Tango01 | 26 Jan 2017 1:00 p.m. PST |
Interesting thread here… "Let's say a Ship of the line with 800+ men is carrying 90 cannons on each broadside (a total of 180 guns), so obviously the same amount of sailors is needed to operate them. What are the jobs for the rest of the men who are not taking care of the cannons? I understand that the sails needed to be adjusted, chefs are on board, captains, officers, lieutenants are commanding everyone else, But would there really need to be so many other men on board?…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
mwindsorfw | 26 Jan 2017 1:49 p.m. PST |
6 men to crew a gun (?) x 90 guns = 540, plus 1 midshipman or mate for every 2 guns, plus 1 lieutenant for about every 4 guns… that put you up to 607. Add officers, 10-15 marines, powder monkeys to run the powder back and forth, carpenters for damage, "medical staff"… 800 seems reasonable. |
wminsing | 26 Jan 2017 3:53 p.m. PST |
The main mistake is right in the first line (besides miscounting the total # of guns) in thinking each gun only needs a single sailor to operate; each gun crew per pair of guns is typically 13 men; ships usually didn't carry enough crew to fully man both broadsides at the same time, but each crew had enough spares in case of casualties or men being called away. 45 guns and 13 men per gun accounts for 585 men right there. -Will |
jdginaz | 26 Jan 2017 4:49 p.m. PST |
The real mistake is that there was a Ship-of-the-line that carried 180 guns. A 90 gun ship with 45 guns each side is more likely. Check out this video for a idea of why the crew sizes were what they were. YouTube link While the video is about frigates you just need to add for the increase in size. |
Blutarski | 26 Jan 2017 6:39 p.m. PST |
I regret that all my books are still packed up, so write here from memory. Do not be misled by the assignment of men to individual guns; this was an administrative assignment which provided a certain number of men to each gun aboard for the purposes of seeing to every-day basic care and maintenance. When going into action, the crews were, as a matter of standard practice, double up – with the crews of the guns on the disengaged side adding their strength to the gun crew of their gun's opposite number on the engaged side. For example, a 32-lbr long gun might have 7 men administratively assigned to it but be served by 14 men when in action. As a rule of thumb, about 65 pct of the crew would be serving the guns in battle. The YouTube video cited above by jdginaz is a very good audio-visual presentation on the question of how the crews of warships in the Age of Sail were organized. I can further recommend two useful written sources - > "Seamanship in the Age of Sail" by John Harland is IMO an indispensable source for understanding the duties and functions of a ship's crew under differing circumstances of operation. > "Guns at Sea" by Peter Padfield offers very good detail regarding the manning and service of the guns. B |
Yellow Admiral | 26 Jan 2017 7:24 p.m. PST |
Wouldn't a 180 gun man-o-war be a 6-decker? No need for sails, the wind will push that towering hull all over the place…. - Ix |
Mac1638 | 27 Jan 2017 6:23 a.m. PST |
The ship crew are split into 2 watches for the day to day running of the ship, when the ship is cleared for action all crew are employed. When gun crew are not being gun crew they are the work horses of the ship, the devil makes work for idle hands. When the ship was cleared for action both side would be loaded but when in action most of the gun crews would service only one side of the ship. Through out the Revolutionary Wars and the start of the Napoleonic War the RN worked with between 10% to 15% shortage of crew, by the War of 1812 this was running at up to 25%. During 18th and 19th century the war ships where at the cutting edge of technology, There is a lot of manpower keeping the ship afloat, keeping it ropes and sail in order, keeping the crew feed and healthy, As it was and always will been navies are a projection of a nations power. |
Tango01 | 27 Jan 2017 11:05 a.m. PST |
Quite interesting my friend… thanks!. Amicalement Armand
|
attilathepun47 | 27 Jan 2017 12:04 p.m. PST |
The only mention of marines underestimated the size of the contingent assigned to a second-rate ship-of-the-line. It would have been on the order of forty to fifty, commanded by a captain of marines. |
Charlie 12 | 27 Jan 2017 6:49 p.m. PST |
And it wasn't uncommon for the marines to help man the guns, as well. |
Charlie 12 | 27 Jan 2017 6:52 p.m. PST |
When the ship was cleared for action both side would be loaded but when in action most of the gun crews would service only one side of the ship. IIRC, each gun crew would be assigned to a gun on both broadsides with the senior gun captain in charge of one gun on one broadside and the second gun captain in charge of the gun on the opposite broadside. And a second vote for "Seamanship in the Age of Sail" by John Harland. Absolutely the best nuts and bolts reference re: the period. |
Supercilius Maximus | 30 Jan 2017 5:04 p.m. PST |
One marine per gun was a good rule of thumb in estimating their number on any RN ship – so there would be almost 100 (with NCOs and officers) on your 90-gun example. |