Talk:Naval tactics in the Age of Steam

WPMILHIST Assessment
A long, detailed article, with an introduction that's right on track. However, the article overall feels a bit short, probably due to the excessive sectioning. By removing sub-sub-headers, the sections might look more meaty. Also, I'm curious as to the definition of the "Age of Steam". What powered ships in the WWII period? Not nuclear, of course, but.... these are so different from 19th century steam engines... Well, I'm no expert on modern military history nor on naval subjects, so I leave it to you. LordAmeth 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Article scope
I've had my eyes on the topic of naval tactics and it's rather odd periodization scheme for quite a while now. I've already been bold and moved two of the first "periods" to galley tactics and sailing ship tactics respectively. "Naval tactics in the Age of Galleys" simply didn't add up with any recognized historical period. "Naval tactics in the Age of Sail" wasn't quite as problematic, but the very idea of an "Age of Sail" is vague at best, and it simply doesn't work when it comes to tactics. The main problem is that tactics don't actually follow the same timeline as technology development. For example, the line of battle was actually still alive and well at the battle of Jutland.

Modern naval tactics is already in place and is fairly well-defined. This article, though, isn't working. What's the "Age of Steam" exactly? And what's the logic of grouping submarines, aircraft carriers and WW II-era battleships with 1850s ironclads? This article needs a better scope and definition. It might even need to be split up into separate topics.

Peter Isotalo 13:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The question of periodization is tricky, since galleys survived much longer in confined waters like the Mediterranean and the upper Baltic than they did elsewhere, where large sailing ships came to predominate. And some tactics came and went and then came again, as you point out with the line-ahead formation. And this is of course a Eurocentric schematic anyway.
 * As for technological development, it depends on what technology you're talking about. The introduction of cannon to naval warfare in the late 14th century marks a (somewhat) clearer delineation than did the introduction of high-freeboard sailing ships, which generally used the same grapple and board tactics as in ancient galley warfare.
 * I'd argue that the technological developments that had come around by the mid 19th century did present a radical change of tactics (at least as radical as the advent of guns at sea). The advent of iron armor revolutionized how naval battles were fought (or how peacetime admirals thought they'd fight them), because it forced tacticians to develop means to defeat the armor - hence the ram craze of the 1870s-1880s (which in turn produced the departure from line-ahead for line-abreast), the torpedo (which produced the Jeune Ecole, eventually forced a return to line-ahead, and even later the submarine and the torpedo bomber). Modern weapons have made most armor redundant, which again produced a shift in tactics. If considered in these terms, this article is ideally delineated. Admittedly the article is improperly titled for that framework, but I can't think of a relatively concise alternative. Perhaps Armored warship tactics to parallel Galley tactics and Sailing ship tactics?
 * As an aside, the sail tactics page also needs a section on boarding, since it was still commonly used by those ships. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, galleys are actually per definition European vessels, so no problem there. Not quite the same with sailing ships, but at least with the new title, there's room for global perspectives. Regarding delineation, I'd say that early changes in technology (pre-1800) shouldn't automatically be the qualifier. If you read Guilmartin and Rodger (see refs in galley), the introduction of guns didn't change things overnight. It was dependent on a lot of other things, like social structures, systems of administration, traditions and the actual accumulation of knowledge and material assets. But you're right about the high freeboard and such. It's an important difference between northern and southern Europe, ei Mediterranean or non-Mediterranean.
 * I like armored warship tactics, btw. Perhaps we could even shorten it to armored ship tactics (that could just be my penchant for brevity, though).
 * Peter Isotalo 14:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read Guilmartin and Rodger (Guilmartin was in fact my graduate adviser) - as for the introduction of guns at sea, yes, that's why I said "(somewhat) clearer" - it took a few hundred years to get from Chioggia to the line of battle, of course. Nevertheless, that's still a fairly dramatic change when one considers that the tactics employed at Sluys were basically the same as those at Mylae 1600 years before. In any event, the introduction of guns was the critical component that produced the first major change in naval tactics and the fundamental basis for everything warships do up to the present (on a very macro level, everything before can be grouped into a "land battles at sea" category and everything after into a "modern" category of ships slugging it out from relatively long range - yes, it's a huge simplification but it's useful as a basic structuring device).
 * I wonder if it might make sense to just use the usual historical periodization? For instance, we could rename Modern naval tactics to Contemporary naval tactics (or, Post-modern naval tactics if you like :P ), rename this article to Modern naval tactics (and have it cover the period from 1815 to 1945, and then rename Sailing ship tactics to Early-modern naval tactics. Galley tactics could then become Early naval tactics (Classical and Medieval naval tactics is a little clunky to me) and would thus have room for a global perspective (there's quite a bit at Naval history of China that could be incorporated - the Tang era is particularly interesting, for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oooh. Guilmartin in person. Cool beans!
 * I'm not fond of original periodization schemes overall. It usually amounts to some form of OR or another. With galleys/sailing ships you can at least focus on a well-defined technical platform but still get a reasonably useful timeline (galley tactics: c. 700 BC-1800 AD; sailing ships: c. 1300-1850). And we could actually completely get rid of modern naval tactics by simply moving the content into naval tactics, where it belongs. We don't have modern infantry tactics or modern military strategy after all. So why are we treating a contemporary topic as though it was an historical period?
 * Peter Isotalo 16:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's a pretty cool guy - won a couple of silver stars in Vietnam flying Jolly Greens on CSAR missions, which is pretty neat. And of course he's an awesome naval/maritime historian ;)
 * Well, the problem with using the platform is that they don't really line up with the tactical changes (unless you're going to be overly specific and have something like Ship-of-the-line tactics ;) The good thing about using the normal historical periodizations is that they line up pretty well with the technical changes that spurred tactical evolution. For instance, the modern period is usually reckoned to begin in 1815, and less than a decade later, you've got the Paixhans gun, which spurred the need for armor plating. And the early modern period is usually pegged to 1453 - smack dab in the middle of the rise of cannon at sea, and only slightly predates the advent of gun-armed carracks (which of course were the basis for the later ship of the line).
 * I wouldn't oppose merging the modern naval tactics article into the parent article, though that article should function as an overview of earlier tactics as well, like the infantry tactics page does. Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone really uses the strict 1453-1815 dating anymore, but even if we do, it won't match up very well. The "melee tactics" of sailing broadside ships were dominant until the 1650s, and sailing warships (with guns) existed before the 1450s. Galley tactics appeared to have been very similar from Actium right up to Lepanto. And galleys were kept in use in the Baltic until the early 1800s. You'll get a margin of error of centuries. On top of that, the tactics would vary considerably depending on time, place and fleet composition.
 * I agree on having a historical summary section in naval tactics, though.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well no, the specific years aren't used much anymore, they're more of a useful shorthand for the major changes spurred by both events. Galleys were indeed used in the Baltic quite late, but as far as I recall from Glete (it has been a few years since I read his books, so I could very well be remembering it incorrectly) but those galleys weren't used with traditional galley tactics. But as for tactical variation due to time, place, and fleet composition, that's sort of my point. The galleasses at Lepanto are a classic example of that.
 * What I'm trying to get at is the division before and after the advent of gunpowder weapons (before which tactics remained essentially unchanged for over a millenia, and after which they changed fairly dramatically). And that ties in nicely with the start of the early-modern era, since it's what allowed, for instance, the Portuguese and Spanish to successfully explore the globe and defeat the forces they encountered. Yes, it's somewhat of a messy distinction, but trying to create any periodization (or at least one that has explanatory power on a larger scale) is necessarily messy - one need look no further than the extensive debates about when the military revolution took place (or if it did, or if it can really be characterized as a "revolution") to see that. We only need to be able to provide a reasonable justification for the framework we've chosen. And in my opinion, using the common "early modern" period works much better than a nebulous "age of sail" period – the "early modern" period at least has the virtue of mostly lining up with the major (European) tactical changes (or at least better than the "age of sail" does). Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Baltic galleys never really engaged much in actual galley-to-galley naval battles. (There were the battles of Gangut and Grengam, though.) In the Baltic, they fulfilled the other major role that galleys have always been used for: raiding and amphibious operations. The Baltic archipelagos are somewhat unique, but coastal warfare just as common in the Med.
 * Well, why bother looking justifications for making up our own periods in the first place if we can just go with the platform-based distinction? I'm still in favor of the galley/sailing ship distinction. Like you said, the early modern path does have some "messy" aspects that involves a lot of things that aren't really about military tactics (interesting or no). And we really don't have to even mention the "age of sail" if we don't want to. We can just focus on sailing warships, which covers more time than the age of sail anyhew.
 * Are we at loggerheads here, though? Should we ask for more opinions on how to proceed?
 * Peter Isotalo 11:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say we're at loggerheads - we're mostly on a tangent about other articles, not this one. And I wouldn't say we're in disagreement about this article, unless I'm forgetting something. Perhaps we should get back on track?
 * I suppose the one problem with armored warship tactics is how should we treat tactics in the period that did not involved armored warships? It's a decidedly Mahanian framework, since guerre de course strategies frequently don't rely on armored ships (if one includes protected and armored cruisers in the "armored warship" category), and neither does the Jeune Ecole doctrine that was quite popular during the period. I suppose the fact that this period is so messy is why I had suggested a different framework. What do you think? Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Just checking if you felt we were getting stuck or not. :-) I'm very much a pre-modern amateur historian, so I don't know much about the the guerre de course. And, yes, the 1800s are a lot messier. But how about starting with the galley/sailing ship/armored warship-structure and try to describe tactics against other ship types within each article? It will lead to some overlaps, but at least each article will have a primary topic to focus on. There's nothing stopping us from revamping the article structure later.

Peter Isotalo 16:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And my area of expertise is much more this period (i.e., the "age of steam") than early or pre-modern periods. But galleys were used to raid far more than they were for set-piece battles (and indeed that's how most galley captains made a living).
 * That seems like a good way to proceed. So should this be titled Armored warship tactics (or I suppose, Armoured warship tactics, since the article appears to use BrEng)?
 * It seems to me that there are two ways to structure the article to reflect the new title/framework. The first would be to split it basically in half: the first to focus on the shell-firing gun as the impetus for armor and the development of tactics to use armored warships (ramming, end-on fire/line-abreast, return to line-ahead, etc.) and the second to focus on attempts to counter armored warships (the Jeune Ecole, submarines, and finally the aircraft carrier). The other option would be to retain the basic chronologically linear structure and describe the same above as a punctuated equilibrium. What do you think is best (or is there a 3rd option I'm missing)? Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of "-ize" in the article, so if there's British spelling, it's not consistent. I would say that "armored" is better since the topic isn't specifically British.
 * You seem to know a lot more in this field (I had to look up Jeune École), so I'd suggest going by what you think is right. Personally, though, I tend to prefer themes over chronology.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked the early version of the article and it uses both "armour" and "organized", for instance (and interestingly, "harbour" and "harbor" in the same section) so it could probably go either way, at least as far as WP:ENGVAR is concerned. If you're planning on doing a lot of work on the article, I figure you ought to standardize to whatever spelling you're more comfortable with.
 * I think the chronological format might be better, if only because developments in one half prompted changes in the other - for instance, the development of the automobile torpedo forced fleets to abandon the melee and return to line ahead tactics - it would be similarly difficult to explain why battle ranges grew significantly after the turn of the century without talking about the ever-increasing range and power of torpedoes. Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Very young author
In the "Further reading" section, a work by Thomas Allnut Brassey, the future 2nd Earl Brassey, is listed. The work is supposedly from 1875 – when the author was 12.

Is this really correct?

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

✅