The line of battle is a naval tactic where a fleet of ships forms a line end to end, with the first example dating back to 1502-1652. Line-of-battle tactics were widespread by 1675 and were developed by the British and Dutch in the mid-17th century. This columnar naval-battle formation allowed each ship to follow in the wake of the ship ahead, providing tactical benefits and greater safety in poor weather.
The ship of the line was designed for this tactic, which involved two columns of opposing warships maneuvering to volley fire. The late Elizabethan galleon, which began the true fighting ship of the line, reached its culmination in England’s Prince Royal of 1610. The introduction of ships-of-the-line, heavily armed and capable of sailing in formation, led to the development of tactics like the line of battle strategy.
This approach brought all heavy ships of the first line into the enemy’s fire zone, bringing the maximum number of long-range heavy guns into action at practically the same moment. The second line was protected by the heavy line and ready to support it when needed. Compared to prior naval tactics, the line of battle has the advantage that each ship goes in formation when they have to travel or possibly fight together and don’t want to run into each other all the time.
A ship of the line was a type of naval warship constructed during the Age of Sail from the 17th century to the mid-19th century. It evolved from the galleon, a three- or four-masted vessel with a high superstructure on its stern and usually carrying heavy guns. Eighteenth-century naval ships were sailing vessels made from various kinds of wood, metals, iron, and steel. As engines gradually improved, navies experimented with them in standard warships, first as auxiliaries to sail and then essential for endurance.
In the Queen Elizabeth’s tour of the ship, she was fit to take her place in the line of battle and engage on equal terms with the most formidable ships of the enemy.
📹 Sailing to War: The Age of the Ship of the Line
For nearly three centuries, naval warfare in the Western world was dominated by capital sailing ships. From the 17th century …
What does 8 bells mean in the navy?
- Ship’s bells are also used for safety in foggy conditions, their most important modern use.
- On US naval vessels, bells additionally are rung as “boat gongs” for officers and dignitaries coming aboard or leaving the ship, in a number equivalent to the number of sideboys to which the visitor is entitled.
- At midnight on New Year’s Eve, 16 bells would be struck– eight bells for the old year and eight bells for the new.
- When a sailor has died he or she can be honoured with the sounding of eight bells
- meaning “end of the watch”. The term “eight bells” can also be used in an obituary, as a nautical euphemism for finished.
The ship’s name is traditionally engraved or cast onto the surface of the bell, often with the year the ship was launched, as well. The earliest ship’s bell was recovered from the wreck-site of a Portuguese armada ship off the coast of Oman. The bell was dated 1498. Occasionally (especially on more modern ships) the bell will also carry the name of the shipyard that built the ship. If a ship’s name is changed, maritime tradition is that the original bell carrying the original name will remain with the vessel. A ship’s bell is a prized possession when a ship is broken up and often provides the only positive means of identification in the case of a shipwreck.
Most United States Navy ships of the post–World War II era have actually carried 2 or 3 bells: the larger bell engraved with the ship’s name, mounted on the forecastle, and smaller bells in the pilot house and at the quarterdeck at the 1MC (public address) station, for use in making shipwide announcements and marking the time. The larger bell on the forecastle is rung periodically as a fog signal when the ship is at anchor in reduced visibility.
Why do navy ships travel in a line?
Compared with prior naval tactics, in which two opposing ships closed on one another for individual combat, the line of battle has the advantage that each ship in the line can fire its broadside without fear of hitting a friendly ship. This means that in a given period, the fleet can fire more shots. Another advantage is that a relative movement of the line in relation to some part of the enemy fleet allows for a systematic concentration of fire on that part. The other fleet can avoid this by manoeuvring in a line itself, with a result typical for sea battles since 1675: two fleets sail alongside one another (or on the opposite tack).
The first recorded mention of the use of a line of battle tactic is to be found in the Instructions, provided in 1500 by Manuel I, king of Portugal, to the commander of a fleet dispatched to the Indian Ocean. The precision in the Instructions suggests that the tactic was in place before this date. Portuguese fleets overseas deployed in line ahead, firing one broadside and then putting about in order to return and discharge the other, resolving battles by gunnery alone. In a treatise of 1555, The Art of War at Sea, Portuguese theorist on naval warfare and shipbuilding, Fernão de Oliveira, recognized that at sea, the Portuguese “fight at a distance, as if from walls and fortresses…”. He recommended the single line ahead as the ideal combat formation.
Line-of-battle tactics had been used by the Fourth Portuguese India Armada at the Battle of Calicut, under Vasco da Gama, near Malabar against a Muslim fleet. One of the earliest recorded deliberate uses is documented in the First Battle of Cannanore between the Third Portuguese India Armada under João da Nova and the naval forces of Calicut, earlier in the same year. Another early, but different form of this strategy, was used in 1507 by Afonso de Albuquerque at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, in the first conquest of Ormuz. Albuquerque commanded a fleet of six carracks manned by 460 men, and entered Ormuz Bay, being surrounded by 250 warships and a 20,000 men army on land. Albuquerque made his small fleet (but powerful in its artillery) circle like a carrousel, but in a line end-to-end, and destroyed most of the ships that surrounded his squadron. He then captured Ormuz.(citation needed)
What is the longest straight line you can sail?
The furthest distance on Earth that can be sailed without making landfall is 32,090 km (19,940 miles) from the coast of Pakistan to that of the Kamchatka Peninsula in the far east of Russia.
Why do ships have a woman on the front?
The precise motive behind mounting a carved figurehead at the bow of a ship or boat is uncertain. It is believed these iconic objects held a strong magical or religious significance relating to a ship ‘seeing’ its way safely through the sea.
By around 1700, the decoration of naval vessels had reached its peak and the Royal Navy began the process of restricting ornamental carving around the bow and stern. Decoration on lower-ranking warships was curtailed in this period, while dispensations were sought for first-rate and second-rate vessels.
The advent of clipper ships around 1850 prompted a revival of the figurehead and allowed the fitting of a full-length figure at the bow.
What makes a ship of the line?
Great Britain’s Royal Navy, which rated its sailing ships by the number of guns they carried, considered ships of the first through third rates—that is, ships carrying 60 or 70 to 100 or 110 guns—to be ships of the line. One of the most famous of these was HMS Victory, a 100-gun first-rater that served as the flagship of Horatio Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. (See Victory.)
The columnar formations that typified line-of-battle tactics were developed by the British in the late 17th century and came into standard use by most navies thereafter. In these tactics, each ship in the fleet followed in the wake of the ship ahead of it. The ships arrayed themselves one after the other at regular intervals of about 100 or more yards, for a distance that could stretch as long as 12 miles (19 km). This formation maximized the new firing power of the broadside and marked a final break with the tactics of galley warfare, in which individual ships sought each other out to engage in single combat by means of ramming, boarding, and so on. By maintaining the line throughout the battle, the fleet, despite obscuring clouds of smoke, could function as a unit under the control of the admiral. In the event of reverses, they could be extricated with a minimum of risk.
This article was most recently revised and updated by Robert Curley.
What happens if you travel in a straight line?
If you traveled in a straight line, you could travel forever in time, but you’d only be able to reach a very small proportion of even the observable Universe. Everything beyond our current cosmic horizon — beyond the limit of what we can presently see — is forever beyond our ability to reach.
The Universe is a vast, wondrous, and strange place. From our perspective within it, we can see out for some 46 billion light-years in all directions. Everywhere we look, we see a Universe filled with stars and galaxies, but are they all unique? Is it possible, perhaps, that if you look far enough in one direction and see a galaxy, that you’d also see that same galaxy, from a different perspective, in the opposite direction? Could the Universe actually loop back on itself? And if you traveled far enough in a straight line, would you eventually return to your starting point, just as if you traveled in any one direction for long enough on the surface of the Earth? Or would something stop you?
It’s a fascinating question to consider, and one that Bill Powers wants us to investigate, asking:
“Space and time are mind-boggling to me. It seems like if you traveled in a straight line, you could travel forever. What would stop you? A wall? (And if so,) what’s on the other side of the wall?”
Did the US Navy ever have a ship-of-the-line?
The first ship built in the Charlestown Navy Yard, USS Independence was also the United States Navy’s first ship-of-the-line, the largest class of ships during this period. Construction on Independence began during the War of 1812 while under constant threat by the British Navy just outside of Boston Harbor. After several years of failing to live up to the hopes of the US Navy because of its unorthodox design and cumbersome size, Independence was razeed (cut down by a deck) to turn the ship into a frigate. This frigate had a much more successful career as the United States flagship of the Mexican-American War. In the final decades of its almost hundred-year career, Independence became a fixture of Mare Island Navy Yard in California as a receiving ship for new sailors.
Bainbridge’s Brainchild. In the midst of the War of 1812, Congress authorized the construction of 74-gun ships-of-the-line in order to compete with the powerful British Navy. Commandant of the Charlestown Navy Yard, and former commander of USS Constitution, William Bainbridge quickly got to work planning the new republic’s very first ship of this size. Though he employed shipwright Edmund Hartt and his sons to begin work on USS Independence, Bainbridge’s insistence on carrying out unorthodox modifications during construction caused tension between the Commandant and the builders. Eventually, the Hartt family walked off the job site, and Bainbridge replaced them with Josiah Barker.
Under Barker, USS Independence took form as Bainbridge envisioned it. To assist with the construction of the ship during inclement weather, Bainbridge ordered workers to build the Navy Yard’s first ship house, which they completed in 1813. Constructing a ship of this size was a challenge for the Navy Yard, and this was made more difficult due to the near constant threat of attack USS Independence faced from British ships. On June 1, 1814, HMS Shannon captured USS Chesapeake just outside of Boston Harbor, leaving the Navy Yard vulnerable. The Navy quickly armed the nearly finished Independence in the event of British attack. Two weeks later, Marines from HMS Nymph slipped into Boston Harbor and burned a sloop within a mile of the Navy Yard. They even attempted to launch the blazing ship into Independence.
Why do sailors line the deck?
Manning the rail is a method of saluting (or rendering honors) used by naval vessels. The custom evolved from that of “manning the yards”, which dates from the days of sail. On sailing ships, crew stood evenly spaced on all the yards (the spars holding the sails) and gave three cheers to honor distinguished persons. Today, the crew are stationed along the rails and superstructure of a ship when honors are rendered.
The United States Navy prescribes manning the rail as a possible honor to render to the President of the United States and for the heads of state of foreign nations. A similar but less formal ceremony is to have the crew “at quarters” when the ship is entering or leaving port.Manning the rail is also the traditional way to honor the USS Arizona Memorial when it is passed by all U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Merchant Marine vessels. More recently, as foreign military vessels are entering Pearl Harbor for joint military exercises, foreign sailors have participated in the traditional manning the rails. Notable instances occurred on July 24, 1997, when the guided-missile destroyer USSRamage and the frigate USSHalyburton rendered honors to the USSConstitution during her 200th birthday celebration, and on September 14, 2001, when the crew of the German destroyer Lütjens manned the rails as they approached the destroyer USSWinston Churchill and displayed an American flag and a banner reading “We Stand By You”.
- ^ United States Navy (February 2002). “Chapter 9 Customs and Courtesies”. Basic Military Requirements NAVEDTRA 14325 (PDF). Naval Education and Training Professional Development And Technology Center. pp.9–9 – 9–10. NAVSUP Logistics Tracking Number 0504-LP-101-1377. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-12-06. Retrieved 2006-12-16.
- ^ “USS Winston S. Churchill Honors 9/11 Victims”. Retrieved 2016-10-27.
What is the purpose of deck line?
During a paddle float re-entry, these deck lines serve 3 purposes:
- To allow you to slide your paddle easily into place from a swimming position
- To hold your paddle firmly in place while you re-enter the kayak, and
- To allow you to release your paddle quickly after re-entering the kayak.
The following paragraphs describe 3 popular ways to implement these deck lines in the order of best to least recommended by PIKA. Be sure to test your arrangement before setting out on a paddle.
Quick-release straps are the best choice for meeting the 3 criteria listed above for paddle float re-entry deck lines. The straps are very adjustable and can accommodate various paddles blade sizes. Straps can be purchased from local suppliers and are installed using stainless bolts, SS nylock nuts and fender washers. However, they should be installed by someone who is proficient with drilling holes in ABS, fiberglass, kevlar or carbon.
Do ships travel in a straight line?
This approach allows for optimal navigation. And operational cost savings. But it’s not always ideal to follow the great circle route.
What is the naval tradition of crossing the line?
Perhaps one of the best known and longest enduring traditions is the initiation ceremony of ‘Crossing the line’ or ‘Sea Baptism’, which takes place when a ship crosses the equator.
The first recorded descriptions are from around 400 years ago and its origins remain hazy. There are some suggestions that it formed an important test to ensure the men you were sailing with, and thus dependent upon, were able seafarers. A different interpretation is much more steeped in superstition – appeasing Neptune the god of the sea before ‘crossing the line’.
As with any long-standing tradition, there are a wide variety of interpretations; however, some fundamentals stay the same. The sailors who have not yet crossed the equator before must be tried before the court of Neptune, Roman god of the sea, and be shown to be worthy seafarers.
There is generally full immersion in seawater, either in the sea or a container on the ship – hence the term ‘sea baptism’ (although some accounts just recall copious amounts of water are just poured over the inductee).
📹 Ship Types in the Age of Sail – Sloops, Brigs, Frigates and Ships of the Line
Today we look at the classifications of ships in the Age of Sail in the Royal Navy, a system that has become shorthand for the …
Although large-scale battles and operations truly depended on the huge ships of the line filled with artillery it is interesting to point out the huge role that smaller ships, particularly frigates, still had in the theater of war. Their role in disrupting supply, raiding convoys, harassing coastlines, and gathering intelligence was actually the bulk of naval operations and it is also a scene for many smaller battles and prize captures. I would argue that some of the most interesting naval actions o the 18th and early 19th centuries had to do with these smaller ships
A big trend in history was before rockets/torpedoes were invented the biggest ships could carry the biggest guns and take the most hits. Ergo warships were as big as engineering would allow. These days the biggest warships are never meant to see the enemy and smaller, faster, and sneakier ships carry heavy weapons.
Excellent article as always guys! Only critique: make sure your graphics match the time period you are talking about at that timestamp. It helps show the evolution of design better. Example: Your first pic of the Prince Royal was after a later refit, then you showed a pic that was clearly from an earlier period of it’s service. But excellent content as usual!
Much like with your articles on the evolution of warfare on land, this series truly showcases how changing times and improved technology brought constant changes to the field of battle. Rather than “and on 1 January 1723, every single galley was sunk and ships of the line popped into existence in an instant, and so did all the tactics and infrastructure and so on surrounding that,” it puts the flow of things into great perspective. Bravo! As a side note, I’d love to see something similar on the early steam ships and the transition to ironclads, it feels so open-ended now :’) (and yes I know history is open-ended but you can’t fault me for loving a story eh)
A slight “correction”, if it’s even that. The defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English wasn’t the crucial watershed moment that it’s often portrayed as. If nothing else, the English counter-attacked with an English Armada the following year, which the Spanish defeated of the Iberian coast just as comprehensively. Really, the incident shows that “home advantage” is crucial when it comes to massive fleets; presumably because of logistical and command & control issues. Of course, English historiography (which counts for a disproportional share of european historiography) stresses its victories more than its defeats. Especially when those victories enter the national mythos so strongly that it’s even taught to 10yo at school.
Some historical mistakes on the article. 1 – Portugal had ships with broadside capacity prior to the examples mentioned. No mention of the batle of Diu??? 2 – galleons existed, as a particular type of war ship, much sooner than the 1620s…in the works of D. Joao de castro, vice roi of India, we can clearly see diferent type of ships with diferent funcions, used on the indian ocean by the midle of the 1500s. 3 – for the love of God, stop using english propaganda, defending that england became the premier naval power after the armada of 1588. That is not true. Spain continued to be the principal european power until the 1640s and also the main naval power, together with Portugal under the iberian union. 4 – Holland is the naval power that replaces the iberian powers, not england.
There must be refrigerator magnets of the wonderful animated soldiers and historical figures (e.g. Philip II at 09:56 – 10:01) that populate these articles. Some enamel pins would be nice, as well. Regards, Kev ps. I’ve watched ’em all twice (at least) and I never miss a new post. This website is a gem. -K.
The famous defeat of the spanish armada invasion meant nothing for Spain actually, check your sources because that’s a big missconception. And little is said about the english couteroffensive invasion attemp of Spain shortly after which was bigger in numbers and failed even harder than the previous spanish attempt.
This is a good article, but it fails to explain the principle of naval tactics that led to the creation of the Line Ahead tactic of the 17th century; For example, in the first half of the 16th century, there were already naval writers such as the Spanish Alonso de Chaves, who recommended the use of row formations to enhance the use of artillery on sailing ships (as mentioned by the historian Angustín Ramón Rodriguez Gonzáles) and the proof of this is in the formation adopted by Admiral Alvaro de Bazan y Guzmán (the famous Marquis of Santa Cruz) in the Battle of San Miguel on June 26 of 1582 (also known as Battle of Ponta Delgada and Naval Battle of Terceira Island) against the French fleet of 64 ships captained by Philippe Strozzi; In that naval combat the Spanish Marquis formed his 25 Galleons and Nao’s Ships in double rows, divided into three separate groups called Vanguard, Center and Rear. The only difference is that in these times these lines were not kept rigid as in the 17th and 18th centuries, but at a certain point in the battle they broke formation to carry out boarding or close combat (11:16), since the captains had more autonomy in the use of their ships than a century later. It catches my attention that despite this being the first naval battle of galleons held in the Open Sea in history (1500 km away from the coast of Portugal), you have not mentioned it at all in this article and especially wrongly saying which was a later invention of the English and Dutch navies (11:27).
“Land Ships” was not the code word for tanks. It was tank, like water or septic tank. “Land Ships” were a very common concept during and before WW1, so much so that calling their machine a “Land Ship” would have given it away. So they instead named it “tank” to make it appear as though they were working on a storage tank.
Thank you for an interesting article. Carvel-built versus clinker-built, I would call the difference rigid versus flexible, rather than carvel-built being solid and stable. Solid depends on how well the ship is built and suited for the forces of the seas. A flexible ship might be less prone to fall apart, and thus more solid. A carvel-built ship can be built larger but will face more force from the sea because it is more rigid, and thus need to be built more solid in order not to fall apart. It is not solid in itself befause it is carvel-built. Artillery needs a stable platform. Stability not at least comes from the size of the ship. Thus a large carvel-built ship is a better option as an artillery platform than a more flexible clinker-built ship, with one end flexing to one side and the other end flexing to the other. One could say that the carvel-built ship rides over the waves, the clinker-built ship rides through the waves.
Good article in part… But unfortunately, there is a serious mistake. The destruction of the Invincible Armada did not ruin the Spanish naval superiority, because right after it, the British counter-armada occurred that was a disaster much more serious than the disaster of the invincible armada itself and greatly damaged the financial capabilities of the British crown for the following decades (even the peace terms of that war favored Spain) and was not until almost 150 years later, of the British again challenged the spanish naval power. The disaster for Spain began to be forged in the war of succession, by which England obtained mercantile access to the Spanish territories in America and the Spanish Crown, agreed to eliminate some vital defense fleet such as the “Armada de Barlovento”, among other concessions.
0:42 it was actually the other way around: “Tanks” was a codename chosen to trick German intelligence into thinking they were just large mobile water tanks, while “landship” was the actual name used during conception and development, because the initial idea was essentially just to have a battleship but on land. The codename eventually just caught on to the extent that it became the actual term, for various reasons.
some points – 1) The 16th century is completely dominated by Iberian naval warfare, with Venice and Genoa being not far behind. 2) Geoffrey Parker states some “facts” about naval history with no base at all, and no references, and no in depth analysis. And there’s the fact that, being superior in technology, the Iberians would not disclose and make propaganda of their ships. 3) During the first half of the 16th century the portuguese went from Caravelas to Caravelas Redondas (round caravels with more gun space and sails) to Galeões. And in 1580 Spain and Portugal formed a dynastic union. In that period the dutch took advantage of the political situation and captured several colonies. Portugal was never the same. 4) The Dutch, being a separatist state of the Spanish empire, had access to galleons and along with the british tried to develop ships to compete with the Iberians, they bought some ships from the Hanseatic states too. 5) The picture of the race built galleon is the first Revenge, actually captured by the Spanish, and the picture is probably far from reality. 6) by the beginning of the 17th century if we take the battle of Cádiz as an example, the british were still using oar powered vessels. In the battle of Lizard Point a 6 on 6 galleons encounter ended in a 3 sunk and 3 captured with no losses for spain. Doesn’t seen like the anglo-dutch squadron had any technological advantage. 7) by 1650’s with Cronwell restoring the state sponsored piracy trying to get the Spanish treasure fleet that England started to gain an advantage.
The 1588 Spanish Armada defeated in several battles? Nop. No battles, no defeated. The Spanish Armada was a D-Day invasion Armada with a lot of field artillery, ammunition and weapons transports. Their orders: embark the spanish troops for invasion in Holland coast. But there was nobody awaiting. Bad comunications. No smartphones. So, Spanish Armada return to Spain and Portugal following the winds. Storms and bad sea, 8 ships sunk, 1500 mens dead. In 1588 the ship battles were only boarding in hand-to-hand combat. Artillery was lacked of number, power and accuracy. There were only remote harassment.
Again the Spanish Armada is mentioned, which resulted in at most 2 to 3 Spanish vessels being sunk or captured by enemy fire, whereas the following year the English Armada lost 40 ships sunk or captured when they attacked Spain. The really important lesson was that the English ships were designed for combat, being faster, more manoeuvrable, despite many being bigger than galleons, better armed and able to reload their guns easily, as they were on wheels and could be pulled into the hull for reloading. Traditionally ships, like the galleons, were really armed merchantman, which fired once before grappling to fight hand to hand, at which the Spanish excelled. So whilst the galleons were perfect for going to and from the New World with huge loads, the English ships were perfect for fighting and piracy. This is why Spain soon adapted their ships to be able to reload and sustain prolonged gun battles. The common misconception that the failure of the Spanish Armada resulted in the decline of the Spanish Empire is completely false, and it took a long time and many factors. This is demonstrated by the frequently overlooked War of Jenkins’s Ear, 1739 – 1748, which the English lost to the Spanish, resulted in England having 50,000 dead and injured and 407 ships lost, whereas Spain only had 9,500 casualties and 186 ships lost.