"Firing both broadsides" Topic

This is probably a dumb question. If a ship was engaged on both sides simultaneously, did it have sufficient manpower to fire and reload both broadsides? I am interested in the Anglo Dutch wars but assume that the answer would be the same for other periods.

No, the crew was usually only sufficient to man all the guns on side or the other, not both entire batteries at once. You could always split the crews between the two sides but nether side would be fighting at full strength.

-Will

A follow up question, if a ship did man both sides was there room for recoil? Might be a very dim question as my knowledge is limited,

A follow up question, if a ship did man both sides was there room for recoil? Might be a very dim question as my knowledge is limited.

I've only ever been in one ship of that era, USS
Constitution. From what I remember (and it was long
ago) it seemed that there was enough room for
recoil if two guns on opposite sides were fired
at the same time.

…But the guns' crew scurrying around after simultaneous recoil would be likely to get in each others' way.

Thank you for clearing that up. We are using Tiller and Whipstaff which allows this. I had played Wooden Ships and Iron men a long time ago which did not allow this and was confused.

As a follow up question. Could a warship man its guns for a broadside and still have sufficient manpower remaining to change the configuration of the sails?

French Napoleonic warships usually carried a much greater number of Marines.(Up to 3-4 times as much as a comparable British SOL.) Perhaps if they could man the guns you would have enough crew to fire both broadsides?
I don't think they would be able to reconfigure sails.

@gunnerphil- entirely depends on the ship. Some would be roomy enough, others would not be. And as BillyFish points out, the crews would likely be tripping over each other!

@Bernhard Rauch- I suspect in most cases yes, though it wouldn't be as fast if only part of the crew was available. But there were cases where ships changed sail configuration while the crew was also manning the guns.

Edit: Also depends on which navy (and which time period) as was pointed out above. The Spanish for most of this period tended to separate the crews in sailors and gunners, with only some overlap in duties .

-Will

Yes, the ship could change the sails and man the guns at the same time, as these were very different positions aboard ship.

As for firing both broadsides, whether that is possible will to some degree depend on the timescale of your game terms. There is anecdotal accounts (some of it from fiction like O' Brien, but definitely plausible) of ships expecting to fire a double broadside loading both sets of guns. The crews would fire one, quickly secure the guns, the cross the gun deck to fire the second.

I have never read of the Marine contingent manning the guns nor working the sails. They were there to enforce discipline among the sailors and during combat provided musket fire against the enemy crew and repel boarders.

Oh yea, BCantwell makes a good point; it was definitely possible to load both broadsides before firing range so you could light both off fairly close together. It's actively 'fighting' (firing and reloading) both sides that is the problem. Don't know how often it happened in practice, but possible.

-Will

Just an additional note: During our tour of the USS Constitution in Boston a couple years ago our naval guide stressed that the Constitution never fired a full broadside when in battle because the recoil of all guns on one side going off at the same time could be harder on the hull than the shots fired by the enemy. Thus, when in battle the Constitution's broadsides consisted of the firing of every other gun.

It was probably feasible, given both sides are already loaded, to fire one broadside, run the guns back up without cleaning or reloading, then run to the other side and fire that, but you can't sustain that.

Generally speaking though, if you have enemy ships on both sides of you close enough to shoot at, you're probably doing something wrong and almost certainly in a lot of trouble.

The one exception would be if you were, in the style of Nelson, splitting the enemy line. But if you did that you'd probably focus your attention on getting a good raking shot on one ship, not just getting two shots off because i's possible.

Both broadsides could be fired, but the rate was slower as the crews had to work both sides.

Marines were used to supplement gun crews, generally as manual labor to run the guns out. As always, the marine contingent was broken up for various tasks in combat.

As stated by BCantwell, the jobs for manning sails and firing the guns were very different and done by different crews. True seamen were the only ones that could be trusted to go aloft and do the right thing, while any lubber could haul a rope on a gun, see Marines, above.

Finally, ships did not typically fire 'full' broadsides – meaning every gun firing at exactly the same time – because of the strain on the hull. The usual method was a sequential firing as the target came into view – ie, sailed past. After the initial shots, the guns would fire as they could be loaded and aimed.

A note on the Anglo-Dutch period that may be helpful: the Royal Navy at the time "rated" ships based on the number of crew (presumably including marines), rather than the number of guns.

Some random examples from the Four Days' Battle:
Prince – 1st rate – 92 guns – 620 men
Royal Charles – 1st rate – 82 guns – 650 men
Old James – 2nd rate – 70 guns – 380 men
Swiftsure – 2nd rate – 66 guns – 380 men
Unicorn – 2nd rate – 60 guns – 320 men
House of Sweeds – 3rd rate – 70 guns – 280 men
Clove Tree – 3rd rate – 62 guns – 250 men
Dunkirk – 3rd rate – 58 guns – 280 men
Seven Oaks – 4th rate – 54 guns – 190 men
Bristol – 4th rate – 52 guns – 200 men
St. Paul – 4th rate – 40 guns – 160 men

As you can see, ships with a similar number of guns likely had considerably different fighting qualities (and thus rating). The 160 men on St. Paul could never have fought 40 guns; the 650 men on Royal Charles *might* have been able to fight 82, however. There's a reason why battles with 100+ ships in this era were largely decided by the biggest 7-8 ships on either side.

Finally, remember that the guns in the Anglo-Dutch period tended to be heavier than their Napoleonic equivalent (at least on British ships), largely because no one cared about freeboard. Cannon (42-pdrs) and demi-cannon (32-pdrs) were used whenever possible. Dutch ships (and presumably most other European ships, since these were often built in the United Provinces) tended to be much more lightly armed and manned, thus:

Zeven Provincien – 80 guns – 450 men
Groot Frisia – 72 guns – 393 men
Groningen – 72 guns – 306 men
Groot Hollandia – 64 guns – 280 men
Amsterdam – 60 guns – 269 men
Tholen – 60 guns – 290 men
Middelburg – 50 guns – 208 men
Stad Gouda – 46 guns – 222 men

(All figures are from Frank L Fox. If you have any of his books, read through the appendices. Pure gold for this sort of thing.)

What an interesting thread -I've often wondered about this very question.

Great points and data KniazSuvorov, thanks for posting!

-Will

Marines did man some guns… there were Marine gunners onboard USS Olympia.

It has been a while since I looked at this. Gotta look at my references. If my rusty wheels are still working….

Marines may have assisted at the guns but we're not regularly trained or exercised in their use. They could be a back up to replace casualties but it was not the norm.

Changing sails in battle was not as frequently done as we often think. Good sailors took a long time to train and were the most difficult to replace, especially the topmen. It was rare in battle to send them aloft to change sail. The officers wanted them behind the bulwarks where they were safer. In battle any changes were limited to what could be done using lines on deck. If they were sent aloft it was to address a critical situation, such as the Bellerphon slipping its cable and dropping out of line during the Nile Due to severe damage.

That is probably why most model designers normally provide the easy sail setting in their kits. That was a typical setting in battle.

Marines manned guns all the way up to WWII. Some secondary batteries on US BBs and CAs were manned by the marine detachment.

And not all navies used a separate 'Marine' corps. The French during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars drew their 'Marines' from depots maintained by the army and were trained Legeres and artillerymen. And actively manned the guns when needed.

As for firing on both broadsides. If both batteries (starboard and port (or larboard to use the correct period term) were loaded, it was a simple matter to fire both since only the gun captain was needed to provide the final aiming and firing. Gun crews were assigned to 2 guns, one on the starboard battery and the matching one on the larboard battery. Each crew (RN and USN practice) had a 1st gun captain (responsible for the senior or starboard battery, IIRC) and a 2nd captain (responsible for the larboard battery). The gun captains were the skilled positions followed by the loader. The remainder were basically there to provide strong backs for handling the guns.

As for the specialist sailing crew, these were not assigned to guns in combat as a general rule and represented the most skilled men of the crew (topmen being the highest in skill).

USS Olympia is from the modern era in which ships with Marines used them to man some guns on the ship as they weren't sharpshooting from the rigging anymore. Most battleships had some secondary battery guns manned by Marines.

x42

I've passed through Kilsyth many times over the years,
there's nothing to suggest anything other than dry stane Dykes.
I mentioned Antonine's Wall only so it could be discounted.History doesn't stay in the public mind for long,folks in Camelon are generally unaware of the Roman camp there.Almost nobody in Falkirk is aware of the 1746 battle.When I pointed out to friends that according to Seymour we lived within the Scottish deployment area for the 1298 battle it drew blank looks,"was there a battle in Falkirk ?"

There's very little chance that even if the battle was nearer Croy and the remains of the wall,it's actually nearer 8 miles away,folk would see the ditch and think a wall once stood there.

Looks like by trying to discount something I've added to the confusion.Sorry for that.

Wow – something flakey must have occurred on the forum s/ware. I did not send the above post addressed to "x42". No idea who the author actually is.

Meanwhile, the post I DID attempt to send has apparently been lost in the digital shuffle.

B