Talk:Line of battle

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: Maritime C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

What's a (ship) Castle?[edit]

From "Development of the Line of Battle": "the natural tendency in the design of galleons was for longer ships with lower castles" What is a ship castle? I think this should be clarified, or linked to an appropriate article (I checked the castle article and the castle disambiguation but couldn't find a relevant article). 24.21.149.53 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins[edit]

Doubt has to be cast over the intentions of Vasco de Gama in 1503 and of Tromp in 1639 when they are alleged to have form the line of battle. Granted there is debate but whether it was merely good fortune or simply a primitive form which may have stumbled upon by any numerous sea captains on numerous occasions is not clear. What is clear is the Blake's instructions shows the first organised system for the employment of the line of battle and from that we can assume that the English are indeed the true pioneers of this tactic. Even by the second Anglo-Dutch war the Dutch had still not adopted the line of battle fully so we can be assured that Tromp's pioneering role is indeed limited. The statement had not been properly sourced in any case so I removed it. --84.70.76.156 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Battle in Land Warfare[edit]

A redirect also needs to cove Battle Lines or Lines of Battle in land warfare, since that is discussed greatly. It is inappropriate to label Line of Battle as purely a naval term. This should be corrected.

I don't think I've ever heard of a "battle line" in land warfare being described as a tactic per se. The naval tactic is a lot more complicated and requires far more advanced organization than lining up troops side by side on land. Can you refer to any elaboration of the line as a land-based tactic?

Peter ^Isotalo 18:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Crossing the T"[edit]

The tactics described "Effective Use" section have nothing to do with Crossing the T, and describe its inverse. Crossing the T is a misnomer and a neologism when applied to sailing warships. This whole section applies to *exceptions* to the doctrine of the Line of Battle.24.39.5.202 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

What am I failing to understand here? Why is this not the most moronically self-defeating 'tactic' ever conceived? What could be more stupid than exposing your vessel - and to the greatest possible extent - to the enemy's cannon fire? Why not place your cannons fore and aft, face the enemy, and make yourself the smallest target possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]