Age of Sail Ship-to-Ship Actions

Realistic Gunnery Rules

by Barry Fox

As Nelson's H.M.S. Victory (104) breached the allied line at Trafalgar, her larboard broadside raked the stern of Villeneuve's Bucentaure (80). From ten yards, with some batteries double-shotted and others triple-shotted, a devastating storm of iron swept the enemy flagship from end to end, instantly killing or wounding four hundred men and dismounting twenty guns! We've all read such tripe as this in popular histories. Who took the time to go around and count casualties immediately after the first broadside? The battle had just begun for Bucentaure.

After the Victory sailed past, the Temeraire (98) and Neptune (98) followed her through the line and likewise raked Bucentaure. The Neptune then came up on the lee side and fired again. Next, Leviathan (74) and Conqueror (74) each raked Bucentaure's stern, while Britannia (100) and Ajax (74) fired at her from long range. Meanwhile, Victory, caught in a deadly embrace with Redoutable, continued to fire her larboard broadside at Bucentaure throughout the battle. Conqueror as well kept up a steady fire against the flagship, even though she was engaged with other ships on her starboard side. If one could believe the popular histories' assessment of the destructive power of one raking broadside, one can only imagine what the final casualty count would be.

Well, try 197 killed and 85 wounded! Yes, the ship was totally dismasted, but 282 casualties at the end of the battle is a long way from the alleged 400 caused by the first rake! Given the proliferation of such falsehoods as this, it is easy to see why so many Age of Sail rules are too bloody.

I have been on a twenty-plus year quest for the perfect set of rules. It's been quite like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Some sets are too complex (I seem to remember having one published), while others are ridiculously simple (they're still grinding these out in England."Beat To Quarters": ED-) Neither type begins to replicate naval warfare under sail for ship-to-ship and small squadron actions, which is the scale in which I am most interested.

It is my contention that the more one knows about a period, the more detail one demands. The trick is to weave that detail into a playable system. If one has a passing interest in the American Civil War, they will probably be very happy to use On to Richmond. It is simple, and it works very well for very large scale actions. Someone who fives and breathes the ACW might prefer Johnny Reb. It goes into far greater detail, and covers regimental level. Thus, OTR would be the Baby Bear rules of the ACW, while Johnny Reb might represent a perfect compromise for true zealots.

So, is there a Baby Bear set of fighting sail rules? Rules which accurately reproduce the results one might expect from a historical encounter, yet don't require an advanced degree from M.I.T. to play. As I told the staffer at G.H.Q, Action Under Sail is the only set of rules I know of, and I have about fifteen or sixteen different sets, which accurately reproduces fleet actions during the era of fighting sail. Does that mean I'm ready to hop the next jet for London, hitch down to Portsmouth, and offer up prayers of thanks at the altar of the H.M.S. Victory museum? In a word, no! It's a long way away from being what I want, but it is closer than anything I've found in twenty years.

Gunnery is the heart of any naval rules. I based Beat to Quarter's system upon data of test firings made during the era. I then refought over a hundred historical actions, on paper, to be able to determine how well, on average, each nationality fired. The ratios are still viable today, but the basic data I used was faulty. Naturally, test firings are made under ideal conditions. I knew that when I started, but I couldn't figure out how to dissect individual actions in order to construct a more realistic gunnery table. There were just too many variables, and the hard data I had available to me, wasn't of a significant quantity.

This problem was rectified, about five years later, by the printing of such books as The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History (Volume 1) edited by William S. Dudley. When one is able to read the actual letters of captains to their admiralty, or in this case to the Secretary of the Navy, without the slant and mistakes of popular histories, it is truly illuminating. With the data which this book and others provide, one can evaluate isolated battles where the range, number of broadsides fired, and damage inflicted are clearly stated.

If they are battles where one of the combatants was unable to fire, or fired only once, while its adversary fired more often, it is easy to deduce certain facts about the battle. When enough of these battles are evaluated, a trend emerges which can be converted into a gunnery chart. Once one has that gunnery chart, they can refight other historical actions, on paper, to test the chart. Having done this, I decided to write an article for The Courier in which I would present the new gunnery formula with the data from three of the battles used in creating it. I would then show the results of refighting the same battles with the sets of rules reviewed in Vol. VI., No. 5 of The Courier.

Using average rolls, and converting the rules to 1/1200 scale and one and a half minute turns, I planned to show comparisons between the actual historical casualty counts and the game count result from each set of rules. When I came to Action Under Sail. I was using the 1977 edition then, I was very impressed with the results. I found that, with some adjustments, the gunnery table could be altered to reflect the historically correct counts. I then tested that new table, again on paper and using average rolls, in dozens of actions. With a few more adjustments, I was more than pleased with the results.

If gunnery is the heart of the rules, then there is still the main body with which to contend. Although not stated in any editions I have, Action Under Sail seems to be in 1/1200 scale and the movement rates appear to be for one and a half minute turns. The wind strengths are limited, but more could be added. Outside of gunnery and the scale of movement, I would change the whole book! Bear in mind that I am concerned with small scale actions. Mr. Steve Birney deserves great praise from Age of Sail gamers all over the world for his brilliant approach to gunnery and the ease of play of the game for fleet actions. I do not advocate changing a thing for fighting fleet actions. In such large battles any differences would even out and be swept under the rug, as long as only ships of the line are involved.

Yes, I have ideas about how to bring the rest of the rules up to the accurate standard of the improved gunnery chart when playing in smaller actions; however; I shall leave that for another day. It is only my intention, at this time, to present an alternate gunnery chart for the 1984 edition to Action Under Sail to be used for small scale actions.

Historical Ball Weight Owing to the fact that AUS is almost as easy to learn as On to Richmond, more detail can be added to it without bogging down play very much. I therefore recommend using the historical ball weights for the guns of the warring powers. As an example of the differences of ball weight between nations, you will notice that a Danish 36# ball weighed 39.72 pounds (I made the chart up in decimals for ease of use in AUS), while a Russian ball of the same nomenclature weighed but 32.47 pounds.

Over the course of several broadsides, these differences would be quite important. Because of the rules' simple system, it is easy to figure the accurate fire factor for your vessels. Simply use the ball weights in the chart in place of the national nomenclature of the ball when figuring fire factors before the game. Once you have the fire factor figured out, you will not have to deal with it again, because only the number of batteries destroyed will change during a battle, not the fire factor originally figured. To some extent, the fleet fists in appendix 2 of AUS take these into account; however, they fail to deduct 7 percent from the gunnery factors of the U.S. Navy, and some of their other data is suspect as well. That's why it is better to do your own figuring for gunnery factors. I round my figures to two places. I also use .33 and .67 when my battery count comes out odd. This gives the full fire power. For example, the U.S.S. Constitution (44), in her fight with the Guerriere (38), would have the following fire factors: 5 (batteries of long guns) X 7.44. She would also have 3.33 (batteries of carronades) X 9.92.

The Proof of the Pudding...

For those skeptics, I will include information on three battles which were of key importance to my modified chart. You may test the accuracy of your rules. If you are not happy with the results, I would urge you to purchase a copy of Action Under Sail, and use the modified gunnery chart in this article.

June 23, 1807: H.M.S. Leopard (50) 22-24#, 22-12#, 2-9#, 6- 24#c. 1078 tons. 343 crew. (Average gunnery) vs. U.S.S. Chesapeake (36) 28-18#, 20-32#c. 1135 tons. 415 crew. (cannot fire)

Leopard demanded to inspect Chesapeake's crew for Royal Navy deserters. When refused, she ranged along side Chesapeake at a cable's length range (a British cable was, at this time, 1 / 10 of a nautical mile, or 202.66 yards) and fired three broadsides (use single-shotted ball for British ammunition.) The Chesapeake, not being in a state of war, could not clear for action in time to fire a broadside. One gun was fired, and her flag was struck. Chesapeake, besides some damaged rigging, had three men killed, sixteen wounded. (19 casualties)

August 14, 1812: U.S.S. Essex (32) 40-32#c, 6-18#. 850 tons. 255 crew. (Average gunnery) vs. H.M.S. Alert (16) 16-18#c. 393 tons. 100 crew. (Raw gunnery)

Essex fooled Alert into believing she was a merchantman, so that Alert would come in close to her. Alert fired a broadside of grape, on the up roll, from short pistol shot range (about ten yards), causing no casualties, then attempted to flee. Essex gave her one bow rake, of single- shotted ball from about 200 yards (musket shot range), causing Alert to strike. Captain Porter's revised casualty count for Alert was three killed, two slightly wounded. (5 casualties) For this battle, assume Essex fired her long guns high, since Alert's rigging was damaged.

June 30, 1815: U.S.S. Peacock (22) 20-32#c, 2-12#. 540 tons. 140 crew (Elite gunnery) vs. H.C.S. Nautilus (14- brig) 1018#c, 4-9#. 18 5 tons. 100 crew (Raw gunnery)

After being advised by two different groups of British officials that the war was over, the U.S. sloop of war Peacock still fired a broadside (of ball and grape) from hailing distance (about 85 yards), at the Bombay Marine brig of war Nautilus (hence, the prefix for Honorable Company's Ship -- see The Courier Vol. III, No. 3, pp. 27-30 for info on the Bombay Marine.

The tiny brig managed to get off one broadside before striking. No damage was done to the Peacock. The Nautilus had extensive damage, as well as having fourteen of the passengers and crew killed or wounded. (14 casualties)

For the above engagements, I rated the ships either as per their nationality at the period, or by grading their previous actions. In each case, if the modified chart is used, with average rolls (I counted as average), and the listed range, in 1/1200 scale, type of ammunition, and the listed amount of broadsides is used, the modified chart will give the exact casualties listed as historically correct.

Firing Categories

Here's an area which can really cause controversy. Owing to the fact that I've altered the gunnery chart, the firing categories listed in the rules need to be changed. I wasn't thriffed about them anyway. Because the gunnery accuracy has been reduced to better miffor historical outcome, some switches must be made to keep the ratios correct. I'm dogmatic about my choices of firing categories for the major powers, since I've done extensive testing against hundreds of historical actions to find the correct ratio for those nations. As for the minor powers, educated guesses lead me to assign them their places.

    Elite (With Increased Rate of Fire) (See Appendix 3 for explanations)

    U.S. Navy 1812-1820s (see exceptions)

    British Navy/Bombay Marine 1793-1820s- Against all nations, except U.S. (see exceptions)

    H.M.S. Shannon (38) Always in the category, including against U.S. British squadron at the Battle of Lake Erie -- In this category against U.S.

    U.S.S. Constellation (36) in its fight against La Vengeance (40) (February 1, 1800) Dutch/Batavian Republic Navy 1792-1797

    Elite (Without Increased Rate of Fire)

    U.S.S. Chesapeake (36)- During war of 1812.

    Average

    French Republican and Imperial Navy.- Against all, but U.S. (see exceptions)

    Le Berceau (24)- French corvette- Average against U.S. U.S. Navy 1798-1811 (see exceptions).

    Danish Navy

    U.S.S. Essex- Only average during War of 1812.

    H.M.S. Phoebe (36)- Average against U.S.

    H.M.S. Cherub (brig)- Average against U.S.

    Raw (Without Reduced Rate of

    Fire) Imperial Russian Navy- 1788-1815 Royal

    Spanish Navy 1792-1815

    Dutch Navy- After 1797.

    Royal Swedish Navy- 1788-1815

    Navy of the Venitian Republic- 1792-1797.

    Navy of the Kingdom of Italy

    Navy of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies

    Navy of the Kingdom of Naples

    Portugese Navy 1792-1815

    Imperial Austrian Navy- 1792-1815

    Navy of the Knights of Malta- 1792-1798.

    U.S.S. Argus (brig)- War of 1812.

    H.M.S. Pelican (brig)- Against U.S.

    H.M.S. Epervier (brig)- Against U.S.

    H.M.S. Guerriere (38)- Against U.S.

    H.M.S. Little Belt (20)- Against U.S.

    Raw (With Reduced Rate of Fire)

    British Navy/Bombay Marine- Against U.S. after 1811 -- (see exceptions)

    French Republican Navy Against U.S.- (see exceptions)

    Prussian Navy 1792-1815

    Algerine Navy 1792-1815 (A cut above their Barbary cousins)

    U.S.S. Boston (28) In quasi-war against the French.

    Raw (With Reduced Rate of Fire and One Third Fire Power)

This is a special category not found in AUS. The fact is that the gunnery of the nations in this category is without Parallel, thus to account for this you simply use the Raw chart as normal, but divide die results of your computation by a third each time. (e.g. The Turkish frigate Badere-i-Zaffer (44), with a fire factor of 5.76, and 8.33 batteries, fires at a target at Close Range. Let's say they roll a plus with the dice. On the chart it's -1. Thus, 5.76, minus one, times 8.33 is 39-65 (rounded to two places.) Because of its category, divide this by three and round to the nearest whole number. Thus, 13 points have been scored. Though these nations produced poor gunners, they were very fierce boarding opponents who tried to get in close and overpower their foes.)

Imperial Ottoman Navy (Turkey)

Navies of Barbary States of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco 1792-1816

Navies of the Indian States, as well as Indian and S.E. Asian pirates.

Hull Defense Values

I fear that I can't recommend trying out this modified system without tearing down another of AUS's sacred cows, hull defense values. This determines how many gun batteries are lost due to hull damage. The rates for ships of the line work out fairly well, but those for all other ships would take a battle a long way off of the path of realism. For the sake of simplicity, the rules don't use tonnage for defense value. They use a preset value for each class of ship. Thus, a massive 44 gun frigate (5th rate), would have the same value as a tiny 28 gunner of perhaps one third the tonnage of the 44. Obviously, something has to be altered. It is unfortunate that battle reports of the period rarely mention the amount of guns destroyed or dismounted; however, if we study a few of those which do, we can get an idea of the ratio between crew casualties and the destruction of guns or carronades in relation to the tonnage of the vessel.

H.M.S. Pelican (18-brig) 16-32#c, 2-6#. 385 tons. 116 crew. seven casualdes;Had two carronades dismounted in her fight with the U.S.S. Argus (brig). That means that she lost I I% of her guns for losing 6% of her crew. AUS would have had her close to losing six guns, although, in fairness, casualties caused by grape would not be counted toward the destruction of guns; however, we don't know how many casualties were caused by grape.

H.C.S. Nautilus (14-brig) 10-18#c, 4-9#. 185 tons. 100 crew. 14 casualties; Had two guns disabled. Thus, she lost 14% of her guns and 14% of her crew. In this case, with U.S.S. Peacock firing only one broadside, I accounted for the grape shot as per the rules. Here, after the grape is accounted for, the rules would cause her to lose three guns.

H.M.S. Alert (16) 16-18#c. 393 tons. 100 crew. 5 casualties; Here, in one single-shotted ball broadside, Alert had two carronades dismounted. She lost 12.5% of her guns to 5% of her crew. Again, AUS would have had her lose three guns and be a quarter of the way from losing three more.

I'm not being petty about the difference between losing two and three guns. These battles were very low casualty affairs, but if you continued at this rate, Nautilus would have all of her guns dismounted when just over half of her crew were casualties. Alert would have no guns left after losing less than two-thirds of her crew.

U.S.S. Lawrence (20) 18-32#c, 2-12#. 493 tons. 136 crew. 83 casualties. In her epic struggle against the British/Canadian line at Lake Erie, Lawrence lost nine of her guns (all on the engaged side). Thus, she lost 45% of her guns and 61% of her crew. The high crew loss can probably be attributed to grape shot and musketry, which would not dismount the guns. Not counting grape and musketry, AUS would make her lose all of her guns for that amount of casualties.

H.M.S. Macedonian (38) 28-18#, 16-32#c 2-12#, 2- 9#, 118#c. 1325 tons. 301 crew. 104 casualties. In her battle with the U.S.S. United States (44), she lost fourteen carronades and two long guns. Thus, she lost 32.65% of her guns and 34-55% of her crew. Again, the standard rules would cause her to lose every gun and carronade on the ship before she even had 33.33% casualties! Again let me stress, that had any casualties been caused by grape or musketry, AUS would not count that toward hull, and thus gun damage.

One of the great slaughters of naval history took place aboard the French ship Redoutable (74) at Trafalgar. With over 8 1 % crew casualties, she lost all of her guns as well. AUS would have seen her lose all of her guns before she reached 50% crew casualties.

Don't Give Up The Ship, the very clever 1972 rules by Arneson, Gygax, and Carr, use to handle gun loss by the formula of dividing the total amount of guns carried on the ship into the tonnage. Each time that the ship took hull hits, the gunnery damage factor was divided into the points damage. The result showed how many guns were knocked out. The only bad point about this is that a ship would have to take 100% of its tonnage in damage points to lose all of its guns. That means that a gunboat, mounting just one heavy gun, would have to be sunk to silence its gun. With decent morale rules, this would not come up too often. It was rare in this period for a crew to continue a struggle after taking more than a third in casualties. It should be noted that in most cases a ship would probably have severe rigging damage, and quite possibly be starting to sink by the time her crew reached that level of casualties. Your typical beer and pretzel rules don't bother with important matters as this. They would have a schooner blaze away at a ship of the line until the schooner was matchwood.

Even the most cursory glance at a popular history would show how nonsensical an occurrence such as this would be. If the bold Lord Cochrane would surrender his brig to a French squadron he couldn't outrun, without firing a shot, and the dauntless Steven Decatur would surrender his frigate to a superior British force from which he couldn't escape, why do beer and pretzel rules players get to be more heroic? But, I digress.

Taking an average of thirty-six actions, from 1793-1812, in which a French ship surrendered, the average crew casualties were 26.21%. In the period of 1793-1815, in nineteen actions where British ships surrendered, the average is 29.72%

My solution to the loss of guns problem would be a compromise. All players would figure their gunnery damage factor, as per DGUTS, at the beginning of the game. Up to the time that a ship hit 50% crew casualties, and survived any morale rolls, the gunnery damage factor would disable one gun every time it matched the hull damage points most recently inflicted. Once the ship in question went over 50% casualties, the player would start losing two guns every time his damage points equaled his gunnery damage factor. It should be noted that one gun is a third of a battery in AUS. (Example: H.M.S. Alert's (see data above) gunnery damage factor would be 393 divided by 16, or 24.56. Every time that hull damage, discounting grape and musketry, reaches 24-56, she loses one carronade. If she should lose more than 50% of her crew to ball shot, and makes it past any morale rolls, she will begin to lose two carronades every time her hull damage reaches 24-56, until she surrenders, or runs out of carronades. In this way all of the guns can be knocked out on a vessel before she is sunk, or loses all of her crew.

In closing, I would urge all interested parties to purchase not only AUS, but to also check out other Age of Sail rules. Most contain at least one original and interesting concept which you may want to incorporate if you are trying to construct a set of rules for personal use. Also, be very wary of naval fiction pertaining to the era. Most of it is enjoyable, but it is still fiction.

If your rules are based on fictional accounts of actions, they will only be as credible as the source. As an example, three of the top contemporary writers of this genre, all Brits, continually give the French 32# guns on their ships of the line! One glance at William James's classic work would show that the French, even during the period of the American Revolution, used 36# guns, which fired a ball weighing thirty-eight pounds and fourteen ounces. Only in very rare cases would they use captured British guns, and then only on distant stations such as India or the West Indies. Even then, it was usually only privateers adding a few captured nine pounders or thirty-two pound carronades to their ships to beef-up their armament in an area far from direct supply from the homeland. Unfortunately, the three writers whom I can think of whom thoroughly know their subject, and never make errors, don't write as well as the former three. In spite of all the comparisons, I'm afraid there will never be another C.S. Forester.

Oh, if you can't find Action Under Sail at your local wargame supply store, be advised that it is British. We give them Dallas and they give us Sherlock Holmes and Action Under Sail. That kind of an exchange gets even with them for impressing our sailors prior to the War of 1812! Your best bet is to send directly to the publisher. Tabletop Games, 53 Mansfield Road, Daybrook, Nottingham NG5 6BB, England. The current price is £ 2.95, but air mail postage to the U.S.A. is another 60%, so £ 4.72, on a British bank draft, will do it. They also accept personal checks in dollars, but you must add the equivalent of £ 3.00 to your order to cover exchange fees. Prior to going direct, I tried to get the latest edition (1984) from two different American distributors who currently advertise the rules in their catalogs. One failed to have one in stock for over five months, and finally sent me a credit, while the other sent me one after over four months! In the meantime, I sent directly to the publisher, in England, and received my copy, in California, in just twelve days! I'm glad those American distributors were not handling ammunition supplies for Operation Desert Storm, or we would still be waiting to take Kuwait back. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the rules and at least give these modifications a try.

Select Bibliography

The following represent only the books consulted which are currently competing for space on my computer table:

Arneson, Gygax, and Carr. Don't Give Up The Ship. Guidon Games, 1972.
Birnie, S. Action Under Sail. Tabletop Games, Daybrook, 1984.
Chapelle, Howard I., The History of the American Sailing Navy New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1949; reprint edition, New York. Bonanza Books, n.d.
Coggins, Jack. Ships and Seamen of the American Revolution. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, 1969.
Colledge, J.J. Ships of the Royal Navy. Annapolis, Naval Institute Press, 1987.
Davies, Paul. The Battle of Trafalgar. New York. Ballantine Books, Inc., 1972.
Dudley, William S. The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History. Volume 1. Washington: Historical Center Department of the Navy, 1985.
Forester, C.S. The Age of Fighting Sail. Doubleday & Co., Garden City, 1956.
Fox, Barry J. Beat to Quarters. Command Perspectives, San Diego, 198 1.
Howarth, David. Trafalgar: The Nelson Touch. Atheneum, New York, 1969.
James, William. Naval History of Great Britain. 6 Volumes. London, 1859.
Jane, Frederick T. The Imperial Russian Navy. Conway Maritime Press, Ltd., London, 1983.
Low, C.R. The Indian Navy. London, 1877.
Malcomson, Thomas and Robert. H.M.S. Detroit: The Battle for Lake Erie. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1990.
Nash, Howard P. The Forgotten Wars. A.S. Barnes & Co., New York, 1968.
Palmer, Michael A. Stoddert's War: Naval Operations During the Quasi-War with France, 1798-1801. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, 1987.
Roosevelt, Theodore. The Naval War of 1812. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1987.

Age of Sail Ship-to-Ship Actions

Back to Table of Contents -- Courier # 61
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1993 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com