mididoctors Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Ironically, despite his multiple personality issues which ought to have had him banned yonks ago, it wasn't. It was for pretending to be someone else, or rather, posting a review of a CM game pretending to be someone else. At least, that's the way I remember it. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. so being micheal dorash then... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Yachts? Seems unlikely as with speed and shallow draft thye would be hard to catch. Of course what they would be doing in th Baltic anyway I have no idea - quite a rare vessel if one is thinking of pleasure craft. Yacht rigged is another matter. : )_ Anyway for serious convoy work: http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/ sorry should have included this good site http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/Style/Features.html Yachts were naval vessels before they were pleasure craft. Yacht history 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 By Affentitten Boats, son. Most of them would have been boats, not ships. Don't you go dissing non-British navies, buddy. When they say they were ships then they were ships. The reason for these battles were so prolific in numbers is the fact the Finnish archipelago is comprised of small islands and shallow waterways and anything larger than a shallow draft frigate is simply impossible to navigate in there. The British-French navy paid the area a visit during Crimean war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War#Baltic_theatre The British "1000 ship" convoy was most likely comprised mostly of these same kind of coastal "ships". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Patrick O'Brian has one of his characters define 'ship' as any vessel with three masts. If it has less than three masts it is not a ship...according to him. I don't recall if there was any minimal tonnage mentioned or any other qualifying condition. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Patrick O'Brian has one of his characters define 'ship' as any vessel with three masts. If it has less than three masts it is not a ship...according to him. I don't recall if there was any minimal tonnage mentioned or any other qualifying condition. Michael The RN definition is that a 'boat' is any vessel capable of being carried aboard another vessel. If it's too big for someone else to carry aboard, it's a ship. Hence the modern day reckoning of submarines as boats (which is something of an anachronism given the size of subs today.) The 'rating' system was for ships of the line (ie. those capable of being deployed in a line of battle) and had more to do with number of guns and gunnery decks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Patrick O'Brian has one of his characters define 'ship' as any vessel with three masts. If it has less than three masts it is not a ship...according to him. I don't recall if there was any minimal tonnage mentioned or any other qualifying condition. Michael That'd explain a sloop being described as "ship rigged" then (Forester). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 The RN definition is that a 'boat' is any vessel capable of being carried aboard another vessel. If it's too big for someone else to carry aboard, it's a ship. I've heard that too. I believe that is a more recent definition more in tune with the 20th. century and later. O'Brian was writing of events during the Napoleonic Wars and I expect his definition had already been in use for a couple of centuries by then. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Hence the modern day reckoning of submarines as boats (which is something of an anachronism given the size of subs today.) Conversely, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the larger container ships I've seen could carry one of the smaller frigates, which are described as ships of course. In cases like these, it often comes down to a matter of, "This word means whatever I am pointing to when I use it." Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Muffley Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I pity any one coming here for the first time and thinking they were going to read about Brens on tripods. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Thanks for the link Affy but it does not actually explain why you think sporting yachts or small shallow draft Dutch naval vessels would be in a convoy in the Baltic around 1800. : ) My copy of The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Ships, Boats, Vessels and Other Water-Borne Craft by Graham Blackburn 1978 does not actually provide any notes as to what is a boat and what is a ship [the book is light on note] but I tend to the boats are carryable. Anyway apparently cutters replaced yachts for the Dutch pilots and there were revenue cutters also so yachts as such were pleasure craft by 1800. In fact Blackburns sez post 1660. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebitt Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 The RN definition is that a 'boat' is any vessel capable of being carried aboard another vessel. If it's too big for someone else to carry aboard, it's a ship. Conversely, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the larger container ships I've seen could carry one of the smaller frigates, which are described as ships of course. I think even the Royal Navy would classify the USS Cole as a ship. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Perhaps the proper definition of a ship is then that it has the ability to carry a boat/boats. : ) Thansk for the link BTW 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Conversely, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the larger container ships I've seen could carry one of the smaller frigates, which are described as ships of course. In cases like these, it often comes down to a matter of, "This word means whatever I am pointing to when I use it." Michael We were talking about the late 18th, early 19th century, so that;s the relevant definition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Why subs are called boats! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 We were talking about the late 18th, early 19th century, so that;s the relevant definition. Quite. That's why I mentioned O'Brian. I'm not qualified to pass a judgement on whether his definition was in fact the one normally used at that time, but people who have examined his work with a critical eye usually report that he knew his stuff. Take it for what it's worth. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I think even the Royal Navy would classify the USS Cole as a ship. What strikes me as interesting about that pic is that the carrying ship isn't even drawing its maximum draft. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Quite. That's why I mentioned O'Brian. I'm not qualified to pass a judgement on whether his definition was in fact the one normally used at that time, but people who have examined his work with a critical eye usually report that he knew his stuff. Take it for what it's worth. Michael Well it's probably the same thing, since anything with three or more masts is unlikely to be portable by any other contemporary vessel! I have since found other definitions as well. It seems few can agree because there is also mention of number of weather decks etc. I guess to a Jack Tar of suitable experience in 1805 there was no need to define the difference. A quick glance would be enough to ascertain whether something would be a ship or a boat! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 What strikes me as interesting about that pic is that the carrying ship isn't even drawing its maximum draft. Michael Ships (or boats!) are mostly hollow though. An Arleigh Bourke is about 8,500 tons at full load and I dare say Cole was stripped back even more. Not a big load considering even a modest container ship will pull about 40,000 DWT and a large one 100,000+ tons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Given that the carrier floods itself to get underneath the load it should not be surprising that it is not at full draught!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 That's an awful lot of radoms on that platform. Also an awful lot of top hamper for the ship. I wouldn't like to be riding it in rough weather, I don't think! :eek: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I am 100% sure thats not a Bren Gun carrier! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I am 100% sure thats not a Bren Gun carrier! It is actually a Bren tripod. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Must be a pair of them since I count six legs. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 That's an awful lot of radoms on that platform. Of course, they might not be radoms but simply anything that needs protection from the weather, whether permanently or temporarily. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Of course, they might not be radoms but simply anything that needs protection from the weather, whether permanently or temporarily. If you back-track the properties in the photo, they're radomes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.