Why the Armada couldn't shoot straight

[Ithoriel]

The reason the Armada suffered so little damage as it made it's way up the Channel seems to have been that the English remained at long range (we're talking closer to 300 yards than 3 miles here) to avoid being boarded and as a result did very little damage to the Spanish. The English were very short of powder and shot (government cut backs - too much to hope the current government is remembering this?  ) and one of the reasons Drake seems to have given for slinking off in the middle of the night to loot the Rosario and San Salvador was that he was replenishing his stocks (no doubt he had to move the gold, silver and jewels on to his own ship so they could get at the ammo    I've no idea if the English were forced to reduce their firing rate to conserve stocks. The Spanish seem to have still had large amounts of ammunition on board as the made the run round the North of Scotland so presumably their rate of fire was indeed pretty slow.

For the record, Rosario and San Salvador seem to have simply collided rather than being the victims of English gunnery.

Once they'd broken up the Spanish fleet formation the English were more willing to close and as I said before seem to have tempted the Spaniards to fire at long range so they could close and do some damage while the Spaniards reloaded.

So, yes both fleets tried long range fire but with little or no success.

[Fenton]

 I think the Spanish commander was trying to save ammo as the guns were to be unloaded when they landed in England to be used on the land...I could have dreamt this info though

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

I might also have been dreaming, but I once heard the Spanish managed three shots an hour compared to the British twelve (which was considered high)!

[Ithoriel]

I might also have been dreaming, but I once heard the Spanish managed three shots an hour compared to the British twelve (which was considered high)!

I remember the same statistics though I couldn't tell you where they came from.

However, George Gush "Renaissance Warfare" has the following to say about land based artillery:

Part 4: The Artillery : Effectiveness

Accuracy was very limited over about 300 yards (¼ inch windage was allowed between shot and bore) and rates of fire were not high, probably because guns were loaded with shovelfuls of loose powder from a barrel (usually closed with a leather cover with a drawstring). Cartridges, though known, were not apparently used much until the advent of Gustavus's regimental guns, which, using them, achieved rates of fire of up to three rounds a minute - faster than a musket. William Eldred, in The Gunners' Glasse (1646) gave eight rounds per hour as the average, though other evidence seems to show that quite large 17th Century guns such as culverins could manage ten rounds an hour; 'Drakes' (guns under 5 pounders) of the same period achieved 15 rph. For safely, a gun was supposed to fire only a limited number of shots per day, or at least before having a cooling-down period (for example, a 20 pounder culverin of Henry VIII was limited to 36 rounds a day).

I would imagine naval guns would be slower to fire

[Hertsblue]

The 60pr guns mounted on Venetian galleys of the period were effective up to 1,000 yards. However, at that range the margin of error was 100 yards each side of the target! 

[Fenton]

I dont think the Spanish commanders themselves thought that the Armada would succeed..Didnt Medina write several letters to the king trying to get himself out of the command?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Yes he did, but he was a land commander, which formed the basis of his protests.

IanS

[Ithoriel]

I think the division between admirals and generals was less cut and dried in those days but anyone with any military background at all, who saw the plans, must have realised it was a disaster in the making.

A Spanish fleet, outnumbered four to three (around 150 ships to the English 200) had to sail through the Channel, within sight of the English, contact the Duke of Parma's army with only a rough idea of where it was and escort it's wallowing barges through the English Fleet to land on a hostile shore and move on London. Which relied on the Duke of Parma sourcing enough barges for the roughly 16,000 men he had left of the 30,000 he'd started out with and getting those barges past the Dutch fly-boats despite the flyboats operating in the waters and in the manner they were designed for and the barges having to use waters the Spanish navy couldn't enter. Even with an army of only slightly more than half the number intended, Parma was still a week or more away from having the required barges by his best estimate when the fleet arrived.

Once the English "hellburners" were sighted, the bigger ships that might have survived the anticipated fire and explosions stayed put but the lighter ships ran for it, not surprisingly. Faced with the choice of leaving the smaller stuff to be sunk or setting out after them the big stuff left shelter, allowing the English and the weather to drive them into the disastrous trip around North Britain.

Some of the Spanish ships lost at Gravelines seem to have found themselves fought over by the English, the Dutch and the French, all determined to acquire their part of the spoils of war! What it must be to have friends

If Phillip of Spain hadn't insisted on trying to micromanage a campaign to be fought hundreds miles away months in the future the Armada might have done better. If Medina-Sidonia had treated those orders as suggestions rather than the instructions they actually were it might have been different too. There was a brief possibility that Medina Sidonia could have landed troops in the Solent area which would make a fascinating "what-if" scenario for gaming.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Don't forget a major debilitating factor on the Armada's morale was the 'Singeing of The King of Spain's Beard' raid by Drake and co the previous year. It may not have been a massive attack, but in the process several hundred thousand barrels were torched.
This meant the Armarda's food and water was stored in unseasoned barrels and went rotten before they had even set off.

Not good for a fleet that averaged 20miles per day!!!

[sebigboss79]

What sort of range did these have ?
Or was the tactic to get as close as possible , and blast away at point blank range ?
Cheers - Phil

Was this not the time to wreck sails and masts and then fight it out in a boarding action?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Not really. The primary weapon of the Spanish ships was their soldiers, but they didn't carry the correct weapons to smash the rigging. The English were definitely aiming for hulling shots.

IanS

[howayman]

The Spanish ships carried much larger crews and their tactic was to close and board. The Spanish ships were also much taller out of the water with fore and aft castles so that fire could be directed on to the decks of the British ships with out much chance of effective return fire. The main British tactic was to prevent the Spanish fleet making land fall any where and simply harry them along the coast without allowing themselves to be cornered, thus they hung astern of the Spanish and only really attempted to attack the slower ships. The damage to the Spanish  ships themselves was mainly to rudder chains and rigging but this constant weakening led to the problems they had as the rounded the British Isles in the stormy weather later.

[Fenton]

Buggar

Had to go look at the Perfect Captain website again...all enthused about the period

[Hertsblue]

Buggar

Had to go look at the Perfect Captain website again...all enthused about the period

And that's a problem how? 

[Fenton]

Well its not really...just need to buy a new printer first