"Full sail in battle?" Topic

Hi all,

I have been tinkering with the 'Sails of Glory' game, and have been struck by how there seems to be very little incentive for the player *not* to adopt the 'full sail' configuration in combat.

Would I be right in thinking that, in action, ships only rarely did this, and instead stayed under *battle sail* configuration – i.e., taking in the mainsail, foresail and spiritsail, as here?

Would one have expected a ship that put up 'full sail' in action (rather than 'battle sail') to:

a) suffer more damage specifically to its sails when it came under fire;
b) suffer more crew damage (more men aloft working the sails?);
c) run a greater risk of fire damage (not least from its own guns, being worked on the top decks).

…or a combination of *all three* of the above?

Thanks all in advance for any observations!!

In the old Wooden Ships and Iron Men boardgame ships took double rigging damage if they were in battle in full sail.

My understanding is that when "clearing for action", often topgallant masts (and associated yards) and stunsails and their associated booms were brought down so as to reduce the amount of top hamper that might fall down on the deck.

Probably the only time you would really see ships engaging in full sail is during a stern chase.

@Virtualscratchbuilder
"In the old Wooden Ships and Iron Men boardgame ships took double rigging damage if they were in battle in full sail."

Yup, that was my recollection too! Happy days…

Virtualscratchbuilder is correct. Full sail increased the target density of the upper works, but the extra sail also put more strain on the standing rigging, which then made lines more likely to part when damaged. Lowered courses did increase the risk of fire, as you mentioned, but they also significantly reduced the visibility from the quarterdeck.

I suspect that crew on the decks may have been more likely to be wounded because of the ever-present danger of splinters.

I pretty much agree with all the above comments. Here are some others I have gleaned from my reading -

[ 1 ] Warships in the Age of Sail, as a rule, did not have sufficient crew to both work the ship under full sail and fully man the guns. Something on the order of 65-70 pct of the crew would be required to man the guns when cleared for action. In the case of a common class British 74, with a crew of perhaps 600 men, that suggests about 400+ men at the guns and ~200 men (including officers, marines, topmen, carpenters, etc to maneuver the ship, handle her sails and see to other specialist duties. Harland shows that the sails in use under "Battle Sail" were those managed by the fore-, main- and mizzen-topmen, aided when necessary by the forecastle-men should the jib require attention.

[ 2 ] Carrying an excessive amount of sail meant increased heel of the ship; service of the guns became difficult when heel exceeded five degrees or so.

[ 3 ] As the wind increases in strength, carriage of excessive sail would produce unpredictable roll behavior, which would make accurate fire difficult.

Gotta run – more later.

B

As others have said, there were not enough crew to have full sail and work the guns. I'd expect full sail to be used only by a ship trying to escape.

Nelson sailed into Trafalgar with full sails as the wind was so light. Of course he was willing to break the rules…

Victory was making less than two knots in her approach. I would guess the wind to have been about Beaufort 1. No maneuvering to speak of, either.

B

Trafalgar is an exception.
Also Nelson was banking on the allied gunnery being poor at range.

Most rules I've played with penalise you for carrying too much sail, as they should.

The ships in the pic above are carrying rather more than fighting sail.

Cheers
David

This is fascinating, folks! Many thanks!

Trierarch: if the image of Java and the Constitution (in my o.p.) does not in fact show typical 'fighting' sail', then might you (or anyone else, indeed) please kindly enlighten us by posting a link to an image that does, or else explain the difference? Many thanks in advance.

In answer to the initial post I guess you're right in that in SoG there doesn't seem to be any combat penalty for being at full sail, I suppose this is due to there being no separate sail damage in SoG, just damage to the "ship" and the crew. However, being at full sail would not necessarily confer an advantage IN COMBAT in the game as the greater movement and consequent greater turning arcs would make your ship relatively less manoeuvrable, so maybe this is the trade off the designers intended?

Many prints suggest topsails & a jib were deployed in battle, however I suspect that simplifies things somewhat. Whilst we tend to think of a ship being "in combat" or "not in combat", and a corresponding sail set, the ships sail set would have been largely determined by the weather, wind direction & sea state, whether in combat or not, so in fact "battle sail" may have varied significantly depending on the conditions – though aside from Trafalgar I would imagine/speculate that in most cases courses would not be used due to the risk of fire & obstruction.

redcoat,

I would consider that the image at the top of this thread is an accurate representation of the sail carried in that particular engagement. But battle sail was not a "one size fits all' sail configuration. In heavier weather, the topgallants might be taken in or the topsails might be progressively reefed. The biggest consideration (IMO) was to keep the ship on a relatively even keel, with the heel kept </= 5 degrees or so.

If you check historical paintings depicting the Glorious First of June, which was fought in blowing weather; most of the ships do not have their topgallants set and some even have their topgallant spars taken down. Same with Quiberon Bay.

It is a fascinating but complicated scheme.

B

A side note to add even more confusion to the discussion here: the "fighting sail" configuration evolved over time.

I haven't yet done the research to get particulars, so I can't say anything more certain than "it was different in the 17th C." – paintings and drawings from the 1600s show most warships in battle with the foresail and foretop deployed on the foremast, topsail only on the mainmast, and the mizzen lateen sail filled. Occasionally the foresail or lateen are shown furled, so I'm guessing these were the most optional in a fight.

It makes perfect sense that ships with different sail plans would have different subsets of optimum deployments. I'm sure the optimum for brigs, ketches and xebecs were different too.

- Ix

PS: Now that you know this, all those ADW and Armada models with Napoleonic "fighting sail" trim will bug you too.

One important factor not yet mentioned: a good reason to clew up the foresail and main sail was the danger from the guns firing and hot bits landing or being blown into nearby sails. Look how close the lower edge of the fore and main sail are to the deck in this image: link

And look at the overhanging tips of the sails outer edges, how close they are to gun ports.

Also, clewing up those sails gave the Captain on the quarter deck the better tactical view of the battle, especially the approach.

An interesting topic for sure, with plenty of complications. As has been said before, most games have some consequence for carrying full sail when fired upon.

Another example I found where this is modeled is in the online game 'Naval Action'. If your ship is carrying full sail, she heels more (stated above), and it's much harder to aim where you want. You will actually have to time the roll when you fire. Reduce sail = less heel = easier to hit what you want. And the game carries four settings in combat mode: stay sail, battle sail, half sail, full sail.

Blutarski's point about the topgallants being taken in during combat in heavy weather rings true.

Pocock's Quiberon Bay, 1759:

Dodd's Glorious First of June, 1793:

Well done, redcoat!

Worthy of interest in the Quiberon Bay artwork is the carriage of the foresails by the ships on both sides. My thinking on that is that it was a result of the engagement being a running fight before the wind in near gale conditions, with the French fleeing for safety. Keeping the foresail set gave extra speed, would also reduce the risk of the ship being broaching by a following sea and, being a lower sail, would not have too much of an effect upon the ship's heel.

One of the things I have found so fascinating about this period is re-discovering all the nuances of shiphandling under sail – knowledge once so commonplace, but now hiding in the dusty nooks and crannies of history.

B

The lower sails tended to catch fire if not trimmed in combat

True, re fire risk.
> If firing to windward from the lee position, there was a risk of a ship's own burning wads being blown back aboard.
> If in action at very close range (say Pistol Shot) there was a risk of burning wads from the opponent's gunfire.

Not exactly sure how to quantify the degree of risk, though.

B

Changing sail in battle other than from a secure position on deck was risky. As experienced topmen were the most valued crew and hard to find, captains did not want to risk them.

At the Nile the Bellerophon did send men up Tovar's unleash the sails and escape the pounding it was getting from the L'Orient. But that was rare and a question of survival.

Interesting to note is that the Quiberon painting shows top gallants lashed, requiring crew to go up. THis would be done before hand and not changed in battle.

In the first painting the sails are pulled up with clew, leech, and buntlines which are pulled on deck. The latter practice is most common in battle; sail handling from the deck.