
The Hellburner Was the Renaissance Equivalent of a Tactical Nuclear Weapon - vinnyglennon
http://warisboring.com/articles/hellburners-were-the-renaissance-equivalent-of-a-tactical-nuke/
======
unimpressive
Also relevant is the Battle of the Crater during the civil war, in which Union
forces dug a giant hole underneath the Confederates defenses and packed it
with gunpowder. The resulting explosion was so impressive that none of the
soldiers were able to capitalize on the sudden opportunity.

General Burnside had trained _special black troops_ to head this assault
because of just how complicated this mission was compared to anything else in
contemporary existence. They were pulled at the last minute by General Meade
for a combination of PR reasons (can't have black people winning the war),
personal glory reasons, and skepticism.

The entire thing is a very sad story.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crater)

~~~
ldpg
Tunneled bombs were used in a major way in WWI too.

    
    
        In January, 1917, General Sir Herbert Plumer, gave orders
        for 20 mines to be placed under German lines at Messines. 
        Over the next five months more than 8,000 metres of 
        tunnel were dug and 600 tons of explosive were placed in 
        position. Simultaneous explosion of the mines took place 
        at 3.10 on 7th June. The blast killed an estimated 10,000 
        soldiers and was so loud it was heard in London.
    

[http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWtunnelling.htm](http://spartacus-
educational.com/FWWtunnelling.htm)

The craters are still there and form ponds in the fields where the battle took
place.

~~~
lobster_johnson
The Battle of Messines was portrayed in an excellent Australian film called
Beneath Hill 60 from 2010:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneath_Hill_60](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneath_Hill_60).

------
Jun8
Another early advanced weapons technology is Greek Fire
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire)),
the exact composition of which is still being debated. Water intensified the
flames when it was used in naval battles.

~~~
agumonkey
The management and level of secrecy around the technology is impressively
"modern". Or maybe we're not that modern.

~~~
prodmerc
Eh, anything related directly to humans has been done before. Computers,
internal combustion, electricity and medicine are the only major advances
we've got over those living 1000 years ago...

~~~
eru
> Computers, internal combustion, electricity and medicine are the only major
> advances we've got over those living 1000 years ago...

What about external combustion engines? Also, read about agricultural and
industrial revolution.

~~~
swimfar
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile)

Although it seems that it may never have been used for any practical purpose,
it is often considered to be the first steam engine and was documented in the
1st century AD.

~~~
eru
Yes, they had some nifty toys.

Modern steam engines took off because they managed to make accurate pistons
and cylinders. (And a myriad other factors.)

------
draw_down
What does "tactical" mean in the phrase "tactical nuke"?

~~~
InclinedPlane
Strategic nukes take out cities, tactical nukes take out tank formations,
fleets, bunkers, etc.

~~~
draw_down
So, "small" then :)

~~~
InclinedPlane
Not necessarily. It's more about range and use, but generally the yields are
smaller. Some tactical nuclear weapons had yields larger than the Hiroshima
and Nagasaki bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons were generally on shorter range
(rather than intercontinental) delivery systems and generally were tasked with
taking out an objective, which may or may not be mobile, than fixed
infrastructure or a population/industry/control center.

------
lifeisstillgood
And that is why HN is worth coming back to time and again. A perfect nugget of
history in amoungst the mud and dirt of day to day tech.

Thank you - that's brilliant. And explains why such a few fire ships had such
an effect - always wondered what the problem was.

------
kaffeemitsahne
Tiny correction: "fortuyn" instead of "fortyn" was the name of one of the
ships.

------
ars
It's interesting that this weapon was like a Nuclear Weapon in other ways:

Too powerful to actually be used, but the knowledge of its existence acts as a
deterrent to war.

~~~
prodmerc
I'd say it was too expensive to be used, otherwise they'd be used more often.
Also one of them did not explode as intended due to the primitive detonation
mechanism, so there was some technical difficulties involved (at a time when
they barely started using matchlocks, not even the more advanced and
successful flintlocks).

It was basically the equivalent of a boat filled with TNT as I understand, not
_that_ powerful.

Could've been very useful at wiping out ports, cities and fleets, at the time,
I doubt they had _any_ qualms about it :-).

Also, not that much of a war deterrent, as history can attest, lol...

------
Animats
Something similar was tried during WWII. See [1]. This was an explosive ship
used to attack an important drydock. The explosive ship part worked fine. But
there was a complicated commando raid on other nearby objectives attached to
the operation, which didn't go as well.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid)

------
100k
I'd never heard of hellburner ships, but I _have_ read C.J. Cherryh's novel
Hellburner
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_to_the_Belt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_to_the_Belt)).
I wonder if that's where she got the name.

------
sandworm101
Hellburners are is no way equivalent to any nuclear weapon. The renaissance
had no such equivalents. The description of any ancient weapon in terms of
weapons of mass destruction is disingenuous. It lessens the term and suggests
that such weapons are nothing new in history. That leads to arguments for
their regulation and use in historical terms: Elizabeth used hellburners then,
so we should be able to use tactical nukes today.

~~~
justizin
As in another thread, it seems like the word "Tactical" is key here. The new
weapon that was recently released to the US is particularly objectionable to
many because it allows its' yield to be 'dialed down'.

There are also air-to-air nuclear weapons designed for planes to shoot at each
other, which might not have a yield much larger than a Hellburner.

I share your concern about an interpretation of history that lends arguments
to dangerous attitudes in present-day politics, just having recently read a
great deal about nuclear yields, the humongous detonations we imagine are not
the only type possible, they're just the only type of weapons which have ever
been deployed, with many weapons simply not even having been ever tested.

~~~
afarrell
The problem with that comparison is that the only place I've heard of tactical
nuclear weapons being used is Starcraft.

~~~
eru
Read some texts from the cold war, perhaps?

------
curiousjorge
The turtle ship is another interesting tactical weapon that comes from these
era but in other parts of the world. It would ram deep inside enemy formations
and fire cannons on all sides which resulted in some astounding victories
given Chosun Navy had only a dozen ships vs. thousands of japanese ships. You
couldn't land on the ship because it had spikes and would spew smoke for
evasion.

~~~
prodmerc
It's really surprising that turtle ships and detonating fire ships weren't
more commonly used.

Maybe most thought it was just a myth, stories told by travelers, or maybe it
was ungentlemanly?

The Civil War and even WW1 saw a lot of losses because of this inability to
adapt, by WW2 (and forward) everybody used the latest advances they could get
their hands on...

~~~
curiousjorge
interesting point that we rarely see tactical weapons of mass destruction
being frequently such as nuclear weapon. It's interesting that Japan lost both
wars to sudden technological advancements from opposing side and they aren't
ever used again.

The turtle ships weren't alone but it was a gifted korean naval commander who
ironically never commanded a navy before and figured shit out as the war was
unfolding. The Korean general would even be hailed as a mythical figure and
admired by WW2 Japanese naval generals.

~~~
vonmoltke
The turtle ship wasn't sudden (the Koreans built the first examples over a
century earlier) and didn't alter the war. Toyotomi Hideyoshi had the entire
peninsula under his control until the Ming Emperor intervened.

~~~
yongjik
For some definition of "control." Admiral Yi fought twenty-something battles
(seems like the exact number is hard to say because it's difficult to define
what constitutes a "battle"), and never lost a single one.

(That's not to say the Korean navy didn't suffer devastating losses... but
that was when Yi was in prison thanks to the idiot king who bought the
disinformation supplied by Japanese spies.)

Anyway, that raises a philosophical question: if your troops and their
supplies need to be delivered across the water, and if your enemy is
controlling that water, how much are you controlling the land behind?

~~~
vonmoltke
> Anyway, that raises a philosophical question: if your troops and their
> supplies need to be delivered across the water, and if your enemy is
> controlling that water, how much are you controlling the land behind?

Depends on how much that is true. Replacements are definitely a problem, but
medieval armies had significant ability to supply locally. On top of this, the
Toyotomi army was never blockaded on the peninsula; Yi's actions significantly
disrupted the sea lines of communication but never truly cut or controlled
them.

Without the Ming army to fight Toyotomi would not have been under significant
strain. Even with a Ming army on the field and Yi disrupting his SLOC Toyotomi
was still able to extract a truce while he held the southern half of the
peninsula.

Regardless, what the Joseon navy was able to accomplish it did because Yi was
a badass admiral, not because of turtle ships or other special weapons. That
was the original point.

~~~
yongjik
Well, I have no problem with your last paragraph, but I think you overestimate
the mobility of medieval armies. "Finding local supply" basically means
sacking towns, which is not always a viable option (ask Napoleon), especially
in a war that lasted seven years.

The Japanese army did succeed in initially overwhelming Korean forces with
supreme military tactics, so much so that they entered Seoul basically
unscathed, only to find that the king and his courtiers have fled north.

From what little I know, it seems that the Japanese forces didn't quite
understand the situation. In traditional Japan (from what I've heard), if your
force wins the battle and enters the enemy castle, you have won. The enemy's
people are now under your rule and their food and supply is yours.

Instead, Japanese forces found itself surrounded in a sea of hostile troops
and militia bands, who will (incredibly) fight to the bitter end. Not unlike
what the US found in Iraq, but without the ridiculous military advantage.
Korean army's major military victories included the battle of Haengju (near
Seoul) and Jinju (southeastern Korea, near present-day Busan), which all
happened within one year since the war broke.

A major reason why Toyotomi could parley for truce that involved Japan
securing the southern part of Korea, was that Chinese forces had no reason to
stake their lives for someone else's country, yet they still had enough
political power to force Korea to the talking table.

