Sloop or gunboat?

[major bill]

While vacationing in Michigan I drove past the reconstructed Sloop Welcome. This made me wonder the difference between a Civil War sloop and gunsboat.?

The Sloop Welcome was not an overly impressive warship. Built in 1777 it carried a crew of 5 and had two cannons and two swivel guns. Her service in the Royal Navy was rather brief and she soon was returnedto civilian service. Built as a small cargo ship what became of her is unknown. Could a crew of 5 man that many guns?

This brings us to Sloops and gunboats of the Civil War. I take it Civil War era sloops were usefully but probably larger.

 

[gary]

Sloops are generally single masted vessels with triangular sails. During WW II these were anti-submarine escort ships with both (small) surface guns and AA guns. The Black Swan class comes to mind and in particular, the HMS Amethyst (there's some movie featuring her on the Yangtze River fight'n the commies).

A gunboat can be anything pressed into service that has guns mounted on it. Plenty of small ships were pressed into service in this manner. By the '30s it can be a purpose designed riverine patrol vessels (think the British Insect Class or the fictional San Pablo (Sand Pebbles) of cinematic fame.

 

[Saphroneth]

The term "sloop" had undergone definition drift in most navies by the 1860s, and indeed the British introduced the term "corvette" to capture the middle ground between sloops and frigates. By Royal Navy standards a ship that did not require a post-captain was not a frigate (or ship of the line) and was thus a sloop, unless it had a very small number of guns (in which case it was a gunboat or gunvessel).

By the 1860s, though, "sloop" was the new term for the old "sixth rate". These ships typically had 8-20 guns but to some extent it's an expression of firepower as much as an expression of raw number of guns. Some paddle sloops only had a few very heavy guns.


In effect, a sloop is a minor but significant combatant; a gunboat is smaller and less likely to be expected to be independent. Unfortunately this mostly just means that the answer is that a sloop is "bigger than a gunboat".

Note that gunboats can also be purpose built - the British Clown class and the Union Unadilla class being mid-19th-century gunboats.

 

[USS Cumberland]

"Corvette" was a French term adopted by the British.

During the War-of-1812, the two differences between a brig-rigged sloop-of-war and a brig-rigged gun-boat, or a "gun-brig", were two-fold. Gun-brigs were much smaller than brig-sloops, and in all sloops of war, brig, ship or even bark-rigged, was the presence of a full berth-deck below the gun-deck. A gun-brig had only a fore and aft platform with the midships portion completely open from the keelson to the main deck hatch.

The defeated British brig sloops Frolick, Peacock, Reindeer, Avon, Epervier and Penguin were all brig-sloops, (so too the US brigs Argus and Siren) displacing around 400 tons, and armed with eighteen guns, mostly either 24 or 32-pounder carronades.

The sole captured British gun-brig, HMS Boxer, was a gun-brig, or a "brig-rigged gunboat", of less than 200 tons, and carrying fourteen guns, mostly 18-pounder carronades. The US navy declined to purchase the prize Boxer, claiming that she was too small to be useful, so she became a Maine coastal merchantmen for decades afterwards.

 

[Old Soldier]

Most vessels were categorised by rig - the number of masts and the sails they carried. Ship = 3 masts, square rig on all masts + fore-and-aft rig at stern and bow. Barque (Bark) = 3 masts, square rig on fore and main mast + fore-and-aft rig on aftermast and bow. Brig = 2 masts, square rig onboth masts + fore-and-aft rig at stern and bow, Brigantine = 2 masts, aft mast tallest, square rig on foremast + fore-and-aft rig on aft (main) mast and bow. Schooner = two or more masts (often raked back) fore-and-aft rig on all. Sloop = ONE mast fore-and-aft rig (Yacht rig).

GUNBOATS were generally small converted merchant sailing or steam vessels into armed vessels mainly used for shore bombardment. For new-build vessels, construction shifted from a purely wooden hull to an iron–teak composite.

 

[gary]

Nice pic-chure Old Soldier.

 

[Saphroneth]

A thing it's useful to remember with terms like this is that, like a lot of them, it had originally been defined with somewhat fuzzy boundaries to begin with and then the advent of things like uniform armament, shell guns and especially steam had largely upended the basis for the old definitions - but that doesn't mean that the old definitions went away. There were still sail sloops out there, after all, and while screw sloops were far more powerful that could simply be expressed by saying screw sloop - and while the propulsion system changed, there was a clear line of continuity in (e.g.) the line-of-battleship, and clearly frigates were below those and sloops were below frigates.

The ACW is just at the start of the next major upheaval, which sees the most powerful ships in most navies being what would technically be frigates by the old definition, and so within a short time (only a decade or so) the term "frigate" largely drops away except as a legacy term and the term "ironclad battleship" comes in instead - representing how the ship-of-the-line of battle or battleship has been supplanted by armoured "frigates" that quickly come to have only a minimal or token "gun deck" as their guns aren't carried all along the broadside but concentrated in a heavily armoured battery.

Around the same time or a little later, it came to be understood that the main reason you would build something that wasn't armoured but that was still of any significant size was for it to cruise - a role that ironclads could not handle nearly so well or so effectively, originally partly because they could not be coppered due to the electrolytic reaction between copper and iron armour. So the term "cruiser" came in.

And that's how you go from sloop/frigate/ship of the line to cruiser/battleship. Meanwhile gunboats are still doing their own thing as the smallest ships that can carry a couple of big guns.


For those who are curious, the next steps are the torpedo boat and the torpedo-boat destroyer - later shortened to "destroyer". Which is how you get the core fleet components of the 20th century, at least until the aircraft carrier comes along.

 

[major bill]

The term "sloop" had undergone definition drift in most navies by the 1860s, and indeed the British introduced the term "corvette" to capture the middle ground between sloops and frigates. By Royal Navy standards a ship that did not require a post-captain was not a frigate (or ship of the line) and was thus a sloop, unless it had a very small number of guns (in which case it was a gunboat or gunvessel).

By the 1860s, though, "sloop" was the new term for the old "sixth rate". These ships typically had 8-20 guns but to some extent it's an expression of firepower as much as an expression of raw number of guns. Some paddle sloops only had a fek9pw very heavy guns.

I 9c9 I n k nnnn b n
In effect, a sloop is a minor but significant combatant; a gunboat is smaller and less likely to be expected to be independent. Unfortunately this mostly just means that the answer is that a sloop is "bigger than a gunboat".

Note that gunboats can also be purpose built - the British Clown class and the Union Unadilla class being mid-19th-century gunboats.

When the Sloop Welcome was tankan in to British she was rearmed with with four cannons and a 6 man crew. She was not a major warship, but was important in the Upper Great Lakes. There is a hope among Michigan historians that some clue of what became of her will still be found. Perhaps they will find her in the water of some Michigan Port or perhaps in some river.

 

[Saphroneth]

As a point of interest regarding guns, I should note that one reason why steam power was so useful is that it freed up more crew during battle for manning the guns without compromising speed. The importance of operating the guns (and I do think the Welcome with a crew of only five or six could probably only work one gun at a time, or the two swivel guns and none of the main guns) meant that in battle almost the whole crew of a major warship would be required to reload a single broadside, though they could also man both broadsides and reload more slowly.


The thing is, working the sails with a lot of sail on consumes manpower and also puts the rig under stress, so in battle sailing ships would generally have what's called "steerage way" (just enough sail to steer) and the rest of the manpower was at the guns.

Steam, however, consumes a much smaller fraction of the crew. You need only one or two stokers and a few engineers (a comparative handful) to operate at half power or more, while still having almost the entirety of the manpower of the ship at the guns, and (especially in a purpose-built military screw vessel, with a boiler below the waterline) the propulsion system is practically invulnerable to damage.

 

[Old Soldier]

As a point of interest regarding guns, I should note that one reason why steam power was so useful is that it freed up more crew during battle for manning the guns without compromising speed. The importance of operating the guns (and I do think the Welcome with a crew of only five or six could probably only work one gun at a time, or the two swivel guns and none of the main guns) meant that in battle almost the whole crew of a major warship would be required to reload a single broadside, though they could also man both broadsides and reload more slowly.


The thing is, working the sails with a lot of sail on consumes manpower and also puts the rig under stress, so in battle sailing ships would generally have what's called "steerage way" (just enough sail to steer) and the rest of the manpower was at the guns.

Steam, however, consumes a much smaller fraction of the crew. You need only one or two stokers and a few engineers (a comparative handful) to operate at half power or more, while still having almost the entirety of the manpower of the ship at the guns, and (especially in a purpose-built military screw vessel, with a boiler below the waterline) the propulsion system is practically invulnerable to damage.

When I looked up the 'sloop' and 'gunboat', the two seemed quite mixed yet very similar. I also noted that most 'gunboats' seemed to have guns added to a previously unarmed vessel - and this was a very small number of guns too - as little as ONE in the bow for starters and then just four smaller caliber guns - two each side! Hardly fort destroying, but could certainly upset an unarmed small craft. Bear in mind that most Civil War naval actions were on rivers and estuaries often with a very shallow depth of water.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the rig classification of types was never very appropriate for steamers as they carried fewer sails. So a sloop could mean a much larger steam vessel - side paddle, I would presume, as if they had a screw it would be a 'screw sloop' and a large stern-wheeler would hardly qualify as a 'sloop'.

 

[Saphroneth]

When I looked up the 'sloop' and 'gunboat', the two seemed quite mixed yet very similar. I also noted that most 'gunboats' seemed to have guns added to a previously unarmed vessel - and this was a very small number of guns too - as little as ONE in the bow for starters and then just four smaller caliber guns - two each side! Hardly fort destroying, but could certainly upset an unarmed small craft. Bear in mind that most Civil War naval actions were on rivers and estuaries often with a very shallow depth of water.

That's why I stressed that these terms are a case where the very definitions are in flux at the time. A good comparison would be the modern definition of "tank" - there's a clear case of things that are tanks, but there's also a sort of fuzzy boundary that relies on doctrine as much as anything.

Another good comparison would be modern naval ship definitions - many US ship classes were recategorized from "destroyer" to "cruiser" for PR reasons, and the Japanese navy has a destroyer which has a full length flight deck and is bigger than some WW2 aircraft carriers. Definitions are hazy.

 

[Old Soldier]

That's why I stressed that these terms are a case where the very definitions are in flux at the time. A good comparison would be the modern definition of "tank" - there's a clear case of things that are tanks, but there's also a sort of fuzzy boundary that relies on doctrine as much as anything.

Another good comparison would be modern naval ship definitions - many US ship classes were recategorized from "destroyer" to "cruiser" for PR reasons, and the Japanese navy has a destroyer which has a full length flight deck and is bigger than some WW2 aircraft carriers. Definitions are hazy.

The 'fuzzy boundary' seems to be that created by journalists who have no ides that a tracked APC is exactly the same as wheeled APC in purpose and use, but still call the one with tracks a 'tank'.

It is rather like HMS Warrior (1860), which was nearly 3-times as big as an old First Rate ship of the line (1810), but was classified as a steam-powered armoured frigate.

 

[Saphroneth]

The 'fuzzy boundary' seems to be that created by journalists who have no ides that a tracked APC is exactly the same as wheeled APC in purpose and use, but still call the one with tracks a 'tank'.

It's exacerbated by journalists, but the fuzzy boundaries do still exist. What's the difference between a paddle sloop and a paddle frigate? Probably about the same as the difference between a turretless tank and a casemated assault gun - the difference is real but hard to define.