Were Korean Turtle Ships ocean going vessels?

[Thormodr]

There was a thread talking about turtle ships in the newest DLC and some people are complaining that Turtle Ships can't enter ocean hexes even though they are caravel replacements in the game.

I argued that they shouldn't be able to enter ocean hexes as they were not designed to do so, being flat bottomed for starters. Here is one of my responses in the thread below:

Spoiler :

Originally Posted by Dokebi View Post
"In the West, square sails were used in the galleys of Ancient Greece and the Viking longships, and the fore-and-aft variety as early as the Mediterranean dromon ships of the Middle Ages. When the Age of Exploration began in the fifteenth century, multiple-masted ships equipped with both types of sails eventually appeared. In Korea fore-and-aft sail equipped ships had been in use since the eighth century. Korea’s panokseon and Kobukson(TURTLE SHIP) therefore had two masts by default, and their position and angle could easily be managed so that the sails could be used in all winds, whether adverse or favorable."

"Because of the rough waters around Korea's coast, as well as the sudden changes in tides and currents, Korean boats throughout history had to be strong. Korean ship building tradition created simple, but very structurally sound vessels. Throughout Korea's naval history, strength and power was emphasized rather than speed."

10 seconds of Wiki research I found this...I believe the turtle ship was more than enough to travel the deep ocean. The developers should consider this and make the turtle ship be able to enter the deep sea but with lower movements than caravel.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panokseon

Try to read everything if you have free time. Talks about Sejong the Great also.

"In the 15th century, under the lead of King Sejong, who was himself a pioneer of scientific research, the performance of these heavy artillery improved dramatically. Having built a cannon range next to the Royal Court, and after much experimentation and study, King Sejong finally increased the extent of the cannons’ firepower from 300 m (980 ft) to 1000 m (3,100 ft). Naval cannons were also developed at this time and among them, Heaven, Earth, Black and Yellow cannon were later employed by Yi Sun-sin."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am happy it only took you 10 seconds to find a link for the Panokseon.

We were talking about the Turtle Ship, however.

Anyway I'll indulge. Looking at the article a few things emerge:

In line with the traditional structure of Korean ships, panokseon had a flat keel. This feature was due to the nature of the Korean coastal waters, which have a large tidal range and flat, expansive tidal plains. A flat keel enables a ship to sit comfortably on the tideland when the tide was out, after coming ashore or inside a wharf at high water. It also ensured greater mobility and a shallow draft and in particular allowed a ship to make sharp changes of direction at short notice. This panokseon was one of the main reasons why Admiral Yi was able to employ the Crane Wing formation at the Battle of Hansando with great success.
Seems to make sense. Flat heeled boats preform better in shallow water and are more maneuverable.

The differences between the Panokseon and Japanese ships were significant. Japanese equivalents were the large Atakebune class and the medium Sekibune class ships. In contrast to the Panokseon, the hulls of the Japanese vessels had sharp, V-shaped bows. A sharp underside was favorable for swift or long-distance travel in the open seas because of lower water resistance (thus these ships had faster cruising speeds). Since this variety of hull had a deep draft (penetrates deeper into the water), however, the ship’s turning radius was considerably large and changing direction was therefore a lengthy process. In addition, ships with larger drafts have a more difficult time of navigating narrow and shallower waters. Japanese ships were thus vastly less maneuverable than the panokseon in Korea's narrow channel waters.

In contrasting with the Japanese ships, it is noted that the Japanese ships used V-shaped hulls which as noted are favourable for long-distance travel in the open seas. In making that contrast, it implies that flat bottom boats are therefore unfavorable for doing such things. Flat bottom boats are slower and more unstable on the high seas. Makes sense.

Finally, although I do like Wikipedia, it is generally helpful if an article is backed up with credible sources. Especially when the article in question is in any way controversial. Sadly, this article fails to back anything up and it is stated up front to that effect.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2007)

Anyway, there still isn't any proof in the historical record that Turtle ships were ocean going vessels. They were designed to be used in coastal waters where they could take advantage of their maneuverability.

Definition of a flat bottomed boat is as follows. Yes, it is a Wikipedia article but the material would not be considered controversial.

A flat-bottomed boat is a boat with a flat bottomed, two-chined hull, which allows it be used in shallow bodies of water, such as rivers, because it is less likely to ground.

The flat hull also makes the boat more stable in calm water, which is good for hunters and anglers. However this design becomes less stable in choppy water. This is because it causes the boat to travel on the water, instead of through it, as a boat with a rounded or V-shaped hull would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat-bottomed_boat

As well:

Flat bottom boats are quite popular among numerous different anglers. Such boats are normally smaller than other types of boats and similarly feature an open design. For the most part, flat bottom boats are built to be utilised on littleer bodies of water that are calm, such as little lakes, slow rivers and ponds. Keep in mind that flat bottom boats don’t predictably hold up well on rough water or water that is choppy. These boats shouldn’t be employed in such waters because they normally aren’t very stable.

http://imarketingbiz.net/why-not-flat-bottom-boats/

Anyway, to sum up. Turtle ships were flat bottom boats. Flat bottom boats are good in shallow waters because of their shallow draft and excellent maneuverability. However, flat bottom boats are not good at all on the open ocean and become unstable in rough water. Therefore, I think Firaxis has done a commendable job here, all in all, in not allowing Turtle ships to enter ocean hexes.

Anyone care to share their opinion on the subject?

The thread in question is here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=435513

 

[Dokebi]

My link is Panokseon, but talks about Kobukson(TURTLE SHIP) also. If you had 10 seconds to read the first few sentences you would know...

"In Korea fore-and-aft sail equipped ships had been in use since the eighth century. Korea’s panokseon AND Kobukson(TURTLE SHIP) therefore had two masts by default, and their position and angle could easily be managed so that the sails could be used in all winds, whether adverse or favorable."

Also, you talked about flat bottom boats are not good at all on the open ocean and become unstable in rough water, but here is the one of the sentence to amuse you.

"Because of the rough waters around Korea's coast, as well as the sudden changes in tides and currents, Korean boats throughout history had to be strong. Korean ship building tradition created simple, but very structurally sound vessels. Throughout Korea's naval history, strength and power was emphasized rather than speed."

Please read the article before giving your useless opinion.

So basically you also gave no proof that the turtle ship can't go into the deep ocean and gave your opinion like it's a fact. Where is the facts about that the turtle ship couldn't go into the deep ocean? The article I found in wiki (your favorite site, but all of sudden it's not a reliable source to you) convinces us that it was more than enough ship to travel to the deep ocean. I really don't care what you think because you have no proof, but just your opinion.

 

[fing0lfin]

I am not rather familiar with the Korean shipbuilding of the period, but genereally flat-bottemed ships with big beam are not suitable for open seas. Today such ships are used mainly in rivers and coastal areas. Another thing is that as far as i know (correct me if i am missing something) Koreans did not have suitable navigational equipment for open sea travel. And if there are no reccords of turtle ships traveling in open seas, i think that the one who claims they did/could should give prooves.

 

[Thormodr]

My link is Panokseon, but talks about Kobukson(TURTLE SHIP) also. If you had 10 seconds to read the first few sentences you would know...

"In Korea fore-and-aft sail equipped ships had been in use since the eighth century. Korea’s panokseon AND Kobukson(TURTLE SHIP) therefore had two masts by default, and their position and angle could easily be managed so that the sails could be used in all winds, whether adverse or favorable."

Also, you talked about flat bottom boats are not good at all on the open ocean and become unstable in rough water, but here is the one of the sentence to amuse you.

"Because of the rough waters around Korea's coast, as well as the sudden changes in tides and currents, Korean boats throughout history had to be strong. Korean ship building tradition created simple, but very structurally sound vessels. Throughout Korea's naval history, strength and power was emphasized rather than speed."

Please read the article before giving your useless opinion.

So basically you also gave no proof that the turtle ship can't go into the deep ocean and gave your opinion like it's a fact. Where is the facts about that the turtle ship couldn't go into the deep ocean? The article I found in wiki (your favorite site, but all of sudden it's not a reliable source to you) convinces us that it was more than enough ship to travel to the deep ocean. I really don't care what you think because you have no proof, but just your opinion.

Useless opinion? I gave clear, concise reasons why. There is no need for insults. It greatly weakens your argument and credibility. Keep it civil please.

The article you used has no links or resources given to verify what they said.

Although it is certainly possible that a turtle ship could go in the open ocean why would they have done that? It's like saying you can take a Honda Civic off road 4 by 4ing. Although I'm sure it is technically possible, I wouldn't say it would be advisable. You'd literally be taking your life in your own hands as well as doing significant damage to your car or outright destroying it.

Turtle ships were designed for shallow coastal waters. In that environment, they did very well. They simply weren't designed for the open ocean and were hydrodynamically unsuitable for that task.

If this wasn't the case, surely we would have lots of historical examples. The fact that we don't is very telling.

 

[Ajidica]

Since it is a Civ game and the Caravel is such an important unit, I would just give it the ability to cross ocean tiles unless Korea is given a massive boost. Remember the Ironclad unit from Civ4? Despite having a massive strength compared to the other naval ships (12 or 16) I rarely built it because it was too slow to fight an enemy fleet if they were landing (and they could only kill of one, maybe two ships before they retreated) and they were next to useless in an invasion.

History wise, I probably wouldn't give them the ability to cross oceans as there are no real records of it. Game wise, I probably would because the Caravel is such an important unit in getting 'first contact'.

 

[Thormodr]

If one wants to give them ocean passage for game play considerations I'm sure that could be modded in easily enough. Could overpower Korea however as their other UU and their UA are fairly high on the power scale. There needs to be tradeoffs.

I'd rather that the game stick to reasonably historic gameplay and have the Turtle ships function as they did historically. It makes the game more immersive and more colourful.

 

[Ajidica]

If one wants to give them ocean passage for game play considerations I'm sure that could be modded in easily enough. Could overpower Korea however as their other UU and their UA are fairly high on the power scale. There needs to be tradeoffs.

If that is the case, then strip them of the ocean going ability. I have not a clue what their UA and other UU is given that I haven't played Civ5 in about six months.

 

[Thormodr]

If that is the case, then strip them of the ocean going ability. I have not a clue what their UA and other UU is given that I haven't played Civ5 in about six months.

I haven't played for almost 6 months either.

Just following things and waiting for the source code to be released.

 

[MajKira]

No they werent ocean going. They have been used during ImJin War to fight off Japanese Invasiion ships and werent used to outgo anywhere

 

[Dokebi]

I haven't played for almost 6 months either.

Just following things and waiting for the source code to be released.

Come on man. You haven't played the Civ V for 6 months and never played Korea civ and giving people what it should or shouldn't do in the game? Go play please and let us know how you think about the turtle ship. Until then, your opinion is less valuable then ever before. I see you giving a lot of advice on the forum, but the fact that you haven't play Civ V for 6 months is really bad and again, you gave your opinion and not the facts.

 

[fing0lfin]

It's kind of funny how you discuss civ 5 in the history sub-forum and history in civ 5 suvforum

 

[Thormodr]

Come on man. You haven't played the Civ V for 6 months and never played Korea civ and giving people what it should or shouldn't do in the game? Go play please and let us know how you think about the turtle ship. Until then, your opinion is less valuable then ever before. I see you giving a lot of advice on the forum, but the fact that you haven't play Civ V for 6 months is really bad and again, you gave your opinion and not the facts.

I don't need to play to know that they aren't awe inspiring. They are fairly historically accurate and flavourable, though. I care more about flavour and roleplaying than raw power. Firaxis has done a good job here.

Also, my nearly 20 years of playing Civ gives me a decent perspective on things. I can evaluate Civs, UAs and UUs just fine.

Anyway, I'm going to politely ask you, once again, to cut out the insults. Thanks.

Back on topic, flat bottom boats are a liability in the open ocean. Nothing has changed.

 

[MajKira]

I found a Comparison between jap and Kor Ships during ImjinWar
Comparison between Korean and Japanese Warships

Korean Warship
Hull U-shaped with level base. Quick to change direction thanks to small turning radius
Japanese Warship
V-shaped. Greater potential for speed, but large turning radius.

Crew
Panokson: 120-200
The Panokson was the standard class warship used during the Imjin War. First constructed in 1555AD, it was made from a very sturdy pinewood, which made it extra durable and perfect for loading and firing cannons. It was a flat-bottomed warship with the ability to maneuver in shallow waters.
The ship was comprised of two decks. The lowest deck contained oarsmen and all other military personnel were stationed on the main deck. The Panokson’s greatest weakness was that it couldn’t move very fast due to its unique design.
Thinking that bringing the fight to land would give the Korean military more speed and maneuverability against the invading Japanese, Commanders Won Kyun and Park Hong sank over 100 Panoksons when they caught first sight of the enemy. Their strategy failed miserably. Now the fate of Korea depends on Admiral Yi Soon Shin and the last remaining fifteen Panokson.

Kobukson (Turtle): 150
The Turtle ship, also known as Geobukseon or Kobukson (거북&#49440, was a type of large warship belonging to the Panokseon class in Korea that was used intermittently by the Royal Korean Navy during the Joseon Dynasty from the early 15th century up until the 19th century.

Japanese side
Atake: 200-300
Sekibune: 100
Kobaya: 40

Speed
K3 knots
J3 knots minimum

Sail
K:Multiple-masts: sails could be used both windward and downwind ////
J:Square-sail: limited to downwind use

Timber
Kine and Oak ////
J:Japanese Cedar and Fir

Joints
K:Wooden nail: expands in water to strengthen overall structure////
J:Metal nail: corrodes in water weakening overall structure

Main Weapon
K:Heavy artillery: range 500m (1,650 ft),Fire-arrows ////
J:Muskets: range 200m (660ft),Spears, swords, arrows

Method of Attack
K:Breaching enemy hulls,Burning and sinking enemy ships////
J:Grappling and Boarding,Killing and wounding enemy crews

 

[Masada]

Modern cargo ships and oil tankers are all flat-bottomed. The rounding is rather on the slight side and the profile is more like this [ than V or {.

 

[MajKira]

Korean Turtle Ships werent ocean going vessels

 

[Masada]

What's meant by Ocean going in this context?

 

[Ajidica]

What's meant by Ocean going in this context?

I'm assuming capable of transoceanic voyages fairly easily. I can cross the pacific in stone-age rafts, but that doesn't mean it is 'easy' and it relies heavily on chance.

 

[MajKira]

I'm assuming capable of transoceanic voyages fairly easily. I can cross the pacific in stone-age rafts, but that doesn't mean it is 'easy' and it relies heavily on chance.

on a Gobukson you wouldnt go into open ocean. Thats why they arent oceangoings

 

[Masada]

That's a fair wording. But I haven't seen any evidence that they weren't capable of making a transoceanic voyage. We have, at most, a claim that they weren't designed to because they're flat-bottomed which I've pointed out doesn't really matter all that much. Then again, it's for Civ 5 which suggests that balance alone is probably the more binding consideration than imputed historical capabilities.

 

[Dokebi]

Modern cargo ships and oil tankers are all flat-bottomed. The rounding is rather on the slight side and the profile is more like this [ than V or {.

That's a fair wording. But I haven't seen any evidence that they weren't capable of making a transoceanic voyage. We have, at most, a claim that they weren't designed to because they're flat-bottomed which I've pointed out doesn't really matter all that much. Then again, it's for Civ 5 which suggests that balance alone is probably the more binding consideration than imputed historical capabilities.

Thank you for the info Masada. I knew there was a person with knowledge about the ships. I wonder what Thor is going to say now?