Archmagnance1 t1_jcpo1s6 wrote

I said it somewhere else but I imagine it was more to throw a fair portion of the crew into panic while it's being boarded. After a (hopefully) successful boarding the new owners beach it and after the battle they can patch it up.

Sinking ships as the primary goal is relatively new for the past 130 years or so with the advent of widely available explosive munitions and engagement ranges measured in the kilometers. Even with the powerful guns of the age of sail they still fought at ranges of 400m or less because they didn't have what came to he called fire directors or fire control systems.


Archmagnance1 t1_jcltzby wrote

And it still took a lot of holes and time to actually sink a ship because, shockingly, they are designed to not sink. I don't imagine ships, when rammers were common, were completely helpless and would go completely underwater if they got rammed once.

They were beached at night because they would get waterlogged if left for too long, so a ram might have been to take a ship out of a fight or to take people away from counterboarding to deal with it. Again, not sinking. Its possible given enough time but I personally don't think it was the intention. However, we don't know for sure.

A ship becoming unstable doesn't mean it sinks, or that it will sink fast enough for it to matter for the outcome of a skirmish or engagement.


Archmagnance1 t1_jcl5kfm wrote

Chicken and egg problem. We don't know how it was attached so we don't know how it was used. We don't know how it was used so we don't know how it was attached.

At least, this is my understanding. Things might have changed since I last looked into it or what I read might have been out of date or flat out wrong.

We do know boarding was quite common for a very long time so I've been of the opinion for a while it was to aid in shock while boarding.


Archmagnance1 t1_jckl57b wrote

Its unlikely the ship would sink from this alone and if you hit at a shallow angle its not hard to imagine ships getting stuck and the more intact ship would aid in the buoyancy of the rammed ship.

Ships can float with water in them, and the water doesn't like to fill the ship when the pressure difference on either side of the hole is equal. This tends the happen when the water level reaches the top of the hole. If the weight of that isn't enough to overcome the boyancy of said ship / ships in tandem then it stops sinking.

It was still very hard to sink ships in the age of sail with cannons, even when within boarding distance and cannons were angled to shoot down through the bottom of the opposing ship.


Archmagnance1 t1_j2dt126 wrote

I assume they mean during the big conflicts because armies would be levied and trained specifically for conflicts instead of having standing armies. It's not absurd to think that during the napoleanic wars, the prussian expansion wars, and german unification wars that countries would be spending that much of their GDP. In peacetime though, i highly doubt it. Even during the naval revolution from 1860(ish) on through WW1 i doubt it reached 30% GDP, even the Royal Navy.


Archmagnance1 t1_j2dsmqq wrote

Yes but that wasn't the point. The point was explaining the different approaches. The US is an ocean away from anyone that isn't Central America or Canada. European NATO members were a couple hours train ride at most (besides the UK) from the reason NATO was formed, the USSR. Different geographical locations require different solutions.


Archmagnance1 t1_j0m4wbm wrote

The US was about 20 years behind in technology not just tactics. They didn't have to fight another major power so they didn't have to have development programs like the europeans did. Single loading bolt action rifles with paper cartridges were around for military use in continental europe since the 1850s, well before the US Civil War. They were needle rifles, with the primer right behind the bullet instead of the black powder, but much more advanced and allowed for more individual flexibility than the muzzle loaders before them. The Mauser model 1871 then came out in europe and saw adoption in the new german empire with metallic cartridges.

The next thing to come out of the US for military adoption was a conversion system for their old muzzle loaders until around 1890 IIRC.


Archmagnance1 t1_j0iur8a wrote

You would like Real Time History then. They do weekly releases of a big topic then do a mega edit at the end to make it one cohesive video.

This one on the franco-prussian war is my favorite and really highlights how technologically and tactically behind the US was in its Civil War that was starting around the same time.


Archmagnance1 t1_irpkcq4 wrote

That's saving labor. You need less man hours to do the same amount of calculations with the same amount of accuracy. If you do more with the same amount of labor, you're still saving labor compared to if you didn't have supercomputers.

Imagine how many man hours it would take to do a complex weather simulation to track the probability path of a hurricane? How many teams would you need working on the problem to give updates every 2 or 3 hours? Using information that is old and probably no longer valuable when they started?


Archmagnance1 t1_iqtvi4d wrote

There are historical documents from the classical period that are about the pronunciation of latin. Ecclesiastical Latin is church Latin, hence the name, and Classical Latin is how it was (generally) spoken around the time of the texts.

A very easy example to point to is Ceasar being pronounced See-Zar like the salad or Kai-Zar. First is church approved latin and the second is classical.

Here's a couple videos by an Italian Linguist (english, italian, japanese, latin) who also does a lot of history content using primary sources that he can read. differences between the types of latin reviewing the latin used in Barbarians on Netflix.