I’m sure the answer will be obvious, but would have guessed sinking would have been beneficial over just destroying a ships sailing ability. At least from what I’ve been able to find.
In: 21
The main aim in most navies was to take the ship and cargo. The idea was to hit mast and sails at range to prevent maneuvering, then close in a arc where your guns hit and their’s are limited to sweep the deck clear if they haven’t given up.
This was due to fact that a ship claimed as prize was sold and a large percentage was given to the captain and crew. This could be a fortune, a few years pay in some cases.
Britain brought in paying a bounty for a ship that was sunk. This allowed them to fire into hull and risk sinking the ship but more effective in forcing a surrender with less risk as guns and crews destroyed.
Shooting at the keel the lowest part is a non started and everyone knew that. The wounded and gunpowder were kept in the lowest part to protect them from cannon fire.
Two reasons:
1) Imagine throwing an apple at someone who is sitting just under the surface in a swimming pool. The moment your apple hits the water, it’s going to immediately slow down. If it hits them at all, they’ll barely feel it because the moving apple loses so much of its energy to the water. In exactly the same way, even if you could get a good shot that doesn’t just skim on the water, it will lose most of its energy before it hits your target.
2) Generally, no one wanted to sink the ships they were fighting. If you disabled a ship, then you could take it with you as a prize – ships were worth a great deal of money and governments would pay prize money for captured enemy ships. Shooting at the rigging or rudder left a ship unable to manouvre, but readily repairable once it was captured, but a shot under the waterline could sink it.
Latest Answers