"Shore Batteries " Topic

How effective were shore batteries at engaging ships. Who would have the advantage in a gunnery duel, a 20 gun warship with a broadside of 10, or a shore battery of 10 guns? I am particularly interested in the Anglo Dutch War period. I am trying to design a scenario using "Tiller and Whipstaff" which has no rules for shore batteries. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

I just read about this issue in a book on the combat ships of the Civil War. It was originally felt in the Age of Sale that one gun on land counted for four at sea. The odds became much closer during the Civil War and after as rifling and targeting systems improved. The period you are talking about should be much worse as the quality of guns and powder was bad for both sides which made things even harder.

A shore battery probably has the advantage of dry powder, stable guns and crew heavily protected by emplacements. The downside is that it is hard to hit a moving target. A ship has to contend with the roll, pitch and yaw of the ship to get a shot off, but has the advantage of a stationary and large target. My view is that it would hard to say which has a harder job of targeting.

I come down on the side of historical precedent in that naval people seemed to think land guns enjoyed a distinct advantage. This probably explains why large squadrons of line ships were required to neutralize hard positions on shore.

Kevin

I don´t know about this era so perhaps it is not relevant, but depending on the distance, plunging fire from shore batteries was also a factor.

Shore batteries were generally deemed far superior to ship broadsides for all the reasons mentioned above. On top of that, shore batteries were often constructed higher above sea level than a ship's gun deck, which increased their range beyond that of naval guns.

Nelson's attack on the Copenhagen floating batteries was deemed an extremely risky maneuver which would have had him court martialed had it not succeeded, even considering that floating batteries had some weaknesses that land based ones did not (made from wood, for one). When taken, shore batteries were usually stormed from land, not battered down from the sea.

Imagine trying to batter down a land battery protected by heavy brick or earthwork battlements that can shoot further and more accurate than you (with sometimes bigger guns) from a wooden gun platform. You'll know what I mean.

Shore batteries were regarded by any experienced 17th or 18th century sea officer to be more than a match for a ship. They rarely went toe-to-toe with shore guns for all the reasons mentioned, the most important being that in order to damage them a ship had to put a shot over the wall or through an embrasure, since masonry was virtually impervious to round shot fired from smoothbore cannon. On the other hand, virtually every shot from the shore that touched the ship would do damage. Not to mention the fact that forts don't sink. Add to that that shore guns were often positioned on high ground, which ships' guns couldn't even reach because of their limited elevation.

Ships' single advantage was mobility. Shore batteries could only protect the relatively tiny piece of ocean which their guns could reach, and ships could and did simply avoid it or move through it quickly. The preferred way for sailing navies to deal with shore batteries was to land troops and take them from landwards.

It was wise of the designers of "Tiller and Whipstaff" not to include a rule for a type of action that was never a significant feature of warfare in that century.

Edit: Is there an echo in here, Pijlie? :)

I agree that the shore battery has all the advantages listed above but I have read that it is notoriously difficult for gunners to gauge distance over water. I don't know why this is but you could take this factor into account if you were trying to write a more balanced set of rules.

Shore batteries could also use heated shot.

Would a good shore battery know or have mark distances? A large number of gunners manning batteries were of a poor class or older and wounded ex-army gunners?
Also a lot of shore batteries were in bad repair and had old and rusting guns.
I think a simple way of fighting by landing parties is a must. Using a changed ships log for each battery would help too.
By safe
Rory

I am particularly interested in the Anglo Dutch War period.

Then take a look at the role of Upnor Castle (actually an Elizabethan shore battery) in the Dutch Raid on the Medway in 1667.

It was wise of the designers of "Tiller and Whipstaff" not to include a rule for a type of action that was never a significant feature of warfare in that century.

Um … really? See above.

I agree that the shore battery has all the advantages listed above but I have read that it is notoriously difficult for gunners to gauge distance over water. I don't know why this is but you could take this factor into account if you were trying to write a more balanced set of rules.

I think this would be pointless, since this difficulty would apply to both ship- and land based gunners alike.

But a ruleset should contain rules for landing parties, as these were usually used for taking shore batteries. Mutatis mutandis you would also need rules for shore batteries. I remember that in Wooden Ships & Iron Men we usually gave a shore battery a broadside comparable to a 74 or even a first rater with 50% extra range and about 1,5 times the hull points of a first rater.

Artisan: great souls think alike :)

Yep. The odds were certainly much against the ship. Better avoid cannonading shore batteries alltogether. I have an ancestor who served as a gun commander during the action of Eckernförde 1848 during the German-Danish War that year. The battery he served in set the Danish flagship on fire within rather short, by firing with glowing roundshot. It was 4 guns versus 100:2 on this occasion. The poor Danes skillfully managed to enter the sound of Eckernförde, but the wind direction prevented them to get away again so that they became an easy victim of my Great-great-great-gandpa. (one great more or less ?)

Cheers,
Christian

Thank you gentlemen, it sounds like shore batteries should have fewer guns than a regular ship but tougher gun for gun, had a higher rate of fire, and could use heated shot. The Tiller and Whipstaff system will allow me to account for all that very easily. I am trying to create a what if scenario about the capture of New York. The amphibious rules are done already. I now have all the information I need to write out the rest.

Shore batteries were superior for many reasons, as mentioned in other posts.

But heated shot may have been overrated. For example this cannonball oven in Fort La Latte (near St-Malo, Brittany, France) is quite impressive but has been built in the late 18th century and has never been really useful, although this fort was strategically more important c.1700.

Heated shot may well be overrated. I guess, the trouble is hitting the target in the first place. That goes for both parties. Estimating distances accross dead empty sea is about as difficult as across vally's in land warfare. I recall the memorial plate fixed to the historical site battery in Havanna / Cuba. 150 mm Krupp guns it was, I believe. The plate said the battery was engaged in an action during the US-Spanish war of 1890 something. It engaged the USS Arizona or Missouri (not sure) Both sides fired onto another for a long time but neither side scored a single hit.

Estimating distances accross dead empty sea is about as difficult as across vally's in land warfare.

If it was really as difficult as that, most naval battles would be inconclusive.

"No sailor but a fool fights a fortress"
Sir Horatio Nelson

Clearly he thought they held the advantage.

Cheers

Joe

I had the USS Nimitz Carrier charmingly in range at the port of Palma de Mallorca in 1998. I had visited the towns fortress museum same time and discovered a German WWII period fabricated telescope range finder by Zeitz Jena on display outside on the walls. To my surprise, it was still functioning. Had the Nimitz perfectly singled out. To my frustration, the multiple guns on display here were missing life ammunition. I'd surely sent this rust bowl to Poseidon's deepest abyss, believe me. Must be an 1848 Eckernförde gene thing, I guess. If I see a non-German ship, I feel a strong urge to shoot at it despite better advise from my US History teacher, who advised me to stay out of gun range of British war ships in particular – he thought this to be a general best advise for lifetime. Great fun.
Not so serious.
Cheers,
Christian
crogges7ywarmies.blogspot.com

If it was really as difficult as that, most naval battles would be inconclusive.

No, not at all, because in a naval battle one side could close with the enemy and attempt to force the issue in a way that was not really possible with the situation that everybody is talking about in this thread.

The French batteries at Yorktown destroyed a British frigate with hot shot as the ship caught fire and burned to the waterline.

Also couldn't one theoretically mount much heavier guns on a shore battery?