Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

Expand Messages
  • meredith lahmann
    It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven t read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 1, 2011
      It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.
       Mer


      From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
      To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
      Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
      Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

       

      I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
      From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
      I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
      So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

      Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
      Jim D



    • jim davis
      Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 1, 2011
        Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual history I have found comments on the French "logically following the intent of their orders.  I figure if it seems ok to naval fiction readers it should be OK.   Its just part of a game.
        Be interestign to see how it works when done.
        Jim

        --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

        From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
        Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
        To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4:38 PM

         

        It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.
         Mer


        From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
        To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
        Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
        Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

         

        I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
        From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
        I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
        So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

        Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
        Jim D




      • meredith lahmann
        That makes sense. You know, the idea of the French shooting for rigging also makes sense. If they succeeded in dismasting a ship, she was pretty well at their
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 1, 2011
          That makes sense. You know, the idea of the French shooting for rigging also makes sense. If they succeeded in dismasting a ship, she was pretty well at their mercy without substantial damage or danger of sinking. That would mean that the ship would be a more valuable and seaworthy prize after fixing the sales.
            The more aggessive English approach of laying along side and exchanging broadsides was more lethal, but also more dangerous. I suppose they relied on superior training of gun crews to get off more shots, but it was still very risky.


          From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
          To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 9:00:26 PM
          Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

           

          Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual history I have found comments on the French "logically following the intent of their orders.  I figure if it seems ok to naval fiction readers it should be OK.   Its just part of a game.
          Be interestign to see how it works when done.
          Jim

          --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

          From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
          Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
          To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4:38 PM

           

          It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.
           Mer


          From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
          To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
          Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
          Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

           

          I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
          From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
          I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
          So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

          Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
          Jim D





        • Brian Ruby
          Meredith, That is exactly what the English did.  They objected to America s putting 24-pounders in our frigates because it was harder to fire as many times in
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 1, 2011
            Meredith,

            That is exactly what the English did.  They objected to America's putting 24-pounders in our frigates because it was harder to fire as many times in a minute as an 18 or 12-pounder.  I don't know if the English were necessarily taking as much of a risk--they reasoned that the men manning the ships were more vulnerable than the ships themselves and therefore sought to demoralize the enemy by killing him.  This seems to have worked as history shows, and it is still true today, e.g. USMC's focus on the intangible qualities of the Marine vice very expensive, fancy whizbang military gadgetry.   

            --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

            From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
            Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
            To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 11:12 PM

             

            That makes sense. You know, the idea of the French shooting for rigging also makes sense. If they succeeded in dismasting a ship, she was pretty well at their mercy without substantial damage or danger of sinking. That would mean that the ship would be a more valuable and seaworthy prize after fixing the sales.
              The more aggessive English approach of laying along side and exchanging broadsides was more lethal, but also more dangerous. I suppose they relied on superior training of gun crews to get off more shots, but it was still very risky.


            From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
            To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 9:00:26 PM
            Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

             

            Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual history I have found comments on the French "logically following the intent of their orders.  I figure if it seems ok to naval fiction readers it should be OK.   Its just part of a game.
            Be interestign to see how it works when done.
            Jim

            --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

            From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
            Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
            To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4:38 PM

             

            It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.
             Mer


            From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
            To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
            Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
            Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

             

            I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
            From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
            I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
            So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

            Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
            Jim D






          • John McKenna
            Take, sink, burn, or destroy the enemy fleet : Lord St.Vincent s orders to Nelson off Toulon.  JJ McKenna Antelope Valley, CA Home of General William J. Fox
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 1, 2011
              "Take, sink, burn, or destroy the enemy fleet": Lord St.Vincent's orders to Nelson off Toulon.
               
              JJ McKenna
              Antelope Valley, CA
              Home of General William J. Fox Air Tanker Base, Edwards AFB, Mojave Air and Space Port, and Palmdale AF Plant 42
              REMEMBER, if you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email addresses before
              you pass it on, and use the Bcc area when forwarding to several people
              at once. BE KIND TO OUR EMAIL FRIENDS



              From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
              To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 9:12:58 PM
              Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

               

              That makes sense. You know, the idea of the French shooting for rigging also makes sense. If they succeeded in dismasting a ship, she was pretty well at their mercy without substantial damage or danger of sinking. That would mean that the ship would be a more valuable and seaworthy prize after fixing the sales.
                The more aggessive English approach of laying along side and exchanging broadsides was more lethal, but also more dangerous. I suppose they relied on superior training of gun crews to get off more shots, but it was still very risky.


              From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
              To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 9:00:26 PM
              Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

               

              Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual history I have found comments on the French "logically following the intent of their orders.  I figure if it seems ok to naval fiction readers it should be OK.   Its just part of a game.
              Be interestign to see how it works when done.
              Jim

              --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

              From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
              Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
              To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4:38 PM

               

              It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.
               Mer


              From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
              To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
              Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
              Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

               

              I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
              From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
              I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
              So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

              Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
              Jim D





            • jim davis
              Im thinkin gthe % of hitting something as small as masts and rigging vs hull was poor, but if you did the other side could be at a big disacvantage.  and it
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 2, 2011
                Im thinkin gthe % of hitting something as small as masts and rigging vs hull was poor, but if you did the other side could be at a big disacvantage.  and it would give you the opportunity to break off the action and continue with your mission.  So pop away at long range, doesnt cost you anything but some oowder and shot.
                Jim

                --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

                From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
                Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 11:12 PM

                 

                That makes sense. You know, the idea of the French shooting for rigging also makes sense. If they succeeded in dismasting a ship, she was pretty well at their mercy without substantial damage or danger of sinking. That would mean that the ship would be a more valuable and seaworthy prize after fixing the sales.
                  The more aggessive English approach of laying along side and exchanging broadsides was more lethal, but also more dangerous. I suppose they relied on superior training of gun crews to get off more shots, but it was still very risky.


                From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 9:00:26 PM
                Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

                 

                Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual history I have found comments on the French "logically following the intent of their orders.  I figure if it seems ok to naval fiction readers it should be OK.   Its just part of a game.
                Be interestign to see how it works when done.
                Jim

                --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

                From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
                Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4:38 PM

                 

                It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.
                 Mer


                From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
                Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
                Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

                 

                I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
                From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
                I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
                So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

                Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
                Jim D






              • jim davis
                A fierce reputation works... Jim D ... From: Brian Ruby Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday,
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 2, 2011
                  A fierce reputation works...
                  Jim D

                  --- On Tue, 3/1/11, Brian Ruby <f2cslalom@...> wrote:

                  From: Brian Ruby <f2cslalom@...>
                  Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                  To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 11:25 PM

                   

                  Meredith,

                  That is exactly what the English did.  They objected to America's putting 24-pounders in our frigates because it was harder to fire as many times in a minute as an 18 or 12-pounder.  I don't know if the English were necessarily taking as much of a risk--they reasoned that the men manning the ships were more vulnerable than the ships themselves and therefore sought to demoralize the enemy by killing him.  This seems to have worked as history shows, and it is still true today, e.g. USMC's focus on the intangible qualities of the Marine vice very expensive, fancy whizbang military gadgetry.   

                  --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

                  From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
                  Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                  To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 11:12 PM

                   

                  That makes sense. You know, the idea of the French shooting for rigging also makes sense. If they succeeded in dismasting a ship, she was pretty well at their mercy without substantial damage or danger of sinking. That would mean that the ship would be a more valuable and seaworthy prize after fixing the sales.
                    The more aggessive English approach of laying along side and exchanging broadsides was more lethal, but also more dangerous. I suppose they relied on superior training of gun crews to get off more shots, but it was still very risky.


                  From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                  To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 9:00:26 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

                   

                  Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual history I have found comments on the French "logically following the intent of their orders.  I figure if it seems ok to naval fiction readers it should be OK.   Its just part of a game.
                  Be interestign to see how it works when done.
                  Jim

                  --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

                  From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
                  Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                  To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4:38 PM

                   

                  It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.
                   Mer


                  From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                  To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
                  Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
                  Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

                   

                  I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
                  From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
                  I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
                  So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

                  Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
                  Jim D







                • Bill Crews
                  Mathematically aiming at the masts, sails, and rigging is the way to go. The relative target area is much much larger. If you were engaging the USS
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 2, 2011
                    Mathematically aiming at the masts, sails, and rigging is the way to go.

                    The relative target area is much much larger. If you were engaging the USS Constitution via the French method your target area would be 204 feet long by between 172 feet (mizzenmast) and 220 feet high (mainmast). That entire area is sail area, masts, and all variety of standing and running rigging. Essentially you're looking at a target that, at broadside, is nearly 3/4 acre. The hull, "between wind and water" would be about 204 x 20.

                    To improve their odds the French preferred bar and chain shot. English men of war carried a small percentage of such shot but it never makes its appearance in age of sail literature. But even roundshot would do a great deal of damage.

                     In a decent wind and few holes in sale would result in it being ripped to ribbons. The masts were all held in place by tension from the standing rigging and stabilized by the mainbrace. If you cut very much of the standing rigging the masts will go by the board without being shot through. An example of this is in the second Ramage novel where his Kathleen cutter dismasts a much larger Spanish ship of the line by ramming the bowsprit, which anchors the fore-aft standing rigging.

                    If the ship started losing its running rigging then it lost the ability to manage sail area and set the angle of the yards.

                    The problem with the French method of attack is that it was developed during the pre-Revolutionary era when the French navy ran a superb naval artillery school. With trained gunners the tactics of chain shot in the mast/sail area is the optimum tactic. Revolutionary France decided that the school was not sufficiently egalitarian and shut it down. The French navy, however, retained the tactic. 

                    I think there is also a great psychological dimension to all of this. A British officer knew that unless he wanted to end up beached or Byng-ed he had better attack under virtually all conditions. The British tar knew that attacking meant taking your licks until you were within "half-pistol shot" and then firing as fast as you could. The French, of course, knew this, too. I equate this to giving an infantry company the order "fix bayonets." When you do that your troops know exactly what they are expected to do. When the enemy sees them, they know what you intend to do. Moral ascendancy carries the day.




                    From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                    To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wed, March 2, 2011 3:04:26 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

                     

                    Im thinkin gthe % of hitting something as small as masts and rigging vs hull was poor, but if you did the other side could be at a big disacvantage.  and it would give you the opportunity to break off the action and continue with your mission.  So pop away at long range, doesnt cost you anything but some oowder and shot.
                    Jim

                    --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

                    From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
                    Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                    To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 11:12 PM

                     

                    That makes sense. You know, the idea of the French shooting for rigging also makes sense. If they succeeded in dismasting a ship, she was pretty well at their mercy without substantial damage or danger of sinking. That would mean that the ship would be a more valuable and seaworthy prize after fixing the sales.
                      The more aggessive English approach of laying along side and exchanging broadsides was more lethal, but also more dangerous. I suppose they relied on superior training of gun crews to get off more shots, but it was still very risky.


                    From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                    To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 9:00:26 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

                     

                    Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual history I have found comments on the French "logically following the intent of their orders.  I figure if it seems ok to naval fiction readers it should be OK.   Its just part of a game.
                    Be interestign to see how it works when done.
                    Jim

                    --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

                    From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
                    Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                    To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4:38 PM

                     

                    It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.
                     Mer


                    From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                    To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
                    Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
                    Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

                     

                    I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
                    From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
                    I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
                    So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

                    Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
                    Jim D







                  • jim davis
                    Good points,  I can see the sail damage, I just doubted the hitting the mast or even rigging.  You are right that taking out the rigging will take out the
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 2, 2011
                      Good points,  I can see the sail damage, I just doubted the hitting the mast or even rigging.  You are right that taking out the rigging will take out the mast. I guess my problem is the rigging looks like mostly holes,  But when I look at a photo of a sailing ship, that netting covers a lot of area at the hull end especially.  So even ignorign the damage to sails there  would be a  decent chance  ot  damaging some rigging.
                      And actually, from the French stand point if the object is to break off the contact, sail or rigging damage that ruduces the British speed is all thats needed. 
                      Nice to know that the French were even more effective at this in earlier periods, as for gaming purposes the nations are more evenly matched. 
                      Jim D 

                      --- On Wed, 3/2/11, Bill Crews <bill.crews@...> wrote:

                      From: Bill Crews <bill.crews@...>
                      Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                      To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 2:33 PM

                       

                      Mathematically aiming at the masts, sails, and rigging is the way to go.

                      The relative target area is much much larger. If you were engaging the USS Constitution via the French method your target area would be 204 feet long by between 172 feet (mizzenmast) and 220 feet high (mainmast). That entire area is sail area, masts, and all variety of standing and running rigging. Essentially you're looking at a target that, at broadside, is nearly 3/4 acre. The hull, "between wind and water" would be about 204 x 20.

                      To improve their odds the French preferred bar and chain shot. English men of war carried a small percentage of such shot but it never makes its appearance in age of sail literature. But even roundshot would do a great deal of damage.

                       In a decent wind and few holes in sale would result in it being ripped to ribbons. The masts were all held in place by tension from the standing rigging and stabilized by the mainbrace. If you cut very much of the standing rigging the masts will go by the board without being shot through. An example of this is in the second Ramage novel where his Kathleen cutter dismasts a much larger Spanish ship of the line by ramming the bowsprit, which anchors the fore-aft standing rigging.

                      If the ship started losing its running rigging then it lost the ability to manage sail area and set the angle of the yards.

                      The problem with the French method of attack is that it was developed during the pre-Revolutionary era when the French navy ran a superb naval artillery school. With trained gunners the tactics of chain shot in the mast/sail area is the optimum tactic. Revolutionary France decided that the school was not sufficiently egalitarian and shut it down. The French navy, however, retained the tactic. 

                      I think there is also a great psychological dimension to all of this. A British officer knew that unless he wanted to end up beached or Byng-ed he had better attack under virtually all conditions. The British tar knew that attacking meant taking your licks until you were within "half-pistol shot" and then firing as fast as you could. The French, of course, knew this, too. I equate this to giving an infantry company the order "fix bayonets." When you do that your troops know exactly what they are expected to do. When the enemy sees them, they know what you intend to do. Moral ascendancy carries the day.




                      From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                      To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wed, March 2, 2011 3:04:26 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

                       

                      Im thinkin gthe % of hitting something as small as masts and rigging vs hull was poor, but if you did the other side could be at a big disacvantage.  and it would give you the opportunity to break off the action and continue with your mission.  So pop away at long range, doesnt cost you anything but some oowder and shot.
                      Jim

                      --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

                      From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
                      Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                      To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 11:12 PM

                       

                      That makes sense. You know, the idea of the French shooting for rigging also makes sense. If they succeeded in dismasting a ship, she was pretty well at their mercy without substantial damage or danger of sinking. That would mean that the ship would be a more valuable and seaworthy prize after fixing the sales.
                        The more aggessive English approach of laying along side and exchanging broadsides was more lethal, but also more dangerous. I suppose they relied on superior training of gun crews to get off more shots, but it was still very risky.


                      From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                      To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 9:00:26 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

                       

                      Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual history I have found comments on the French "logically following the intent of their orders.  I figure if it seems ok to naval fiction readers it should be OK.   Its just part of a game.
                      Be interestign to see how it works when done.
                      Jim

                      --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:

                      From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
                      Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                      To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4:38 PM

                       

                      It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.
                       Mer


                      From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                      To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
                      Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
                      Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

                       

                      I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
                      From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
                      I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
                      So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

                      Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
                      Jim D








                    • Bronwyn Tindall
                      Jim Very hard to get acessible historical fiction.i dod interloan dewy lambidns book.i wish I had copied the tapes.i know but its not avaible for interloan and
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 11, 2011

                        Jim

                        Very hard to get acessible historical fiction.i dod interloan dewy lambidns book.i wish I had copied the tapes.i know but its not avaible for interloan and the books to big for scanning.i did buy it along with the patrick o brien book which I found on special.nnot reliszing it qwould be to big for the scanner.

                        Sadly the interloans I got were all casetees.and I no longer use a casettee player.

                        Bronwyn

                         

                        From: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Bolitho@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jim davis
                        Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2011 6:00 p.m.
                        To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

                         

                         

                        Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual history I have found comments on the French "logically following the intent of their orders.  I figure if it seems ok to naval fiction readers it should be OK.   Its just part of a game.
                        Be interestign to see how it works when done.
                        Jim

                        --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:


                        From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
                        Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                        To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4:38 PM

                         

                        It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.

                         Mer

                         


                        From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                        To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
                        Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
                        Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

                         

                        I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
                        From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
                        I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
                        So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

                        Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
                        Jim D

                         

                         



                        __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5918 (20110301) __________

                        The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

                        http://www.eset.com

                      • jim davis
                        Yeah hard to get ahold of audio or large print at times...Now of course if you just wanted Romance historical fiction   AKA polite smut, I am sure that gets
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 15, 2011
                          Yeah hard to get ahold of audio or large print at times...Now of course if you just wanted " Romance historical fiction"  AKA polite smut, I am sure that gets a wide readership and there is plenjy of it
                          Jim

                          --- On Fri, 3/11/11, Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...> wrote:

                          From: Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
                          Subject: RE: [Bolitho] naval orders
                          To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 3:39 PM

                           

                          Jim

                          Very hard to get acessible historical fiction.i dod interloan dewy lambidns book.i wish I had copied the tapes.i know but its not avaible for interloan and the books to big for scanning.i did buy it along with the patrick o brien book which I found on special.nnot reliszing it qwould be to big for the scanner.

                          Sadly the interloans I got were all casetees.and I no longer use a casettee player.

                          Bronwyn

                           

                          From: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Bolitho@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jim davis
                          Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2011 6:00 p.m.
                          To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders

                           

                           

                          Im going to guess that the historians who are also fiction authors would not write utter nonsense and embarrass thsmselves with other historians.  The actual history I have found comments on the French "logically following the intent of their orders.  I figure if it seems ok to naval fiction readers it should be OK.   Its just part of a game.
                          Be interestign to see how it works when done.
                          Jim

                          --- On Tue, 3/1/11, meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...> wrote:


                          From: meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>
                          Subject: Re: [Bolitho] naval orders
                          To: Bolitho@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4:38 PM

                           

                          It certainly follows what is described in historical fiction. I haven't read enough factual history of the time to know if  it is accurate. None of the books I've read on the period got into that kind of detail. However, since some of the fictional authors are also historians, there is a good chance that they are accurate.

                           Mer

                           


                          From: jim davis <jhdavis19@...>
                          To: gerard <gjgillespie@...>; dan henderson <end1047@...>; Phil Hendry <philhendry@...>; meredith lahmann <m_lahmann@...>; bolitho list <Bolitho@yahoogroups.com>; Sven Lugar <vikingjarl@...>; mongrel <wargames_mongrel@yahoogroups.com>; Bronwyn Tindall <btindall@...>
                          Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:07:56 PM
                          Subject: [Bolitho] naval orders

                           

                          I am making up a chart on how ships of various nations would react to sighting an unknown sail, and go into or avoid action. This is in part based on what sort of mission they are on
                          From historical readings as well as fiction it seems to me that British ships are generally boing ot force action, while French will only force or accept action if it futhurs their mission / orders.  I am not sure about the Spajish, possibly mor e random based on the individual commander.
                          I am also thinking that regardless of orders or mission once a British ship decideson action they will close and press the attack.  A French ship forced ointo an action will attemopt to damage the sails and rigging and break off the action, while the same French captain if the action suits his mission will close and press the attack. Again not sure abotu Spanish.
                          So far as the action itself the British would have an advantage in gunnery, and ship handling, and proably in tactics.  In this area, the French and Spanish may have trouble forming and maintaining a line, while the British would be more lily to break the enemy line or double up of ships. 

                          Does all this seem to follow history ond or novels? 
                          Jim D

                           

                           



                          __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5918 (20110301) __________

                          The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

                          http://www.eset.com


                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.