The Great Armada

[Romanus]

Wasn't the biggest problem with the spanish Armada that it was actually their mediterranean fleet? I remember reading somewhere that their whole atlantic fleet was in dock because it wasn't in any condition to sail. It would explain a lot of the problems the spanish faced as atlantic sea conditions are lot different then a mediterranean conditions.

[Kraxis]

They had a large number of galleys and other ships that were rather unsuited for atlantic warfare. But the majority were indeed the large and rather seaworthy galleons. There is, however, truth to the notion that many of their ships were not ready initially. But the operation was 'just' postponed (there was quite a stirring in the royal quaters of course) until they got fixed.

The main problem for the Spanish can be said to be their doctrine for naval warfare.
Galleons were hardy ships. Strong hulls, tall towers and a wide body. Perfect for boarding and carrying lots of troops for said boarding. Hence the Spanish wanted to use their ships in that manner.
The doctrine said that the galleon should come alongside it's enemy, give it a single devastating broadside, then board. That would play perfectly into the strengths of the galleon.

The English had however designed a lighter, faster and more maneuverable galleon, the Fast Galleon (relative term though). This ship had a much lower freeboard, and not such much in terms of towers (also called castles, as in forecastle as that part of the ship is still called). They were practically designed to fight gunbattles against galleons. And English doctrine showed this, as they should NOT seek to board, but rather pummel their enemy to pieces.
Also the Fast Galleon carried a much more uniform armament, amking her much easier to control once in battle, the captain would know more or less when he could expect a broadside to be ready ect ect.

It is also a bit of a myth that the victory was an upset. Perhaps it was so for the people there at the time, but the English actually held an advantage in number of guns, quality of guns and in training.

Now what happens when a faster more nimble enemy does not want to get caught? He stays uncaught. Meanwhile he can lash out at the slower brute, who does not even try to hit back for fear of losing the allpowerful single broadside (Spanish loading could take as long as 15 minutes).
So teh English ships had more or less free reign to blast the Spanish ships from afar. But the galleon is a as mentioned a sturdy design and only few ships actually fell to this prior to the fireships. But still, if the English had cooperated better (the sole area where the Spanish seem to have had an advantage), they could have devastated two of the Spanish squadrons, which would have ended the campaign right there.

[Spino]

Some years ago someone here in the Org made a reference to a documentary about the defeat of the Spanish Armada. According to the records very few English ships were 'hulled' or penetrated by Spanish cannonballs that found their mark. After examining some cannonballs which were dredged up from the Channel's bottom it was shown that Spanish shot was of much poorer quality than the shot used by the English. Can anyone here provide more information on this aspect of the conflict?

The shot quality issue reminds me of the problem facing America's navies in the war of 1812 where shot of varying quality lowered the overall efficiency of the US Navy's gun crews. This drew a stark contrast to the quality of American guns which were actually quite good, especially the 24lb 'Long Guns' made famous by our Constellation class frigates.

[cunctator]

The shot quality issue reminds me of the problem facing America's navies in the war of 1812 where shot of varying quality lowered the overall efficiency of the US Navy's gun crews. This drew a stark contrast to the quality of American guns which were actually quite good, especially the 24lb 'Long Guns' made famous by our Constellation class frigates.

What kind of problems did they face with their shots? Variation in weight/diameter or overall material quality? They were still able to badly outgun the Royal Navy with what they had.

[Kraxis]

Their guns ranged from bad to average quality with a few of very good quality. That alone is bad.
Then there is their shots, which were even worse. Some were even made of stone rather than metal.
Finally their guns were of highly varying size, even on the same gundeck, making it a pain to get new shots, adding to the already lousy reloadtimes.
All this wasn't too much of a problem when your doctrine is to get alongside the enemy, blast him once at point blank range and then board.
But when the enemy refuses to get boarded, then you are in trouble as you can't respond in kind.

The English actually had an advantage in numbers of guns as well.

So when I look at it today, I can hardly imagine the Armada actually winning a battle. At best it could sustain the English damage (those galleons were tough ships) and push through to England with the troops.
The only reason I can see that the English didn't punish the Armada even more was because they were slightly too timid and had a fairly bad coordination (too many gloryhounds and too much bickering).