|
|
Post by Beth on May 22, 2016 19:39:07 GMT
I tend to agree that those old ships were beautiful.  |
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 22, 2016 19:51:21 GMT
Lovely painting Beth! its hard to imagine just how many crew and guns these great ships carried, take the HMS Victory for instance, at the battle of Trafalgar she was armed with 104 canons and carried a crew of 821.
Yan.
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 22, 2016 19:52:43 GMT
I have found a decent shot of the HMS Nelson, which shows her three forward gun turrets;  |
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 22, 2016 21:25:24 GMT
Lovely painting Beth! its hard to imagine just how many crew and guns these great ships carried, take the HMS Victory for instance, at the battle of Trafalgar she was armed with 104 canons and carried a crew of 821. Yan. Did the crew number include the Marines attached to the ship? I believe (please correct me I am wrong) that the ships were designed to fire one side of canons as two ships passed broadside to each other. Where the guns fired at once or did they stagger firing? |
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679 
|
Post by dave on May 23, 2016 1:31:28 GMT
Beth
Beautiful ship! They could fire a broadside starting the battle then later changed to individual guns or sections as the ships passed by.
Why did the Brits put all three turrets forward?
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on May 23, 2016 4:12:37 GMT
Beth Beautiful ship! They could fire a broadside starting the battle then later changed to individual guns or sections as the ships passed by. Why did the Brits put all three turrets forward? Regards Dave Chalk it up to the forward thinking of the Royal Navy.My 2 cents worth on a ship with beautiful lines: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-class_battleship |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 23, 2016 13:09:39 GMT
There is only one answer, in fact there is always only one answer to Dave's question, a perceived solution to the ever present gunnery problem, and placing steel on target accurately. Success in any one attempt is measured by the fact that the methodology is copied and perpetuated by follow on units. In the case of Nelson and Rodney it was not, but that did not make them bad ships, only ones whose design solution proved to be no better than those solutions already in place.
Speaking of the Royal Navy, I got news yesterday that a model of Hermes will be available shortly in her Falkland Islands ski-jump flight deck rig. When Hermes was first converted from a standard flat top, so she may better handle Harriers many of the same, ugly as a red headed step child with rabies comments, that are being presently heard about Zumwalt, were legion. Ask the Argentines how that all turned out for them.
If I am correct that painting depicts Victory leading the battle line to Trafalgar. Is that correct? |
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on May 23, 2016 15:59:16 GMT
QC
As one who obviously lives in the past, as all my interests are aged, I cling to the ships of beautiful lines. The HMS Hood was a beauty with thin decks as were all the US Treaty Cruisers but they had beautiful lines and were pleasing to the eye.
If you must insist that we only judge a vessel's worth by practicality and lethality where is the enjoyment of debate? A femme fatale must use her obvious physical charms coupled with an alluring figure to beguile al her suitors. I present the Zumwalt as perhaps the ugliest ship to ever float and you must remember the phrase "It is better to look good than be good."
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on May 23, 2016 18:25:27 GMT
QC As one who obviously lives in the past, as all my interests are aged, I cling to the ships of beautiful lines. The HMS Hood was a beauty with thin decks as were all the US Treaty Cruisers but they had beautiful lines and were pleasing to the eye. If you must insist that we only judge a vessel's worth by practicality and lethality where is the enjoyment of debate? A femme fatale must use her obvious physical charms coupled with an alluring figure to beguile al her suitors. I present the Zumwalt as perhaps the ugliest ship to ever float and you must remember the phrase "It is better to look than be good." Regards Dave Natasha: "But Boris darlink, you said this plan was foolproof!" Boris: "Foolproof yes, Idiotproof no." |
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 23, 2016 18:26:03 GMT
Beth the HMS Victory were slightly short on crew, it should have been 837, but as I mentioned yesterday there were 821.
There were 146 Royal Marines aboard Victory during the Battle of Trafalgar, and when not in action these men were an active part of the ship’s crew. Here is a breakdown of their number;
1 x Captain
3 x Lieutenants
4 x Sergeants
3 x Corporals
1 x Trumpeter
2 x Drummers
132 x Privates
Here is the crew by country of birth;
English: 514
Irish: 89
Scots: 66
Welsh: 30
Canadian: 2
Maltese: 6
Indian: 2
Jamaican: 1
Italian: 9
Dutch: 7
West Indian: 4
African: 1
Swedish: 4
German: 2
Danes: 2
Norwegian: 2
Portugal: 1
Brazil: 1
Swiss: 2
French: 4 (surprising)
Unknown Nationality: 48
There were also 22 men listed as being American.
Yan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 24, 2016 1:41:02 GMT
I wonder how many were press-ganged.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 24, 2016 14:29:03 GMT
Running the ever present risk of being a first class party pooper, I wish to remind you that this thread speaks directly to the main topic of discussion here, Custer, the 7th Cavalry Regiment of 1876, and LBH in general.
No, I have not descended in a state of delirium. I mean it.
All, except myself, have commented on how ugly Zumwalt is. I think it is ugly too, but I don't care. It is a superior to all comers fighting machine, manned by a well trained crew of professional sailors, more than likely hand picked for the job, as she is the prototype of "new", first in class. Everyone else has pointed to her lacking beauty, and point to the beautiful ships of the past, as if they could be compared.
I would suspect the same thing happened long ago to most if not all of us when we were first drawn to Custer and LBH, getting our impressions of United States Cavalry from a column marching out the gate of "Fort Apache" lustily singing "The Girl I left Behind Me" or that touching scene from "Yellow Ribbon" when the ex-Confederate troopers gathered round the grave of Trooper Smith. Or perhaps it was the sheer beauty of Monument Valley, which all of you should visit, staying a Gouldon's as the cast did, before you pass from this life. The beauty, and its attractiveness, ship, scene, or setting, has no bearing on the ability to fight, and fighting is why we design, build, learn, train, and ultimately exist.
The organization with the best looking uniforms, the most striking pageantry, the catchy tune of its regimental march, and the colorful characters that weave in and out of the length of its existence, have no bearing on what is important, and the only thing that should be important. What is important is the design (can the design do what is supposed to do in a superior manner), is it manned by the well trained, and educated, is the total organization behind the unit (be it regiment, ship, or air squadron)supportive in such a manner as to make the unit itself operate at peak efficiency. If the answer to any one of those three is no, then it does not matter a barrel of piss worth, how goddamned pretty something is.
I too have my favorites, and first among these are the strikingly beautiful and efficient Royal Navy designs of the light fleet carriers of the long serving in many navies, Colossus, Majestic, and Centaur Classes. Similar designs, each succeeding, better than the one before.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on May 24, 2016 18:34:35 GMT
Running the ever present risk of being a first class party pooper, I wish to remind you that this thread speaks directly to the main topic of discussion here, Custer, the 7th Cavalry Regiment of 1876, and LBH in general. No, I have not descended in a state of delirium. I mean it. All, except myself, have commented on how ugly Zumwalt is. I think it is ugly too, but I don't care. It is a superior to all comers fighting machine, manned by a well trained crew of professional sailors, more than likely hand picked for the job, as she is the prototype of "new", first in class. Everyone else has pointed to her lacking beauty, and point to the beautiful ships of the past, as if they could be compared. I would suspect the same thing happened long ago to most if not all of us when we were first drawn to Custer and LBH, getting our impressions of United States Cavalry from a column marching out the gate of "Fort Apache" lustily singing "The Girl I left Behind Me" or that touching scene from "Yellow Ribbon" when the ex-Confederate troopers gathered round the grave of Trooper Smith. Or perhaps it was the sheer beauty of Monument Valley, which all of you should visit, staying a Gouldon's as the cast did, before you pass from this life. The beauty, and its attractiveness, ship, scene, or setting, has no bearing on the ability to fight, and fighting is why we design, build, learn, train, and ultimately exist. The organization with the best looking uniforms, the most striking pageantry, the catchy tune of its regimental march, and the colorful characters that weave in and out of the length of its existence, have no bearing on what is important, and the only thing that should be important. What is important is the design (can the design do what is supposed to do in a superior manner), is it manned by the well trained, and educated, is the total organization behind the unit (be it regiment, ship, or air squadron)supportive in such a manner as to make the unit itself operate at peak efficiency. If the answer to any one of those three is no, then it does not matter a barrel of piss worth, how goddamned pretty something is. I too have my favorites, and first among these are the strikingly beautiful and efficient Royal Navy designs of the light fleet carriers of the long serving in many navies, Colossus, Majestic, and Centaur Classes. Similar designs, each succeeding, better than the one before. Cannot argue with any of your logic. For all the beautiful lines some of the most effective fighting machines have included the unsightly A-10, P-47, almost any submarine from WWI and II (with the possible exception of the Type XXI u-boat) and Civil War era ironclads. My favorite for looks are the Yamato class battleships. For all of Yamato's aesthetics, she was sunk in under 2 hours along with several of her escorts. US losses? About 10 of 386 aircraft. Point well taken QC. Musashi faired little better during tje Battle of Leyte Gulf. Best, David |
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on May 26, 2016 18:46:57 GMT
In my readings about the engagement between the Bismark and Hood then the British H Force I read about a Spanish Heavy cruiser which came to the scene a day latter looking for Bismark survivors. The Canarias was the lead ship of the Canarias-class cruiser and possibly the ugliest ship of WW II. I have placed a link below for further info and pictures of this ship. Regards Dave www.kbismarck.org/canarias.html |
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 26, 2016 21:28:41 GMT
The Royal Navy knew that the Bismarck had to be sent to the bottom, not only because of the threat she posed but because Britain need a moral boost, don’t forget that this was still 1941 and we had very little to shout about back home. The British ships fired around 700 rounds at her and when she was dead in the water the HMS Rodney closed to within 300 yards and fired a salvo and later torpedoes (one battleship torpedoing another now that’s refreshing), so they wanted her sunk and made dam sure she was.
Yan.
|
|
