QUORA: How did sailors prevent ships from sinking in the 18th century a
From
David P@21:1/5 to
All on Wed Oct 12 16:11:39 2022
QUORA: How did sailors prevent ships from sinking in the 18th century after receiving heavy cannon fire?
answered by Matthew Bowler, Lifelong student of naval history and the British Empire 11 months ago
It’s actually quite rare for ships to sink in battle during this period, for one critical reason:
the primary construction material of ships in the period was wood, which inherently floats. And
not only that, but it floats with a reasonable amount of additional load put onto it - which means
that, to an extent, you can also rely on the ship to float despite adding weight in cannon, shot,
and ballast - all of which are decidedly non-floaty.
In a number of battles of the 18th century, no ships were sunk at all. That’s not to say there was
no damage, of course; casualties could be horrendous and ships can be reduced to floating hulks,
dismasted, smashed into matchwood. But largely would need a good number of holes below the waterline
before shipping enough water to overcome the natural floatiness of them (some intellectuals call it buoyancy).
This was a period when capturing the enemy was preferred; that way, not only did the enemy
lose a ship, but you gained one. And, of course, crews and captains received prize money for
this sort of thing too, which made it more important to not shoot at enemies below the waterline.
That said, it did happen. Underwater repairs are challenging; first up is slowing the ingress of
water, which was broadly in one of two ways:
This is a shot plug (or at least a modern version of one!) - its a conical bung which can be
hammered into a hole from the outside to slow water through a shot hole. Ship’s carpenters
could use these urgently hanging over the side - the pressure from water outside would help
seal the breach. For larger holes, a crew could fother a sail. This meant using an old sail,
stuffed with this stuff:
Oakum - unpicked old rope (also the source of the phrase money for old rope, incidentally) -
hurriedly sown into a folded sail, makes a useful large bung. You make it bigger than the hole,
lower it over the side, and the water flow sucks it in.
In either case, you can then start trying to repair the hole properly from the inside using
some of the masses of timber carried for the purpose - or if need be by cannibalising the
ship’s fittings for more (you can lose a bit of bulkhead or deck from some places and it’s
probably ok).
And, of course, whilst this is going on a good number of sailors will be working the pumps.
All boats ship a bit of water into the bilges and need a daily pump anyway - so have the
equipment for this in place. The pumps draw water from the lowest parts, and force it over
the sides - if there’s a lot of water coming in, you make sure the crew keep pumping!
This is a pump from the Vasa in Stockholm. Later centuries had slightly more sophisticated designs.
But of course it didn’t always work. Ships could reach a point of no return and have to be
abandoned before they sank - it was of course much more common in storms where being dashed
on the rocks meant significantly larger holes in the hull.
276.5K views, 3,922 upvotes, 14 shares
------------
Bob Purvy, 10mo
As always, Patrick O’Brian’s Master and Commander series of 20 books is the entertaining way
to learn all about this. He seems to have spent his life learning about the Royal Navy and
the Napoleonic Wars. Sometimes ships sink in his books, especially if the seas are very rough.
But usually the losing ship strikes its colors before that.
-------------
Rick Hamell, 10mo
C.S. Forester’ Horatio Hornblower series also
----------------
William Hudson, Feb 9
Also shout out for author Alexander Kent and his Richard Bolitho novels. --------------
Geo Brower, Apr 12
Add Dudley Pope’s Ramage series to this list. He was actually encouraged to write his Ramage
character by no other than C. S. Forester. Hornblower gets a mention or two as a character
in the Ramage saga!
--------------
Paul Taylor, 11mo
I always felt that the shift away from the concept of Prize money fundamentally changed
the nature of sea battles. In the days of Prize money, one really didn't want to actually
destroy an enemy ship. One also knew that the enemy did not really want to destroy you either.
The aim of a battle was rather to beat the enemy into a point where they would feel able to
surrender with honour and duty served. The figure comes to mind of 10% losses with no sign of
gaining the upper hand being considered an acceptable decision point for striking ones colours
and yielding while feeling that ones honour was intact and that ones duty had been done.
What this means is that neither side would have felt that there was any need to actually
fight to the death themselves or force the enemy to do so either. As such even major sea
battles could take place with surprisingly low actual casualties on either side.
Consider this famous battle
Battle of Trafalgar - Wikipedia
And look at the numbers: 55,000 men all together.
Casualties and losses
French Side: 4,395 killed, 2,541 wounded, 7,000–8,000 captured
21 ships of the line captured, 1 ship of the line destroyed. British side: 458 killed, 1,208 wounded.
And these would have been considered unusually high losses for the French side at the time
for major sea battle. All that philosophy of battle ended with the ending of prize money.
From that point on, ships crews were much more likely to be expected either to fight to the
death themselves or to utterly destroy an enemy ship killing all of her crew.
Of course, as the lethal range of warships increased, it would have become more and more
difficult to engage in Napoleon era close engagements and boarding parties anyway.
But even so, I cant help but think that the ending of prize money would have made a
difference to the way sea battles were fought.
---------------
Matthew Bowler, 11mo
You are correct, it likely would have made it a lot less enticing for crews to attempt
captures. But there would still have been merit in so doing - if you sink an enemy, your
comparative fleet numbers change by 1. If you capture, it changes by 2. Still, it begs the
question - why would they end prize money, when it was such an effective mechanism for
achieving exactly what the navies of the period wanted? Crews and captains incentivised
for capturing cargoes and ships - the value of course being shared between the captors
and the state? Prize money actually continued well into the 20th century but with some
changes; firstly, it was improbable that one would be able to capture a warship once
iron hulls came about. They were too difficult to incapacitate and then subsequently board,
plus unlike sailing vessels they were not easy to manage with a small prize crew. Merchant
ships were different though, and instances of prize money being awarded for these was
fairly common until submarine warfare made it a lot easier to sink rather than capture.
Even then, though, it wasn’t unheard of.
-------------
Joseph S. Herndon, 10mo
The problem with prize money was that it provided an incentive for naval commanders to
pursue courses of action dictated by the opportunity to become rich on prize money,
instead of concentrating on actually defeating an enemy navy. Prize money was (formerly)
paid for capturing enemy warships, but they were stuffed with guns and fighting men;
you could reap several times as much from capturing a merchant ship laden with a rich
cargo of luxury goods. The consequence was that some of the less responsible officers
sometimes acted more like buccaneers in uniform than proper naval captains. -------------
Matthew Bowler, 10mo
It was pretty much the purpose of contemporary frigates to do exactly this job though.
I think it’s important to remember that naval warfare is primarily economic warfare.
The 18th century sees a blockade of France by the Royal Navy, for example. There’s a
channel fleet of first and second rates which is primarily there in case the French
bothered to come out of Brest in numbers, but the biggest harm the navy can do to
France is in capturing shipping. Enriches Britain, impoverishes France.
So actually prize money is a very good thing, because it incentivises your officers and
crew to achieve your strategic objectives.
------------
Joseph S. Herndon, 10mo
There has long been two opposing schools of thought about fundamental naval strategy.
One, which the French called the guerre de course, agrees with you. The other, which
has generally prevailed among naval officers of the modern era, decried that as tending
to lead to protracted and desultory warfare, whereas seeking decisive battle leading to
destruction of an enemy fleet’s main units has the potential to end a war quickly. The
former tends to appeal to nations in a position of permanent inferiority of strength;
the latter is more likely to be preferred by the stronger power. ---------------
Matthew Bowler, 10mo
Sorry I should have been clear: strategy in the period. This is pre Mahan and pre Corbett.
Decisive battle as a doctrine at sea isn’t achieved until Trafalgar, which marks the end
of the period being discussed.
--------------
Jonathan Lee, 10mo
Good lord, those numbers really show what a shellacking the French took at Trafalgar.
-------------
Paul Kroon, 10mo
Because the French were still fighting to render the enemy ships incapable to fight,
aiming at masts and rigs. The RN on the other hand had specialized in aiming at the
ships and crews. Call it foul play, but that's what happened. The RN started using
other gun types more suitable to do great damage the bulkheads.
Sea warfare would never be the same after that day thanks to the RN. --------------
Paul Taylor, 10mo
Indeed, That was why it was a century before anybody had the Balls to make a serious
attempt at taking on the RN again.
------------
Will Rogers, 10mo
That pump sure didn’t do the Vasa any good, did it? About 300 yards away from its mooring
was as far as the good ship managed to sail before tipping over and going to the bottom
of the harbor.
---------------
Matthew Bowler, 10mo
No. Vasa was a very different case though, and it seems unlikely any pump (even modern ones)
could have handled the sudden amount of water coming in through her gun ports. ---------------
Peter Trznadel, 10mo
A wooden ship once substantially holed would sink very quickly, apart from not having any
form of internal portioning, never mind water tight, the amount of ballast required to
keep a fully rigged sailing ship upright and stable is considerable. Once it started
sinking it would disappear very quickly on its way to the bottom, dragged down by the
ballast. Witness the interior of a modern clipper like the Cutty Sark the hull is totally
open there are no internal divisions and very little in way of decks, the amount of
outbound ballast was prodigious, witness even today the ballast reefs off ports in
Australia, where grain clippers discharged the ballast before loading grain, again into
a single open space, the crew accommodation invariably being in deck houses, or a raised
focsle and poop. Even then some ballast would be retained as permanent for stability on
the loaded return journey.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)