Capitulation of warship between centuries?

[Baltic_submariner]

I have problem how to ask this question so I made rather long post. My aim is not start of any flamewar or something.

 

I read some articles and books and I come to the strange conclusion that during age of sail capitulation of ships were much more common than in example during XX century. Everybody heard about surrender of French or Spanish ships of the line during Battle of Trafalgar as same as various events from other wars. I realised that capitulation was pretty common and sometimes occured after short battle and not very big damage sustained. I can fully understand this cases most of times.

 

Peruvian monitor Huascar surrended to Chile. Even during siege of Weihavei Chinese commanders surrounded their warships in 1895. Well known was approach of Admiral Nicolas Nebogatov who surrounded his heavily damaged battleships during Battle of Tsushima for which he later was prosecuted in Imperial Russia. However later approach of commanders was drasticly different and cases of surrounding of bigger warships were sporadical. I leave here cases of capturing warship by enemy in port like destroyer USS Stewart or later german destroyer ZG3 Hermes and fate of some Marine Nationale ships not scuttled in Toulon in November 1942. I have on mind only cases of capitulation of warship on open sea. Then from WWI onwards we have only few such cases like Bolshevik destroyers ceded to Estonia in 1919, surrender of few submarines during WWII and egyptian destroyer Ibrahim el Awal in 1956.  No cruiser or battleship.

 

What causes such strong change of approach to surrender of bigger ships on sea?

I guess humanitarianism was not a case as sailors or soldiers were for very long time used as cannon fodder and it was considered as normal. Eighty Years War, Thirty Years War and Napoleonic Wars were bloody but later conflicts during XX-th century due to developing of new weapons become even deadlier.

Cost of building of steel warship was much bigger than even biggest wooden ship-ot-the line and maybe using this logic for Admiralities was more acceptable to lost their ships than give them to enemy?

I know that some of navies like IJN had very specific mentality and approach to life of their crews taken from "tradition" where human life never had bigger value but on "western culture" countries we have also cases of "suicidical battles" fought to the end like during Jutland or Pacific. Raise of nationalisms on world after French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars? 

 

I'm really curious but maybe I'm overthinking this and this has easier explanation?

Edited May 17, 2021 by Baltic_submariner
missing letters

[bruce d]

My opinion: Armour. As the ships got better armament and engines, the close quarter fighting of the previous centuries simply could not develop. After the fight between Kearsarge and Alabama, the navies of the world knew that future battles would look different. Captains could use their engines to keep away from their opponent and hammer away with long range weapons. So weapons with even longer range were developed and armour to protect the crews who manned the weapons.

Prior to this development, the outcome of a battle between wooden ships was usually determined by casualties inflicted; even a dismasted opponent would be fired upon until surrendered. After the introduction of armour and long guns the correct approach to fight a metal ship was to disable or sink the opponent.

 

I expect others may have something to say  🤐.

Edited May 19, 2021 by bruce d
corrected spelling of Kearsarge

[mtaylor]

I just noticed that Bruce and I cross-posted.   I agree with him while leaving my comments.

 

I think answer is multi-faceted.    

 

If we look at WWII,  the armaments (not just cannons but aircraft, and torpedoes) was much improved and overall deadlier.  The explosives, the rate of fire, and accuracy were much better.  Damage control early on in WWII wasn't all that good (think firefightings).  They did make improvements but even still, magazines and fuel stores were often hit and exploded.   

 

And true, surrender in the Pacific by the Japanese was forbidden by their culture. 

 

Overall, I believe the technology in WWII was much improved and thus, more deadly.

[Chuck Seiler]

  Technology, proximity, size and tactics.  In the age of sail, battles were at close range with adversaries of similar size.  When you got pummeled to the point where you could no longer fight you ran or were captured by somebody close to your own size.  In WW2 ones ability to fight was often terminated by the inability to stay afloat.  When you get pummeled by aircraft from ships a hundred miles away, who do you surrender to?

[Baltic_submariner]

Thank you all for answers and explanation! 

 

This makes sense. Technological progress in later half of XIX-th century and in XX-th century was very fast and uncomparable to the ealier centuries. Almost everything was changed, material used, systems of armament, range and speed. ect.

 

 

[popeye2sea]

I agree with all that has been said above.  Something to also throw into the mix? Ships no longer worth prize money for capture? Although I have not ever read that that was a factor, it is a fun conjecture.

 

Regards,

[Jaager]

The focus  with this is limited to a few countries in the 17th, and 18th and early 19th centuries as far as giving up and surrendering as opposed to a fight to the death.   I have made no effort to catalog the various wars, but in general the following situation seems to hold:  The conflicts were largely economic disagreements,  the men in combat were generally from an economic class with no political power and of no actual concern of those in power and generally seen as disposable,  the officers were 2nd or 3rd sons who would otherwise be an economic drain on their families, and the countries in conflict were essentially cousins.  It was more of a sport than a life or death cultural conflict.   These factors were totally different in the 20th century.