Long-range naval cannon were far less deadly than contemporaries believed

Evidence

The English believed, and so did the Spanish, that a fleet with a marked advantage in long-range weapons, culverins and demi culverins, could lie off at extreme range or nearly, and knock the enemy fleet to pieces without danger to itself. It turned out not to be so. At ranges of three to seven hundred yards a sixteenth-century culverin or demi-culverin might fail altogether to pierce the thick hull of a galleon or stout greatship, and when it did would only make a small hole quickly caulked by an alert crew. — Garrett Mattingly, The Defeat of the Spanish Armada, 709

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels modern overconfidence in standoff weapons; also echoes the earlier theme of both commanders overrating their firepower. — connects to: Long-range ship gunnery proved ineffective against thick hulls — Garrett Mattingly, The Defeat of the Spanish Armada, 709; The Spanish ships’ heavy guns. They sustained serious damage and casualties without being able to reply effectively. Three Spanish ships were… — Spanish Armada | Definition, Defeat, & Facts; Colonies built costly forts only where naval cannons threatened — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 521 (+1 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Garrett Mattingly, The Defeat of the Spanish Armada, 709

Library Connections

• Long-range ship gunnery proved ineffective against thick hulls #corroborates (0.90) — Garrett Mattingly, The Defeat of the Spanish Armada, 709

Broader Connections

• Animal weapons evolved to extremes far beyond practical size #complicates (0.55) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 2