Probably a stupid question but I’ve always wondered.
On a sailing ship, you’ve got the mast, which is the vertical piece of wood, and you’ve got the yards, which are the horizontal crosspieces attached to the mast (I think I’ve got the terminology right).
Now if you want to change the direction the sails are facing to the wind, do you pivot the mast where it meets the deck or do you pivot the yards where they meet the mast?
The yards.
All sorts of rigging held the masts in place.
For his “Hornblower in Space” Honor Harrington books, David Weber went to the length of creating a FTL spaceship system that “recreated” the need for “up the skirt” shots, therefore producing space battles that mimic the Age of Sail tactics. (Rather well, really - he has a talent for narrating them that makes the “geography” clear in the reader’s mind. It’s pulp, but pretty good pulp as it goes. I stopped reading at some point, though.)
I was going to say much the same thing, but I looked up crossing the T at Wikipedia and it says that tactic only came into fashion in the late 19th century, with the development of steam powered ships and rotating turrets. It seems like it would have been useful in the age of sail, too, but I really don’t know enough of the details to say for sure.
The masts have to be pretty firmly attached to the ship. It probably goes down through the deck to attach to one of the lower decks or the hull, and there are taut cables called shrouds that attach to the sides of the ship. (Attach ratlines to the shrouds and it forms sort of a ladder for climbing up into the the rigging.) And the mast isn’t usually one piece. The upper sections can be brought down for repairs or for clearance under bridges.
And there are different ways of attaching the yards to the mast. In the pictures I posted, the lowest yard had a double pivot; you could haul the braces to turn it left or right, or you could raise one end and lower the other (that yard is the longest, and you might need to move it like that to come alongside a pier with a warehouse, or something).
The next yard up was just a simple pivot, for bracing left or right.
The upper yards weren’t really attached to the mast at all. The yard was attached to a collar that wrapped around the mast, and to set the sail, you’d haul on a line that would actually raise the whole yard. Look at this picture again; you can see two of the yards on the main mast are really close together. When that upper one is set, it actually goes about ten feet up the mast. The mast is a darker color where that collar wraps around it, and someone has to go up there every now and then and grease the mast. (Mike Rowe did it on an episode of Dirty Jobs, once.)
All that said, I’ve seen pictures of modern sailing yachts where everything is computer controlled. It looks like there’s almost none of the traditional rigging, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they do rotate the whole mast to brace the yards.
Is everybody getting tired of me geeking out on this subject yet?
That’s fighting ignorance for you!
I thought crossing the T was what Nelson did at Trafalgar when the English broke the French line. Several ships in line astern firing broadsides at two single enemy ships. In other words, two ships had to take the fire of the entire line.
Not at all. I’m enjoying the conversation. So, the object then is to bring the broadsides to bear on the bow or stern of the enemy? That surprises me since I would think the short side of the ship would be hardest to hit. I hadn’t thought about how it also gives the cannonball a longer target to hit as it descends.
You need to read Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin novels. Start with Master & Commander (not the same story as the movie, though the movie was loosely based on the series) and in a few years when you have finished the whole series you will be able to stop turning pages and have a reasonable understanding of naval tactics in the days of sail. By all accounts O’Brian’s understanding and research are outstandingly accurate and many of his battles are based on logs of vessels that actually fought the battles he incorporates in his books.
Raking your opponent was quite effective.
The ball did not descend. Shots from cannon on sailing ships were fired direct on a flat trajectory, not by plunging fire. You would have no hope whatever of hitting a ship at any range on a ballistic trajectory in a seaway, firing from a rolling and pitching ship at a moving target.
The balls were heavy enough and moving fast enough (depending on calibre etc) to go straight through the ship, hull, bulkheads, and flesh and bone notwithstanding. If you fired at the ship’s side the ball would have much less chance of doing damage because it would only cross the narrow dimension. If you fired at the bow or stern the ball would enter and pass down the length of the ship, and have far greater chance of hitting something crucial (and probably more than one thing).
My experience stopped well short of actual combat.
Alright, there are enough questions here that I won’t attempt to answer them all individually, so I’ll write a short essay instead 
Full disclosure: My experience of sailing ships is a lifelong passion, as well as sailing a couple of weeks with the replica Götheborg, an 18th century Eastindiaman.
On tacking against the wind
As noted, square riggers fare far better before the wind than tacking. The main reason that square riggs were used for ocean going cruisers was the fact that most of the time was spent in a predictable and reliable trade wind, meaning that a square rig would end up making the best time on an ocean voyage. Note that as technology progressed, ships would gain more and more staysails (the triangular sails which allow tacking), allowing more flexibility. Ships more likely to encounter adverse winds such as trawlers, coasters and tramps would carry more staysails as well as gaff riggs, giving less speed on open water but more flexibility close to shore.
Note also that square sails can also be used in tacking, but are far less effective at creating a proper airfoil due to their shape, and are far more labor intensive than a gaff rigg of the same size due to the added complexity.
How to get a ship into harbor
Large ships did in fact rarely sail all the way into harbor, but would instead lay anchor in a good anchorage and then offload goods to coasters, barges and other small craft. Should a ship be required to go all the way in, it could be either pulled in by its own long boats or warped in, i.e. pull itself forward using small anchors that were dropped in front of the ship by its long boats.
When the steam boat was introduced, one of its first roles was as tug boat.
On holding the wind gage
In 18th century tactics, holding the wind gage meant being upwind and thus deciding when and where a battle was to be fought. The other side of the coin was that the fleet which was downwind always had the ability to retreat when it decided to. The English, seeking total naval supremacy, always tried to hold the wind gage and engage their enemy. The French on the other hand, having a far smaller navy than Great Britain, sought primarily to exist as a threat to English shipping, and avoided at all costs battles where the fleet might be lost.
Raking fire, stern and bow chasers
As noted, the ultimate maneuver in naval warfare was raking fire, where a ship would pass behind it’s enemy and fire shot all through its length. The closer this maneuver was done the better, allowing double or tripple shot to be loaded, mixed with grapeshot if occasion allowed. The most famous example of this maneuver was, as was noted, Nelson at Trafalgar.
Ships carried guns in the stern, but this was as much a defense against gun boats and other small craft. A ship intent on escaping would have its full crew in the rig, while a ship intent on fighting wouldn’t be showing its aft at all. Bow chasers were used much in the same purpose, but during pursuit could also be used to fire chains into a fleeing opponent’s rig in order to slow them down. This was of course far from the rule, and the British would in later years use huge caliber carronades in the bow instead.
Note also that broadsides were not common, as they put enormous stress on the ship, and were primarily used at range in order to fire as the ship was on the up-roll. Normally, gun deck captains would order their guns to be fired as they bared.
Do you mean “weather gage”?
Also, at least according to Patrick O’Brian’s characters (who I understand as above to generally be accurate) would describe firing all the guns on one side during one manouevre as they bear as a broadside: I have never heard his characters make a distinction by which it is only a broadside if the fire is simultaneous.
Weather gage, of course. Slight slip of the mind =)
I hold that broadside means firing a whole ship’s battery at the same time though, as does wiki.
You need to read the Aubrey/Maturin and/or the Hornblower books. By the time you are done you will be qualified to sail a ship under any conditions and raid shipping to your hearts content.
Another major source of casualties was splinter wounds, where jagged bits of the timbers hit by cannon shot went flying about inconveniencing passers-by.
Sometimes they would fire two cannon balls connected by a chain, to damage the rigging. And “canister” was an anti-personnel charge, which was a tin container full of musket balls fired from a cannon into groups of people. The tin disintegrated and it was like a really big shot gun blast.
One of the things I learned from the Hornblower books was that the sides of the ship were not a primary target. The rigging was. The idea being to disable the ship from being able to maneuver, and then get into position where you could fire at them but they couldn’t hit back in return, and then just hammer them into surrender.
Read the account of the battle between the Lydia and the Natividad in the Hornblower book Beat to Quarters for a wonderful account of naval ship-to-ship combat during the Napoleonic period.
Regards,
Shodan
And whip off a leg, or perform a suprapubic cystotomy.
Nit picks: Canister shot was used by artillery. At sea the balls were larger (a bit over an inch in diameter, like a small cannon shot) and sown together in a cloth sack and referred to as ‘grape’.
Also, it was a question of tactics of wether you fired into the rigging or hulls. The British had a long tradition of aiming for the waterline, and would rarely employ chain except when commerce raiding. The French, on the other hand, whose aim was to keep their navy sailing, employed chain to a greater degree, to great effect in the battle of Chesapeake Bay. This is just from memory though, so if I’m wrong then please correct me =)
Nitpick: sewn cloth has been stitched together. Sown seeds have been planted.
Also…I vaguely recall that one side (British) either stopped using, or actually banned, chain shot, on humanitarian grounds. I guess the dangers of having a limb lopped off by flying chain were regarded differently than the dangers of being eviscerated by splinters or holed by grape.
:smack:
In my defense, you do sow grapes, don’t you? 
At the core of this issue is the British tradition of actually practicing gunnery. The gun crews took pride in increasing both speed and accuracy. So when it came time to duke it out with an opponent they would sail right up and fire directly into the quarry, quickly unmounting their guns and wreaking havoc on the crew.
The French on the other hand spent a lot of time being blockaded within their own ports and not able to practice much gunnery. Napoleon hogged most of the gunpowder anyhow. So when it came time for battle, they went for the sails hoping to slow the opponent down enough to get away. This didn’t work out so well for them in most cases.
