Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[Brother Oni]

The wings could also work as some form of sword catchers, for parrying. Granted, that function probably works better with wings on a shorter weapon and closer to the hilt, like a sai or a trident dagger or the I think Japanese but maybe Chinese (and quite possibly shared) bar mace whose name escapes both me and Google at this point. But especially when used in a formation it could probably still be a legitimate useful function on a polearm.

The Japanese had the jitte, but that's a short weapon (about the length of a forearm).

The Chinese bar mace had two variants, a heavier bian with a circular cross section or the lighter jian (鐧) with a square cross section. Note that the latter shouldn't be confused with the Chinese double edged sword jian (劍).

Both the bian and the jian didn't have any secondary 'blades' to catch weapons, despite the odd shape of some bian, which could be best described as 'ribbed for her pleasure'.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The Japanese had the jitte, but that's a short weapon (about the length of a forearm).

The Chinese bar mace had two variants, a heavier bian with a circular cross section or the lighter jian (鐧) with a square cross section. Note that the latter shouldn't be confused with the Chinese double edged sword jian (劍).

Both the bian and the jian didn't have any secondary 'blades' to catch weapons, despite the odd shape of some bian, which could be best described as 'ribbed for her pleasure'.

In this context I was thinking of the jitte. Thanks.

There are polearms like spetums and partisans and winged spears which are rough analogues to the idea. My impression is that they are more for locking/binding other long weapons than direct parring (although that might be a distinction only in my own head).

Those are the ones we were discussing. Locking/binding might be a better term than parrying for what I was looking for, the main point was that I figure the forward pointing wings added more than prevention of overpenetration, because the much simpler and lighter wings of a typical boar spear do that just fine. I also feel like some sort of spetum/ranseur/military fork derived weapon could look realistic and functional as a battlefield weapon while getting close enough to a trident to have that theming and aesthetic about it.

Chains connected to animated skulls (are they flying around on their own? How does this work? I'm confused about the description) are maybe a bit much for that balance, but that's what it's fantasy for.

[Talakeal]

I was wondering if anyone in this thread could settle a stupid bet for me:

Is it possible for a cannonball (solid shot, not explosive, grapeshot, sabot, etc) to tear a man in half?

And if so, could you provide a reliable account (or picture) of it happening or an explanation of the physics behind it?

My thought is that it is not, a smaller cannonball will punch a hole right through a man, and a larger cannonball will have its force distributed over too large an area and so it will simply knock men aside like a bowling ball, shattering bones and pulping organs in the process.

Thanks!

[Vinyadan]

Ever read The Cloven Viscount?

Reportedly, Richard Deane was hit by a roundshot and cut in half during the Battle of Portland in 1653.

[Talakeal]

Ever read The Cloven Viscount?

Reportedly, Richard Deane was hit by a roundshot and cut in half during the Battle of Portland in 1653.

Thank you.

I had actually seen that incident, but the thing is it is an almost four centuries old account without any details, so I find it hard to be.ieve it was anything more than an embellishment or maybe a one in a million freak occurrence.

If it was something that was commonplace, I would think one could find some detailed accounts, or maybe even photographs, from a more recent conflict such as the american civil war.

[InvisibleBison]

Thank you.

I had actually seen that incident, but the thing is it is an almost four centuries old account without any details, so I find it hard to be.ieve it was anything more than an embellishment or maybe a one in a million freak occurrence.

If it was something that was commonplace, I would think one could find some detailed accounts, or maybe even photographs, from a more recent conflict such as the american civil war.

You might want to look at Leonidas Polk. I haven't been able to look at the primary sources myself, but secondary sources describe him as being nearly cut in half by a shell that passed through his body before exploding.

[AdAstra]

Thank you.

I had actually seen that incident, but the thing is it is an almost four centuries old account without any details, so I find it hard to be.ieve it was anything more than an embellishment or maybe a one in a million freak occurrence.

If it was something that was commonplace, I would think one could find some detailed accounts, or maybe even photographs, from a more recent conflict such as the american civil war.

At the very minimum, being "blown from a gun" was a method of execution that was known to leave very little left of the person at all other than chunks. Of course, that was with the person tied to the front of the gun and no projectile, so it's not nearly the same scenario.

As for roundshot, I would not be surprised, though I'd imagine it a pretty rare occurrence. Considering it could travel through formations dozens of human beings deep and could injure/kill even by passing near you, there's more than enough energy involved to accomplish the task. At the very least, if you were relatively thin and standing side-on to the projectile, it could probably do the job, though that sort of scenario seems rather unlikely.

EDIT: Okay, looking through the Roundshot article on Wikipedia, I found this source on injuries from naval warfare, which appears to describe people being ripped in half by roundshot: http://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcre...9&blobtype=pdf

On page 8, the section on roundshot:
"McPherson describes how, at Navarino, he saw a midshipman knocked clean out of the top, hanging by the intestines from the boat's davits"

"A similar fate befell de Brueys in L'Orient, his flagship at the
Nile, when a shot carried off both legs. He
had himself placed in an armchair on deck
with tourniquets on both stumps until a cannon ball cut him in half"

de Brueys in this case being a French admiral at the Battle of the Nile. However, I can't find any other sources for him dying in this specific way, but others do seem to confirm the "legs torn off by a cannonball" part

[KineticDiplomat]

A twelve pound iron cannonball is about 4.5 inches wide; the average male waistline is about 14.2 inches dead across from the front, so you'd need some hellacious shear forces from the front. However, as you rotate the body you'll eventually be facing 90 degrees, where the depth now becomes the width - only about 6 inches at the waist. And less of that is actual muscle/spine.

Is it possible that a 4.5 inch ball could strike dead center from the side, above the hips and severe the spine and a good chunk of muscle and organ, pulling skin and fat with it? Yes.

Is it particularly likely? No.

[el minster]

however if you put them against an unbreakable wall then the cannon ball would shatter/explode and tear them to pieces maybe

[Kraynic]

Something you might think about is how much kinetic energy is being delivered. If you are really bored, you could check out cannon ballistics on a page like this: https://www.arc.id.au/CannonBallistics.html

Then you could plug some numbers like 12 lbs and 1484 ft/s into a kinetic energy calculator like this: https://www.gigacalculator.com/calcu...calculator.php

That may not be perfect, but will give you an idea of the type of forces being transferred to (and through) a body.

One thing (totally unscientific personal experience) I will pass on is that shot/round balls do different damage from shells/bullets. For instance, I used to shoot in a lot of muzzleloader competitions. My favorites where the novelty shoots where you split playing cards and the like. The best was a charcoal briquette hanging by a string. If you shoot that with most (all in my experience, but there are a lot of things I've never used) modern firearms, the briquette will shatter into multiple pieces. If you hit it with a round ball from a muzzleloader, even just a .32 like I usually shot, the briquette usually gets totally destroyed, becoming a black cloud of charcoal dust. It may move slower, but it also transmits energy to the target differently because of the different shape. Not sure if any of that is useful, but there it is.

[rrgg]

It does depend a lot on what sort of cannon you're talking about, the size of the cannonball and it's velocity on impact. But yeah, in general i think the energy is definitely there depending on the angle and where it hits to cut someone in half, or at the very least do enough damage that there isn't very much still holding the person together. A round ball hitting flesh doesn't "cut" it's way through cleanly, it's pushing the material out of the way either forward or to the side and suddenly transferring a lot of energy to that material in the process. Flesh tends to be pretty elastic and will usually snap back into shape if it hasn't been too badly damaged, which is how you can still end up with a fairly small bullet hole at the very end, but if the projectile makes a hole large enough that there isn't enough intact skin, muscle, and bone to maintain structural integrity in the face of that energetic shockwave to maintain structural integrity then yeah it could just fall apart.

You can see the shockwave from the impact in slow motion against ballistic gel or a human analog, for instance the closest pig in this video: https://youtu.be/Dic-A-e8vY8?t=60

I don't remember the specifics about the size or velocity of the cannon used in the episode, but somewhere between that and Mons Meg-sized I'm pretty sure there were cannons that would have no trouble cutting a person in half.

[comicshorse]

Okay you've all seen the scene. The hero is cornered by a villain and suddenly with a snap of his wrist a tiny pistol is shot out from his sleeve and into his hand and bye-bye baddie. I've a vague feeling they're called 'spring loaders'
Did they actually exist outside Hollywood ? And if so did anybody who actually knew what they were doing use them or where they just a gimmick sold to idiots ?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

It sounds like something that could have existed. Pre +-1850 firearms were manufactured industrially, but not nearly on the same scale as today. The technology is also a bit simpler and thus easier to play around with. So there was some extra room for individual shops going a little crazy with their designs and for custom jobs. I know I've seen pictures of stuff like a pistol with 6 barrels, basically compensating for the fact that the revolver hasn't been invented yet. So a hidden wrist gun sounds like something that probably existed.

It also sounds pretty impractical not to mention dangerous to the owner, so I don't think there were a lot of them.

[tyckspoon]

Okay you've all seen the scene. The hero is cornered by a villain and suddenly with a snap of his wrist a tiny pistol is shot out from his sleeve and into his hand and bye-bye baddie. I've a vague feeling they're called 'spring loaders'
Did they actually exist outside Hollywood ? And if so did anybody who actually knew what they were doing use them or where they just a gimmick sold to idiots ?

Probably about as many as people who actually tried to use forearm-sheathed knives as surprise weapons, it's roughly the same concept.

I would bet the idea of having the gun attached to a mechanical extender/spring-loaded device is probably mostly Hollywood, but derringers did (and do) provably exist, and were/are commonly carried as concealed weapons - it's not an enormous stretch to believe that somebody might have found a way to strap one in such a place that it would effectively fall into the hand when released and bypass the need to actually draw it. Seems like the kind of thing a habitual card cheat might do, the sort of character who would both be well practiced at the kind of sleight of hand you'd need to pull that off and would have a pretty high expectation that their daily life would require shooting or threatening to shoot somebody.

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay you've all seen the scene. The hero is cornered by a villain and suddenly with a snap of his wrist a tiny pistol is shot out from his sleeve and into his hand and bye-bye baddie. I've a vague feeling they're called 'spring loaders'
Did they actually exist outside Hollywood ? And if so did anybody who actually knew what they were doing use them or where they just a gimmick sold to idiots ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdout_(gambling)

Similar tricks have been used to conceal knives and derringers.

If you've ever played a Star Wars RPG, this is where the term "hold out pistol" or "hold out blaster" as used there comes from.

[Pauly]

Okay you've all seen the scene. The hero is cornered by a villain and suddenly with a snap of his wrist a tiny pistol is shot out from his sleeve and into his hand and bye-bye baddie. I've a vague feeling they're called 'spring loaders'
Did they actually exist outside Hollywood ? And if so did anybody who actually knew what they were doing use them or where they just a gimmick sold to idiots ?

In WWII station IX of SOE developed a sleeve gon from a welrod pistol.
https://news.guns.com/wp-content/upl...leeve-gun1.jpg

As far as I can tell that’s the only real life developed for practical use sleeve gun or holdout gun ever developed. However I can’t find any example of it being used irl.

The hold out style spring loaded device appears in the Wild Wild West and Maverick TV shows (I’m not sure which came first) in the 1960s from which it became popular in movies.
Here’s a link to a forum which has comments from someone who had and used one of the movie replica devices. TL;DR version is that they are wildly unsafe and impractical for real life.

https://www.therpf.com/forums/thread...eevegun.37371/

[Silver Swift]

What mayor innovations in warships where there between the late antiquity/early medieval times and late medieval/early renaissance times?

Context: I'm trying to do some world building for a campaign setting that involves a protracted naval war between the elven nations and the other races that abruptly ends in favor of the other races once the dwarves start getting serious about building a navy (as it turns out, being one of the most industrialized nations on the planet and having a culture build around craftsmanship is quite helpful when building big sturdy things like warships). I'd like the dwarven ships to be a significant improvement over the ones from the other races, but I don't quite know what that would look like in this context. Is it just bigger boats = better boats or are there cooler optimizations that a more industrialized country could apply to ship making?

I'd like to avoid giving the dwarves access to gunpowder if at all possible, so no cannons, but are there any non-gunpowder based siege weapon that were used for ship-to-ship combat?

[Vinyadan]

In the XV century there were innovations like using iron nails, mixing pitch with pine resin to chaulk the whole hull, and sealing the seams with lead; these flowed into the carrack. The carrack was a key step forward, because it allowed for far longer voyages and a larger cargo, however, not necessarily because it was better at fighting. The carrack also mixed lateen and square sails and had differently sized booms.

The Vikings introduced the keel. They also used iron nails (I'm not sure of whether this use later disappeared).

As far as navigation is concerned, Vikings may have used a mineral called Icelandic spar, which can tell you the position of the sun with a cloudy sky. The compass came to use around the XI-XII century, after a thousand of years in which it was employed in China for divination. However, there is another important invention, which is the stand that allows the compass to always be horizontal, (Gimbal or Cardan suspension). I believe it was invented towards the end of the middle ages.

There's a last innovation that could have had importance for a long-range war, and that's Mercator's projection. It allowed ships to easily reach their destinations by changing how the Earth curvature is portrayed -- with previous maps, you had to frequently correct your course, because going straight would have meant finding yourself far to the south of where you meant to go. Instead, with Mercator's, you can just draw your course as a straight line following the compass.

[prabe]

However, there is another important invention, which is the stand that allows the compass to always be horizontal, but I don't remember how it's called. I believe it was invented towards the end of the middle ages.

I think the word you're looking for is "gimbal." While the word itself only seems to date to the late-eighteenth century, I wouldn't doubt that the item existed for some time before that.

[Vinyadan]

I think the word you're looking for is "gimbal." While the word itself only seems to date to the late-eighteenth century, I wouldn't doubt that the item existed for some time before that.

Yes, you're right. Leonardo apparently made a drawing of it (Madrid Codex).

[prabe]

Yes, you're right. Leonardo apparently made a drawing of it (Madrid Codex).

I'm unsurprised about Leonardo drawing one.

I'll go back to lurking on this thread, now. Words I'm pretty good at, but though I find the subject matter fascinating I'm out of my depth as far as contributing.

[KineticDiplomat]

Of course, if your world has staple D&D magic, advances in wooden hull construction and navigation won’t matter much compared to the magic item industry. Don’t think a carrack made of wood and pitch is going to survive a fireball.

[Clistenes]

What mayor innovations in warships where there between the late antiquity/early medieval times and late medieval/early renaissance times?

Context: I'm trying to do some world building for a campaign setting that involves a protracted naval war between the elven nations and the other races that abruptly ends in favor of the other races once the dwarves start getting serious about building a navy (as it turns out, being one of the most industrialized nations on the planet and having a culture build around craftsmanship is quite helpful when building big sturdy things like warships). I'd like the dwarven ships to be a significant improvement over the ones from the other races, but I don't quite know what that would look like in this context. Is it just bigger boats = better boats or are there cooler optimizations that a more industrialized country could apply to ship making?

I'd like to avoid giving the dwarves access to gunpowder if at all possible, so no cannons, but are there any non-gunpowder based siege weapon that were used for ship-to-ship combat?

If you don't have access to gunpowder, galleys are the way to go. In our own world they built bigger and sturdier galleys over time, gradually ditched the naval ram in favor of boarding actions, and eventually replaced the classical style of several lines of oars operated by a single oarsman each for a simpler one of a single line of bigger oars operated by several oarsmen each (less efficient, but a sturdier design, less complex to build and requires less training from the oarsmen).

Most pirates and corsairs in history used small, agile oar-powered boats without a deck, and with a single sail, similar in design to viking drakkars. That has remained quite consistent over time, so long as piracy has existed until the development of engine-powered ships. Only the most powerful and wealthy pirates used bigger ships, and these would often raid coastal villages rather than attacking ships...

Cogs appeared during early medieval times as cheap, efficient merchant vessels, but similar ships existed since classical times... they were a poor man's warship. They could sail rougher seas than galleys and smaller oar-powered vessels, but in calmer seas galleys would go in circles around them.

Late medieval and early renaissance carracks were useful, but they were more like floating fortresses. They were hard to assault and beat, but anything smaller could avoid them easily... they would be used in combination with smaller, more agile vessels most of the time.

Of course, if your world has staple D&D magic, advances in wooden hull construction and navigation won’t matter much compared to the magic item industry. Don’t think a carrack made of wood and pitch is going to survive a fireball.

Yeah, if you have enough magic users and/or magic wands, wealthier countries would have magical aircraft carriers that would launch flying Wizards against their enemies...

[fusilier]

If you don't have access to gunpowder, galleys are the way to go. In our own world they built bigger and sturdier galleys over time, gradually ditched the naval ram in favor of boarding actions, and eventually replaced the classical style of several lines of oars operated by a single oarsman each for a simpler one of a single line of bigger oars operated by several oarsmen each (less efficient, but a sturdier design, less complex to build and requires less training from the oarsmen).

Most pirates and corsairs in history used small, agile oar-powered boats without a deck, and with a single sail, similar in design to viking drakkars. That has remained quite consistent over time, so long as piracy has existed until the development of engine-powered ships. Only the most powerful and wealthy pirates used bigger ships, and these would often raid coastal villages rather than attacking ships...

Cogs appeared during early medieval times as cheap, efficient merchant vessels, but similar ships existed since classical times... they were a poor man's warship. They could sail rougher seas than galleys and smaller oar-powered vessels, but in calmer seas galleys would go in circles around them.

Late medieval and early renaissance carracks were useful, but they were more like floating fortresses. They were hard to assault and beat, but anything smaller could avoid them easily... they would be used in combination with smaller, more agile vessels most of the time.

To add a little more to this. Late medieval galleys were effective warships of the time, but they required an infrastructure to support them. Northern nations often lacked this infrastructure, so they tended to operate fewer galleys. Although the Baltic states did get a system going by the 16th century, most large galley fleets operating in the area were temporarily moved up from the Mediterranean.

Galleys require large crews -- if they're not slaves it gives them a potentially very large fighting compliment by default. On the other hand sailing ships, especially square rigged, can have very small crews. They were efficient for merchant use, although a bit riskier. Galleys were used as merchant ships too -- their large crews and ability to avoid danger allowed them to operate without insurance.

Galleys are rather high maintenance. They have to be maintained, year round, even when not in use, so that they can be ready. You need large crews of oarsmen, but usually they're not engaged year round, only during the active seasons (when there are fewer storms). Over time, forced labor became more common, but for most of the medieval period the oarsmen were paid. Galleys need a support network, they have to put in regularly for food and water (water is an important one). If operating along friendly coasts, it was not uncommon to put to shore every night to rest the crew and take on more water.

Northern nations tended to have only a few warships maintained year round. During war, they would press civilian ships (mostly sailing ships) into service. They would assign soldiers to the ships, and might even fortify the fore and aft castles. Mediterranean nations tended to maintain galley squadrons year round (even if they weren't active), although when necessary they could impress merchant vessels too. Galleys could be built fairly quickly if the infrastructure was in place: Venice's famous "Arsenal" could build and outfit an entire war galley in a day!

A large well armed (i.e. with soldiers), well handled sailing ship could hold off many galleys. The Roccaforte at the Battle of Saseno is an example. However, coordinating galleys with sailing ships is difficult. Not that they weren't used together, just that tactically they couldn't move and function in the same manner. Usually when mixed, the sailing ships seem to have been used to provide cover if the galleys needed to fall back.

[Xuc Xac]

Of course, if your world has staple D&D magic, advances in wooden hull construction and navigation won’t matter much compared to the magic item industry. Don’t think a carrack made of wood and pitch is going to survive a fireball.

People keep saying this, but I don't see why.

"I won't let the PCs have gunpowder because it's too powerful! They have fireballs though. Those are ok. Also, wooden ships that shot each other with cannons and lit each other on fire in the real world would obviously be instantly destroyed by the fireball spells I let my PCs have instead of cannons because cannons are too powerful."

It's like gunpowder is simultaneously too strong to let PCs have access to it and too weak for anyone to want to use it.

[Silver Swift]

Amazing everyone, thanks for the great answers!

Some follow up questions:

If you don't have access to gunpowder, galleys are the way to go. In our own world they built bigger and sturdier galleys over time, gradually ditched the naval ram in favor of boarding actions

Were those the only options, you either rammed the enemy ship or boarded it? I would imagine catapults or balistas would be a safer way to take down an enemy ship.

To add a little more to this. Late medieval galleys were effective warships of the time, but they required an infrastructure to support them. Northern nations often lacked this infrastructure, so they tended to operate fewer galleys. Although the Baltic states did get a system going by the 16th century, most large galley fleets operating in the area were temporarily moved up from the Mediterranean.

What did this infrastructure look like, just well supplied outposts on the coast?

Late medieval and early renaissance carracks were useful, but they were more like floating fortresses. They were hard to assault and beat, but anything smaller could avoid them easily... they would be used in combination with smaller, more agile vessels most of the time.

Maybe similar to the above question, but how did this combination played out, were the larger ships just mobile resupply stations for the smaller ships? You can't really board or ram another ship if you can't catch up to it.

It's like gunpowder is simultaneously too strong to let PCs have access to it and too weak for anyone to want to use it.

The reason I don't want to use gunpowder is aesthetics, not gameplay balance. Once you add guns to a setting you change the feel of the world from a purely pseudo-medieval world to something that's a little more modern and that's not what I'm trying to do with this campaign. This is also, at least initially, a very low magic world, so the magic vs. gunpowder thing doesn't really come up.

[VoxRationis]

@Xuc Xac: I'd argue that D&D-style fireballs are legitimately more destructive than most pre-modern naval artillery. They enjoy a substantial range advantage against incendiaries like Byzantine siphons and immediately set fire to a very broad area of a ship in a consistent way (as there's usually a clause in the spell description specifying that it sets flammable objects on fire automatically in the area). Real-life incendiaries were not so broad-reaching or dependable, and certainly did not act so instantly. Depending on the edition and how damage to objects works in that rule, the fireball might not do quite the same amount of up-front structural damage as cannon shot (although I'd argue that it's competitive), but it will have instantly killed most of the deck crew in the area of effect and then set the deck, masts, gunwales, rigging, and masts on fire, which is not something that is true of shot.

Amazing everyone, thanks for the great answers!

Some follow up questions:

Were those the only options, you either rammed the enemy ship or boarded it? I would imagine catapults or balistas would be a safer way to take down an enemy ship.

Naval artillery did start seeing use during the Hellenistic era, but usually in a supplementary role. Before the use of gunpowder (which allows chemical storage of large amounts of energy in a comparatively compact form), artillery consisted of various means of storing and releasing energy supplied by the muscles of whatever people were crewing the engine. This creates a sharp trade-off between rate of fire and range/power, and it happens that regardless of what point on that curve one picks, it's never quite as efficient a method of attack as ramming or boarding. Artillery is, however, helpful for: killing or injuring rowers so as to disrupt the enemy's rowing cadence, which can be critical in naval duels; damaging battlements (not usually the walls themselves; it's pretty simple to make walls thick enough that human-powered artillery won't crack them) and suppressing wall-mounted archers in support of a siege; firing grappling hooks (harpaces) so as to reel small ships in and allow them to be overwhelmed by boarders; or killing or disrupting enemy marines so as to reduce their ability to fight in the melee.

That's not to say that pre-gunpowder naval artillery can't destroy ships; if a 1-talent naval ballista landed a lucky shot on a liburnian, such a blow might well have holed it (but likely not sunk it; ancient galleys were often light enough that the buoyancy of the hull's wood would be sufficient to keep afloat independently of the hull's actual structure). At that point, however, a massive siege engine of tremendous size and expense has eliminated one small, light opponent.

Maybe similar to the above question, but how did this combination played out, were the larger ships just mobile resupply stations for the smaller ships? You can't really board or ram another ship if you can't catch up to it.

The proper tactical use of larger ships has been something much debated among historians and archaeologists; William Murray's The Age of Titans argues that they existed almost more for strategic reasons, enabling generals to force open harbors of fortified port cities (a serious concern in antiquity). A polyreme could mount siege artillery or towers and could win in frontal ramming engagements in the close confines of a harbor, where a lack of maneuverability would be rendered moot by lack of room in which to maneuver. Such a use would also explain the arms race in Hellenistic navies; a ten might well be less cost-efficient than an eight, but in a direct head-to-head ramming contest with no ability to maneuver, that will not matter, as the eight will lose and its general will have lost the entirety of its cost. The absolute efficacy of additional resources put into larger ships suffers from diminishing returns, but only the efficacy relative to the opponent matters. This kind of calculus is common in arms races, where the costs of continuing the arms race quickly become exorbitant but will be thought of as worth it because of the even more tremendous costs of losing the race.

The reason I don't want to use gunpowder is aesthetics, not gameplay balance. Once you add guns to a setting you change the feel of the world from a purely pseudo-medieval world to something that's a little more modern and that's not what I'm trying to do with this campaign. This is also, at least initially, a very low magic world, so the magic vs. gunpowder thing doesn't really come up.

I'd argue that if you're trying to use naval artillery as a primary arm of battle, you've got the gunpowder feel creeping in regardless of whether you're actually using gunpowder weapons to accomplish this, because the tactics that stem from these non-gunpowder ship-killing weapons will come to resemble those of the Age of Sail. In a way, such a milieu would be similar to Star Wars, though working in the opposite temporal direction: the setting uses unfamiliar weapons in a familiar way to the modern audience.

[Clistenes]

Amazing everyone, thanks for the great answers!

Some follow up questions:



Were those the only options, you either rammed the enemy ship or boarded it? I would imagine catapults or balistas would be a safer way to take down an enemy ship.

Many kinds of projectile weapons were used to kill enemy crews and soften the enemy before the boarding action, but rarely to sink enemy ships. It was usually impossible to sink a ship with a balista or catapult you can load on a ship of similar size...

What did this infrastructure look like, just well supplied outposts on the coast?

You needed a lot of money to build a galley. You needed specialized shipwrights. You needed to repair them every winter. You needed to train and pay many oarsmen (or get captives and slaves to do the job...).

It was quite common for kings to pay a high ranking noble to keep a small fleet of galleys to protect a section of the coast, and to hire mercenary galley fleets for war.

Maybe similar to the above question, but how did this combination played out, were the larger ships just mobile resupply stations for the smaller ships? You can't really board or ram another ship if you can't catch up to it.

Large sailing ships were used to attack arbors, to defend arbors, to break through blockades, to disembark invading armies, to attack other large. slow sailing ships...etc. Generally, when there was a static target to attack or defend, or if the enemy was using big slow ships too.

In the battle of Sluys the English sent a great fleet of cogs to attack and take the port of Sluys; their ships were slow, but it didn't matter, because they weren't targeting other ships, they were going to disembark an army.

The French sent their own fleet to intercept them: The French, reinforced by Italian mercenaries, had a large fleet of sailing ships protected by a few galleys. The role of the French fleet was to block the English fleet and protect the arbor.

The Italian advised a retreat, but the French chose to chain their ships to each other, building a large platform. The English used their longbows to clear the decks one by one, boarding them once their defenders were softened by arrows.

Galleys were the true battle craft, sent to defeat other fleets. In Sluys there weren't enough galleys to defeat the English before they reached the coast; if the French had more galleys, they could have attacked and taken the English ships one by one in opens seas.

Small ships like galliots, renaissance frigates, renaissance brigantines, feluccas, xebecs, fustas...etc. acted as scouts, provided lines of communication, harassed the enemy, attacked civilian vessels and used their mobility to reach and support bigger ships by assisting them when they were attacked.

[Pauly]

Even in the age of Nelson with 100 gun ships of the line very few ships were sunk by cannon fire. It is very hard to get a stoutly made wooden ship to sink.
Even going to WW1 and WW2 relatively few ships were sunk by gunfire. Torpedos sank many more ships than gunfire.

Artillery in naval combat has a variety of effects:
- it kills the crew
- it wrecks and damages weapons and controls
- it causes damage that makes maneuvering and ship handling very difficult. This can indirectly cause sinking in rough weather, for example in the aftermath of Trafalgar.
- it causes fires that can lead to the explosion of a ship if it reaches the powder storage, or having the ship burn down to the water line.

Directly sinking the enemy by artillery fire is very uncommon. Shore batteries have better ability to sink ships but that was because of either shooting from elevation or shooting with very big guns, bigger than those usually mounted on ships.

[fusilier]

What did this infrastructure look like, just well supplied outposts on the coast?

That was a major part of it. If you study Mediterranean naval warfare of the era, there's a lot of capturing and establishing bases, so that you could project your naval power a little farther. Outposts to resupply the ships were important to increase operating area, and coastal fortresses can provided effective shelter to a beleaguered fleet.

[Galleys were used to blockade, but it was exhausting for the crews. On the defense, galleys could be backed on to a suitable coast, the oarsmen could be disembarked so that they can rest, while the soldiers could effectively defend the ships]

The infrastructure went far beyond simply maintaining supply points -- the ships were often laid up in special sheds during the off season. Large numbers of specialists were needed to run the ships, and they weren't trained in the modern military sense. They were professionals who were hired, that had learned their trade through years of experience. The destruction of the Ottoman fleet at the Battle of Lepanto, wasn't a disaster for the Ottomans because of the ships lost -- they were able to rebuild them quickly -- but the loss of expertise that couldn't be easily replaced. That resulted in a deficiency that lasted for generations.

Rowing crews were also a necessity. While forced labor was eventually turned to, it was recognized as not being as efficient (you needed more oarsmen for the same performance). For most of the middle ages, navies relied upon professional oarsmen, augmented by conscripts when necessary. This means that you needed a pool of professional oarsmen from which you could draw to fill up your navy. In areas where galleys were commonly used for merchant service, like the Mediterranean, they could usually be found. Likewise, experienced marines could be found in the Mediterranean, although again, in an emergency, they could press into service soldiers who didn't have naval experience.

Government institutions (and money) to support a navy, and the maintenance of facilities for supplying, protecting, and maintaining galleys were a part of the infrastructure, but so was the culture of the populations which could be called upon.

While focused on the Renaissance, Gunpowder and Galleys, by John Guilmartin, explains this very well.