Life is good!
On the tapestry from Bayeux, William the Conqueror carried horses - the basis of the power of his cavalry on ordinary battle boats (we read - drakkar), although the Greeks and Romans long before him carried horses on merchant ships. It is possible that here the weavers of Queen Matilda made an inaccuracy, or maybe he simply did not have enough merchant ships. In principle, the Normans had knorrs (merchant ship) on which horses could be transported with greater convenience, but they are not on the tapestry. Another reason for transporting horses on drakkars may be Wilhelm's unwillingness to slow down the speed of the fleet - after all, a fat-bellied knorr cannot keep up with a drakkar.
However, soon after Wilhelm, attempts were made to create ships larger than the Drakkar. Let me remind you that the drakkar was not, in fact, a warship designed for naval battles, it was rather a means of delivering soldiers to the battlefield. This opinion is also confirmed by the fact that the largest battle of the Drakkar fleets (in Kherung Bay) ended .... on land. Well, on occasion, it was possible to go on boarding, why not. And it is precisely the experience of transporting horses across the English Channel that makes shipbuilders look for ways to increase the carrying capacity and capacity of ships.
Similar attempts had been made before, but the lack of cavalry made it possible to get by with small (average drakkar did not exceed 20-25 meters in length) ships. First, they are trying to enlarge the ship "in all directions", as Olaf Trygvasson did when he built 68 (!) oared "Great Serpent". But it turns out that a wooden ship is longer than 30-35 meters (at best, 40, although the largest Drakkar found was 30 meters long), with the construction technologies that the northerners had, they are unable to survive the storms of the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Excessive length and lack of a sufficiently strong set does not provide sufficient strength. Here I would like to note with pleasure that pediviki and some reenactors mention the fantastic length of drakkars of 60 meters. At one time, I already talked about "super junks", also mentioned in pediviki, and now I readily declare that a 60-meter drakkar is from the field of 8-pood one-handed swords.
And the ships begin to grow up and in breadth. So, drakkars had a ratio of width (along the midsection) to height from keel to gunwale is approximately 1: 3, a drakkar has a very small draft, and warships of the 12th-13th centuries have a ratio of width to height already 2, and sometimes 1.5. Warships have platforms for archers on the bow and stern, gradually from simple decking, fenced with poles, they become part of the hull.
Trade ships also change - becoming wider and gradually turning into roundships (on the mainland, similar ships are called coggs, which also means "round", but they have fundamental differences from roundships).
English roundship.
It is on them that a very important innovation appears - a hinged steering wheel.
The first ship with a hinged rudder, 1180.
Before that, a steering oar was used to control the ship (one, two or even several, as was the case with the Egyptians). The effectiveness of the hinged rudder with a tiller turned out to be so great that it very quickly gains popularity and firmly takes its place on the sternposts of not only northern, but also Mediterranean ships.
The hinged rudder alone gives impetus to an increase in the size of ships. Increasing the draft and, accordingly, the resistance to lateral drift gives ships the ability to sail steeper to the wind, increasing the importance of sails. The “potbellity” of merchant ships is growing, one might say, by leaps and bounds, by the 12th century reaching a length to width ratio of 2.5 and even 2.2 to 1, which makes them not too fast, but extremely roomy.
On the mainland, merchants are noticeably different from English roundships - the cog (as already mentioned, also considered a round ship) has a straight keel, straight stems, both stem and stern. This simple improvement made the cogg more technologically advanced and cheaper to build compared to the roundship. In the 13th century, coggs were already flaunting mounted rudders borrowed from roundships, growing and acquiring additional masts.
Coggs were also used as warships.
Examples of French and English warships from the 13th and 14th centuries. 
The value of sails is constantly increasing - ships are acquiring additional masts, not one, but two sails appear on the mast, which makes it easier to manage them.
In the case of the English ship, the influence of Mediterranean shipbuilding should be noted - the mizzen mast has a slanting sail, characteristic of the Mediterranean Sea.
The oars on warships are preserved, but play only an auxiliary role.
Kogg is also rapidly evolving. A new impetus to its development is the appearance of bombards, which have become its main weapon.
The cogg grows to a very significant size - 500-600 tons of displacement and is armed with a significant amount of firearms - the largest coggs carry two dozen guns.
Hanseatic cogg of the 15th-16th century.
In the Mediterranean at that time, galleys reigned as warships, which allowed merchant ships to specialize (unlike the North European ones, which had much in common with the military). And the Mediterranean gave birth to the nave and the caravel. The nave is an extremely capacious merchant ship that quickly grew in size and reached a displacement of 500 tons by the end of the 15th century. 
Despite the apparent clumsiness, the nave was not clumsy and slow - the area of \u200b\u200bthe sails of the nave was almost ten times more area sails of a drakkar, and the use of slanting sails and deep draft allowed the nave to go very steeply to the wind and made it very maneuverable. In a strong wind, even a galley would have to work hard to keep up with this fat man.
The karakka became a further evolution of the nave. 
The size of these ships was truly monstrous when compared with the roundships, whose distant relatives they are. The largest caracci reached a displacement of 1000 tons or more, but this was later and was more the exception than the rule. One such exception was Mary Rose.
The most famous caracca is the "Santa Maria" of Columbus, which is constantly called the caravel.
One of the reconstructions of Santa Maria. Pay attention - the fore and mainsail of the mast carry direct sailing rigging, which is typical for the caracca.
Large carvella, Portugal, 16th century. The difference with the karakka is noticeable to the naked eye - the sailing equipment of Santa Maria is the sails of the karakka.
How did the caravel actually begin?
Initially, this is a small merchant ship with two masts carrying Latin sails. Over time, the latin sail on the fore mast was replaced with a straight one, but the latin sail remained on the main mast. The increase in the number of masts did not change anything - only the foremast carried straight sails, and the rest of the masts were latin. This is true for both three-masted and four-masted caravels. Another distinctive feature of the caravels was the return to the butt plating, which reduced the resistance of the hull and ensured greater speed of the caravel, all other things being equal. Actually, after the advent of caravels, shipbuilders throughout Europe are gradually moving to a smooth skin.
A small caravel, perhaps this is what the "Pinta" or "Nina" looked like.
The ships of Jean Colombe
Do not yawn, historian, compose a book,
watch the rotation of the earth.
Every century, year, day, moment,
how much is due, allot.
The wind is rising, the star is fading.
Caesar sleeps and groans in his sleep.
Tomorrow it will be clear who will overthrow whom,
and they will kill me in the war ...
Mikhail Shcherbakov Ad Levconoen
When examining the design of 15th-century sailing ships using the example of the Flemish carrack from Master W's engraving with a key, we should not limit ourselves to this image.
An excellent illustration for our notes will serve as miniatures from the French manuscript 5594, stored in the National Library of France. Not only is looking at them a great pleasure in itself, but these miniatures are also very informative for lovers of the history of the 15th century fleet.
The history of this manuscript is as follows. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Pope hatched the idea of a new crusade to liberate the Holy Land. This project was never carried out, but its preparation revived interest in the history of past crusades. The ruler of Champagne and adviser to King Louis XI Louis de Laval in 1472 ordered his chaplain Sebastian Mamero ( Sebastien Mamerot) Chronicle of the Crusades. To make illustrations for this chronicle, Mamero invited the famous miniaturist Jean Colombe. As a result of their joint work, in 1474 the famous chronicle "Campaigns of the French across the sea against the Turks and other overseas Saracens and Moors" appeared in 1474 ( Passages faiz oultre mer par les François contre les Turcqs et autres Sarrazins et Mores oultre marins). Since the campaigns were "overseas", the miniatures for the chronicle depict many ships. Now, of course, we will be interested only in some of these images related to our main object of study - the Flemish caracca.
Jean Colombe cannot be considered a specialist in maritime affairs. He lacked knowledge of the technical details of the construction of ships, so the scale is not always observed, rigging elements appear on the images that do not make sense, and so on. Almost all miniatures depict one type of ship, which can be schematically represented as follows:
Some of the illustrations show a whole fleet of such ships, on which are placed large groups of armed men in protective armor.
Apparently, it would not be a mistake to consider them military transports, one of the types of “round ships” of the 15th, and perhaps even the 14th century. Their main characteristic features are a short length, a strong longitudinal deck sheer, a long bow platform ending in a pointed end, and massive outer bars on the aft part of the ship's side. At the stern there is a superstructure with four longitudinally elongated openings, loopholes or ports. The stepped rudder looks strange, but perhaps the artist simply does not separate the rudder from the sternpost in his image.
On the nose itself is a gadget of incomprehensible purpose, reminiscent of a harpoon used by fishermen or a hook with a hook at the end. We can see this item in many images of that era. Here is another example:
However, we can see something similar in the engraving by Master WA
At a short distance from this gadget, apparently, a rig anchor is suspended, which was brought on a boat forward along the course of the ship and then pulled up to it with the help of a capstan. This maneuver was extremely important when operating in the coastal zone, when mooring to the shore and entering the mouths of the rivers, since the sailing armament of the ships was not yet sufficiently developed and did not allow such maneuvers to be carried out.
We will study the bow of the Flemish carrack in more detail next time.
Briefly about the article: Sailing ships were used for trade and piracy, great geographical discoveries were made with their help, their squadrons participated in large-scale naval battles. What sailboats looked like, what they were armed with, what was the size of the team and what rules should be followed during naval battles - in the material of our regular author Igor Kray.
Guns and sails
Sailing ships of the new time
And at the dead of midnight, starry, but moonless, the majestic frigate, which was once the pride of the shipyards of Cadiz, silently raised anchor and, catching a fair breeze with sails, using the ebb, turned into the open sea.
Raphael Sabatini, The Chronicle of Captain Blood
Steep-sided caravels crowned with white caps of sails, cutting through the azure waves of the southern seas, will forever remain a symbol of the romance of distant wanderings and the era of the great geographical discoveries. But what do we really know about the emergence, development and tactics of the combat use of sailing ships?
round ships
Warships, which were a development of the idea of " longship ”, - boats - dominated the seas for 3000 years. But all this time, in parallel with them, another kind of ships existed and developed. To transport goods back in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, the Phoenicians began to build special " round » transport workers.
The wind of wandering inflates the sails. |
"Round" merchant ships were called because of the extremely wide hull. If the rooks and galleys the width related to the length as 1:6 or even 1:9, then for merchant ships this ratio reached 1:3. A wide hull combined with a high side provided the ship with capacity, and most importantly, survivability. In a storm, a clumsy ship with a single straight sail became completely uncontrollable, but it was not necessary to keep her bow on the wave. Even turning sideways to the wind, such a ship did not capsize and was not flooded with waves.
Already in the 15th century BC, round ships with a deck, a displacement of 300 tons and a length of 30 meters went from Phoenicia to Egypt. Each side had 15 oars necessary for maneuvering and moving in the absence of a fair wind. And such a need arose often. Primitive sailing equipment allowed the round ship to move only at a very small angle to the wind.
Most of the round sailboats of the Greco-Phoenician era, however, did not have a deck and were much smaller - only 10-16 meters in length and 10-50 tons of displacement. In the open sea, their sides were built up with a high leather bulwark. The round ships of the peoples of northern Europe, which appeared 2000 years later, already in the 5th century AD, turned out to be the same. The Irish were the first to embark on long-distance wanderings. Already in the 8th century, they discovered Iceland and, quite likely, reached the shores of America long before the Vikings.
Birth of a legend
Navigation has always played a much greater role for the inhabitants of Europe than for the Asians. On the other hand, if the Europeans had to swim mainly in small inland seas, then the Indian and Chinese sailors from the rivers had to go immediately to the stormy expanses of the oceans. Therefore, the first ships suitable for long-distance cruises were built after all in Asia.
In the Mediterranean, merchant ships capable of sailing with a side wind appeared in Roman times. Grain and even sand for stadiums from Alexandria to Rome were transported by 4000-ton multi-mast giants.
After the sunset of Rome, sailboats with a displacement of up to 300 tons plowed the expanses of the Mediterranean. The Byzantines and Venetians called their ships naves and the Arabs kurkuri . Arabic name, pronouncing it " karakka" , Europeans soon began to use it. The naves differed from the Roman ships in oblique sails borrowed from the Arabs. This innovation made it possible for merchants to use the side wind more efficiently.
In the middle of the 15th century, shipbuilders from the north and south of Europe combined their achievements. From the Hanseatic Koggs caravels Columbus inherited the steering blade, keel and straight sails arranged in two or three tiers, which made it possible to catch a fair wind well. From the Mediterranean naves, the ships of the new time received oblique sails, indispensable for maneuvers and side winds.
In sum, these innovations made it possible to increase the speed of sailboats to 15-18 km / h and made it possible for them to move even at an acute angle to the wind. Since that time, sailboats have gained real freedom of maneuver on the high seas. Galsami(zigzag) the ship could go against the wind.
| The first combat sailboats | ||
Until the early 16th century, sailing ships were seen almost exclusively as transport ships. Even the naves and coggs were too dependent on the direction and strength of the wind and did not have the maneuverability necessary for a warship. On the other hand, in bad weather, a sailing ship was much safer than a galley sitting almost flush with the water. Sailboats had the ability to take on board large supplies of water and food and go to sea for a long time, having up to 200 archers on board. Finally, the 4-meter side gave the 300-ton transporter a huge defensive potential. It was very difficult to climb onto it from a boat or a galley. Combat round ship differed from civilian towers on the bow and stern ( forcastle And aftercastle) and huge crow's nest» on the mast. A closed balcony for rowers was nailed on the outside of the side - crinoline. |
naval artillery
By the end of the 15th century, ships with a displacement of 500-800 tons were no longer a rarity, and ocean voyages no longer frightened sailors. But the military still treated the sailboats with distrust. In maneuverability, coggs were inferior to rowboats, but they did not surpass them in armament. True, from the middle of the 15th century, small breech-loading bombards, and from the loopholes of the towers the bells looked at the enemy Gakovnits... But how much artillery could be placed on the upper deck without the risk of capsizing the ship?
Cut through the sides of the ship ports to place cannons on the lower decks, guessed at the beginning of the 16th century. The ability to take on board dozens of powerful guns without raising the ship's center of gravity too much gave sailing ships a huge advantage. The era of galleys is over.
A warship of the 16th-18th centuries almost necessarily had the prefix "cannon" to the name: 20-gun, 40-gun, etc. The "standard" naval gun was considered to be a 24-pounder (according to the weight of a cast-iron core, 1 pound is equal to 0.45 kg ) tool. Accordingly, the 48-pound turned out to be " double gun", and a 12-pounder -" half-gun". Guns less than 12 pounds in navy were classified as falconets. If the galley had no more than 0.3 pounds of firepower per ton of displacement, then a sailing warship could carry 1 pound per ton or more.
Falconets were installed on high rotary machines - pedestals, and were intended for shelling the enemy deck with buckshot. Cannons of large calibers had wheeled carriages, attached to the board with chains for a ring driven in below the barrel.
Marine cannon. |
Since the hot gases escaping from the barrel posed a great danger, the muzzle should have protruded somewhat beyond the side before firing. For loading, the gun had to be pulled back, and to a sufficient depth so that between it and the side it was possible to turn around with bannik And ramrod. Sometimes, however, the loader descended on a rope from the upper deck and worked, standing on a narrow ledge located below the ports on the outer surface of the side.
After the shot, the gun flew off the length of the chains and, thanks to the recoil, returned to the position for loading. It had to be rolled back into combat position manually. It was hard work, because the gun weighed 120-180 times more than its projectile. The calculation of the 12-pounder gun was only 3 people, and the 24-pounder - 4 people. Only 96 pounds served 10-12 sailors.
One calculation accounted for 2 guns. In fact, the ship could fight with only one side. The small number of service personnel also determined the rate of fire of sea guns, which was half that of land guns.
The firing accuracy of naval guns remained satisfactory only up to 300-400 meters. Buckshot and intended to destroy the rigging "garlands" of nuclei were dangerous at half the distance. Farthest - up to 1500 meters - fire could be fired at large coastal targets.
The energy of the nuclei was not always sufficient either. The wooden armor of the battleships, made of several layers of crossed beams of bog oak, "held" even the shells of the "double" cannons fired at point-blank range.
| Crews |
The combat capability of the sailing ship was provided by a numerous crew. Only for loading the guns of a 40-gun frigate, at least 70 people were required. But someone else had to supply ammunition from the hold, close up holes and work on pumps. Only 10-15 people could handle the sails of a large frigate in good weather, but hundreds of sailors had to serve the masts in battle. After all, the speed of performing maneuvers depended on how quickly the crew was able to remove and unfold the sails. In total, taking into account several officers, 150-200 people were required to control a 40-gun frigate. The sailboat could accommodate approximately one person per ton of displacement. Of course, in this case, it became very crowded in the holds and superstructures, and people on long voyages had to be provided with water and food. But the captains didn't care. Going to discover new lands, Christopher Columbus hired crews of the maximum number. Both in the 10th and in the 18th century, “many strong sailors” were considered the key to the survivability and safety of the ship. |
Boarding
The large sailing ships with powerful artillery weapons that appeared in the 16th century were the first ships designed specifically for long-range combat. If a battleship or a frigate went "to hand-to-hand", then it was only by shooting all the shells, or already against an incapacitated enemy. But the skirmish between small military, and even more so merchant ships, usually turned out to be ineffective. After all, they had fewer guns, and they themselves represented a small and moving target.
Sea battle. |
A feature of boarding in the 16th-19th centuries was that sailing ships did not provide any facilities for this type of battle. If in the days of the rowing fleet, sailors boarded a galley flat like a flounder along a wide boarding ladder, now they had to storm a high board littered inside. The decks of even adjacent ships did not touch, and, moreover, access to them was difficult boarding nets. Under such difficult conditions, boarding made sense only in the event of an overwhelming numerical superiority.
The fire of the musketeers, of course, could play a role, first of all, in the battle between small ships, but on occasion battleships also exchanged volleys. In particular, the famous admiral Horatio Nelson.
Pirate and merchant ships
Any self-respecting ship of the 16th-18th centuries carried some kind of weaponry to protect against pirates. Spanish and Portuguese galleons (nao, naves), as a rule, were limited to only a few small cannons on upper deck. But the English and Dutch ships that filled the oceans in the 17th century were armed much more thoroughly.
The guns on them were located in the same way as on military ships - in ports on the lower deck. Although they were carried civil ships 3-5 times less. Ocean transport weighing 800 tons could have a dozen 12-pound "half-guns" on the sides and falconets on the bow, stern and superstructures.
Sir Francis Drake. |
But the pirates did not need many guns. After all, they did not intend to drown or burn the "merchant". When attacking a merchant ship, shooting, if any, was carried out at the sails, in order to prevent it from escaping. In turn, the "merchant" tried to hit the sails of the "pirate".
If the pirate ship managed to catch up with its victim, it used its main weapon - thugs on deck. The success of boarding tactics was ensured by a crew several times more numerous than was customary on merchant ships.
| Naval tactics |
The tactics of squadron combat in the era of the rowing fleet in many ways resembled land battles. Covering each other's sides, the galleys lined up in a wide front 2-4 rows deep and sought to break through the enemy battle formation or envelop it from the flanks. The sailing ship of the 18th century also fought in formation, for, like the galley of the Middle Ages, it least of all sought to be alone against two opponents attacking from different sides. But now it was not the cannon-armed sides that needed cover, but the vulnerable bow and stern of the ship. At the stern were the captain's bridge and steering mechanisms, and at the bow - the inclined mast necessary for maneuvering, bowsprit. The battle order of the era of the sailing fleet was the wake column, in which each ship covered in front of the one going from the bypass behind. But if the phalanx of infantry could be covered from the flanks, then the squadron was afraid of bypassing the head and tail of the column. The breakthrough of enemy ships through the ranks also threatened with grave consequences. When the "tail" turned out to be "chopped off", the "head" of the squadron could no longer turn around to help it. Returning ships would have to tack into the wind, making them very vulnerable to enemy fire. |
Ships of the 15th and 16th centuries
At the beginning of the 15th century, they began to build two-masted coggs. Further development world shipbuilding was marked by the transition in the middle of the 15th century to three-masted ships. For the first time this type of vessel appeared in the north of Europe in 1475. Its fore and mizzen masts are borrowed from Mediterranean Venetian ships.
The first three-masted ship to enter the Baltic Sea was the French ship La Rochelle. The skin of this ship, which had a length of 43 m and a width of 12 m, was not laid flat, like tiles on the roof of a house, as was done before, but smooth: one board close to another. And although this method of sheathing was known before, nevertheless, the merit of his invention is attributed to a shipbuilder from Brittany named Julian, who called this method "carvel" or "craveel". The name of the plating later passed into the name of the type of ships - "caravel". Caravels were more elegant than coggs and had better sailing equipment, so it was no coincidence that medieval discoverers chose these strong, fast and roomy ships for overseas campaigns. Characteristic features of caravels are high sides, deep sheer deck in the middle part of the vessel and mixed sailing equipment. Only the foremast carried a square straight sail. Latin sails on the slanting yards of the main and mizzen masts allowed ships to sail steeply into the wind.
In the first half of the 15th century, the largest cargo ship (perhaps up to 2000 tons) was a three-masted, two-deck karakka, probably of Portuguese origin. In the 15th-16th centuries, composite masts appeared on sailing ships, which carried several sails at once. The area of the topsails and kruysels (top sails) was increased, which made it easier to control and maneuver the ship. The ratio of body length to width ranged from 2:1 to 2.5:1. As a result, the seaworthiness of these so-called "round" vessels improved, which made it possible to make safer long-distance voyages to America and India and even around the world. A clear distinction between sailing merchant and military ships did not exist at that time; for a number of centuries, only a rowing galley was a typical warship. The galleys were built with one and two masts and carried Latin sails. Significantly larger ships than galleys were galleasses: they had three masts with Latin sails, two large steering oars in the stern, two decks (lower for rowers, upper for soldiers and cannons), and a surface ram in the bow. These warships proved to be durable: as late as the 18th century, almost all maritime powers continued to replenish their fleets with galleys and galleasses. During the 16th century, the appearance of a sailing ship was formed as a whole, which was preserved until the middle of the 19th century. Ships increased significantly in size, if for the 15th century ships of more than 200 tons were rare, then by the end of the 16th century there were single giants reaching 2000 tons, and ships with a displacement of 700-800 tons were no longer rare. From the beginning of the 16th century, European shipbuilding increasingly began to use oblique sails, at first in their pure form, as was done in Asia, but by the end of the century, mixed sailing rigs spread. Artillery was improved - bombards of the 15th and culverins of the early 16th centuries were still not very suitable for arming ships, but by the end of the 16th century the problems associated with casting were largely resolved and a familiar-looking naval gun appeared. Around 1500, cannon ports were invented, it became possible to place cannons in several tiers, and the upper deck was freed from them, which had a positive effect on the ship's stability. The sides of the ship began to fill up inward - so the guns of the upper tiers were closer to the axis of symmetry of the ship. Finally, in the 16th century, in many European countries there were regular navies. All these innovations gravitate towards the beginning of the 16th century, but, given the time required for implementation, spread only towards its end. Again, shipbuilders also had to gain experience, because at first the ships of a new type had an annoying habit of capsizing immediately when leaving the stocks.
During the 16th century, the appearance of a sailing ship was formed as a whole, which was preserved until the middle of the 19th century. Ships increased significantly in size, if for the 15th century ships of more than 200 tons were rare, then by the end of the 16th century there were single giants reaching 2000 tons, and ships with a displacement of 700-800 tons were no longer rare. From the beginning of the 16th century, European shipbuilding increasingly began to use oblique sails, at first in their pure form, as was done in Asia, but by the end of the century, mixed sailing rigs spread. Artillery was improved - bombards of the 15th and culverins of the early 16th centuries were still not very suitable for arming ships, but by the end of the 16th century the problems associated with casting were largely resolved and a familiar-looking naval gun appeared. Around 1500, cannon ports were invented, it became possible to place cannons in several tiers, and the upper deck was freed from them, which had a positive effect on the ship's stability. The sides of the ship began to fill up inward - so the guns of the upper tiers were closer to the axis of symmetry of the ship. Finally, in the 16th century, regular navies appeared in many European countries. All these innovations gravitate towards the beginning of the 16th century, but, given the time required for implementation, spread only towards its end. Again, shipbuilders also had to gain experience, because at first the ships of a new type had an annoying habit of capsizing immediately when leaving the stocks.
In the first half of the 16th century, a ship appeared with fundamentally new properties and a completely different purpose than the ships that existed before. This ship was intended to fight for supremacy at sea by destroying enemy warships on the high seas with artillery fire and combined significant autonomy for those times with the strongest weapons. The rowing ships that existed up to this point could only dominate a narrow strait, and even then, if they were based in a port on the shore of this strait, in addition, their power was determined by the number of troops on board, and artillery ships could act independently of the infantry. A new type of ships began to be called linear - that is, the main ones (like "linear infantry", "linear tanks" the name "linear ship" has nothing to do with lining up - if they were built, then just in a column).
The first battleships that appeared on the northern seas, and later on the Mediterranean Sea, were small - 500-800 tons, which approximately corresponded to the displacement of large transports of that period. Not even the biggest ones. But the largest transports were built for themselves by wealthy merchant companies, and battleships were ordered by states that were not rich at that time. These ships were armed with 50-90 guns, but they were not very strong guns - mostly 12-pounders, with a small admixture of 24-pounders and a very large admixture of small-caliber guns and culverins. Seaworthiness did not stand up to any criticism - even in the 18th century, ships were still built without drawings (they were replaced by a layout), and the number of guns was calculated based on the width of the ship measured in steps - that is, it varied depending on the length of the legs of the chief engineer of the shipyard. But this was in the 18th, and in the 16th, the correlation between the width of the vessel and the weight of the guns was not known (especially since it does not exist). Simply put, ships were built without a theoretical basis, only on the basis of experience, which was almost non-existent in the 16th and early 17th centuries. But the main trend was clearly visible - guns in such a quantity could no longer be considered as auxiliary weapons, and a purely sail design indicated a desire to get an ocean-going ship. Even then, battleships were characterized by armament at the level of 1.5 pounds per ton of displacement.
The faster the ship was, the fewer guns it could have in relation to the displacement, since the more the engine weighed - the masts. Not only did the masts themselves with a mass of ropes and sails weigh a fair amount, they also shifted the center of gravity upwards, therefore they had to be balanced by laying more cast-iron ballast in the hold.
The battleships of the 16th century still had inadequate sailing equipment for sailing in the Mediterranean Sea (especially in its eastern part) and the Baltic. The storm jokingly blew the Spanish squadron out of the English Channel.
Already in the 16th century, Spain, England and France together had about 60 ships of the line, with Spain more than half of this number. Sweden, Denmark, Turkey and Portugal joined this trio in the 17th century.
Ships of the 17th and 18th centuries
In the north of Europe at the beginning of the 17th century, a new type of vessel appeared, similar to flutes - a three-masted pinasse (pinasse). The same type of ships also includes the galleon that appeared in the middle of the 16th century - a military ship of Portuguese origin, which later became the basis of the fleets of the Spaniards and the British. For the first time, guns were installed on the galleon both above and below the main deck, which led to the construction of battery decks; guns stood on the sides and fired through the ports. The displacement of the largest Spanish galleons of 1580-1590 was 1000 tons, and the ratio of the length of the hull to the width was 4:1. The absence of high superstructures and a long hull allowed these ships to sail faster and steeper to the wind than "round" ships. To increase the speed, the number and area of sails were increased, additional sails appeared - foxes and underliesels. At that time, jewelry was considered a symbol of wealth and power - all state and royal courts were luxuriously decorated. The distinction between warships and merchant ships became more distinct. In the middle of the 17th century, frigates began to be built in England, which had up to 60 guns on two decks, and smaller warships, such as a corvette, sloop, bombard, and others.
By the middle of the 17th century, battleships had grown significantly - some already up to 1500 tons. The number of guns remained the same - 50-80 pieces, but 12-pounder guns remained only on the bow, stern and upper deck, guns of 24 and 48 pounds were placed on other decks. Accordingly, the hull became stronger - it could withstand 24-pound shells. In general, the 17th century is characterized by low level confrontation at sea. England, almost throughout its entire length, could not deal with internal turmoil. The Dutch preferred small ships, relying more on their numbers and the experience of the crews. France, powerful at that time, tried to impose its hegemony on Europe by wars on land - the French were of little interest to the sea. Sweden reigned supreme in the Baltic Sea and did not lay claim to other bodies of water. Spain and Portugal were ruined and often found themselves dependent on France. Venice and Genoa quickly turned into third-rate states. The Mediterranean Sea was divided - the western part went to Europe, the eastern - to Turkey. Neither side sought to upset the balance. However, the Maghreb ended up in the European sphere of influence - English, French and Dutch squadrons did away with piracy during the 17th century. The greatest maritime powers of the 17th century had 20-30 battleships each, the rest had only a few.
Türkiye also began to build battleships from the end of the 16th century. But they still differed significantly from European models. Especially the shape of the hull and sailing weapons. Turkish battleships were significantly faster than European ones (this was especially true in the Mediterranean), carried 36-60 guns of 12-24 caliber pounds and were weaker armored - only from 12-pounder cores. Armament was a pound per ton. The displacement was 750 -1100 tons. In the 18th century, Türkiye began to lag significantly behind in terms of technology. Turkish battleships of the 18th century resembled European ones of the 17th century.
During the 18th century, the growth in the size of ships of the line continued uninterrupted. By the end of this century, battleships had reached a displacement of 5,000 tons (the limit for wooden ships), armor was strengthened to an incredible degree - even 96-pound bombs did not harm them enough - and 12-pound half-guns were no longer used on them. Only 24 pounds for the upper deck, 48 pounds for the two middle decks, and 96 pounds for the bottom deck. The number of guns reached 130. True, there were also smaller battleships with 60-80 guns, with a displacement of about 2000 tons. They were more often limited to 48-pound caliber, and they were also protected from it. Incredibly increased the number of battleships. England, France, Russia, Turkey, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and Portugal had battle fleets. By the middle of the 18th century, England had almost undivided dominance at sea. By the end of the century, she had almost a hundred battleships (including those that were not in active use). France scored 60-70, but they were weaker than the English. Russia under Peter stamped 60 battleships, but they were made in a hurry, somehow, carelessly. In a rich way, only the preparation of wood - so that it would turn into armor - should have taken 30 years (in fact, Russian ships and later were built not from bog oak, but from larch, it was heavy, relatively soft, but did not rot and lasted 10 times longer than oak). But their number alone forced Sweden (and the whole of Europe) to recognize the Baltic Sea as Russian inland. By the end of the century, the size of the Russian battle fleet even decreased, but the ships were brought up to European standards. Holland, Sweden, Denmark and Portugal had 10-20 ships each, Spain - 30, Turkey - also about that, but these were already ships of a non-European level.
Even then, the property of battleships was manifested that they were created most of all for numbers - so that they were, and not for war. It was expensive to build and maintain them, and even more so to equip them with a crew, all kinds of supplies and send them on campaigns. They saved on this - they did not send it. So even England used only a small part of her battle fleet at a time. Equipment for a campaign of 20-30 battleships was also a national task for England. Russia kept only a few battleships on alert. Most of the battleships spent their entire lives in the port with only a minimal crew on board (capable, in case of urgent need, to overtake the ship to another port) and unloaded guns.
The ship next in rank to the battleship was the frigate, designed to capture the water space. With the incidental destruction of everything (except battleships) that was available in this space. Formally, the frigate was an auxiliary ship in the battle fleet, but, given that the latter was used extremely sluggishly, frigates turned out to be the most popular of the ships of that period. Frigates, like later cruisers, could be divided into light and heavy ones, although such a gradation was not formally carried out. The heavy frigate appeared in the 17th century, it was a ship with 32-40 cannons, counting the falconets, and displacing 600-900 tons of water. The guns were 12-24 pounds, with the latter predominating. The armor could withstand 12-pound cannonballs, the armament was 1.2-1.5 tons per pound, and the speed was greater than that of a battleship. The displacement of the latest modifications of the 18th century reached 1500 tons, there were up to 60 cannons, but usually there were no 48-pound ones.
Light frigates have been common since the 16th century, and in the 17th they made up the vast majority of all warships. Their production required a significantly lower quality wood than for the construction of heavy frigates. Larch and oak were considered strategic resources, and pines suitable for making masts in Europe and the European part of Russia were counted and taken into account. Light frigates did not carry armor, in the sense that their hulls withstood wave impacts and mechanical loads, but they did not claim more, the skin thickness was 5-7 centimeters. The number of guns did not exceed 30, and only on the largest frigates of this class were 4 24 pounds on the lower deck - they did not even occupy the entire floor. The displacement was 350-500 tons.
In the 17th and early 18th centuries, light frigates were simply the cheapest warships, ships that could be made a whole cloud and quickly. Including by re-equipment of merchant ships. By the middle of the 18th century, similar ships began to be specially produced, but with an emphasis on maximum speed - corvettes. There were even fewer cannons on corvettes, from 10 to 20 (there were actually 12-14 cannons on 10-gun ships, but those that looked at the bow and stern were classified as falconets). The displacement was 250-450 tons.
The number of frigates in the 18th century was significant. England had little more than ships of the line, but still got a lot. Countries with small battleship fleets had several times more frigates than battleships. The exception was Russia, which had one frigate for three battleships. The point was that the frigate was intended to capture space, and with it (space) in the Black and Baltic Seas it was a bit tight. At the very bottom of the hierarchy were sloops - ships designed to carry out sentinel service, reconnaissance, combat piracy, and so on. That is, not to fight other warships. The smallest of them were ordinary schooners of 50-100 tons in weight with several guns less than 12 pounds in caliber. The largest had up to 20 12-pounder guns and a displacement of up to 350-400 tons. Sloops and other auxiliary ships could be any number. For example, Holland in the middle of the 16th century had 6,000 merchant ships, most of which were armed. By installing additional guns, 300-400 of them could be turned into light frigates. The rest are in sloops. Another question is that the merchant ship brought profit to the Dutch treasury, and the frigate or sloop consumed this profit. England at that time had 600 merchant ships. How many people could be on these ships? A is different. In principle, a sailboat could have one crew member for every ton of displacement. But this worsened habitability and reduced autonomy. On the other hand, the more numerous the crew, the more combat-ready the ship turned out to be. In principle, 20 people could manage the sails of a large frigate. But only in good weather. They could do the same in a storm, simultaneously working on the pumps and battening down the port covers knocked out by the waves, they could do it for a short time. Most likely, their strength would have ended earlier than the wind. To conduct a battle on a 40-gun ship, a minimum of 80 people were required, - 70 load the guns of one side, and another 10 run around the deck and lead. But if the ship performs such a complex maneuver as a turn, all gunners will have to rush from the lower decks to the masts - when turning, the ship will certainly have to move tacks against the wind for some time, but for this, it will be necessary to tightly reef all direct sails, and then, of course, open them again. If the gunners need to either climb the masts, then run into the hold for the cannonballs - they won’t shoot much. Typically, sailboats designed for long passages or long cruising had one person on board for 4 tons. This was enough to control the ship and for combat. In the event that the ship was used for landing operations or boarding, the crew could reach one person per ton. How did they fight? If two roughly equal ships met in the sea under the flags of the warring powers, then both of them began to maneuver in order to take a more advantageous position from the side of the wind. One sought to go into the tail of the other - so it was possible at the most interesting moment to take away the wind from the enemy. Considering that the guns were guided by the hull, and the maneuverability of the ship was proportional to its speed, no one wanted to move against the wind at the time of the collision. On the other hand, having too much wind in the sails, it was possible to slip forward and let the enemy pass to the rear. All these dances were original in the sense that it was practically possible to maneuver only by direction. The speed maneuver was carried out indirectly, by taking a more or less advantageous position in relation to the wind. It took a long time to maneuver, lowering and raising the sails, but it was necessary. Each ship sought to aim its guns at the enemy, but in such a way as to avoid a return volley. Or substitute your ship for this volley in the smallest projection. In the simplest case, the ships simply moved in parallel courses from time to time firing volleys from a long distance. The winner was the one who maneuvered better, or who had more guns. But often such a confrontation turned out to be fruitless - after several hours of battle, either the cores ran out, or one of the ships got tired of everything and sailed away. It turned out more interesting if the ships converged at 100-150 meters. The number of hits and their strength increased many times over. The role began to play the speed of loading guns. From such a distance, buckshot and chains could be used to destroy the rigging. If one of the opponents lost masts (especially the bowsprit) and sails (especially slanting on the bowsprit), he was completely at the mercy of the other, who, for example, could go along the stern almost back to back and unload the guns point-blank. A ship with no speed could only hope that the enemy himself would slip under his guns. At a distance of 100-150 meters, falconets were also used. Since from such a distance one volley could decide the outcome of the battle, the one who managed to fire it first won. If it hit, of course. The battle was especially cruel if the ships converged on a pistol shot - that is, just so as not to grapple with the rigging. In this case, each gun acted for itself. As soon as an enemy port appeared a few meters from her muzzle, she fired. Well, since there was also a cannon in that port, the gunner had every chance to get the core right in the eye. Although no projectile was required from such a distance, one shock wave from the shot was enough. At this point - who will play a point first. In addition, the fact that the hull of such and such a ship withstood such and such cores did not mean that it would withstand them at close range. From terrible blows, the masts loosened, the yards collapsed, the sides cracked, giving leaks, ladders and decks fell through, guns fell off their mounts. It happened that from a powerful salvo at close range, the ship literally fell apart. It also happened that he fell apart from his own volley. In short, when the ships converged on a pistol shot, the more durable and with a more courageous crew won. Or one that, by the time they approached point-blank, had kept the guns loaded. Guns at such a distance from the enemy, of course, were not loaded. The ships could not go point-blank from one another for a long time - their speed could not be the same. In order not to overtake, the faster one had to turn away from the wind from time to time, that is, change the direction of movement. The ships approached and then diverged. If a squadron fought against a squadron, then each ship covered the one in front from the bypass behind. But no one covered the closing one. Therefore, if the infantry was afraid of coverage from the flanks, then the ships avoided coverage from the head and tail of the column, especially the tail, since this was easier to implement. The breakthrough of the column was also dangerous, when some part of it was cut off by the enemy. The trick was that when the tail was cut off, the head of the squadron could not turn around to help him - the returning ships would have to tack against the wind, and in such a position they would be vulnerable as nailed. The ships that were cut off were forced to slow down - they took away the wind from behind, blocked them in front, - literally blocked them, substituting the side. It was the galleys that sought to hit the enemy with their bows, and the sailing ship was afraid to break the bowsprit with such a blow and turn into scrap. More than a collision, by the way, did not threaten anything. The speeds were low, and the construction of the ships was solid - so, the dishes in the galley would break - that's all. Ships that lost their speed (and, consequently, their ability to aim guns while maneuvering) were shot at point-blank range. For the first time, such methods of naval combat were used in the 17th century by the Dutch against the British. To the great humiliation of the latter, De Rieter destroyed the strongest British squadrons with a crowd of light frigates and a few heavy ones. The Dutch even broke into the Thames. However, later, the British realized what the trick was, and besides, the Dutch began to build battleships, neither to take away the wind from which, nor to block which, nor to shoot through the core of the cannon lifting for their ships, the Dutch could no longer. The shipyards of the Dutch themselves were located in the depths of their country and the maximum tonnage of ships was limited by the depth of the channels. Another way to win a great victory at sea was to catch the enemy fleet in the parking lot. Especially if most of the crews were on the shore. It was possible to smash motionless ships with impunity. So Nelson destroyed the French fleet at Aboukir. The French not only released most of the crews to the shore, but also carelessly stood up so that the British freely passed between the coast and the French line. Two or four English ships went around the French from the sides and anchored outside of its sector of fire. When the ship fought while at anchor, a pair of longboats was always on duty next to it, in order to change the orientation of its hull if necessary. For the same reason, it was relatively easy for Peter and Menshikov to capture a pair of Swedish light frigates at the anchorage. The Swedes could not raise the anchors, as they would have been carried aground by the current, and apparently there was no wind. So the Swedes could only fight back with falconets. Another question is that it was problematic to get on board the frigate from the plow. In addition to artillery fire, boarding was a common way for one ship to attack another. In battles between battleships and heavy frigates, however, he had almost no use. Firstly, these ships were created for artillery combat. Such ships were often captured, but it happened differently - having exhausted the possibilities for resistance, the ship simply surrendered, - then they landed on it boarding party. Or, while maneuvering, they still collided and got mixed up with rigging - the situation turned out to be stupid, but somehow the battle had to be continued. Secondly, the large frigates and battleships were too large for boarding to be physically feasible. Even if the two battleships were butted, their sides were littered inward, and there was a gap between the decks, too large to be bridged by a jump. Jumping onto an enemy ship by swinging on the dangling end, or crawling from port to port, or throwing a cat and climbing up the outside of the side was feasible. But it was possible to attack in this way only if there was an overwhelming numerical superiority and a strong coupling of ships. And there were also problems with the hitch - it was not difficult to pull ships weighing 200 tons with cats, big ships with huge inertia and windage - unrealistic. Mooring them firmly to one another would not be easy even with the efforts of both teams, and if this had not been done, it could have turned out like Prince Hamlet. Who remembers: during the boarding, he jumped aboard an enemy ship, and, since he was the only psycho with a certificate on the ship, he ended up there alone. But the pirates decided that even one - with a certificate - was too much. And they dumped it. I mean, someone who got on board an enemy ship in this way had every chance of ending up naked on the shores of some kind of sucky kingdom. This is at best. The boarding of an equal ship had to be carried out in such a way as to reduce the bonuses of the defenders to a minimum. Otherwise - it makes no sense. The galley of the 16th century had a wide raised platform on the bow that was approaching the low side of another galley. In such a situation, the attackers even had an advantage, since the enemy forces were cut in half. In the 18th century, the scampaways no longer had such a platform, since they were not intended to fight other galleys flat like a flounder. The naves and coggs of the 16th century also had a raised platform at the prow. She was higher and could be pushed onto the high side of the ship of the northern seas. If you recall, the Romans, as civilized people, crossed over to an enemy ship along the bridge. But on the ships of the 17th-18th centuries there were no boarding devices - they became irrelevant. The small sailing ships of the 17th-18th centuries, down to the light frigates, operated differently. The firefight between them was not as effective as between large ships, since they had fewer guns and themselves represented a smaller and more mobile target. Although in the event of a hit, the cores carried more damage. To an even greater extent, this concerned merchant and pirate ships. Here boarding was quite applicable and possible - the ships converged closely and the crampons pulled side to side. They jumped from deck to deck, if they didn't step over. It was more difficult to board more tall ship from a lower one. Here it was impossible to think of anything else than to throw the cats on the high side and climb with a dagger in their teeth. Plus, a special anti-boarding net was often stretched along the side of the ship - it had to be cut through, which, having a dagger in its teeth, was quite difficult to do. Such boarding was resorted to only in the event of a large numerical superiority of the crew. Or with equal forces, but in a state of hopeless heroism. So, by the way, the unjustifiably high side of the ships of that era, littered inside, did not arise by chance. In general, the boarding was more pirate than military. A battleship or a large frigate could only be boarded after a thorough artillery preparation, which destroyed most of its crew or deprived it of the will to resist. Or if he was surrounded by a solid mass of fussy scampaways. But, let's say, close combat began. When the ships approached, a new weapon was connected - muskets. The musketeers tried with volleys to hit the officers on the bridge and, in general, any people on the deck of an enemy ship. How many of these musketeers could be is a separate question. The ship's crew in battle was too busy with guns and sails. Marines fired, the number of which could be very different. It could be four times less than sailors, and four times more. On the ships of the 16th century, instead of musketeers, there could be archers and crossbowmen. The coolest thing was to put the musketeers on the yardarms - one shot, and four or five more were engaged in loading the muskets and passing the arrow. So it was possible to fire at the enemy deck from above, which was especially useful if the enemy was going to board, and his ship was no less high. In particular, Nelson was killed by a bullet when his ship diverged from the enemy. But small arms could play a prominent role only in battles between poorly armed ships. When events took on a boarding turn, the muskets lost their significance - they were not dragged onto the deck of an enemy ship. The Marine was armed in such a way that he might have to first crawl along the side like a fly on glass, and then still fight in the cramped interior of the ship. The gun with a bayonet was too long and inconvenient for such an application. The Marine's weapon was a sword, or a saber, or a dagger. Pistols were widely used in the 18th century. The fight was individual. Pistols were still rare in the 17th century. For example, according to Dumas, four musketeers did not have a single pistol (it is in the film that they have pistols, moreover, they are flintlocks). A pair of wheeled pistols cost as much as 4 muskets - at the very least. Breastplates were used only by marines and officers - it would be difficult to climb the yards in armor. But the marines did not really lean on the armor - boarding was associated with the risk of falling into the water. A special form of combat operations of the fleet was the support of land operations. Supporting the infantry with fire was difficult, since the cannonballs of naval guns ricochets only when fired at 500-600 meters. During the battle on the Kinburn Spit, Turkish ships fired on the flank of Suvorov's infantry, but this was a rare case - when the ships managed to get so close to the enemy infantry. During the pacification of the Maghreb, English and French ships entered the harbor of Algiers and shelled the city - up to 1500 meters, the cannonballs could destroy not very strong buildings. During the assault on the island of Corfu, Russian ships anchored near the French fortress and showered it with cannonballs. So it was possible to suppress fortress artillery, but if the fortress was solid, at least 10 naval guns against one fortress were required (counting only one side of the ship and not counting the fortress falconets). In addition, the ship still had to approach the fortress at a minimum distance. In general, the 24-pounders were dangerous enough for fortifications, but only up close. Sometimes, during landing operations, part of the artillery could be removed from the ship. Basically, these were falconets, since there were no horses for towing heavy guns on the ship. A 3-6 pound falconet could well pass for a regimental cannon if it had a wheeled carriage, but most often it was not there - collapsible carriages were then a rarity. Usually, sailors, if they wanted to use a cannon on land, made an impromptu gun carriage for it, similar to the gun carriages of a 15th century bombard, a wooden deck to which the falconet was attached with brackets. It was quite possible to remove a 12-pound gun from the ship and transport it to the shore, but its "sea" carriage did not provide for the possibility of transportation by land. It was impossible to drag her far into the depths of the mainland. When firing from the anchorage, it became especially clear why black powder is also called smoky gunpowder - cast-iron guns emitted smoke in an unimaginable amount, - after two or three volleys the ship was completely hidden in it - only the masts stuck out. Visibility dropped to zero. Even when shooting on the move, and therefore in the presence of wind, this was a problem. Land artillery also suffered from smoke from frequent firing, but on land the battery could have an observation post as far away as possible, and at sea the captain's bridge was a few meters from the nearest muzzle. In addition, at sea, the target was mobile and small in size. For this reason, the bridge turned out to be at the stern of the ship (from where, by the way, not a damn thing was visible towards the bow - that's what the lookouts were required for). The wind in battle usually blew aft and the bridge was cleared of it first. What is the most incredible thing in modern ideas about naval battles of that era? Well, some points related to the Caribbean pirates - of course, but about them - below. Boarding battles between battleships? Happened - like a ram in a tank battle. This, of course, is not a method of using a tank, but there are circumstances. If you think about it, what associations do the words "battle of the era of the sailing fleet" evoke? Smoke, fire, the raging sea, the brig "Mercury" in full sail emerges victorious from the battle with two Turkish battleships. Well, about the victory of a brig (a small armed civilian ship) over two battleships and two corvettes, let's remember. Maybe he would have won if they caught up with him. Only after all, the Basurmans did not catch up. But what does not fit specifically is the raging sea. All military operations at sea during that period took place in good (comparatively) weather. Maneuvering in combat, the ship would inevitably, at some point, turn out to be sideways to the wave. And the ports were at a height of a meter, less often one and a half from the waterline. It is easy to imagine what happened next - the stability of warships of that time was very poor. In addition, the ships, with the exception of giant battleships, did not exceed the size of a modern trawler. In a storm, unladen cannonballs would fly across the decks with their favorite ricochets. Yes, and the ship moved with a strong wind not faster, but more slowly than with a moderate one, moreover, only in one direction - tacks against the wind. By the way, the multi-masted sailboat moved with a trick downwind. If the wind was blowing directly into the stern, then the rear mast shaded the front ones, so it turned out to be more profitable to go at a certain angle to the wind.
In the sailing fleet (the end of the 17th - the middle of the 19th century), did the battleship become the largest warship? a three-masted vessel with strong artillery armament (from 60 to 130 guns).
Depending on the displacement, dimensions and, first of all, on the number of guns, in accordance with the “Table of Ranks of Ships” (XVII century), the ships were divided into six ranks. By the middle of the 19th century, the displacement of battleships reached 5000 tons, armament? 130 guns, crew? 800 people.
The trends in the development of warships from galleon to linear are illustrated by the English warship built in 1637 “Sovereign of the Seas” (“Lord of the Seas”)? fig 9.1. Its displacement is 1530 tons, the maximum length is 71 m, the width is 14.2 m, the hold depth is 5.9 m, the maximum draft is 6.75 m. For the first time in the history of shipbuilding, artillery pieces were placed on three decks.
This ship is considered the first sailing ship of the line in the history of shipbuilding. On three continuous battery decks and on the fourth tier of the battery on the quarterdeck was installed
126 guns, 20 of them heavy 60-pounders, eight? 38 lb. Crew? 800 people. The ship was decorated with numerous baroque sculptures and wood carvings. The cost of the ship was enormous: ten ordinary 40-gun ships could be built for it. The English king Charles I, on whose orders this ship was built, was blamed for unjustified waste in financing the construction of the navy. The political passions of those years led to the fact that the king was executed (in 1649) by order of Oliver Cromwell. The ship lived a long life? rebuilt three times and was afloat
60 years. He repeatedly took part in naval battles, but did not die in a naval battle, but burned down in a parking lot in Chatham (near London) from the fire of an overturned candle.
The first third of the 17th century included the entry of France into the great maritime powers. This is due to the name of the Duke of Richelieu, on whose initiative the reconstruction of the French seaports began, several sailing ships were bought from Holland, which became the first large warships of the navy. In 1636, the first ship of the line of his own construction, “Le
Korona ”(Korona) (displacement? 2100 tons, waterline length? 50.7 m, side height? 10.5 m, mouth-mast from keel to klotik? 57.6 m, armament? 72 guns on three decks, crew ?604 people). The ship was built by Charles Maurier.
An example of a battleship of the 1st rank perfect for that time is the French three-decker 120-gun Soleil Royal (Sun King), built in 1690 (Fig. 9.2). His measurements were close to the table of ranks and were: length? 55 m, width? 15.5 m, deepening of the hold? 6.7 m; crew? 875 people. For a long period, the Soleil Royal was considered the best among the battleships of the leading maritime powers of the world in terms of its driving performance, firepower, decor. Another well-known battleship of the 1st rank was the Spanish Santisima Trinidad (Fig. 9.3), built in 1769 at the Spanish naval shipyard in Havana (Cuba). Hull and deck made of Cuban mahogany, mast and yard? from Mexican pine. Side thickness? 0.6 m. For the first time, a ship of this class had four gun decks, on which 144 guns were installed, 30 of them 32 caliber pounds were located on the lower deck. The firing range of these guns? 1.5 miles. On the second deck, two 18-pound and twenty-six 8-pound guns and mortars were installed. The rest of the guns occupied the third and fourth decks. Despite numerous hits on this ship of the line by English ships in the battle of Trafalgar in 1805, he
was not sunk. During the battle, 1,200 sailors and marines were on the ship.
The English battleship Victory, which took part in the Battle of Trafalgar, has survived to the present day (Fig. 9.4). It has become a memorial ship and since 1922 has been standing in the Portsmouth dry dock in honor of the victory of the British fleet over the combined naval forces of Spain and France. The place on the deck where the mortally wounded Admiral Nelson fell is marked with a memorial plate. The ship of the line was built by shipbuilders D. Lock and E. Allan back in 1765 in Chatham near London. It had three decks and three masts. For the construction of "Victory" 2.5 thousand trees were used, mainly oak. The keel is made up of several elm trunks, the frames were hewn with an ax according to the drawings, which were made in full size. The sides with a thickness of 0.6 m consisted of external and internal plating, fastened with steel bolts and oak dowels. Displacement? about 3.5 thousand tons, length? 57 m, width? about 16 m, crew? 850 people. Was armed with 104 guns, of which more than half are heavy? 32- and 24-pound.
From the end of the 17th century for long-range reconnaissance and cruising service (independent combat operations on sea and ocean communications with the aim of capturing and destroying enemy merchant ships) in the navies different countries a new type of ship appears? frigate? with sufficiently powerful artillery weapons, but faster than battleships. It differed from the latter in smaller dimensions (displacement 700? -1000 tons and more) and a smaller number of guns. Among the frigates there were also large ones, which had up to 60 guns, which were included in the battle line and were called linear frigates. Here are some typical ships of this type. The French frigate "Flora" (Fig. 9.5), built in 1780, had the greatest length? 
47 m, keel? 38 m, maximum width? 11.6 m, draft? 5 m, armament? 30 9-pounder guns, crew? About 300 people. The American frigate Constitution (Fig. 9.6), built in Boston in 1797, was designed to protect American shipping lanes from pirates in the Caribbean and mediterranean seas. Its length is 62.2 m, width 13.6 m, side height 6.85 m. Armament reached 55 guns, twenty-eight of which were 24-pounders, and ten were 12-pounders. Crew? 400 people. The frigate was afloat for 150 years, it was repeatedly restored, and since 1947 it has been permanently moored in Boston as a memorial ship.
The history of the development of frigates is interesting. Initially, in 
XIII?-XVI centuries, a frigate (sailing and rowing ship with galleys) had 4-5 pairs of oars, an oblique sail. On long trips, it was towed by the flagship galley. The largest sailing and rowing ship of the skerry fleet was also called a frigate, in addition to sails, it had 12 ... 18 pairs of oars, it was armed with up to 38 guns. After going through a series of changes, frigates as a class of ships were revived in the modern navies of different countries (the name was given during the Second World War). Now their combat mission is to search for and destroy enemy submarines, 
anti-submarine and anti-missile defense of ships and transports during operations as part of search groups and security forces.
Corvettes XVII-?XVIII centuries? ships with a displacement of 460 tons or more; they had the same as frigates, direct sailing and 18? 30 guns on the upper deck and were used mainly
for reconnaissance and messenger service (Fig. 9.7, a). Corvette “Astrolabe” (France, 1811) had a length of 101.04 feet (30.08 m), a width along the deck of 28.54 feet (8.7 m), a draft of 11.97 feet (3.65 m), displacement 380 t.
brigs were significantly smaller than frigates, their displacement? 200?400 t, length? up to 32 m, width? 8 ... 9 m, direct armament on two masts, on the second main mast, in addition to direct sails, another oblique was placed. Crew? up to 120 people, artillery weapons? up to 24 guns. They appeared in the 18th century and were used not only as cruising, sentinel, but also as messengers (Fig. 9.7, b).
The total area of sails raised on a 120-gun ship of the line reached 3140 m2, on frigates? 2500 m2, on brigs? 760 m2, which gave 0.65 per ton of displacement, respectively;
1.0; 1.9 m2. The specific sailing armament also determined the speed qualities of the ships. Brigs and frigates, the speed of which reached 10 knots, and the mass of sails? 4 tons were faster than battleships. The desire to limit the diversity of the navy, to introduce proven ship designs has led to the fact that in all the fleets of the world the practice of compiling ship states (the tables of ranks mentioned above) has been established. The states were most fully developed and repeatedly updated in England and France, and then in Russia. They determined the hierarchy of warships, as well as the main characteristics and specification requirements for construction. Table 1 gives an idea of such states at the beginning of the 18th century. 9.1, borrowed from the work of R.M. Melnikov). The information refers to the armament and equipment of English ships according to the Admiralty rules of 1709?-1727. The military sailing fleet was preserved until the first half of XIX century. The last war, in which sailboats took part as the main armed force of the warring parties, was the Crimean. She also showed that the long age of sailing warships was over.
