NationStates Jolt Archive

well to get right down to buisness

how much damige could a cannon from 1800 do to a modern warship today, if anything?

would a 18in Cannon or Harpoon missile completly destroy a ship from 1800, i know it would destroy it but how much could it do, would it rip the ship in half or make it fly all over in small peaces

How much damige could a cannon from 1800 do to a modern warship today, if anything?
I'd guess it would dent it a bit at least. Maybe if a lucky shot went down a cannon barrel just before the modern warship fired, it would cause quite a bit of damage.

well to get right down to buisness

how much damige could a cannon from 1800 do to a modern warship today, if anything?
None, unless it was virtually at point blank range and it would then make a small hole in the side of the ship and kill a few people.

would a 18in Cannon or Harpoon missile completly destroy a ship from 1800, i know it would destroy it but how much could it do, would it rip the ship in half or make it fly all over in small peaces
The 18" gun would utterly destroy it, the Harpoon would explode inside and kill most of the crew, and then cause secondary explosions that would destroy the ship.

Don't forget that by the end of the nineteenth century you have the dreadnought. But 1800 itself, the battle could probably be summarised as "Bang, Bing, Boom". Advantage modern naval vessel.

The speed of those 1800s ships and their dependence on good weather were an issue. A modern ship could operate in bad weather while those old ships would have problems.

None, unless it was virtually at point blank range and it would then make a small hole in the side of the ship and kill a few people.


The 18" gun would utterly destroy it, the Harpoon would explode inside and kill most of the crew, and then cause secondary explosions that would destroy the ship.

Harpoon might actually just penetrate the ship entirely and come out the other side before it detonates. Still would cause a lot of damage, but seems like a dreadful waste of a missile. I'd rather just use a CWIS and dismast a wooden ship, then take her a prize! (Arrr)

i think that if the 19thC man-o-war got to within its effective range (i.e. point blank) and loosed off a broadside, the modern ship would be extremely heavily damaged.
if the older ship was from the mid 19thC, when iron started to be used as armour, and explosive shells were developed, the modern ship would be in even more danger. but obviously the range of the modern ship would protect it.

an angry crewman with a shotgun could do more damage to a ship from the 1800's than its cannons could do to the modern ship he was standing on.

allow me to demonstrate.
shotgun + wooden hull=hole
cannonball + thick steel hull=dent

The armor on modern warships isn't just plain steel either. It's a tough steel alloy that's "face hardened" IIRC. That means the outside of the armor is extremely hard to help prevent penetration and the metal behind that hard outer face is softer to absorb impact. In all likelyhood the best cannon and shell from the 1800's would do minimal damage or perhaps no damage to the hull of a modern warship. A harpoon missile would utterly destroy an 1800's vessel.

Modern warships dont have armour, Drunk commies deleted.

an angry crewman with a shotgun could do more damage to a ship from the 1800's than its cannons could do to the modern ship he was standing on.

allow me to demonstrate.
shotgun + wooden hull=hole
cannonball + thick steel hull=dent
Errr... no. The wood they used to make ship hulls was several inchs and in some places feet thick. You wouldnt penetrate it with a shotgun. The modern ship, I agree, unless very close would just cause a dent. In an actual battle, the modern ship could destroy the 1800 warship from well outside of its range.

Modern warships dont have armour, Drunk commies deleted.


Errr... no. The wood they used to make ship hulls was several inchs and in some places feet thick. You wouldnt penetrate it with a shotgun. The modern ship, I agree, unless very close would just cause a dent. In an actual battle, the modern ship could destroy the 1800 warship from well outside of its range.
Bad choice of words. The Hull is like armor in that it's thick, face hardened, and meant to be resistant to penetration. It's not like it's just structural steel meant to take the ravages of storms and waves. It's strong enough to resist damage from weapons. Thus the reference to armor, and the difference between shooting at a Carnival cruise ship and a guided missile destroyer.

Bad choice of words. The Hull is like armor in that it's thick, face hardened, and meant to be resistant to penetration. It's not like it's just structural steel meant to take the ravages of storms and waves. It's strong enough to resist damage from weapons. Thus the reference to armor, and the difference between shooting at a Carnival cruise ship and a guided missile destroyer.
Ish. Relative to wood, the structure of a modern warship is very strong. Modern destroyers are not, however (save for, perhaps, a thin layer of kevlar), especially armoured, although they will probably have stronger construction than an average civilian ship.

Ish. Relative to wood, the structure of a modern warship is very strong. Modern destroyers are not, however (save for, perhaps, a thin layer of kevlar), especially armoured, although they will probably have stronger construction than an average civilian ship.
Iron ships can, however, take a cannonade all day long and come off no worse for the experience, give or take a freak accident.

The iron used to make something like the HMS Warrior (1850s) is about 12" thick. The steel used to make the HMS Somerset (1990s) is several millimetres thick. The Warrior is actually better armoured than just about any DDG.

guns of the same calibre on board a 3 deck 1800s ship (eg one used at trafalgar) could level a 2-3 foot stone wall in about 5 days, so they were still immensly powerful for the times.

The american navy couldnt hit the broadside of a mosque, although they want to.

The american navy couldnt hit the broadside of a mosque, although they want to.

Our navy has nothing to broadside it with. A lot of our ships don't have anything more than a 5" gun for self-defense. As much as I understand the reason for mothballing our largest battleships (USS Missouri, USS New Jersey, USS Iowa, USS Wisconsin), even after a significant upgrade to its weapons platforms and electronics, I do not think that we should have mothballed those four ships. Yes, they are expensive to run and maintain. Yes, we have missiles, carriers, and fighter planes and bombers that can do more damage.

But has anyone seen how effective a shore bombardment from 9 16" guns on one of those battleships is? With the invention of the Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles, battleships can even hit targets much farther in land as well (ex: Gulf War I). I guess that's why we have guided missile frigates, cruisers, destroyers (check out the upcoming DD(X)), and even aircraft carriers with these weapons.

Two iron ships faced each other in the US civil war. They had the artillery of the time, and they couldn't damage each other. The cannonballs just bounced off each other, even though they were shooting at very very close range.

In a modern ship the damage would be even less. Perhaps some paint would be scraped.

The 19th century ships would never get within range. It would be pathetic.

You could just take Seahawk ASW helicopter found on many frigates or destroyers, put a guy in there with a light machine gun, and commence slaughtering. Sure, the wooden ship might have sharpshooters on the masts, but they're smartly outranged; their musketballs fall short. Jeez, you could just give a guy in the door a few molotov cocktails, drop them on the boat, watch it burn.

You don't even need to do that, you could just use CIWS or a five inch gun and smash the boat to pieces. But I just like the idea of using air superiority on people who've never heard of manned flight. Don't you?

Bear in mind the the most important ship of a modern navy isn't the battleship but rather the carrier. Therefore the 1800's battleship doesn't have to aim for the side it could aim for a plane onboard.

The american navy couldnt hit the broadside of a mosque, although they want to.

You're right; we could put the ordinance through the window of your choosing. :cool:

Two iron ships faced each other in the US civil war. They had the artillery of the time, and they couldn't damage each other. The cannonballs just bounced off each other, even though they were shooting at very very close range.

In a modern ship the damage would be even less. Perhaps some paint would be scraped.
As I said before, the armour on those ships is heavier than on modern warships, that dont really have armour. Right now (since there is only one superpower) no one really puts any money into navies, so what we have now isnt really representative of what we would have if having a very powerful navy was important, and so comparing to previous ages doesnt really work anymore. It's unlikely that the wooden ship would get into range, but if it did then its cannoncould punch through the thin skin of a modern warship.

Bear in mind the the most important ship of a modern navy isn't the battleship but rather the carrier. Therefore the 1800's battleship doesn't have to aim for the side it could aim for a plane onboard.
That's true, but you're overlooking 1 major problem with that approach; Carriers never go to sea without their escort group (at least not U.S. carriers) so the 19th century warship would have to get past 20+ destroyers and cruisers.

the victory (excellent ship), would go to sea alone, but generally It would be part of a fleet, as does the carrier.

and old warships ARE more armoured than modern ones.

the warrior has armour at least a foot think, that includes steel, teak and steel, air pockets and steel then you have the armoured rooms that the shells would enter. guns of the time couldnt even dent the warrior, and those had something like 2 ton guns.

i have no idea what that has in relation to a modern ship, but it sounds resonable

Since the weapons listed for the modern navy were using either harpoon missiles or 18" cannons, that indicates the opponent to the 18th century ship would either be a destroyer/cruiser class or a full scale Yamato class battleship, the only battlewagon in my memory to carry such calibre guns. In the case of the Yamato, advantage goes to it. The secondary batteries used to target fighter craft could easily shred any wooden ship to pieces and the ironclads of the time would not be able to outrun or withstand a direct hit from an 18" round.

Additionally, the Yamato class carried seaplanes that could either be used to scout for targets or torpedo runs if memory serves. And I don't think there is any ship in the 18th century that can withstand a 533mm torpedo below the waterline.

Maybe if the 1800's warship fired enough shots, the clinking on the side of the hull would drive a few salors mad and they'd scuttle the ship.

The american navy couldnt hit the broadside of a mosque, although they want to.

As a US Navy member, I find that highly ignorant and offensive. First of all, I'd like to question your motives as to that statement. The US Navy is dedicated to excellence and the fair treatment of all. In fact, thats the LAST line in our Sailor's Creed. Second of all, there's a hell of a lot of mosques out there, and even though a missile may not directly hit a mosque, the damge it can do affects the area around it. Oh, and I'm a Missile Technician, working on submarines with Trident I and II Fleet Ballistic Missiles, and I'd sure as hell love to see you do better. Ignorant ass-hat.

P.S. Fosgate.. IM surprised you didn;t mention American submarine superiority, and the fact that a Trident II missile has a land range of 4,600 plus KM

^^ Agreed. Tomahawks are actually extremely accurate and when they kill civilians 90% of the time it's because:

1) They were in the wrong place at the wrong time and got unlucky with shrapnel.

2) Intelligence was wrong and the missiles were being fired at a target they wouldnt want to fire at had they known what it was.

To imply that the Americans deliberately hit civilian targets is offensive and makes no real logical sense.

It's unlikely that the wooden ship would get into range, but if it did then its cannoncould punch through the thin skin of a modern warship.

Yeah, but that could be easily repaired. Battle Damage Control for teh win!

Yeah, but that could be easily repaired. Battle Damage Control for teh win!
Im not sure if modern warships are actually equipped to replace hull pannelling whilst at sea...

Im not sure if modern warships are actually equipped to replace hull pannelling whilst at sea...

So theoretically I could blow a hole through a ship's hull with a 4 inch diameter laser and the ship would helplessly sink? Maybe I overestimated the USN's capabilities but I thought they had at least, welders or pumps or something.

be I overestimated the USN's capabilities but I thought they had at least, welders or pumps or something.

Nope. They get here on Tuesday.

I was in the Corp during the 1980's and call for fire from the New Jersey. I've seen 1st hand what it can do....I'd rather have air support, or helos. The fire control is 1940's tech even with upgrades. The refit was to give it Thomahawks and Harpoons with the radar and fire control to use them. (and ASW helos) The 18in guns do terric damage but due to poor accuracy and limited ranged the role is limited and you can forget any "danger close" fire missions .


Our navy has nothing to broadside it with. A lot of our ships don't have anything more than a 5" gun for self-defense. As much as I understand the reason for mothballing our largest battleships (USS Missouri, USS New Jersey, USS Iowa, USS Wisconsin), even after a significant upgrade to its weapons platforms and electronics, I do not think that we should have mothballed those four ships. Yes, they are expensive to run and maintain. Yes, we have missiles, carriers, and fighter planes and bombers that can do more damage.

But has anyone seen how effective a shore bombardment from 9 16" guns on one of those battleships is? With the invention of the Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles, battleships can even hit targets much farther in land as well (ex: Gulf War I). I guess that's why we have guided missile frigates, cruisers, destroyers (check out the upcoming DD(X)), and even aircraft carriers with these weapons.

So theoretically I could blow a hole through a ship's hull with a 4 inch diameter laser and the ship would helplessly sink? Maybe I overestimated the USN's capabilities but I thought they had at least, welders or pumps or something.
If you had a laser that could fire through water without its function being disrupted whilst being completely invisible and with the ability to travel at any speed up to 30knts, then yes. But you're right - they do have pumps - but you have to make a hole that's actually below the waterline for them to become necessary and as far as Im aware they dont carry spare hull plating.

If you had a laser that could fire through water without its function being disrupted whilst being completely invisible and with the ability to travel at any speed up to 30knts, then yes. But you're right - they do have pumps - but you have to make a hole that's actually below the waterline for them to become necessary and as far as Im aware they dont carry spare hull plating.

Doesn't a Laser travel at the speed of light?

Doesn't a Laser travel at the speed of light?
No, the beam of light that it emmits does.

No, the beam of light that it emmits does.

Dude, a laser is a beam of light. Literally, laser stands for Light Amplification by the Stimulation of Emitted Radiation. Lasers are highly coherent beams of light; naturally, they travel at light speed.

The 19th century ships would never get within range. It would be pathetic.

You could just take Seahawk ASW helicopter found on many frigates or destroyers, put a guy in there with a light machine gun, and commence slaughtering. Sure, the wooden ship might have sharpshooters on the masts, but they're smartly outranged; their musketballs fall short. Jeez, you could just give a guy in the door a few molotov cocktails, drop them on the boat, watch it burn.

You don't even need to do that, you could just use CIWS or a five inch gun and smash the boat to pieces. But I just like the idea of using air superiority on people who've never heard of manned flight. Don't you?

Hell, send a patrol ship and just ram it, then watch her sink

Dude, a laser is a beam of light. Literally, laser stands for Light Amplification by the Stimulation of Emitted Radiation. Lasers are highly coherent beams of light; naturally, they travel at light speed.
A laser is a device which generates said beams of light, not the light itself. Otherwise what you said is correct.

If you had a laser that could fire through water without its function being disrupted whilst being completely invisible and with the ability to travel at any speed up to 30knts, then yes. But you're right - they do have pumps - but you have to make a hole that's actually below the waterline for them to become necessary and as far as Im aware they dont carry spare hull plating.

For a hole that size, they'ld use a cork. For bigger holes, they'ld seal up the surrounding spaces that are open to the sea and flooding. If possible, welders would use what was available (stored plating to sheet metal) to temporarily seal the breech.

A laser is a device which generates said beams of light, not the light itself. Otherwise what you said is correct.

Yeah, but I think we can infer from context that he wasn't talking about throwing the emitter at the target. ;)