When was the tactic of chaining ships together last used in a major naval battle?

score:16

Accepted answer

During the Battle of Cochin in 1504, a Calicut fleet consisting of some 160 vessels attacked the numerically much fewer, but technologically vastly more advanced Portuguese force.

Both sides lashed their ships together. From Wikipedia, on the Portuguese side, Duarte Pacheco Pereira:

… ordered the long sharpened poles drilled deep mid-channel and across the length of the ford, a makeshift stockade to block the passage of the infantry. He subsequently ordered the ships tied to each other, and to the banks (with iron cords, so that they could not be easily cut and set adrift). The ships were set with the broadsides facing the shores.

On the Calicut side, Elacanol of Edapalli prepared:

… [a] vanguard led by 110 well-armed and well-shielded paraus, tied together, followed by some 100 boat transports, packed with soldiers for the grapple … most peculiar of all, a series of 'floating castles' (invented by a certain 'Cogeale', an 'Arab of Edapalli'). Essentially, a 'floating castle' was a wooden siege tower, about 18 hands tall, with heavily reinforced sides, capable of carrying 40 armed men, mounted on two paraus lashed together. There were eight such castles, mounted on 16 boats, tied to each other, forming a single imposing line.

Parau, or parao, or paraw just means 'ship'. Here, a parau was an oars and sails powered warship, per Wikipedia often compared to the fusta.

Note that linking vessels up was not really an unknown tactic even late into the Age of Sail. However, as the question noted, chaining ships together in the style of Sluys became wildly impractical with the advent of ship borne cannon. Sluys was in large part a land battle, with armies moving on what was basically wooden islands. In later engagements, the ships were spaced too far apart for this kind of action.

In the Battle of the Nile, for example, the French ships of the line were 160 yards apart (Wikipedia has an illustration of the deployments). The French were supposed to string cables between each other, bow to stern, in order to prevent the English ships from cutting through their line, though evidently this wasn't fully completed. This can indeed be described as "chained together", but it bears little resemblance to the medieval tactic.

In general, the importance of the broadside meant it's difficult to imagine ships of the line being positioned, let alone tied, side to side, either defensively or offensively. For contrast, the Mediterranean galley fleets of the Late Middle Ages mainly relied on crossbow fire followed by boarding. They were thus often linked in a line abreast, even for attacking, in order to maintain a cohesive formation. In the case of fighting platforms such as those at Sluys, chaining ships side by side would've been the logical first choice.

Upvote:15

First contender: Battle of the Nile, 1 to 3 August 1798:

Alerted to this fact, the Royal Navy gave Rear Admiral Horatio Nelson fifteen ships of the line with orders to locate and destroy the French fleet supporting Napoleon's forces. On August 1, 1798, following weeks futile searching, Nelson finally located the French transports at Alexandria. Though disappointed that the French fleet was not present, Nelson soon found it anchored just to the east in Aboukir Bay.

The French commander, Vice Admiral François-Paul Brueys D’Aigalliers, anticipating a British attack, had anchored his thirteen ships of the line in line of battle with shallow, shoal water to port and the open sea to starboard. This deployment was intended to force the British to attack the strong French center and rear while permitting Brueys' van to utilize the prevailing northeasterly winds to mount a counterattack once the action commenced. With sunset fast approaching, Brueys did not believe the British would risk a night battle in unknown, shallow waters.

As a further precaution he ordered that the ships of the fleet be chained together to prevent the British from breaking the line.

Although to admit, not enough ships tied together for your criteria.

But that seems to be a relatively common tactic back then:

The essence of a cutting-out attack is surprise. The French, having been attacked once, were on their guard. Their vessels were chained together and to the shore, and not one was taken or burned. (During action at Boulogne, from Terry Coleman: "The Nelson Touch. The Life and Legend of Horatio Nelson", Oxford University Press: Oxford New York, 2002, p271.)

Much was made of the chains, as if their use had been unfair. Nelson said that the moment the French had the audacity to unchain their vessels they would be captured or sent to the bottom. St Vincent told Nelson, 'It is not given to us to command success' - exactly what he said after Tenerife, when a second attack on the same target also failed. (p 272)

More post

Search Posts

Related post