could a Napoleonic era warship kill a modern frigate/ destroyer with a broadside?

No. The cannons would be capable of penitrating the hulls of a lot of modern warships. However the guns would be incapable of finishing off and sinking the ship - they had enough problems sinking other men-of-war.

Note; HMS Victor, a 100+ ship of the line displaces some 3,500 tons and is 226 feet long. A Modern type 22 frigate in service with the Royal Navy is some 486 feet long and displaces some 5,300 tons.

In other words a modern frigate is significantly larger than the largest ships of the line from the sailing age.

Not to mention that a modern warship could simply sail around out of cannon range and shoot the wooden warship to pieces with modern turret mounted guns and much longer range. The modern 5" naval gun has a range of about 13 NM and can fire up to 20 rounds per minute. Of course, modern fire control would allow a large percentage of the rounds to hit the target. The modern ship could sink the older one before the crew had breakfast.

Why even close to 13 miles?

Stand off about 70 or so and shoot them in the face with a Harpoon. I'm almost certain the targeting system on a Harpoon would be able to pick out a man-o-war.

quote:

Originally posted by scott9282:
Why even close to 13 miles?

Stand off about 70 or so and shoot them in the face with a Harpoon. I'm almost certain the targeting system on a Harpoon would be able to pick out a man-o-war.

Well, sure, but I was just trying to give them a chance to see who was killing them.

If you're going to be that nice, why not let them have breakfast?

I'd use the gun because;

Shells are a LOT cheaper than missiles.

You'd only need to hit a wooden ship once or twice with modern explosive rounds to sink it.

The crew needs the practice, and since the maximum effective range of a 32 pound cannon is a mile, and I can outrun the wooden ship using battery power alone. I'm going to use the wooden ship for target practice at (for me) close range. Heck, I'd take advantage of the situation and get the guncrew to use manual targeting.

If I really want to save money I'll just send out the helicopter with a couple of Molotov's to drop onto the wooden ships deck. That will take care of the highly flammable sailing ship without having to spoil my nap with all that loud noise - brief though it may be.

quote:

If I really want to save money I'll just send out the helicopter with a couple of Molotov's to drop onto the wooden ships deck. That will take care of the highly flammable sailing ship without having to spoil my nap with all that loud noise - brief though it may be.

a heretofore unrevealed streak of sadism haha

quote:

Originally posted by cybermortis:
Note; HMS Victor, a 100+ ship of the line displaces some 3,500 tons and is 226 feet long.

HMS Victor?

HMS Victory smart-bottom :P

Cyber, a few 5" shells probably would be cheaper that the fuel and cost per hour on the helicopter.

Well the chopper would 'offically' be out doing Anti-sub duties. Not MY fault the pilot just happened to drop a couple of bottles of gasoline onto the deck of the only wooden ship within 1000 miles is it? And seriously, you can't blame me if they also just happened to drop a couple of flares while trying to apologize to the crew of said ship for dousing their highly combustable deathtrap with a flammable liquid.

I mean, I can't be put a fault here as I'm in by cabin taking a nap in peace and quiet. As soon as I'm made aware of the situation I'd be sure to sail over and shoot ahem, rescue any survivors.

Eventally. Maybe after dinner. If I remember.

quote:

Originally posted by cybermortis:
HMS Victory smart-bottom :P

I probably should have put a after that.

As the others have said, of course not. However, it was directly because of the HMS Victory's "victory" at Trafalgar that directly led to the development of the destroyer, and armored ships in general. The battle led to armored ships, steam power, and larger guns. It used to be ships of wood, and men of iron. And just think what a battleship could have done to a ship of the line.

quote:

it was directly because of the HMS Victory's "victory" at Trafalgar that directly led to the development of the destroyer

Wrong.

The 'Destroyer' class comes from 'Torpedo Destroyer' and dates to the very late 1800's early 1900's. More or less 100 years after Trafalger.

quote:

and armored ships in general.

Again, wrong. The first ironclad dates to 1859 - the French La Gloire. The Royal Navy launched HMS Warrior the next year, and the year after that decided to move to all iron ships.

quote:

The battle led to armored ships, steam power, and larger guns

Nope.

Armoured ships date to 1859.

The first recorded use of a steamship in a battle was 1816. However this was a tug not an armed man of war.

The Royal Navy had been using steam power for several decades by 1800. Principally to drain dry docks. Steam powered ships date to around 1800, but where all tugs. Steam-powered warships didn't start appearing until around 1850.

The gun sizes on men-of-war remained more or less constant between 1793 and 1815;

Frigates; 18 pounders were standard, with some heavy frigates being armed with 24 pounders (Such as the USS Constitution). Some smaller frigates at the start of this period were armed with 9 or 12 pounders - but most of these were no longer in service by 1805.

Ships of the line varied - since they tended to be kept in service for long periods. However the largest gun in use was the 32* pounder, and had been since the early 1700's late 1600's. This would be backed up by either 24 or 18 pounders, and in the case of HMS Victory 12 pounders as well. Older ships would most likely have 24 and 18 pounders. Newer ships 32 and 24/18 pounders depending on their rating.

The size of guns on the line ships was much the same as it had been 100 years before Trafalger - although fewer ships had 32 pounders and were more likely to have 24's.

On Frigates the standard gun up until around 1740 was the six pounder - in fact it seems that Frigates couldn't carry heavier guns than this pre-1740. After this date frigates started being armed with 9 and 12 pounders, with the 18 pounder becoming standard on frigates in the 1780's.

The major development in guns was due to the development of reliable, armour peicing shells. This was the major factor in moving from wood to iron.

(*Just to confuse matters the French did have a '40 pounder' cannon. However the French and English weights were not identical. This gun would have been roughly 36 English pounds. There does not seem to have been any significant difference between the French 40 pounder and the English 32 pounder in terms of effectiveness. If there had been the Royal Navy would have started using the same size gun)

quote:

It used to be ships of wood, and men of iron.

Quite true.

quote:

And just think what a battleship could have done to a ship of the line.

I could be really annoying and point out that a Battleship IS a ship of the line. The full (and correct) term for HMS Victory would be 'First rate line of battle ship....

All it would take is one hit - although going off the accuracy WW2 Battleships managed they'd probably require three or four shots to get the range.

Perhaps I should clarify. When I said the HMS Victory led to the other ships, it was because of the major victory there that led to the development of larger guns, armor, steam power, and everything else. If it had not been for Trafalgar, they would have continued with the ships. Granted, to took 50 some odd years, but in those scant fifty years, it went from the wooden ships, to the French La Gloire and the HMS Warrior, and later to Monitor (I got all of this from the PBS WARSHIP -- http://www.pbs.org/wnet/warship/, first one Sea Power). Perhaps I should have said "indirectly", but it was because of the French defeat, that they developed larger guns, to protect against the larger guns, armor. To achieve more speed, steam and the screw propeller.

You could have taken a guy from the HMS Mary Rose (1511) and put him on the Victory (1805 Trafalgar), and with in a few hours he would have been able to adapt. Take a guy from Victory and put him on Dreadnought (1906) and everything he had known was gone. From 1805-1906 Navel warfare changed dramatically, that is what I meant by the Ship of the Line leading to the development of modern warfare.

I disagree totally. If anything Nelsons victory at Trafalger slowed the rate of progress of naval technology and designs.

In a matter of hours the British fleet totally eliminated the only two naval forces that could challange it - France and Spain.

In 1800 there were three countries with large enough fleets, and geographical positions, to threaten the British Isles; France, Spain and the Denmark. Nelson crushed the Dutch at the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801. Then finished off both the Spanish and French at Trafalger in 1805.
After this there was no real threat to Britains sea-power. What was left of the Spanish and French fleets were blockaded in port - and more importantly in the case of the French their ships were scattered between Tulon and Brest. Then the Spanish rebelled against the Alliance with France, so what remained of the Spanish navy became friendly with the Danish fleet already being, if not friendly then no longer hostile.

In this situation there was little reason or need to develop naval war-fair further. The Royal Navy did continue to develop its techologies, but at a slower rate than before, while everyone else was simply trying to build ships and didn't have the time or money to do anything else. (The French managed to build up its fleet to beyond the strength of the fleet it had had at the time of Trafalger by 1812. However these ships were scattered - and therefore uncapable of fighting the British who were blockading them in port - and badly constructed. Those French ships that didn't capsize shortly after being launched were apt to flood if they opened their lower gunports. And in several cases the French built wonderful ships of the line...only to realise after they'd launched and fitted the ships out that their draft was too deep for the port they'd been built in. Basically they were too big to get out of the harbour.)

The only spur to development was the American war of 1812, when the fledgling US Navy scored victories over the Royal Navy. However the design of the American frigates was not as revolutionary as later historians would claim - both the Portagese and the British had been using ships of similar size and capability since the early 1700's. (These were ships of the line that had had their upper gundeck removed to create a frigate).
There was, in fact, nothing about the American frigates that could be considered new or surprising - and Royal Navy officers were not surprised that the American heavy frigates won their battles against their British counterparts. Which were smaller and less powerful ships.
It was the British public - who simply read that an American frigate had taken a British frigate without any understanding that the American ships were simply larger - who pushed for something to be done. The Navies reply was to send more ships to America, and to build more heavy frigates with larger guns - types of ship that they already had in service.

Post 1815 the situation was much the same. The Royal Navy didn't face any significant threat to its power, and therefore the pace of advancement was slow. It wasn't until the mid 1800's onwards that there were countries with large enough fleets to threaten Britain again. At this point the rate of technological advancement started to dramatically increase...but there was another reason for this; The Industrial Revolution.

Technology doesn't exist in isolation, it requires on advances in other areas before it can move on. Coppering of ships, for example, required the ability to create (relatively) cheap sheets of copper. This technology didn't exist until the mid 1700's.
Likewise the ability to create iron or iron-clad ships as practical weapons of war required the ability to work iron to decent standards in large sheets at a reasonable cost. Steam power required steam engines that were small and powerful enough to be fitted in a ship and give decent performance. The development of these steam engines took place on land, before they were considered practical for use on warships. And that development on land required other developments - such as a need for powerful steam engines, and more fuel for them being available.

Had Britain still faced a significant sea-born threat in 1806 it is likely that at least some of the technologies that resulted in the first iron warships would have appeared a lot sooner than they did. For no other reason than there would have been a more pressing need for such techologies.

quote:

Originally posted by cybermortis:
Nelson crushed the Dutch at the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801.

Which was totally unneccesary. On March 24, Czar Paul I was assassinated, and with him died the League of Armed Neutrality, for although he had been particularily simpathatic to Napoleon, his succesor, Czar Alexander I, regarded Napoleon with a deep suspicion. When Napoleon heard of the Battle of Copenhagen he threw a tantrum.

While it is true that the battle need not have been fought. This was not known to Nelson or Parker at the time.

It is also clear that the Parker seemed to have tried everything he could think of to avoid a battle. Although given his contribution to the battle - attempting to recall Nelson in the middle of the battle was the extent of his involvement - this may have been less an attempt to stop bloodshed as it was simply timidity.

Certainly Parker's actions on being given command of the fleet were less that distinguished. He held off sailing as long as possible, boarding his ship at the last moment - although given that he'd just married a 17 year old women this at least is understandable. This was followed by sailing very slowly to Copenhagen, then sitting off shore for a great length of time while he debated what to do - which of course gave the Dutch time to prepare their defences. (Nelson was very strongly of the opinion that they should have given an ultimatum, waited for a day then attacked at once. Had this been done the losses to both sides would almost certainly been a lot lower than they were, since the defences would not have been as strong).
During the Battle itself Parker stood offshore and watched the unfolding battle, failing to send even one ship to try and help Nelsons force. Then, when the fighting was at its height, he issued a recall order - regardless of the fact that this would have required Nelson to sail his force down a channel he didn't know (and on which several of his ships had stuck on the way up) and right past the entire defensive works. Nelson rightfully ignored this order - prompting the famous quote 'I see no ships/signal'. Which Nelson may or may not have uttered for real.
After the fighting had stopped it was then Nelson, not Parker, who dealt with the surrender of the Dutch - basically telling them that they either surrendered or he'd start bombing the town.

Parker's conduct was so bad he was recalled - something that was unheard of for an Admiral who had just won a major battle, even if it was by default. Nelson was then placed in charge of the fleet, and sailed up the Baltic with the intention of catching the Russian fleet in port - which was another reason why he'd pushed for a quick attack on the Dutch. But of course by this point the Russians had stopped being belligerent.

Although it has been claimed since then that Parker was somehow aware of the situation in Russia. The simple fact is that he was only placed in command, over Nelson, because the Admiralty had reservations about giving Nelson a command after the affair at Naples, and with Emma Hamilton. This wasn't helped by Nelsons apparent ego after his return to England - although it is unclear as to if this was really ego or simply the face Nelson put on in public. Certainly Arthur Wesley, the future Duke of Wellington, initially had a very bad impression of Nelson on the one occasion where the two of them met. Wesley described Nelson as being overbearing and arrogant at first. But then Nelson left the room for a few minutes to ask who it was in the room. When Nelson returned the conversation resumed. This time Wesley described Nelson as intelligent, thoughtful and well informed.

quote:

could a Napoleonic era warship kill a modern frigate/ destroyer with a broadside?

A more interesting question might be

Could a WW2 Destroyer take on a Modern Destroyer?

Especially at short range - but not point-blank - I might be tempted to bet on a steel hull'd Gearing or Fletcher class vs almost anything. (At point blank the CIWS comes into play.)