Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:13, 20 January 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

The HMS debate

Hi Rif, the subject of erroneously using the HMS prefix for ships pre-1660 has come up again (not part of some wider discussion this time, thankfully), and the only real stumbling block that I see there is the question of when to start applying the prefix. I seem to remember you in the past putting forward 1789 as a sensible year, although at the moment it seems people are preferring 1660 because of a sentence on the Royal Navy website. Here's the link: WT:Naming conventions (ships)#HMS prefix in old English warships in case you'd like to make a comment. Martocticvs (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenating ship class names

Re: the October discussion you participated in on hyphenating ship names, User:SW is willing to make a mass move with a bot if there is a consensus here. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Warspite in 1863

Rif, I have an article that refers to the Russian ironclad Pervenets ramming the "hospital ship" HMS Warspite on trials in 1863. Your book says that Warspite was used as a training ship from 1862. Do you have any knowledge of its use as a hospital ship during this period?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• The Warspite was lent as a boys' training ship to the Marine Society on 27 March 1862 and remained on loan as a training ship to them until 3 January 1876, when she was destroyed by fire (probably arson, although it was never confirmed). Throughout this period she was permanently moored on the Thames between Woolwich and Charlton, so the reference to her as a hospital ship is inaccurate. I note from your article on the Pervenets that this ramming took place at Woolwich, presumably while the Warspite was moored there, although as she wasn't in RN hands throughout this period the incident is not mentioned in RN records. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought that that might be the case. Thanks for checking for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Rif, on a connected note, the articles for both HMS Colossus (1803) and HMS Warspite (1807) say that they were the only ships built to their respective drafts - that is to say, they were not of the same design. Your Sail and Steam Navy List shows them as part of a single class. I take it I'm not missing anything, and I should go ahead and adjust the articles to show that they are from the same design? Yours, Shem (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The Colossus and Warspite were definitely built to the same John Henslow draught, and actually ordered on the same date (13 January 1798) albeit that the Warspite was delayed and not commenced until 3 December 1805. So please go ahead and make those changes. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Rif, thanks. That's done. Shem (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • • Rif, How do you know the two were ordered on the same date? Had you located either of their contracts? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• There were no contracts involved, as both ships were built in the Royal Dockyards. Contracts were only issued when ships were built by commercial contractors. The requisition to build two ships to this draught was given by the Navy Board on 13 January 1798. Rif Winfield (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I c. There aren't any specifications at NMM either. I don't have your book, but a website quotes you as giving her a number of guns and carronades, which I assume were mounted after various refits and not all together because they add up to a lot more than 74/76. I'm looking for any and all information on the Warspite or Colosssus, so if there is anything you can contribute, please fee free. 220.238.36.103 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm always happy to deal with specific queries, but "anything" on Warspite or Colossus is a little too general. If you wish to research in depth then I would recommend a visit to the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich or the Public Records at Kew; if this is not practical for you (I don't know whether or not you're in the UK) then I would recommend my 1793-1817 volume of British Warships in the Age of Sail.
• As regards the numbers of guns and carronades, for many ships this varied from time to time. Please remember that the "established" gun rating (i.e. 74 guns) counted carriage-mounted ("long") guns only. Until 1817 (when there was a comprehensive re-casting of the gun ratings) this DID NOT INCLUDE the carronades except where a carronade actually replaced a carriage-mounted gun. So where a ship received carronades on its quarterdeck and/or forecastle, this did not affect the 74-gun rating. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Nile (1839)?

Rif

There's a question about the launch date of HMS Nile (1839). A new editor is claiming that she was launched in 1830, although every source I've consulted says 1839, including The Sail and Steam Navy List. Lodestoneman (AKA Captain David G Williams) has this on his own website, and he must have got it from somewhere. Can you re-assure me that you (and by extension I) are right, and he's wrong? A comment at User talk:Lodestoneman wouldn't do any harm, if you don't mind. Yours, Shem (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Rif & Shem, The National Maritime Museum database (which has a number of flaws), lists a "Nille"" (92) with launch year 1839. It has no listing for a "Nile" or "Nille"" for 1830. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk)

The Nile was launched from No. 1 slipway at Devonport Dockyard at 6 pm on Friday, 28 June 1839, the anniversary of Queen Victoria's Coronation Day. The naming ceremony was performed by Miss Warren, the daughter of the Admiral Superintendent, Rear Admiral Frederic Warren, and it was estimated that upwards of 50,000 people witnessed it, according to Devonport Dockyard's own records. Wherever Capt. Williams obtained his information, he and his website are sadly incorrect. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I recognised that pdf entry. It's Lavery's The Ship of the Line. I've checked in my copy to confirm this, and sure enough the mistake shows up there. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen fairly simple typographical errors in Lavery, perhaps the finger of a sub-editor slipped, and 9 and 0 are right next to each other on the keyboard... Benea (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Ben - I was concerned that I hadn't seen anything from you for several months (I do know that I've not added much in recent weeks myself), and it's good to know you're still around. As I've explained on Capt. Williams's usertalk page, I've mentioned a few such misprints to Brian Lavery in the past; this one is a simple mis-hitting on one numeric key (as you say "9" and "0" are next to each other on the keyboard) and it's illuminating to see how that one-key error has since been duplicated on a number of other "sources", obviously all of which simply copied from Brian's book. A few mis-typings do not detract from the excellence of Brian's analysis, but they do have to be watched. As an author myself, I know how easy it is for a few errors to slip past the proof-reader. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Rif (and Ben & Acad), thanks very much for your prompt help here and at User talk:Lodestoneman. Shem (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome! Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Breadalbane

Rif, the article currently at HMS Breadalbane, should, IMO, be at Breadalbane (ship), or something similar. Woudl you care to comment at Talk:HMS Breadalbane? Yours, Shem (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy to have done so (see Talk:HMS Breadalbane). Would you like to archive items 1-25 for me, as you kindly did previously? Rif Winfield (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rif, it would be a pleasure. Thanks for your comments at Breadalbane (ship). Shem (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Mercury (1779)

Rif, As you'll see from my talk page, I am aware of the two issues you bring out about the armament and depth in hold. In fact, I just copied the infobox from HMS Mercury (1779), without checking the detail. I've gone back to the article to adjust the figures, but I'd appreciate it if you'd look at it, since I have no source and I haven't looked at it in any detail. Yours, Shem (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've checked through HMS Mercury (1779), and the detail in that article appears fine. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Decimal tons burthen

Rif, do you have full details of the tonnage for HMS Circe (1785), HMS Rose (1783), HMS Enterprise (1774), HMS Thisbe (1783) and HMS Dido (1784), which either have a tonnage recorded in decimal tons burthen, or have a round number? Yours, Shem (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have inserted the precise tonnages in the relevent five articles. Ideally, I'd like to do this for every British sailing warship, but it would be a substantial chunk of work. All the figures are to be found for every vessel in my British Warships in the Age of Sail series. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Rif, thanks. Shem (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just added HMS Resource (1778) and several others, and will try to complete similar for the rest of this class. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Basic articles have now been inserted for all the rest of the class, leaving you to insert histories as you wish. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rif, thanks once again. I've added a few pictures, tagged them for WPSHIPS and checked for typos (I didn't find any). I've also made new set index pages where they didn't already exist. We'll get round to the histories in slow time. Yours, Shem (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually like to target the preceding Coventry and Mermaid classes of 28s, if you'd like to put in a framework for one of each class. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rif, I've added a bare-bones stub at HMS Mermaid (1761). That will do for a start. I'll be away for a day or two, so don't expect too much over that period. Good luck! Shem (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm similarly away for tomorrow, so no rush. Rif Winfield (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rif, to what extent would you say it fair to describe the Lowestoff class, Coventry class, Mermaid class and Enterprise class as following one another? If they are really in series, as opposed to parallel development, I'll put "preceded by" and "followed by" in the navboxes. Shem (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly true where one class is the development by a designer (Surveyor of the Navy, or pre-1745 a Master Shipwright) of his own earlier design. Thus the Lowestoffe Class of 1755 (some references omit the final "e", I'd be grateful of you could always insert it) was a series development of the Lyme (and Unicorn) of 1748, and the Coventry Class of 1756 was a development of the Lowestoffe (and Tartar). Slade's Mermaid Class of 1760 was a departure from the series development (since it was developed from a different foreiogn model), but as the design was by the same person, it would be fair to use "preceded/followed by". The second (1770 orders) trio to this Mermaid design was a series development of the original trio, so no problem there. The Williams-designed Enterprise Class were designed and ordered simultaneously with the Modified Mermaid trio, but you might say that they followed the Mermaids in the sense that they were subsequent to the original Mermaid trio. I hope that's clear.

The problems will occur when (a) you have simultaneous designs of the same type of ship from two different Surveyors (which happened quite frequently as the Navy Board went in for competitive evaluation of designs by simultaneously ordering similar ships to be built to each Surveyor's plans) or (b) sometimes when different designs were developed for different sizes (gun-ratings) of ships, e.g. for 74-gun and 80-gun classes, which should not always be considered as a series development. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

All the Mermaid Class articles are now ready for service histories to be expanded. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put the preceded/followed by stuff in the templates. I'm aware it's at best a simplification, but I think I interpret you to say it's a sustainable simplification in this case. It will take a while (several years?) to bring the full articles in these classes up to scratch, but the building blocks are there. Thanks for your help and guidance. Shem (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've also put in all of the Richmond Class fifth rates, although these could do with a little further attention. Rif Winfield (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Rif, can you check the details at HMS Syren? I'm not very sure about the first one, and it doesn't appear at List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy. Some of the sources I can find describe HMS Siren (1773) as "Syren" in the normal spelling varieties of the time. Shem (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As you say, 18th century spelling was eratic and inconsistant; both Siren and Syren appear to have been used, even within the same record. Looking at the references in the official records, the 1773 Sixth Rate was usually referred to as Siren, and the 1782 Fifth Rate was usually referred to as Syren, but this was not true in every reference. However, this is the spelling I have used for these two vessels in List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy. It may be sensible to have one disambiguation page for the two variants of the spelling, as long as the other variant is cross-linked. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Rif, while I'm at it, those sources I've looked at say the wreck of Siren was 10 November, Point Judith, not 6 November, Port Judith, as you originally put in the article. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It should indeed be Point Judith, not Port Judith - thanks for correcting this. However, while some secondary sources state 10th November, others state 6th November, and 6th November is also stated as the date in the records of the court-martial and other official records. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll change it to 6 November, citing British Warships in the Age of Sail. The sources also seem confused as to whether this was a wreck or a capture. Are you able to shed any light? Shem (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Grounded then hit in action and abandoned. From David Hepper's British Warship Losses in the Age of Sail (1994, Jean Boudriot Publications, ISBN 0-948864-30-3): "Escorting a convoy, she was attempting to find her way to Rhode Island in thick weather, with constant drizzle reducing the visibility. At about six o'clock in the morning (of 6th) she ran hard aground on Point Judith, Connecticut, a ship and a schooner of the convoy following her. The ship was lightened and attempts commenced to heave her off. The schooner which had grounded was freed and she prepared to assist in hauling off the frigate. This was frustrated by rebel forces ashore who, seeing the ships aground, brought up several field pieces and commenced firing. The schooner had her halyards shot away and ran aground again. The fire now concentrated on the Siren and became increasingly accurate. Unable to free herserf from the rocks or to return the fire, she was abandoned. Two men were killed and five wounded in the action" (I have also seen elsewhere somewhat larger casualty totals). Rif Winfield (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Rif - outstanding. Thanks. Shem (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

David's book is uniformly taken direct from the reports of the actual court-martials which automatically took place following the loss of a British warship; it is thus the most accurate official report on every loss. I've now put in all four of the Southampton Class and the three Venus Class fifth rates, plus the Coventry Class sixth rates, although all of these could do with a little further attention. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Medea (1778)

Greetings Rif Winfield, I just wanted to let you know that I took a look at your recently created article HMS Medea (1778)-- And have a beautiful day! Cheers, Jipinghe (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenny. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Tons burthen

Rif, I've replied to your comment at my talk page. In the case of the 1706, 1719 & 1745 Establishment articles, the error was introduced when they were first written by User:Martocticvs in 2008. Shem (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks - I didn't think it was you who made these errors, but didn't know who did so. I have altered the 1745 Establishment article by introducing separate subsections for the differing Rates/types of ships, and moving the tables so that each type has its own table (also putting in the exact tonnages rather than Brian Lavery's approximations, and introducing keel lengths, which are of course the lengths used - alongside the breadth - in calculating tonnages). I've done this with for all the First to Sixth Rate vessels of the 1719 Establishment and 1745 Establishment, and will do the same for the earlier 1706 Establishment in due course. I think this will make it easier to follow the development of the dimensions and scantlings for each type. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Aurora (1777)

Hello Rif, I notice your book has been used to reference the above article and wondered if you can tell me whether this is the Aurora Henry Digby took command of in December 1796, or not. It seemed the most likely candidate to me. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm this is the case. Under Digby's command, she sailed for the Mediterranean on 4 January 1797, and remained on the Lisbon station under his command for almost two years. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Letter of marque v Privateer

Greetings Rif, Presently I am in the process of building the List of ships captured in the 19th century page and was recently told that using both the terms Privateer and Letter of marque is redundant, (e.g. 'A Privateer acting under Letter of marque...) however in the various sources these terms are both used on the same page. For example, in John William Norie's The naval gazetteer' ..., p.259 (and the other listed pages) he refers to some vessels as Privateers and others as Letter of marque, so now I am wondering why he just doesn't use one term or the other. We know that Privateer refers to the vessel, while the Letter of marque refers to its authorization to capture given ships and that sometimes the vessel is simply referred to as a Letter of marque, but this still doesn't explain why both terms are used in the same page. Apparently some privateers acted with just the understanding that it was 'open season' on a given country's ships, while those referred to as a Letter of marque had the actual written authorization. As an author of many naval history texts I would like to know how you treat these terms in relation to one another as I am not in possession of any of your publications just yet. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gwillhickers, a letter of marque authorized the bearer, a civilian vessel, to use their arms offensively, not just defensively, i.e., they could attack enemy ships. Many merchant vessels, such as the East Indiamen sailed to India and China under letters of marque, and on occasion captured French ships, though their task was trade. When a vessel went out without cargo and with the intention of capturing enemy vessels, preferably merchant ones but possibly men-of-war, she was referred to as a "private ship of war", or a privateer. When a vessel went out as a merchantman, carrying a cargo but with the license to engage in offensive action, she was referred to as a letter of marque. In the London Gazette letters, one can often see the difference in the size of the crews. Letters of Marque tended to have small crews relative to the number of guns they carried, smaller crews than a warship would, as their primary task was to carry cargo. Privateers had large crews in order to be able to put prize crews aboard their captures and still have enough men to capture and send in more ships. Rif will amend/correct this when he comes on line, but in the meantime you should have enough to go on. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The demarcation was not quite so absolute, as with most generalisations made about things in the Georgian Age (i.e. there were exceptions to everything). It is certainly true that a vessel putting to sea for the primary purpose of capturing enemy vessels (either enemy merchantmen or - in some cases - smaller warships) was classified as a privateer, whether or not they were issued with a letter of marque.

As Acad Ronin says, they did not in general carry cargo (i.e. they were not designed with that in mind, although occasionally they might turn to that trade) and carried large crews so that they would have enough men to put prize crews aboard ships they captured. The voyages of such vessels were funded specifically in order to capture their prey, and then to sell those vessels and their cargoes.

Vessels issued with a letter of marque might be either a privateer (which could apply for a letter of marque to carry as proof that they were not simply acting as pirates) or a general cargo vessel which was given that certificate so that, if the opportunity to capture an enemy merchantman arose, the vessel had a "letter of marque" or written state authorisation to take possession of that merchantman and to sell it and its cargo for profit.

We are of course talking about many hundreds of ships and other vessels (remember that at this time the term "ship" had a specific meaning of a three-masted vessel, square-rigged on both the fore and main mast, rather than the more generalised term we use nowadays). The number of British merchantmen captured by hostile warships and privateers amounted to 222 in 1803, 387 in 1804, 507 in 1805, 519 in 1806, 559 in 1807, 469 in 1808, 571 in 1809, 619 in 1810, 470 in 1811, 371 in 1813 and 145 in 1814 (I am missing a figure for 1812). Rif Winfield (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your prompt replies. Given the accounts you (both) offered here I will then use both terms together in cases where such distinctions are warranted -- and if anything, for the sake of the readers who no doubt in many cases are not knowledgeable about these things. Rif, thanks for the numbers of captured ships, I think, as I now (fully) realize that trying to bring the List of ships captured in the 19th century to (near) completion is going to be a life long work!! Are there lists for these ships anywhere? Presently I have to search through other general ship's lists and have to do quite a bit of reading to gather names and info for inclusion and citations in the list I am working on. But hey, I'm having fun so I am not complaining. As soon as my budget allows for it I would like to purchase at least one of your books, esp since it is used as a source in so many ship's articles here at WP. Again, thanks for your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The figures are taken from The Corsairs of France, an 1883 volume by Charles Boswell Norman, page 453. It was republished in 1929 as a hardback again, and then in 2004 as a "print-on-demand" paperback (ISBN: 9781417965342). I don't have a copy, so I'm not sure whether there are lists of these captures for the 1803-1815 period, although I do have such a list for the French Revolutionary War. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Renown

Hello again Rif. Thanks for your help with Aurora, I hope you will be able to help with another query. There was apparently an HMS Renown serving in the American Revolutionary War. She was dismasted in a heavy gale while escorting a convoy from New York to Quebec. Would it be this one? The article is somewhat lacking in information. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC):

Yes, this must have been in 1780. The Renown had been involved in the operations off Charleston in January - May 1780, and subsequently proceeded home to the UK with a convoy (I have no record of the 'dismasting' you mention, but the incident could fit in here, although I suspect that, even if one mast was lost and perhaps others damaged, she was not totally dismasted as she was able to proceed - from Quebec? - subsequently to Plymouth (Devon) with that convoy or another one). Arriving back in Plymouth, she underwent a refit (between November 1780 and February 1781) at a cost of £7,362 (including replacement of her coppering), as by then she had been in the West Indies and North America for five years. Incidentally, she was a small two-decker of 50 guns (a group of ships intermediate between the ships of the line and the frigates), and was not a ship of the line, as I found that the article incorrectly claimed; I have amended - and expanded - the article. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks once again. The dismasting is mentioned in two books, "The Three Dorset Captains at Trafalgar" Broadley and Bartelot (1906), and "Nelson's Trafalgar Captains and Their Battles" Heathcote (2005). The latter quotes a large bibliography but does not include the former. The incident apparently happened shortly after the capture of Charleston while the Renown was escorting a merchant convoy to Quebec. Neither book goes on to tell how she continued her journey. Possibly she was either jury rigged somehow or towed by another ship. Both books refer to her as a 50 gun, 4th rate, as you say. I am afraid I can't tell you anymore.--Ykraps (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS York

Hello Rif, hope you are well. I've come across perhaps a discrepancy concerning HMS York (1796). Lavery and Colledge both have her as purchased on the stocks from Barnard, while building as the Royal Admiral, and launched as York on 24 March 1796. Whereas you have her as an earlier build, the Royal Admiral of 1777 (which incidentally is presumably this ship - Royal Admiral (1777)?) being reworked and purchased to be relaunched on 24 March 1796. The 1777 Royal Admiral as described in that article would seem to be a smaller ship than the description of the warship York. Interestingly this site lists a later Royal Admiral of 1433 tons, the only detail being her service date - 1795. I wonder if you could shed any light on the matter? Are Royal Admiral (1777) and HMS York (1796) the same ship? Benea (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

HMS Temeraire (1798)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/HMS Temeraire (1798)/archive1

Hello, Rif Winfield. This ship is at WP:FAC, and we've been unable to find anyone who has access to the sources and can verify that 1) the sources are accurately represented in the article, and 2) there is no close paraphrasing or other copyvio issues. We routinely do a spotcheck (random check of a few sources) on each nominator at FAC, just to be sure no plagiarism goes undetected as it did in the Halloween 2010 TFA. Would you have a moment to look in on the article, and just spotcheck a few of the sources for accuracy and no close paraphrasing issues? Should you also find the time to review the article, that would be grand. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)