What was the mightiest ship from the age of sail? Pic related

File: 800px-HoratioNelson1.jpg (154KB, 800x964px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x964px

>>33944122
>santissima trinidad

Didn't stop this man from capturing it

File: 1cbcd024d7289765ba5f614a47fd8fbd.jpg (3MB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x2048px

not the biggest, or most guns but arguably the prettiest and most competently crewed

>>33944122
Hard to beat the proven record of the HMS Victory. A 104 gun ship of the line that carried a smaller number of guns then the Santissima Trinidad and only had about 3/4ths the displacement yet captured the latter ship and was significantly more seaworthy and somewhat faster, though both were wallowing, top heavy things like all first rates.

In the north Atlantic you could make a case that the USS Consutition was a better fighter then either of them, as it was much more seaworthy and in anything but calm water the most powerful guns on the lower decks of a first rate were worthless, as the ports could not be opened.

File: vasa.jpg (201KB, 1240x620px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1240x620px

Never lost a battle

>>33944198
Ahh, the Vasa.

"Displacement calculations are hard" -The Swedes.

File: 2015_09_turner_obs.jpg (930KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 1280x800px

HMS Victory was fat

HMS Temeraire, the second-rate ship of the line was the perfect balance of speed and firepower

>>33944132

"Aubrey... may I trouble you for the salt?"

>>33944626

HMS Glatton might be a better example of that. A pure carronade warship, she mounted only 56 guns but had a heavier weight of fire then the HMS Victory and was far handier in light winds or heavy seas.

You also can't avoid the classic '74 third rates if you are looking at a balance of weapons, speed and seaworthiness. Not the mightiest ships to sail, they were considered by many to be the best line warships in real conditions. They were certainly the most numerous line warships.

File: 1024px-Pennsylvania-ship-of-the-line.jpg (158KB, 1024x733px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x733px

>burned down to keep other Americans from getting it

Why is fate so cruel

>>33944174
this desu....i mean its name even means to win. a close second would be the constitution or the original USS enterprise..in the enterprises place i would also accept the USS Hannah.

>>33944229
Or rather, don't let King Dunning-Kruger build your boat.

>>33944229
Dutch shipbuilder though.

>>33944174
Let's be fair, the British sailors used far better tactic's and had more experience than their opponents, under Nelson they had superior strategy aswell. HMS Victory's proven track record was more as a result of competent crewing and superior British tactic's

>>33944122
>What was the mightiest ship from the age of sail?
Any ship in which Thomas Cochrane was in charge.

>>33947017
A man so crazy when the house of commons tried to arrest his friend he planned to quite literally set an explosive trap which would have killed multiple arresting officers and partially destroyed his friend's house

His plan was so crazy that his friend eventually ended the siege and gave himself over to the authorities so Cochrane wouldn't blow up his house.

>>33944174
>you could make a case that the USS Consutition was a better fighter then either of them

Don't be an idiot.

File: When your merchant ship has more guns than the King's flagship.jpg (902KB, 1200x1372px) Image search: [Google]

902KB, 1200x1372px

Those are impressive vessels indeed. But they where made in a time where such big ships were already common and expected.

I present you the Adler von Lübeck : a 78 meters long, 138 cannons, 3000 tons, 1000 crew. Doesn't seem very impressive to you ? Seems like a regular heavy ship of the line comparable to the HMS Victory and the Santísima Trinidad ?

Well, except that the Adler von Lübeck was built in 1565. In a time where warships were of moderate size, the Adler von Lübeck was as big and as powerful as a First Rate from the 19th century.

What's more : it was build by merchants, showing once more the validity of the AnCap theory.

I saw this Galleon (among others) in Duluth, MN last year. Not a ship o' the line, but as good as it gets on the great lakes in 2017.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gale%C3%B3n_Andaluc%C3%ADa

Is Naval Action worth buying?

File: SANY1218.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

>>33947192
had to reload because old captcha enabled makes glitchy and forgot image select

>>33947156
When has the AnCap theory ever been wrong?

How many rounds of .50 BFG would you need to sink one of these?

>>33944147
During my upcoming trip to the U.K. I'm swinging through Portsmouth just to see her. I have seen the USS Constellation, USS Constitution, and the "HMS Surprise". Lookong foward to seeing a ship of the line in person.

File: huntMR.jpg (23KB, 620x308px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 620x308px

>>33947229
Probably about 10 on the waterline. Or just a few incendiaries to light the whole thing up.

I would vote Mary Rose for greatest disappointment.

File: 1491710701608.gif (2MB, 360x202px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x202px

>>33947229
I see what you did there...

>>33947156
>The war galleon was built during the Northern Seven Years' War but was never put into action, since Lübeck had already entered peace negotiations with Sweden at the time of the ship's completion.
>After the Treaty of Stettin (1570), Große Adler was converted into a freighter for trade

That was anticlimatic.

>>33947251
The HMS victory has a hull thickness of 2 ft at the water line. 50 BMG is strong but not that strong.

>incendiaries

For 50 BMG and things around its size its incendiaries rounds are designed to light up gas, preheated motor oil, hot rubber, and the like. They work very well at doing those things. Outside of that type of thing not so much. Even plywood for example rarely goes up in fire from .50 BMG at most normal temperatures ( 96 F/ 35.6 C or below). The US army did tests to to figure out that number btw.

>>33947359
They meant for lighting the powder stores.

File: 1494507680716.jpg (151KB, 388x443px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 388x443px

>>33947355
Peace is anticlimatic.

>>33944122
the titanic

>>33944122
santissima trinidad was pretty much the record for sheer size and gunpower, built to that scale largely to attempt to counter the RN through brute force, she was pretty much at the outer edge of effective construction techniques at the time, the RN and the french managed 120gun ships and a few in the 110-112 range but generall found that the size caused more handling problems than the were worth.

but crew counts for a hell of a lot, one reason the british triumphed at trafalgar despite being significantly outgunned - they had fewer ships and averaged less guns per ship as well- was the superior rate of fire achieved by the british crews as well as the better accuracy of the british gun crews.

the british crews could manage 3 shots to a spanish or french 2 from equivalent weapons meaning a british 100 had greater effective firepower than a french 130, as well as the handling advantage of being a smaller vessel

so depending on what you mean by mighty, the santissima trinidad had the greatest number of guns and broadside throwweight of its era, the victory and the other larger RN first rates had greater effective firepower and were thus 'mightier'

File: napoleon angry.jpg (380KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1600x1200px

>>33947488
Fake history.

>>33945687
>Pure carronade warship. Yes, but you could just double-shot regular long-guns just as easy, mind you that 74s carried 24 pounders on the lower gun deck. Carronades originally and rightly so were only meant to be placed on merchantmen and emplacements like the QD and FC.

>>33947488
>accuracy >trafalgar was literally meant to be fought at boarding range, remember how British Carronades and great guns literally battered 30 french port-sills into one?

File: Battle of Trafalger.jpg (490KB, 1120x813px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 1120x813px

>>33947488
Trafalgar was designed to be fought at boarding range, hence why the british were able to batter 30 french port-sills into one

>>33947533
the aimed at the hulls aiming to damage the ships and ill crews, the enemy aimed at the rigging to disable, the british got a significantly greater proportion of their shots on target. more of a doctrinal thing than a skill of the crew but it did produce higher accuracy

>>33947533
sheeit, thot that te first post didn't go through

>>33947554
the french were concerned with slow and deliberate gunnery while the RN held rate of fire as their primary concern, even if the french were better trained they wouldn't have the ROF because their doctrine didn't support it. Take how in earlier wars the french benefited greatly from their tactics when escorting convoys, surviving was more important to them than getting 1 shot per 90 seconds off because they typically just wanted to guard transports. When the british get sent off on a wild goose chase around the planet like in the american revolution is when the french practiced this to great effect. In the times of napoleon, even if the majority of french admirals were executed, their military theories remained.

>>33945773
>burned down to keep filthy Barbary pirate paws away from it
FTFY

>>33947405
Good idea
But I'd rather use a tank cannon

File: USS_Constellation_Inner_Harbor.jpg (213KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 800x1200px

Maybe not THE mightiest, but i quite like this one. One of the only cool things worth visiting in Baltimore (It's right near Fort McHenry also)

>>33947064
I watched a documentary that claimed that the US ships had higher casualties in fights with British ships because The US used Elm planks and the Brits used Oak. Both are very hard wood but the Elm was more brittle when dry and shattered, causing more splinters when hit by cannon balls. Has anyone else heard this?

File: post-1429-0-22009600-1447691870.jpg (203KB, 736x510px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 736x510px

Prolly the best defensive ship

spikes and turtle shell-shaped iron layer protects the ship from enemy shots and boarding, cannons on all area (aft, stern and broadside), and that motherfucking dragon head that shoots either fire or large caliber cannon

They also use hwacha, or rocket arrow carts that is the first MLRS in history

>>33949373
Why was this thing never in Age of Kings?

>>33947579
You're confusing the Pennsylvania with the Philadelphia.

>>33947156
>oh it's a Great Moments in Dutch Jewery episode of ancap /k/
AoE3/gold_bank.exe

File: master-and-commander-the-far-side-of-the-world-3.jpg (54KB, 830x474px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 830x474px

REEEEEE

gimme a master and commander series

>>33944174
Stop being a fool, comparing a Frigate like constitution to a first rate is like comparing a patrol boat to a yomato class battleship.
During the battle of Ushant Victory absorbed no less than 6 broadsides without a single shot fired as she was keeping her salvo for the French flagship, after she struck the enemy ship she fired a further 6 broadsides against other french ships (No doubt taking return fire).
First rates were insanely resilient to fire and Constitution did not have the fire power to take her out.
However I fully admit that as a frigate a skilled captain could run rings round victory.
In the end they are two vastly different ships.
HMS Victory would blow the shit out of constitution, but since it would be nearly impossible for Victory to every catch Constitution that is irrelevent

File: p403214_b_v7_ad.jpg (134KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 480x720px

>>33950205
Watch Hornblower, high production values, excellent acting and set during the same time period as Master and commander (and sharpe)

>>33950232
Oh, Hornblower.
That series single-handily made me a complete faggot for all things military from that era.
Master and Commander is great but it does not compare, even if the production values are somewhat different in nature looking at it with non-5 year old eyes.

>>33947243
I work in Portsmouth, make sure you also visit the HMS Warrior and also Fort Nelson museum. Lots of artillery and also underground tunnels. It's a napoleonic star fort. When are you coming over?

>>33947405
I didnt, but your answer is much better, so I'll take it.

File: Bank.jpg (64KB, 292x254px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 292x254px

>>33950107
Ah, yes, the Dutch... Those crafty swamp Jews.

>>33949102
I had heard that the reason cannon balls bounced off the Constitution was because of a layer of live oak in the hull
wikipedia says primary materials were oak, including live oak, and pine masts

>>33950205
holystoning is dum

>>33951811
This is retarded, America had mad casulaties against the British navy because DUHHHHHHHH

>>33944122
I'd rather have one gun with a longer range.

Question: how the fuck did they sail upwind with square sails?

File: 722px-Beating_to_windward.svg.png (36KB, 722x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 722x600px

>>33956264
Sails can be rigged however they're needed. All those ropes and sailors aren't just for show.

>>33956342
Yes, I'm aware of how sails work.
Please explain to me how you get lift from a square sail.

>>33956347
You don't square rig it when you don't need it square rigged.

>>33956350
So you're saying that when they're going upwind they drop all of their sails, change all of the rigging and raise some triangular ones?

That sounds completely retarded.

I can't see any way a square sail would be able to reach higher than an average symmetrical spinnaker. I'm guessing the best they could do would be about 70 degrees, if that.

File: UP_Big_Boy_4019.jpg (192KB, 876x673px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 876x673px

Boats are shit. They can't carry more than they displace.

File: model square rig.jpg (47KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x427px

>>33956264
Badly. This is why, under sail, downwind vessels have right of way, and why trade winds were such a huge deal. The number of ships caught against a lee shore and wrecked, unable to sail away from them is immense.

That is not to say it can't be done. The yards can be worn around quite a long way, and the width of them does allow them to act as an airfoil, albeit a mediocre one. Tacking, especially in bad conditions takes long enough to stop the vessel and start losing ground and many vessels had worn out, baggy sails by the end of a long round trip. Once all is figured in, most old square rigged vessels would be close hauled with the wind 10 degrees ahead of the beam. Of course, tri-sails do help a lot in this, as does modern sail cloth.

>>33946936
Nelson's strategy tended to be to sail straight at enemies of the King, regardless of orders from superiors.

He had better handled ships but Nelson was not one of the Royal Navy's great thinkers.

>>33944900
>Currently on the 13 gun salute.

can't get enough of these books. Highly recommend them as they are the greatest work of masculine fiction out there.

>>33947405
Powder stored in the middle of the ship below the waterline.

Good luck.

File: 1473176790433.jpg (560KB, 1550x1046px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 1550x1046px

>>33956645
Whatever works!

>>33956443
FYI 4044 is being restored by UP as we speak.

>>33949373
>literally a prehistoric DDG
burgers never have unique ideas they just copy everybody else

>>33956645
Battle strategies in the Age of Sail basically became useless after the fleets met. Which is why the RN kicked the shit out of everyone else, because their ship captains knew what they were supposed to do in the ensuing clusterfuck, and the crews had better ROF than their opponents.

>>33959014
Neat. I've been inside 4017.