29

In the paper The injuries of four centuries of naval warfare, the author describes how flying wood splinters caused by cannon balls striking a ship's hull were a major cause of injury to ship's crews.

Splinters Hutchinson, writing at the end of the Napoleonic wars, draws a distinction between the localized wounds from grape shot and musket balls inflicted by confronting armies and the extensive injuries caused by a direct hit from the round shot of a ship's cannon or by 'ragged fragments of timber violently rent from the planks or sides of the ship'. He adds, 'wounds inflicted by splinters of wood are always more extensive, accompanied with frightful contusions and lacerations of the soft parts', and Wiseman had pointed out that even if the splinter had insufficient velocity to cause a wound 'it sometimes bruiseth the skin to the flesh so forcibly as to extinguish the naturall heat and make it black', producing an eschar which would separate to leave an indolent ulcer, possibly of 'Meleney' type, and finally an ugly scar.

This effect has also been confirmed in modern experiments such as the Vasa cannon tests in which sharp wooden splinters can be seen flying out of the exit hole of a cannon ball that has penetrated the wooden ship armour.

My question is, did fighting ships from the Age of Sail ever use any effective anti-spall armour in order to protect their crews? For example, thick canvas nailed to the interior walls of a gun deck might be an effective way to capture splinters before they could be a danger to the crew.

Steve Bird
  • 19,763
  • 11
  • 93
  • 99
DrMcCleod
  • 892
  • 7
  • 11
  • 13
    I suspect the answer is no but, as usual, it's difficult to prove a negative. I've had an interest in warships in the Age of Sail for about 15 years and I've read a lot on the subject in that time. I've never seen any mention of anti-spall measures, either as standard fittings or as improvised ones. I'd guess that any cloth attached to the inner walls would be torn away by the passage of the cannon balls, leaving the splinters free to fly. There is some mention of "splinter netting" but this was strung above the weather deck to catch spars and blocks falling from the masts and rigging. – Steve Bird Feb 07 '22 at 22:18
  • It seems that some kind of body armor would help, but I've never heard of any use of it for this purpose. – Alex Feb 08 '22 at 01:12
  • 1
    Keep in mind that intended purpose of solid cannon ball (round shot) was NOT to kill the crew but to damage structure of enemy ship. Splinters were simply secondary effect. Ships were made of hardened oak, and latter from teak to decrease said damage. Modern tests often do not use same quality wood, so splintering is increased. – rs.29 Feb 08 '22 at 09:22
  • 1
    @rs.29 I'd say that the purpose of the solid cannon ball was to degrade the enemy vessel's ability to fight and to manoeuvre. Causing casualties in the enemy crew was one good way of achieving that. One of the reasons that the carronade became popular was that the lower velocity of their shot actually created more splinters and, therefore, more casualties. – Steve Bird Feb 08 '22 at 10:25
  • 2
    @SteveBird Well, nope. Carronades were simply cheaper and easier to operate, albeit with lowered range. Solid shoot, either from long guns or carronades, was not designed to be anti-personnel weapon. They did have anti-personnel weapons like grapeshot, and latter hollow cannonballs with powder . – rs.29 Feb 08 '22 at 21:50
  • @rs.29 I never claimed at any point that carronades were "designed to be anti-personnel weapon", so stop creating straw men. I said that the lower velocity of the carronades shot proved to create more splinters (which is why they were nick-named "smashers") and the increased splintering caused more casualties. The more casualties there were, the fewer men that could operate the guns and sail the ship. Therefore, the target vessel becomes easier to defeat. – Steve Bird Feb 08 '22 at 22:29
  • @SteveBird Carronades did not produce more splinters by having slower shot. They could produce more splinters by usually having larger caliber shoots than long guns. But overall tactic you suggest is not very viable - you would have to hit ship many times to incapacitate enough of the crew, so that ship became inoperable. By that time ship would already become a wreck. Historically, usual methods to defeat an enemy ship would be boarding, cutting of the rigging (dismasting), blowing powder magazine and punching holes in it so it loses buoyancy. – rs.29 Feb 09 '22 at 20:38
  • @SteveBird, why not post that as answer... it's hard to reliably comment or vote on comments... – AnoE Feb 10 '22 at 11:29
  • Do you really think this Question belongs better in SE History than half a dozen other Stacks, most obviously including something like Warship Design, with or without a (historic) tag? IMHO, slipping this into SE History serves mostly to reduce its importance, by comparison with everything else in SE History. – Robbie Goodwin Feb 10 '22 at 20:18
  • @robbiegoodwin I checked the big list of SE sites and this one seemed like the best fit. Which one would you have posted it on? – DrMcCleod Feb 10 '22 at 22:01
  • @DrMcCleod That's hard to address as there are nearly 100 SE stacks.

    Even if searches on Age of Sail, fighting vessels or anti-spall technology were useless, what about naval architecture/warfare/weaponry et al?

    If none of those works for you any better than the wholly lame "History" Stack, why not launch a new one?

    – Robbie Goodwin Feb 10 '22 at 23:10
  • @RobbieGoodwin - I can't speak to any other sites, but I believe this q is well on-topic for this one. Overlaps in site domains do happen. History of Science and Math is technically a proper subset of our question domain. You'd think that would be a problem, but it really hasn't been in practice. If you'd like this discussed in more depth, I'd suggest taking it to Meta. – T.E.D. Feb 16 '22 at 01:53
  • @DrMcCleod I apologize. I did suggest other stacks in good faith but having just now scanned the index |I hold my hands up, shocked. "History" really does seem the best fit. Thanks, T.E.D for leading me to look again! – Robbie Goodwin Feb 17 '22 at 15:51
  • Is it only in Hollywood that officers in Elizabethan navies, anyway, do wear body armour and quite a lot of it? As on land, isn’t that outmoded by improved firearms?

    My guess would be that canvass on the inner, ship or target side of a hull wouldn’t help as much as piled hammocks, and on the outer, sea or gun side even less.

    – Robbie Goodwin Feb 17 '22 at 16:09
  • When splinters were simply a secondary effect of round-shot smashing the ship’s structure, are modern writers wrong in interpreting contemporary accounts of “raking” as second only to fire for raising fear in the crews below decks, that being when a ship sailed across the stern of her enemy and fired all her guns through the galleries, turning them to splinter and maiming many of the gunners?

    And now I've moved past defensive technology and so off topic.

    – Robbie Goodwin Feb 17 '22 at 16:10

2 Answers2

31

The introduction of hammocks in place of cabins for the bulk of the crew both reduced the amount of wood (and thus splinters) and led to the use of rolled up hammocks as protection against splinters. Canvass and bedding were also used. Although this mitigated the problem to some degree, it was often ineffective and there was not much else they could to protect crews from splinters. (see testimonies near the end of this answer)

On the problems with cabins,

A young boy recalled his experience in the cabins as “a thing much like some gentleman’s dog kennel, for I was forced to creep in upon all fours, and when I was in and set upon my breech, I could not hold my head upright.” Additionally, sources described them as “sluttish dens that breed sickness in peace, serving to cover stealths, and in fight are dangerous to tear men with their splinters” and “nasty holes, which breed sickness.”

Source: Michele Panico, 'Hammocks: A Maritime Tool' (2018)

The change to hammocks by the Royal Navy from the late 16th century was not (apparently) primarily because of splinters:

The answer to all these problems came in the form of the hammock. Health factors, it seems, most heavily drove the transition. Several officers and medical professionals advocated for the switch to hammocks.

Source: Panico

Hammock netting didn't just help protect against splinters:

When filled with rolled hammocks, the netting created a barrier, described by many as a wall, bulwark, or parapet. This primarily protected sailors against musket balls, flying debris, and splinters; splinters being one of the most deadly dangers in battle. It dampened the impact of exploding shells and could even help in slowing the force of a canon ball. Many authors have likened stored hammocks to sandbags.

Source: Panico

Further,

Several captains, such as Captain Hutchinson, went so far as to run a second tier of hammocks above the hammock netting, prior to combat, for the better protection of their men.

Source: Panico

Canvass and bedding could also be used:

On deck, hammocks, bedding, and spare canvass were bundled into the nettings along the sides of the railings to serve as some protection from small arms fire and flying wood splinters, as well as to deter boarders.

Source: Dorothy Denneen Volo, James M. Volo, 'Daily Life in the Age of Sail' (2002)

In many, if not most cases, the protection was clearly limited, though. Below are some first-hand accounts of what happened to hammocks in battle:

On August 2, 1798, Captain Edward Kirby stated, “almost all the hammacoes [were] cut to pieces.” Another Captain, Davis Donaldson, wrote in his log, on October 21, 1805, that “the gangway netting and hammock[s] [were] completely shot to pieces.” A midshipmen explained his personal quandary to his mother on November 22, 1805, "my hammock and bedding had likewise been shot away in the action, which is the more unfortunate as I can so ill afford to replace them.” Commodore Macdonough observed after a battle, on September 13, 1814, “there were not 20 whole hammocks in the nettings at the close of the action.”

Source: Panico

As noted by Steve Bird in his comment below, another way of trying to limit the damage caused by splinters was to remove anything that could be source of such splinters, though the main aim of this was actually to keep the deck free of impediments during the fight. Among other preparations for battle,

Below decks, the partitions that formed the officers' cabins were removed, and the furniture, mess tables, and any other loose objects were stowed away.

Source: Volo & Volo

Ultimately, though, the surest way to reduce causalities (from splinters or other) was to disable the enemy as quickly as possible by improving both tactics and the performance of gun crews. From the late 17th century onwards, this was something the Royal Navy proved remarkably successful at.

Lars Bosteen
  • 107,936
  • 20
  • 483
  • 554
  • 13
    When a warship went into battle, they would "clear for action". This was a standard order that meant the ship's decks were to be cleared of anything that wasn't needed to fight. That included the cabin partitions and any loose furnishings (desks, tables, seating, etc.), which were placed in the hold. The main reason was to give the gun crews room to work but had the secondary effect of removing materials that could splinter. However, the primary source of splinters was the hull planking and hull framing timbers. The hammocks were stored in the wrong place to counter those. – Steve Bird Feb 08 '22 at 08:05
  • 1
    @SteveBird Yes, I saw that about the clearing of cabin partitions in the Volo book. – Lars Bosteen Feb 08 '22 at 09:21
  • 7
    @SteveBird: as a matter of fact, "removing splinter-prone materials" was probably the most important anti-spall "technology" involved, so your comment could be turned into a reasonable answer. (As often, the best technology is the simplest one.) Another important example: small boats (rowed or sailed; gigs, cutters or jolly boats) were usually stored on deck and only lowered away when in use. And part of clearing for action was exactly to lower them away and tow them behind the ship, precisely to remove them as sources of splinters. – Stephan Kolassa Feb 08 '22 at 10:27
  • Did no-one notice, removing cabin walls also removed the main barriers against splinters? – Robbie Goodwin Feb 13 '22 at 18:26
  • @RobbieGoodwin Cabin walls could both create and protect against splinters depending on what was hit but, if they left the cabin walls, they'd get in the way during battle. – Lars Bosteen Feb 14 '22 at 12:00
  • @LarsBosteen I don't believe that for a minute. Until you show detailed evidence, I suggest cabin walls would get in the way only through poor design. Most obviously, why put cabins on the gun decks? – Robbie Goodwin Feb 15 '22 at 21:08
  • 1
    @RobbieGoodwin See Steve Bird's comment plus the Volo book citation. Note that space was limited so cabin partitions were erected between cannons on some ships. – Lars Bosteen Feb 16 '22 at 00:06
11

No. Observing a disastrous effect doesn't mean you can solve it. Yes, it was a well known fact. Splintering caused a tremendous amount of dead and wounded sailors, many were maimed for life. Of course they would like to prevent that. But how? They lacked the technology.

thick canvas nailed to the interior walls of a gun deck might be an effective way to capture splinters before they could be a danger to the crew.

I read a long time ago hammocks were rolled up and stored against the hull, to mitigate the effect of splinters somewhat. This may be true, but wouldn't offer much protection.

How do we prevent spall? By using modern plastics, like kevlar. Or by adding multiple layers of high grade steel with empty space in between, or filled with ceramics or foam.

All of which weren't invented in the age of sail.

Jos
  • 21,973
  • 2
  • 63
  • 99
  • Metal spall and wood spall would have a large difference in mass though. The lighter weight of wood splinters should make them easier to stop. – DrMcCleod Feb 08 '22 at 07:41
  • 1
    I don't know how thick the timbers of a man of war were, but quite a bit. It would splinter in much larger fragments than steel would. As stated by @Lars Borsteen, hammocks gave some protection, but not a lot. A more mental protection than a physical protection. – Jos Feb 08 '22 at 07:57
  • 3
    @DrMcCleod Don't confuse density and mass. The important factor is the mass of wood flying around, and that's a lot. This could actually be worse than an equivalent mass of metal - you might get away with one piece of metal shrapnel which penetrates the meat of your arm but doesn't injure the rest of it, but equivalent wooden shrapnel would be a 2" chunk of blunt force trauma. Oak is actually pretty bad for this too, because as a wood it's dense but rather brittle so it does tend to shatter. – Graham Feb 08 '22 at 08:07
  • @Graham density is relevant when trying to stop something, as pressure is what will actually break materials. It's a lot easier to stop something with a energy of n joules if it's spread out. – vidarlo Feb 08 '22 at 19:27
  • 2
    @vidarlo I think the point of the Graham's comment that not stopping may lead to better outcome for metal fragments. It looks like wood is almost a perfect balance of pain-inflicting for humans - not flexible enough to splinter, not heavy enough to fly through people, not light enough to be stopped easily, breaks in large enough chunks to be painful/deadly. – Alexei Levenkov Feb 09 '22 at 19:21
  • Wood also tends to harbor many organisms, that gets worse with time. Get a sliver of old wood under your skin, expect a nasty infection! Given the lack of antibiotics at the time, a deeply embedded chunk of old, sea water soaked, sweated/bled/pissed-on wood would be a death sentence. – Mark McGinty Feb 10 '22 at 23:45