Could a Few Napoleonic Warships Win the Battle of Actium?

[@alganhar1]

Some things missing. 1) Freeboard. For those who do not know this is the measurement of a ship from the waterline to the lowest unenclosed deck. Freeboard of a two deck Third rate Ship of the line was around 6 metres, freeboard of a First rate Three deck ship of the line such as HMS Victory is around 7.5 metres. Freeboard of a Classical era galley is 3 - 3.5 metres at the most. That means AT BEST, any boarders have to board a ship that is 2.5 metres higher than them. In essence they have to scale a wall, and they have to do it with nothing but grappling hooks and ropes. 2) Napoleonic Ships expected Boarders: Boarding actions were common in the Napoleonic era, and ships had weapons specifically designed to deal with boarders, or which could be turned to use against Boarders. These included but are not limited to: a) Swivel guns, essentially light cannons mounted on swivelling mounts. Typically loaded with musket ball sized grape or cannister shot these were located on the sides, at strategic locations on the ship, and in the fighting tops. b) Carronades. These were lighter, short barrelled low velocity cannon typically mounted higher on the ship where lower weight was important. These were used either to add firepower in a close range gun action, OR, to sweep enemy decks clear of gathering boarders using Grape or Cannister shot. Because of their much lighter construction allowed by the much lower velocities, main deck based carronades could be MUCH larger than cannons mounted in the same place. Royal Navy Ship of the Line often carried multiple 32 pounder carronades on their main decks. Add to this the fact that the crew were all either armed, or had close access to weapon racks holding boarding pikes, boarding axes, cutlasses an pistols for use in the event of a Boarding action. Even worse for the potential boarders each ship would have AT LEAST a Company of Marines on board. The boarders therefore are in essence having to attack a wooden castle, armed with cannon, swivel guns and carronades, with nothing but grappling hooks and ropes... Is it possible for 200 galleys to do that? Sure. But the casualties would be outright hideous. And lets clear two more points up. First, while a Napoleonic sailing ships guns mostly face abeam (to the sides), that is only MOSTLY. Each of those ships will have 4 chasers each bow and stern. Its not a full broadside, but even attacking from bow or stern you are facing heavy cannon. And you have MUCH less room to attack in. All the crew of a Galley are not fighters. Most are the Oarsmen, who, if armed at all will only be lightly armed and completely unarmoured. Depending on the size of the Galley the actual Boarding troops, the Marines, will number between 30 - 100 men, typically 50 or so.

[@ycplum7062]

You forgot the boarding pikes and occasional hand grenades (using hand lit fuses from a slow match). ; )

[@blackhorse-wm6oc]

Another thing to add. The scenario also seemed to rely extensively on solid shot. But against the small Roman era ships I think the shot would of very likely been changed as the ships closed range. Broadsides of grape shot or even chain shot, which while intended to cripple rigging and sails was known to also be effective at cutting crew down as well, would have the potential to shred those small light wooden vessels into splinters if they caught the core of the salvo while the outer edges likely would of peppered other ship. That would lead to dozens of dead crew and possibly even crippling holes in the hull which would lead to sinking.

[@knightingale9833]

The Carronades on ships of the line were heavier than that, HMS Victory had some 64-pounders at Trafalgar. The long guns carried on its lowest gun decks were all 32s. 32-pounder carronades would be for smaller vessels

[@SbrBAR-z4z]

@@ycplum7062. No he didn’t you just didn’t actually read the comment

[@XGAMER-qq3yv]

What could polish special forces do in the Warsaw Uprising? I think their ability to train the polish rebels would be invaluable in the uprising.

[@coreystockdale6287]

This I want this

[@inquisitorsteele8397]

Nothing much. They won't have much time trained force large enough make difference. At best they might delay the inevitable for a few days but as long as Soviet refused to move in until Uprising was crushed. The Uprising is doom

[@SuperDiablo101]

I'd watch this

[@XGAMER-qq3yv]

@@inquisitorsteele8397yeah, but 200 isn’t a fixed number he can change it to whatever he wants. Also if they came back months or weeks beforehand, as the uprising had been brewing months beforehand it might cause a big difference. You’re right that if they came back the day of the uprising it would make little difference.

[@chrisb5415]

Nothing. The German troops are still way too superior, much better looking and carrying much heavier balls and bigger dicks.

[@jamesricker3997]

You forgot about grape shot. At close range that would have been devastating against the Romans.

[@stargatefan10]

I love when you do naval battles. It's always so interesting, as the technology disparity can be huge, yet if the numbers are kept low enough, it's still up in the air.

[@michaelmorris4515]

@15:54 - No they don't. Ancients who have never heard anything approaching the sound of canon fire would shit themselves and run after the first volley in blind panic babbling about what Hell the gods have unleashed upon them. The sound alone would likely terrify them into retreat - but seeing the flagship gutted at near a mile's distance would send them running away. There's a limit to human bravery. I stopped the video there because missing that vital point of human nature renders everything that follows laughable. You also missed a very crucial bit of tech the Italians would have which would be almost as crushing as the guns - semaphore flags. The Romans never developed anything approaching Semaphore to coordinate forces at range - they sailed in close order and would shout orders up and down the line, which would utterly break down in the screaming panic after the opening canon volley.

[@jonathanallard2128]

This! You took the words out of my mouth. Not a chance the Romans would keep on pushing forward at the sight of their ships getting annihilated at a distance unfathomable to them, by weapons that might as well be alien technology to them. ..and the thunderous noise...and the towering ship. They'd shit their pants and row away like it's the Olympics.

[@JustFlemishMe]

Except we don't know that. We literally can't know that. Psychology is no hard science. People aren't always reasonable. Sometimes they do crazy things. There are recorded instances of attacks in situations where there was zero realistic hope of success. It's absolutely plausible the Romans, seeing the man they're fighting for (presumably) die, would decide this battle is now pointless and they're not dying here, sailing away. It's also plausible they might burn with desire to avenge Caesar's son and heir. That's not to say they're equally plausible, and certainly not equally reasonable, but it actually portrays lack of understanding of the human mind, with its impossible complexity and strange twists, that either 'would never happen'.

[@PeterIsotalo]

2:25 the number before the "-reme" refers to rows or oarsmen, not banks of oars. Galleys never had more than three sets of oars (from top to bottom). Any number of oars above three would mean the top-most oars didn't have enough leverage to actually be effective. The angle of the oar is simply becomes too steep. Overall, I'd say you're overlooking how much taller the freeboard of a sailing vessel was compared to a galley of any era. Hardly matters how good troops are at fighting if they first have to climb up to several meters of shipside. Seems like they would have to have the death-defying, suicidal morale of LotR orcs to get on board. Fireships also kinda don't work the way you describe here. They were used to break up large formations, to demoralize and create chaos rather than acting as huge floating fire bombs. With just a few ships as the target, it seems unlikely that a fireship could be accurate enough to actually hit a specific enemy ship or that it's crew were unable to avoid or deflect it before it impacted.

[@alexius23]

Galleys were still being used at the start of the Napoleonic Wars. They were gone fairly quickly.

[@davidkinsey8657]

This scenario didn't account for the one advantage that the Roman oared vessels would have had. They didn't need to depend upon the wind for movement. They could move faster and maneuver better against the wind than the Napoleanic era ships. If the galleys attacked diagonally from the stern, they could approach at an angle of relative safety. Galleys were still in use during the Napoleonic wars, mainly in the Mediterranean, and used this tactic when confronting frigates. If the battle took place on a calm day, one could easily make the case for them being victorious.

[@aleksjamnik5360]

The roman gallies wear not preppered to fight the warship there offensive capabilities are mostly boarding which they will have a super hard time doing considering the height off the two ships

[@vinz4066]

​@@aleksjamnik5360 And musketfire.

[@davidkinsey8657]

​@vinz4066 musket fire was not all that accurate nor quick, and in this scenario the Romans would have a huge numerical advantage. If their legionaries had managed to board they would have wreaked havoc among the unarmed sailors and gunners. As they boarded through the lower gunports they would quickly drive the gunners away from their posts. I could only see this happening if the Napoleonic era ships were becalmed.

[@vinz4066]

@@davidkinsey8657 1. Muskets arent as Inacurate as percived. Of course they are to modern fire Arms but they definitivly can Hit targets reliably. Espeacialy If they are close enough to Board. 2. Muskets hava a lot of man stopping Power. They are Deadlier compared to bows. They will Take people out of the fight more reliably. Shields dont concern them. The morale effect to the Romans will also be pretty severe. 3. The Sailors werent unarmed. They were expected to fight in Boarding Actions. Things such as Boarding Pikes, cutlasses and Pistoles were used. 4. The Ships were pretty high compared to the Roman ships. Boarding them is easier Said then done.

[@alganhar1]

@@davidkinsey8657 What makes you think the sailors were unarmed? They were anything but, the sailors were the primary source of manpower for Boarding actions, both making them and defending against them. There were weapons racks situated at regular intervals along the decks containing boarding pikes, boarding axes and cutlasses. Next, boarding actions were common in the age of sail, less common than they were in the Classical era sure, but still common. Ships had secondary armament specifically to defend AGAINST boarding actions. These included, but are not limited to something called swivel guns. A swivel gun is essentially a small cannon mounted on a swivelling mount, these were situated at regular intervals along the sides, as well as in strategic locations around the ship, INCLUDING in the Fighting Tops. Typically they would be loaded with Cannister or Grapeshot, and their specific purpose was to clear the decks of the defending ships of boarders. As well as the swivel guns in the Fighting Tops you also had marksmen, it was a marksman in the Fighting Tops of one of the French ships who fired the ball that fatally wounded Admiral Nelson at Trafalgar. Next a Ship of the Line ALSO had at least a Company, though often more, of Marines. In fact in the Royal Navy several of the Guns were manned not by sailors, but by Royal Marines. Royal Marines would also serve as the core of any boarding party, as well as provide the core of any defence against a boarding party by the enemy. Boarding through the gun ports. This is an excellent way of getting a boarding pike or cutlass in the face. Or simply having your head smashed in by one of the spikes, the bloody great levers they used to traverse and elevate/lower the guns. Those gun ports are NOT as wide or large as they look, and while a guy is certainly able to get in through one, its only one dude at a time and he sure as hell aint carrying a fecking SHIELD with him. Or any substantial weapon, and he is UTTERLY helpless while doing so. Another thing to think of is the number of guns a ship is pierced for (has gun ports for), is NOT how many guns that ship carried. They typically carried quite a few more. Many of the lighter guns mounted on the main deck would be there SPECIFICALLY to target enemy boarders as they gathered together on their ship to make ready for an assault. You have this quaint idea that Napoleonic sailing ships were helpless against Boarding actions, and are so totally far from the truth its not even funny. They were anything BUT helpless against such attempts. Have fun trying to board a Two deck 74 gun Third Rate, let alone a three decker like the Second or First Rates (HMS Victory is a First Rate) from a dinky little Classical era Galley. Thats like attacking a castle wall without any of the specialist equipment a land based army has available. Those boarders will be slaughtered by shot and by steel as they tried to climb up the sides of the ships using nothing but grappling hooks and ropes....

[@DeutzFarmer96]

Great video. I enjoyed this immensely.

[@wacherwicht1810]

Next up: What if the caroligian empire was transported back to antiquity.

[@DamonNomad82]

While it makes for a more exciting story, the idea of the Romans staying in the fight that long and managing to get close enough to board a Napoleonic frigate and overwhelm the crew is overlooking a critical factor: human psychology. The Roman sailors and marines would have absolutely no way of knowing about gunpowder or its implications. After the first volley from the Napoleonic fleet, the Romans would believe that their foes were either gods themselves or were powerful sorcerers who had the ability to use supernatural battle magic to destroy ships at impossible distances. They would have no stomach to fight battles against the "magic" of "gods and sorcerers" and would flee the battle as fast as they could! Eventually, as Octavian was a canny leader, he would likely send emissaries and spies to find out as much as they could about these strange foes with unnatural powers. After figuring some things out (the ancients were just as intelligent as we are; they just lacked our accumulated knowledge and access to technology), the Romans would realize they were dealing with other humans who had access to better technology and would try to negotiate with the Napoleonic force. If negotiations broke down, the Romans would figure out tactics to maximize their own advantages and to neutralize those of the Napoleonic fleet (especially if they figured out that the "magic" weapons had limited ammunition and powder reserves that they couldn't replenish) and would gradually overwhelm them with these new tactics, probably at disproportionately heavy cost to the Romans...

[@alessandroiorio6248]

All these absurd AI images really ruin YT videos; there's a wealth of paintings of the era to choose from....

[@MrKoolBreeze22]

I have a idea What if A company of Landsknecht was sent to the Battle of Gaugamela?

[@poil8351]

depends on which side. they would be more useful for the Persians than alaxeander I think. proabbly just drag out the battle for a but longer a company is not really a large number and they would eventually gradually be overwhelmed.

[@AkselGAL]

nothing. Landsknechts are pike with a bit muskets and armored riders. Company would be 100-150 and a regiment 1000-2000. Both sides had enough skirmishers, cavalry and heavy infantry to handle Landsknechts. The armies of that time would have been far more vulnerable to horse archers.

[@alessiodecarolis]

The First salvo should eliminate the flagship with the enemy Admiral, then, with incendiary rounds (they existed in Napoleon's age) could start to wreak havoc on the roman fleet. Shot by an (for them) enormous distance, they couldn't reply, and then the battle would became an one sided slaughter.

[@kurtwicklund8901]

Ans: Yes. Fish in a bay-rrel.

[@Lexi-vl5eh]

I love these videos so much. I had never even heard of this battle before, but you make it so interesting to learn history.

[@Rubrum-hd4lv]

The Roman Empire in 117 AD vs USS Gerald R. Ford For the Romans: - Trajan still alive for some few more years - Unknown psychological effects of napalm in roman slums For the USS Gerald R. Ford: - Fully manned and decked with airplanes - Finite ammo and fuel

[@MrNicoJac]

This is silly. The Romans would run after the second salvo. As in, the first salvo would totally surprise them, and they probably _literally_ would not be able to believe their eyes/understand what just happened. Maybe they think these ships somehow invoked Poseidon/Neptune himself to smite the Roman vessels. But the second salvo, much like the second nuke on Japan, would show that this attack was no fluke. No, these are truly the capabilities of the enemy, to deploy at will. Like any force who ever encountered such a technological disadvantage by surprise, the morale of the Romans would absolutely shatter. They'd either turn and flee, or mayyybe even ask to join this technologically superior civilization. Or else the "modern" navy would simply run out of ammo/powder, eventually. And then they'd run (if there was enough wind) or get slaughtered (if the remaining Romans could out-row the wind).

[@davidmcintyre8145]

2 ships even 74s which were far from the pinnacle of tech at this time being 3rd rates especially if as lightly armed as these seem to be: A standard 74 had 36 or 32 lb guns on the lower deck and 18 lb guns on the upper with 12,9 or 8 lb guns on the focsle and quarterdeck(depending on the nationality of the ship)could not form a line; that would require at least 4 and better 6 sail of the line as frigates never joined the line or fought against liners. For this match a better fleet would be 4-5 British or French 74s or 80s with a couple of frigates and 3-4 sloops to act as scouts

[@davidplowman6149]

I’d deploy the ships of the line to the right along with 1 or 2 smaller ships and have the frigates and the rest of the smaller ships protect the left. The idea is to break out into open waters and then curve back in on the enemy. You want to maintain your ability to kill at range and avoid being surrounded. The only question is whether the winds are favorable.

[@josephahner3031]

Even while tacking I'm pretty sure your typical Age of Sail warship could out speed your typical classical era ship.

[@fiktivhistoriker345]

3:36 As i learned, this mobile bridge, the "raven" with a big hook on the front end, was not in use at this time. It was to dangerous for the stability of the ships.

[@alganhar1]

It was also not long enough to get troops up onto the main deck of a Ship of the Line. They were designed to board ships of roughly the same height, not one that towered ten, twenty foot above them.

[@stevenleslie8557]

Let's not forget the possibility of a route once the Romans realize they are up against weapons that have god-like destructive powers. In this scenario, the Romans retreat rather than subject themselves to what they preceive as divine retribution.

[@vinz4066]

Yeah the romans are pretty fucked. They got too lucky in your scenario. And morale was ignored.

[@aOldRustyTruck]

Could the battleships Lemnos and Kilkis have impacted the invasion of Crete?

[@josephahner3031]

Given that Crete was a mainly airborne operation the only thing a pair of battleships could have done was provide naval gunfire support.

[@aOldRustyTruck]

How about logistics and sinking convoys?

[@carlbirtles4518]

Could you do Patton’s Third Army at San Juan Hill?

[@Vlad-yi6oo]

Could a ww2 tiger tank hold an entire roman legion?

[@josephahner3031]

Probably not as long as the legion doesn't try to stand and fight on the field. Tanks, especially WW2 era and earlier tanks were blind as hell. If the romans snuck up on the tiger and hit it with some sort of improvised incendiary weapon they would very likely disable it.

[@Vlad-yi6oo]

@josephahner3031 well early ones yes but late tiger tank variants weren t so blind. I think of a scenario where this tiger tank is deffending Germania from Rome s wrath after Teutoborg forest ambush so it had suport from some germanic tribesmen in an open field battle.

[@knightingale9833]

A legion? Too big, too easy. A tiger tank will run out of ammo long before it can do too much damage, and the Romans I think eventually would realize that all they have to do is build obstacles that the tank can’t traverse. In time they’d probably end up surrounding it with a big ditch and trapping it

[@Vlad-yi6oo]

@@knightingale9833 lets pressume it has lots of ammo supplies and it helps germanic tribes in openfield battle against Germanicus.

[@kyleglenn2434]

Do I need to mention two points? There's no Napoleonic Italian navy. The second point is how would these mythical Italians know what side to fight on ?

[@josephahner3031]

There were multiple naval powers in Italy, The Kingdom of Two Sicilies, Genoa, and Sardinia. Venice had been conquered by the Austrian Habsburg Empire, but was one of the strongest naval powers in the Mediterranean prior to this.

[@brutalxxghost4148]

US ww2 aircraft carrier fleet vs napoleonic area British fleet 😅

[@MrNicoJac]

Torpedoes run too deep and don't matter in the slightest. Dive bombs are insane one-shot killing weapons. Strafing is horrific. But eventually the carrier/planes run out of fuel, and then it's over. The only factor that really makes all the difference is how big the sailing fleet is to begin with, and whether there's still some of them left by the time the carrier runs out of fuel and ammo/ordinance....

[@thomaswilloughby9901]

Why not the RN? Ships from Trafalgar with Nelson in command?

[@wolfshanze5980]

Because England wasn't around back then and had nothing to do with the battle... he intentionally chose Italy... ie: a more modern version of Rome.

[@alganhar1]

@@wolfshanze5980 Neither was Italy. Italy was not a unified nation in the Napoleonic era. That came later.

[@adventussaxonum448]

Because that would be too easy for the Napoleonics. 😅

[@MrNicoJac]

Nelson would bumrush them, get Augustus, but be hit by a ballista right before or immediately after, and die....

[@HenryKobyla1407]

Excellent video. very entertaining, and i thoroughly enjoyed your analysis. I think that a lot of people underestimate the firepower of Napoleonic Era ships of the line, especially in comparison to ancient war galleys and triremes. Rolling broadsides would decimate swaths of Roman ships in this battle.

[@alganhar1]

Worse, have you seen how those Galleys were built? Saying they were lightly built is an understatement, they were optimised for speed. They literally could not lighten them any more without affecting the structural stability of the galley. The Napoleonic ships would not even need to use round shot, in fact using round shot would be less efficient than using grapeshot or cannister. The balls in those types of shot are not the size of musket balls as most people think like it was in land cannons, but essentially 6 - 8 small cannonballs. Given how light the hull planking of Classical era Galleys was Grape or cannister would smash through multiple galleys at once.

[@zacharyhinger9865]

Here’s an idea for your next video World War I Russian soldiers at the battle of austerlitz

[@knightingale9833]

Before watching this: abso-fucking-lutely, yeah. Like not only would they wipe out a fuck ton of them with broadsides, as soon as they are in range, as time goes on and the remaining galleys get closer, the Napeolonic ships are gonna switch to grape shot and then, well, even the bravest soldiers on the galleys are gonna be begging to turn back

[@LudosErgoSum]

I’m pretty sure the Italians would run out of ammo pretty quick against a horde of 500 ships. They would wreck havoc until they become sitting ducks. I don’t see the Italians win this even once unless the Romans flee because their morale plummet at the sight of the alien ships and the thunder of their cannons.

[@ericthe3rd]

Bro don’t use ai

[@VampireQueen696]

I feel like octavian would adapt if given the chance. Romans were used to fighting stronger enemies and are renouned for adapting. The first battle would be a slaughter but i think rome would start building ships similar to napoleonic ships

[@BHuang92]

By decree, we need a bigger boat! - Octavian, probably

[@chefzilla314]

I agree. I think the sheer numbers of Octavian's ships would make a larger impact.

[@VampireQueen696]

@@BHuang92 *comes back to battle with a fucking Iowa class battleship* hows this sir?

[@Cutepanda1943]

The first battle would probably be a quick rout. The Roman’s would be scared by this new technolagy that can destroy ships from hundreds of meters away.

[@chefzilla314]

@Cutepanda1943 it wouldn't take them long. The Roman military was particularly adaptable.

[@Captain-Edward-Kenway]

You sound very similiar to Dare to Game.

[@Dare_To_Game]

Well, Of Course I Know Him. He's Me.

[@UnicornGamingRX03]

I would like to see the Satsuma-chosu alliance from the battle of toba-fushimi january 1868 travel back in time to the battle of sekigahara in 1600 where they take places from their ancestors. Could their training and western equipment help Ishida Mitsunari turn the tide.

[@carinasmirnoff1780]

Lol, i like the AI images. They are very amusing. If anything, a little distracting, because i had to watch closely during that section to laugh at all the weird things in each one.

[@SomeWiseGuy.]

A fun scenario and I like how it played out (you recognized the two best shots the romans would have to take down a ship. Fireships + boarding). Some quick notes though: When you repeatedly talked about accurate fire from muskets and or cannons you did make me roll my eyes. Muskets are absolutely not accurate by any strech and apart from the small contigent of marines the sailors wouldnt be very good with them either. Cannons are reasonably accurate in theory but on ships bouncing on the waves they certainly are not. (There is a reason why the doctrin of the napoleonic are called for massive broadsides on relatively close rangem, with the ship that reloads the fastest often winning, not maximum range sniping) But luckily the italians do not need accurate musket fire to keep themselves safe from boarding romans. The cannons will do that. Loaded with shrapnel or cannister a single cannon could wipe out an entire roman boarding party. As the roman ships are faaaaar smaller they wouldnt really offer their own crews much protection so any ship getting into cannister range that isnt approaching from the vulnerable front/rear of the italian ships would loose most of its crew before getting close at all. Really only by using their numbers and maouverablility (that isnt depended on the wind) could the romans hope to board. Though the sher hight difference of the ships would make that hard, even before you consider the muskets etc. but its doable) Ultimately the real problem is the moral. Obviously no roman era fleet would actually engage these ships for more than a few minutes. Giant ships that spew thundering broadsides of cannons that can tear several roman ships apart all at once would quickly convince even the bravest captain that this is an unwinnable fight. As Mark Antony had to realize in this battle moral has always been key in warfare and there is simply no way the roman moral wouldnt collaps within the first 10 minutes of fighting. But then again that would make the scenario pretty boring. But you should at least mention that you will be ignoring this effect for the sake of the scenario I know I have mostly critised but I actually enjoyed the video (the AI art was a bit weird but I understand that there isnt much out there from real artists for thisvery particular scenario) and like your analysis. 3 little aspects I would change/add thats all

[@roguerifter9724]

I think you balanced the numbers a little too much in Octavins favor. 30 to 50 hell Napoleonic warships even 10 to 20 would be more interesting. As it stands the Napoleonic ships need to each score more then 60 kills to win.

[@JohnBowman-o4e]

Say. Howz about modern IDF SF against Nazi SS concentration camp.

[@Spartan1312]

Modern IDF vs Nazi Germany would be one sided as hell but fun to watch.

[@ravenwolf2448]

This was interesting. But how about .Could the CSS Virginia brake Black Beards siege of Charleston S. Carolina. Good luck on next.

[@ycplum7062]

Somehow, I would think teh sailing ship captains would make better use of the wind.

[@pyeitme508]

Ok need other types of what ifs

[@mattdill8090]

What could 1 fletcher class destroyer do to the British blockade in new york or to the British fleet that bombarded fort Henry

[@AkselGAL]

for 1 month a lot, after this, nothing. Then fuel, maintenance, spare parts are gone and the ship is a floating iron piece. Producing replacement ammo is not possible, the gun powder and metallurgy of the time are to far away. Spare parts... simple stuff yes, complicated stuff (engine, electronics....= no. Remember, better technology wins a battle, better logistics wins a war (most of the time).

[@jamesmoffett2316]

One world war 1 mark V tank at the charge of the light brigade during the Crimean war

[@somegamer1891]

Can one napoleonic battalion turn the tide in the battle of crecy?

[@salkey3987]

YEET

[@ParryThis]

YOTE

[@chefzilla314]

500 ships vs 6? In this case I think Rome's oar driven vessels would have the maneuver advantage. Italy's fleet is still wind driven. I think just through sheer weight of numbers. This fight should go to Rome. It wouldn't take Agrippa long to realize that all he had to do is maneuver around to the front or rear of the Italian ships.

[@alganhar1]

Really. OK, well a few things to consider. HMS Victory, a three deck, First Rate Ship of the Line is 7.5 metres from the waterline to her main deck. A 74 gun, two deck Third Rate would be around 6 metres high from the waterline to the main deck. This is referred to as the Freeboard of a ship (height of the ship from the waterline to its lowest unenclosed deck). The height from waterline to the stern castle is about 1.5 metres higher. So around 9 metres for a First rate. Waterline to keel was around the same as the freeboard. The sheds that housed the Roman Galleys typically were around 4 metres in height, which means the ENTIRE ship was less than four metres in height. How do I come to that measurement? Easy, these Galleys, despite paintings or Hollywood depictions, were not moored for long periods in water as they were so lightly built they became waterlogged. They were literally pulled out of the water and stored in these sheds. So the height of the shed gives us a literal maximum measurement of the height of the ship as they have to fit into these sheds. This means the height of those Galleys was likely around 3 to 3.5 metres from keel (bottom of the hull) to main deck to allow room in the shed for work to be conducted on the ship while ashore. Draught (waterline to keel) was around 50 cm, which gives a freeboard (waterline to main deck) of 2 - 2.5 metres. You see the issue here? A three deck First Rate ship of the line has a freeboard of around 4 - 4.5 metres higher than the main deck of the Galley. A two deck Third Rate that height difference would be 2.5 - 3 metres. That means the boarders everyone is fixating on essentially have to attack and scale a wall, using nothing but grappling hooks and ropes. And they have to do this against crews who are not only armed, but EXPECT boarding actions (boarding actions were still very common in Napoleonic naval battles), and have specialist weapons specifically designed and placed to deal with boarders such as swivel guns (basically small cannons on swivel mounts). Not to mention a Marine complement trained to fire in Platoons, which was a way musket armed militaries used to ensure that part of their line of infantry was always opening fire. Fire by Platoon had been around for a few centuries by this point and was nothing new. Oh, and guess what, those Galleys? They were so lightly built that if you took any more of their structure away they would lose structural stability. Grape or cannister shot from the 32 pounders, which used 6 - 10 balls weighing in around 2 - 4 pounds per ball, would pass right through one of those cockleshells. Oh, and NEVER make the mistake of thinking those ships were unarmed bow and stern. They DID in fact have forward and rear facing guns, called bow or stern chasers. Typically a ship of the line would have perhaps four bow and four stern chasers (not counted in the total number of guns in the gun count of the ship). These were often what were called Long nines, which were long barrelled 9 pounders, but could be anything up to 32 pounder long guns. People forget, or do not know, that if a Captain needed to, guns could be relocated from one part of the gun deck to another.... And the Bow and Stern Chasers were on the main gun decks, so could be replaced with any gun located on that deck. So 32 pounder long guns in the case of the lower deck chasers....

[@ralfhtg1056]

12 pounder, 24 pounder... To me this is unintelligable gibberish. What calibre in mm do these guns have?

[@alganhar1]

They did not measure guns in mm in those days. They measured them in weight of shot the guns fired. A 12 pounder gun therefore fired a cast iron cannonball weighing around 12 pounds, a 32 pounder, 32 pounds. The larger the weight of shot fired, the larger and more powerful the gun. Calibre in mm is a meaningless comparison given how those old gunpowder cannon differed very slightly. If you were to measure the calibre of the original 32 pounders of the Lower Gun Deck of HMS Victory for example you would find that they would all vary slightly in calibre. Which is WHY people do NOT use calibre in mm or inches like we do for modern guns. The technology to make uniform gun barrel bores of that size simply did not exist in those days. That would not come until much later.

[@ralfhtg1056]

@@alganhar1 I see what you mean. But I don't understand "32-pounder". I only understand caliber in mm. Or in cm respectively. I mean it doesn't take a diploma in rocket science to measure the guns and than give an average in cm. And the result would be, that people like me would be able to understand.

[@firesb7791]

​@@ralfhtg1056Yes, but precision casting of heavy cannon barrels down to the mm accuracy was not possible in these days, especially to an industrial scale. Again, the person aboce explained it well, 32 Pounder means weight of shot, which is how cannons were measured and produced in a reasonably uniform manner

[@ralfhtg1056]

@@firesb7791 As I said: it is not a big deal to measure some gun barrels and than find out an average diameter. Is it really that difficult to grasp? I just want to understand, how big the granades of that guns would be! Because a 120 kg person could be 2 m tall or just 1,70m. Which is a huge difference! Weight does not tell how big something is! And I want to know how big a granade and thus the gun itself of a 32 punder gun is. That is all. Is that so hard to grasp?

[@firesb7791]

@@ralfhtg1056 The shot, not grenades, were typically a spherical,round ball of iron(as this was the most common and cheap to use). So do the math, 32 pounds of solid, cast iron in a ball, that would be the diameter, plus a little extra to get the shot rammed down the barrel properly. So a 32pnd ball of Iron round shot should be around 6.1 inches Again, this is not a uniform figure by exact measurements, they are measured that way because this is pre breach loading guns, and the shot needed to be able to be pushed down the smoothbore barrel.

[@raigarmullerson4838]

Could a platoon of M4 shermans win the battle of Thermopylae

[@ParryThis]

Probably

[@raigarmullerson4838]

@@ParryThis you didnt get the sarcasm huh. Ohh well😅😅😅