Development of warships if sails are kept around for longer

Not disagreeing completely, but it does heavily depend on the weather and often not to the advantage of the smaller ship (and I do think that the speed differential would in real cases be measured in fractional knots). In heavy seas - heck in typical North Atlantic conditions most of the year - a 19th century frigate is going to be in serious trouble if a major warship challenges it.

Not necessarily--in such heavy seas, the Ship of the Line is going to be unable to open her lower gun ports for fear of taking on too much water. Furthermore, both ships are going to be heaving or heeling so much that there is a real risk of being hulled below the waterline. Under the circumstances, neither captain is likely to want to pick a fight, because even a victory might leave them unable to make it back to port easily with damage they're unable to repair. Again, there's also the fact that frigates could sail closer to the wind, meaning that speed becomes much less relevant if she's trying to escape.

I don't dispute you that if a frigate did somehow end up in combat with a SotL, the results will likely not be to the frigate's advantage (with the possible exception of a US '44 engaging an old 4th rate under ideal circumstances). But the circumstances required for that to happen will be such that either the frigate captain will have (idiotically or recklessly) passed up many chances to escape, or the seas are heavy enough that both captains will be more concerned with preserving their own vessels than in engaging the enemy.

I will concede that I have overlooked the difference in rigging's - used to most boats being comparable in key technologies in real life. Out there, there is a reason why races are organized according to class and size. (Yeah, I used to drive boats, once upon a time.)

As someone else who sails, I get where you're coming from. But yeah, the situations involve with three-masted square-riggers are much different from modern racing boats.
 
Coal being in that much shortage is I'm afraid a geological ASB. Coal is simply too abundant in the crucial regions of the world - and in the 19th century production was just about doubling per decade. The history of coal is in fact rather fascinating, as an exemplar of the rise of the West.

I'm not disputing that it's wildly implausible that coal be less widely available, but when you're responding to an OP I've always felt it polite to eat the sandwich you're given.
 
Anyway, broadside guns don't make sense as guns become heavier to penetrate armour. The preferred solution because the turret ship was not effective under sail was the central battery ironclad, which reached its finest form in HMS Temeraire (The "Great Brig") and HMS Alexandra. Temeraire had 4 x 11in and 4 x 10in rifled muzzle loaders in a mix of barbettes and casemates and Alexandra had 2 x 11in and 8 x 10in. In 1897 Alexandra was fitted with 4 x 9.2in guns replacing the 11-inch RMLs, but this refit was not found particularly effective; the largest guns mounted in casemates in a new-built ship was the Russian coastal defence ship Gangut bearing 9in/30cal BLRs. The barbette mounts, even with the modern tripod-supported iron masts of British ironclads which had almost no standing rigging, would be restricted in size of gun to avoid fouling the rigging. So, I expect you would begin to see a uniform armament of 9-inch BLRs, probably around 10 of them, with 30 calibre barrels to get some use from smokeless powder, if you continued to have sails on heavy warships. They would displace up to 11,000 tons and generally two of the guns would be on deck in barbettes and the rest in casemates in the armoured central battery. The rest of the armament would consist of a mixture of casemated anti-torpedo boat guns and additional anti-torpedo boat guns mounted unprotected (except gun-shields) on the spar deck amidships, probably supplemented by underwater torpedo tubes. Typical speeds under sail would be around 10kts and you might see speeds not substantially change from 13 - 14 kts under engines because of a lack of technological investment.
 
Even Warrior's guns were small compared to those used in the next decade. Generally, with the trend towards fewer, larger guns, turrets were used to house them instead of the old broadside model, because a broadside ship can only use half its guns whereas a turreted ship can (depending on the arrangement of the turrets) use most or all of them. Though perhaps you could have some sort of internal turret-like system for turning guns from one side to another whilst still keeping them on a lower deck like a broadside ship. (HMS Captain tried something like this. She turned out to be too top-heavy and sank, but perhaps a better design could be more stable.)

HMS Monarch laid down before Captain but to a different design to Cowper Coles.
 
Anyway, broadside guns don't make sense as guns become heavier to penetrate armour. The preferred solution because the turret ship was not effective under sail was the central battery ironclad, which reached its finest form in HMS Temeraire (The "Great Brig") and HMS Alexandra. Temeraire had 4 x 11in and 4 x 10in rifled muzzle loaders in a mix of barbettes and casemates and Alexandra had 2 x 11in and 8 x 10in. In 1897 Alexandra was fitted with 4 x 9.2in guns replacing the 11-inch RMLs, but this refit was not found particularly effective; the largest guns mounted in casemates in a new-built ship was the Russian coastal defence ship Gangut bearing 9in/30cal BLRs. The barbette mounts, even with the modern tripod-supported iron masts of British ironclads which had almost no standing rigging, would be restricted in size of gun to avoid fouling the rigging. So, I expect you would begin to see a uniform armament of 9-inch BLRs, probably around 10 of them, with 30 calibre barrels to get some use from smokeless powder, if you continued to have sails on heavy warships. They would displace up to 11,000 tons and generally two of the guns would be on deck in barbettes and the rest in casemates in the armoured central battery. The rest of the armament would consist of a mixture of casemated anti-torpedo boat guns and additional anti-torpedo boat guns mounted unprotected (except gun-shields) on the spar deck amidships, probably supplemented by underwater torpedo tubes. Typical speeds under sail would be around 10kts and you might see speeds not substantially change from 13 - 14 kts under engines because of a lack of technological investment.

Interesting, thanks for that.

How do you think these ships would be used in battle? I know lot of contemporary admirals thought that the guns their ships were carrying would be ineffective against armour and that ramming was the way ahead, although most modern historians seem to disagree.
 
Interesting question. Wood would work but only up to a technological point. It would be more difficult to smelt the high grade steel. Electricity would be very expensive. Other sea going teck would be slowed down. Wood ships might becomes slightly larger and better but building with wood has its practical size limits.

In early civilization brave men went down to the sea in ships. Some did not return. As time progressed stronger bigger faster sailing ships evolved. Wood. Then towards the end of the golden era of the wind powered sailing ship iron then steel sailing ships were developed. The Wind Jammers. All iron or steel ships.

Captains actually looked for heavy weather. Strong winds got the ships home quicker. Such conditions were rough on passengers and crew. With little or no oil or coal everything at sea would have been different. History would have been changed. Where we would have ended up is fascinating to study and consider.
 
Top