Naval Pictures III: Splice The Main Brace!

[Ruger]

In fairness that's about par for warships.  Still, 29 years is a hell of a good run.

Granted, but she seemed very notorious for it for some reason, as most books on carriers I've seen have singled her out for it...

Ruger

[Wrangler]

War of 1812, the British Brig Frolic fighting Sloop of War, USS Wasp.

The Frolic wasn't so fortunate in fight with the Wasp, but the British would soon claim the Wasp in it's next encounter with British Navy.  Frolic was recaptured in short time by the British Navy by 74-Gun Ship of the Line HMS Poictiers captained by John Poo Beresford. (I tried very hard not make funny comments about this guy's name.)


Mind you this is the less dramatic painting of the battle.

I have not delved into the War of 1812 much.  One thing is certain, is they were certainly swapping ships alot in this one.  High Theft Seas indeed!

[Sabelkatten]

Essentially all pre-ironclad naval wars involved lots of ship trading. Wasn't it a French ship that changed sides like 5 or 6 times?

[Ruger]

War of 1812, the British Brig Frolic fighting Sloop of War, USS Wasp.

I have not delved into the War of 1812 much.  One thing is certain, is they were certainly swapping ships alot in this one.  High Theft Seas indeed!

Fun fact, this USS Wasp that fought the HMS Frolic was the first of four USS Wasp's to serve in the US Navy during the War of 1812 (which actually lasted into 1815, despite the name given to this war)...the first was a sloop-of-war and was the longest serving one, lasting from 1807 to 1812 in US Navy service, and then until 1814 in Royal Navy service...the second was a lightly armed schooner and was used mostly as a privateer in the 1812 to 1813 time frame...the third was a sloop that served on Lake Champlain from 1813 to 1814, was also very lightly armed, and saw no combat before being returned to her owners in 1814...

The fourth served less than a year before she was lost. Another sloop-of-war, she fought and defeated three Royal Navy ships over the course of two raiding voyages against British commerce...the first was a Cruizer-class brig-sloop named HMS Reindeer during her first raiding voyage, the next was the brig HMS Avon, and finally the small brig HMS Atalanta (the latter two during her second voyage...and there is some question as to the last actually having been commissioned in the Royal Navy...apparently no record of this commission can be found, and she was operating as a merchant brig during her capture...interestingly enough, she was originally an American privateer during the war)...during her second raiding voyage, she also encountered a convoy of 10 ships escorted by a 74 gun third-rate ship of the line, HMS Armada...despite that vessel's presence, the 22 gun USS Wasp (well 2 long guns and 20 carronades) managed to capture one of the brigs in the convoy and was working on another when she was chased off by the larger warship...unfortunately, this tough little ship was lost in October of 1814, when she most likely foundered in a storm and sank...

There have been 11 ships named Wasp in the US Navy, with two being carriers that served in WW2 (CV-7 and CV-18...the latter served from 1943 to 1972, and earned 8 battle stars for service in WW2), and the current one being the lead ship of the Wasp-class amphibious assault ships.

Ruger

[JadeHellbringer]

Essentially all pre-ironclad naval wars involved lots of ship trading. Wasn't it a French ship that changed sides like 5 or 6 times?

Hell, even ironclads sometimes did. Meet the Huascar.

Built in Great Britain, she was the flagship of the Peruvian Navy from her commissioning in late 1866 until her capture by Chile at the Battle of Angamos in late 1879. She served her new nation for another 1897, when she was retired due to damage from an engine explosion (and total obsolescence). She was then restored as a functioning museum ship/coast defense vessel in 1934, restored to her original armament as a museum-only vessel in the 1950s, and now serves as one of the only remaining examples of monitor/ironclad history in the world, and a beloved memorial and museum to the navies of both Chile and Peru (while owned by Chile, Peru assists in keeping her in good condition financially, and it isn't uncommon for her to fly both country's flags while under way)

[Weirdo]

I have not delved into the War of 1812 much.  One thing is certain, is they were certainly swapping ships alot in this one.  High Theft Seas indeed!

It was pretty common throughout the Age of Sail. Multiple factors contributed to this. Firstly, it was a lot easier to render a ship combat ineffective(either by immobilizing it by killing the rigging/masts or by killing enough of the crew that it couldn't fight effectively) than to actually sink it, so being captured was a much more likely fate for a ship than sinking or destruction. Also, officers and crew were often paid bounties on captured vessels(I imagine that governments did this because as long as it still floated, repairing even a badly damaged ship was a hell of a lot cheaper than building a new ship), so they were highly motivated to fight that way. Chivalric attitudes were also more prevalent in that time, so surrender is much more likely when you know you're likely to be treated decently afterwards.

[Kidd]

repairing even a badly damaged ship was a hell of a lot cheaper than building a new ship

Very much so.

A ship-of-the-line or 'great ship' (Middle Ages term) could be (and often was) broken down to its keel and structural ribs and kept laid up in that way, rebuilt only when it was needed and still cost a fraction of building an equivalent ship from nothing.

Battle-damaged ships which had the upper decks very badly damaged could even have the remnants removed; for example a 3-decker could have its upper deck removed and rebuilt as a perfectly useful 2-decker. This was called a razee ship (from 'razed'). For example:

[Liam's Ghost]

Battle-damaged ships which had the upper decks very badly damaged could even have the remnants removed; for example a 3-decker could have its upper deck removed and rebuilt as a perfectly useful 2-decker. This was called a razee ship (from 'razed'). For example:

They didn't even need to be damaged to justify the razing. Smaller ship of the lines were gradually becoming obsolete beginning in the late 18th century. Conversion to a Razee resulted in a frigate that was tougher and better armed than most opponents (something like the American 44 gun frigates). I think they might have been faster as well? I vaguely recall that the reduced weight combined with the sail area of a ship of the line gave them some speed.

[Feenix74]

So ship-of-the-line = battlemech (of the age of sail)  ^-^

[marauder648]

Seeing as we're going for sailing ships, here's what happens when you add bling to a warship.





The Henry Grace à Dieu.  because nothing says 'class' like gold thread sails. Right...right?

[DoctorMonkey]

So ship-of-the-line = battlemech (of the age of sail)  ^-^

To some extent yes - the difference was that they had some amazingly good protections for their magazines and it was generally agreed that heated shot wasn't worth the risk of heating it aboard ship to cause problems so you were just smashing planks of wood (creating lethal splinters in a nice example of not needing to add shrapnel a bit like the shift from shrapnel shells to HE in WW1) or rigging


Having recently been reading a lot about this, the Royal Navy built to a different philosophy to the French Navy (Royal and later) with speed and grace the priority for the French and sturdiness and resilience the main aim for the RN which is why the French often suffered 10x the casualties of the RN in engagements

[marauder648]

That was part of the reason, but the biggest one i'd say was the difference in training.  Pre Revolution most French officers were nobles or sons of nobles and really didn't have much experience in their career before joining up.  The French econimy, never the strongest also kept them from deploying ships at sea as thats bloody expensive.  So instead they kept them in port which limits the training the men can get and reduces the experience of their officers.

Then the Revolution came along and quite literally beheded the French Officer corps.  Unlike the army during that period, you still need some experience and training to sail and command a ship, you can't just put Derek from Accounting on a Man-o-War and expect great things.  Also with the Revolution the French were in serious economic woes.

The RN on the otherhand had a far more defined and expansive system of progression for its officers who would start off young and work their way up. The British also worked very hard on their gunnery training and thanks to advances in technology, a well drilled gun crew could simply outshoot a French or Spanish opponent.  The British also tended to shoot at the hull whilst the French went for the rigging to slow and disable an opponent whilst going for the hull kills the crew.

[Kidd]

They didn't even need to be damaged to justify the razing. Smaller ship of the lines were gradually becoming obsolete beginning in the late 18th century. Conversion to a Razee resulted in a frigate that was tougher and better armed than most opponents (something like the American 44 gun frigates). I think they might have been faster as well? I vaguely recall that the reduced weight combined with the sail area of a ship of the line gave them some speed.

Not so sure about this, but from what I dimly recall reading: Razees would have had the scantlings and sail layout of bigger ships but with smaller and far less top-heavy gundecks, so they naturally were tougher and faster than purpose-built frigates of the time.

Having recently been reading a lot about this, the Royal Navy built to a different philosophy to the French Navy (Royal and later) with speed and grace the priority for the French and sturdiness and resilience the main aim for the RN which is why the French often suffered 10x the casualties of the RN in engagements

There are a lot more factors affecting that 10x figure and overall Royal Navy success than just ship design, and as a matter of fact the French came up with the superior 74-gun ship-of-the-line design, soon captured and copied by the British.

[DoctorMonkey]

Speaking as a fairly proud Brit, I have recently read some history books which suggest that until about 1780 the French were much more on a par with the Royal Navy - the American War of Independence was won in no small part by the superiority of the French Navy (or at least an inability on the part of the Royal Navy to decisively beat them)


I would recommend the trilogy of books by Sam Willis about three great ships and/or men of the Royal Navy through the ages: the first about Temeraire, the second about The Glorious First of June and the third about Admiral Benbow

The Royal Navy did get very good at maintaining a year-round blockade of the French in awful weather conditions and this was what they built their fleet to do while the French wanted to be able to out-sail the British when they did occasionally put to sea


There has been a great deal of propaganda put about by the British since about 1805 which probably does not do the French justice

[marauder648]

Oh I don't doubt that the French had some exceptionally good crews and had well trained men, but on the whole, the RN did have a larger corps of trained men and officers to call upon so things were more uniform across the fleet.  For example the Captain of the Redoutable, the ship that battered the Victory to bits and claimed Nelson was superbly drilled and trained, they fought exceptionally hard and could well have overcome the Victory with a boarding action if another RN ship hadn't come along and decimated their boarding parties with grape and chain shot.

But at Trafalgar, she was the exception rather than the rule, and for the most part the sailors and officers on the British ships were better trained and more confident than their French opponents.

[Weirdo]

...the American War of Independence was won in no small part by the superiority of the French Navy (or at least an inability on the part of the Royal Navy to decisively beat them)

Very much this. I've been reading up on the Battle of the Chesapeake these days(basically the naval battle that had to be won, or Yorktown didn't happen), and between the strategic nature of the war at that point and the difficulty in actually killing a line of battle, the Brits would have needed a Nile or First of June-level of victory to get past de Grasse and either reinforce or evacuate Cornwallis. Anything other than a crushing defeat was a French victory.

[marauder648]

Very much this. I've been reading up on the Battle of the Chesapeake these days(basically the naval battle that had to be won, or Yorktown didn't happen), and between the strategic nature of the war at that point and the difficulty in actually killing a line of battle, the Brits would have needed a Nile or First of June-level of victory to get past de Grasse and either reinforce or evacuate Cornwallis. Anything other than a crushing defeat was a French victory.

Very true, the French commander fought a superb series of engagements that basically stopped the Brits cold.  I can't remember who the RN commander on station.

[marauder648]

http://imgur.com/gallery/DPeMY

[nerd]

http://imgur.com/gallery/DPeMY

Two boats in one!

If the picture was taken after 2008, the bow section is from the Ex-Honolulu (SSN-719)

[Wrangler]

Speaking semi-newish Iron Hull sailing ships with smoke stacks... ;D

HMS Warrior

[Wrangler]

Charles W. Morgan - The old Whaling Ship, arguably the oldest Merchant ship still afloat.  I've tour the ship, she pretty neat.  She has iron hull, ship that now a museum at Connecticut's Mystic Seaport. The entire port has alot nautical treasures!

[JadeHellbringer]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-a-21st-century-battleship-could-look-like-1795547798

I disagree with the idea of building a ship like this, but it's an interesting thought at least.

[Charlie 6]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-a-21st-century-battleship-could-look-like-1795547798

I disagree with the idea of building a ship like this, but it's an interesting thought at least.

I'd say they took a number of bad making-BBs-work ideas and didn't think about what they were proposing.  For example, concentrating so many functions into one hull misses the point of distributed lethality.  More to the point, it fails to add pawns to the sea control chess board for the USN; too many ship types are too close to being capital ships to add another to the mix.  A fleet commander needs to be able to risk something to gain maneuver time and space.  That's not to say I'm adverse to a class of four-to-six mount rail gun cruisers to do sea control, anti-ballistic, and naval surface fire support provided the rail gun can do those missions.   

[sadlerbw]

I didn't like how the glossed over the Zumwalts gun. Well, I didn't like several things they glossed over, but that one in particular really bugged me. They flat out said the navy has decided the guided projectiles are too expensive and they can't afford them...but let's slap two on this new ship anyway. Huh? Look, the appeal of a gun was that shells were cheaper than missiles were p, and you could carry more for the same weight and space.. It turns out, once you have to start putting fancy guidance systems in the shells to meet the accuracy requirements...well, they aren't cheap anymore! But who cares, we will slap two on this new boat anyway...and some rail guns, because they have cheaper non-guided ammo? Not really sure.

[Kidd]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-a-21st-century-battleship-could-look-like-1795547798

I disagree with the idea of building a ship like this, but it's an interesting thought at least.

Author lost me at "HIJMS" Musashi  >:( and he is supposed to be an expert on the subject  >:(

The Arleigh Burkes are the battleships (and in fact, "74s") of our time. They just do it in a different manner ie with their VLS and Aegis rather than with a bristling battery of 16- and 5-inchers. Plus, what Charlie 6 said. The author's final proposal is basically 3 Burkes and a Zumwalt stuck together in 1 hull, and there's very many good reasons not to go that way.

Frankly I can't help feeling its clickbait the author just threw out to increase his media exposure, I think he's smarter than to believe what he's proposing...

[Ghost0402]

Author lost me at "HIJMS" Musashi  >:( and he is supposed to be an expert on the subject  >:(

The Arleigh Burkes are the battleships (and in fact, "74s") of our time. They just do it in a different manner ie with their VLS and Aegis rather than with a bristling battery of 16- and 5-inchers. Plus, what Charlie 6 said. The author's final proposal is basically 3 Burkes and a Zumwalt stuck together in 1 hull, and there's very many good reasons not to go that way.

Frankly I can't help feeling its clickbait the author just threw out to increase his media exposure, I think he's smarter than to believe what he's proposing...

Honestly, since the election, the politics over on jalopnik and sister publications have gotten so blatant and bad i quite reading it last  year.  Once in a while they have something decent but they are mostly clickbait or whiny political pieces.

[DoctorMonkey]

My understanding has been that a battleship is normally designed to be able to withstand their own armament in terms of firepower (in modern definitions); if a ship cannot then it is a battlecruiser, cruiser, monitor, large light cruiser etc


The suggestion from the article strikes me as a bit all over the place and misses a number of points
1) the USN has nothing to prove in terms of size of ships
2) the current capital ships are aircraft carriers and SSBNs


I would prefer the distributed lethality of a number of ships carrying the same armament, possibly not evenly balanced but with hulls that mean that a single hit won't sink everything and when on other operations they can be in different places undertaking counter-narcotic, anti-piracy etc duties


While a 155mm gun or two or railguns would be nice to have available for naval gunfire support, putting them aboard a huge BBGN with so many other roles would place that ship at unreasonable risk


Equally, for antisubmarine or air defence, having the protective assets spread across a wider area around the High Value Targets would make more sense than just creating another High Value Target that needs escorting itself - I would not want to put my BBGN up against a cheap but quiet SSK!


An indirect fire 155mm gun and/or railgun and/or laser based armament might allow the gun systems to move off the prime naval real estate of the centreline at main deck height which is also wanted for VLS cells and so this might offer an ability to carry more offensive firepower in a hull not much different from the current size

[Feenix74]

Rob Farley teaches national security and defense courses at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. He is the author of Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force, and he literally wrote the Battleship Book.

Armchair military doctrine theorist who has no idea what he is talking about (just like what I aspire to be ^-^ )

Why would a next-gen battleship need to have a anti-submarine sonar system? Aircraft carriers do not carry sonar. If your battleship carries a sonar to hunt submarines then it is not a battleship it is just a big cruiser or an oversized destroyer/frigate. The anti-submarine role should fall to your submarines, helicopters, frigates, destroyers and cruisers who have the agility and numbers to persecute that role in a battlegroup. One sonar system on a capital ship in the middle of the concentric circle of a battlegroup (full of surface "rock concerts") has zero hope of finding the submarine before it gets a firing solution on one of the capital ships in the middle of the battlegroup. Much more effective to hunter the enemy submarine with your submarines and helicopters, and then with the frigates, destroyers and cruisers to defend the battlegroup from the submarine threat.

[DoctorMonkey]

Armchair military doctrine theorist who has no idea what he is talking about (just like what I aspire to be ^-^ )

My ex-military office colleague asked me why I had pictures of warships open on my work computer, I explained I was an armchair general


I think he intends to demote me to wooden stool subaltern

[Wrangler]

Anchors away, welll sort of... ;D  USS Recruit