might have been the problem.

I have tried frigates versus SOL's both in the board/miniature game "Close Action" and Age of Sail 2. It's not easy but it can be done, just expect some damaged ships heh.


CBR