On topic - Trafalgar!
a.spencer3
3 sailing ships?
Surreyman
Harvey Van Sickle
> Did I miss something, or did the much vaunted re-enactment consist
> of maybe 3 sailing ships?
I hate re-enactments of all kinds, so I'll pass on that -- but I do
like fireworks displays, and BBC News24 really pissed me off.
(rant)
Apart from the rabbiting commentator (which the mute button cured), the
amount of crud on the screen made it absolutely unwatchable for me.
There was the station ID in the lower left-hand corner of the screen;
a banner across the bottom quarter telling me that I was watching
"Trafalger 200 Years On"; a ticker-tape of current news below that; a
"Live/Portsmouth" flag in the upper left-hand corner; and every time I
switched away and back, a "Press Red" flag for much too long in the
upper right.
Trying to see the display with all that shmutter was like squinting
through a bloody peep-hole, so I gave up.
(/rant)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
nightjar
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:35uwe.10292$iT1....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Did I miss something, or did the much vaunted re-enactment consist of
> maybe
> 3 sailing ships?
I think there were about seven over both teams. However, in the spirit of
OTT PC-ness, it was not a re-enactment (despite Nelson's death) but a
demonstration of naval manoeuvres from the era.
Colin Bignell
D. Spencer Hines
October 21st 1805, to be specific.
Only some Really Monster-Raving Loony Brits would re-enact the Battle of
Trafagar in June.
And the sorry-arsed, penurious Brits could only round up THREE tall
ships for the out-of-season re-enactment?
Hilarious!
Horsellman Rarebit commits Egregious PRATFALL yet again.
KAWHOMP!!!
DSH
-----------
"Ship Survives Lightning Strike to Join Trafalgar Re-Enactment"
By Chris Court, PA
The Scotsman
"A replica of a vessel which fought in the Battle of Trafalgar is to
take part in the 200th anniversary celebrations of the conflict –
despite being struck by lightning, it emerged today.
The 47 metre-long three masted man o'war, Grand Turk, arrived in
Portsmouth on Friday after being caught in the south coast electric
storms.
A direct lightning strike disabled some of her essential instrumentation
and safety equipment and for a while it looked as though she might not
be able to play her role in Tuesday’s International Fleet Review.
But thanks to the electrical skills of master Ian MacDougall, and the
support of Portsmouth based Ray Marine, the necessary spares were
fitted.
Now the Grand Turk, a replica of an 18th century fighting ship, is ready
to play a full part on Tuesday.
She was built in 1995 to a design based on the frigate, Blandford, which
took part in the Battle of Trafalgar.
The vessel, her decks lined with cannon, is usually to be seen in films
and on television – and has featured in programmes including Hornblower
and Longitude.
On Tuesday she will take her place in the Royal Review column, and in
the evening will act as Nelson’s flagship for the sea battle
re-enactment and son et lumiere at sea."
--------------------------------------------------------
Horsellman Rarebit seems to have been struck by lightning as well.
ZAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPP!!!
Vanessa, it just doesn't get any better than this.
http://www.voodoo.cz/victory/trafalgar.html
DSH
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:35uwe.10292$iT1....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
| Did I miss something, or did the much vaunted re-enactment consist of
ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk
I am not ex Navy.
I understand that the Royal Navy has a fair number of ships but we
don't have too many sailing ships anymore,where were they going to get
all the sailing ships from? there is a tall ships race later this year
in Newcastle north east England,if you want to see a lot of tall ships
you could try there.
I understand there were ships from 35 navies at this event,there
because the Royal Navy has played such an important part in the history
of naval warfare and is resepcted around the world
It is a shame that an ex naval man yourself cannot find more positive
things to say about our Senior Service.
But of course you have this anti British obsession,why is this?
Renia
> The Battle of Trafalgar was fought in OCTOBER, you Ninny!
>
> October 21st 1805, to be specific.
>
> Only some Really Monster-Raving Loony Brits would re-enact the Battle of
> Trafagar in June.
>
> And the sorry-arsed, penurious Brits could only round up THREE tall
> ships for the out-of-season re-enactment?
This Fleet Review by The Queen was the first of many celebrations of the
Battle of Trafalgar. Fleet reviews date from 1346. The last one was in
1977 to mark the Queen's Silver Jubilee. There was an unofficial review
of the 6,000-strong D-Day armada in 1944 during WWII.
This week was an armada of 167 ships from the Royal Navy and 56 other
nations, including France and Spain, with 17 tall ships on standby.
The general celebrations are known as Trafalgar 200 or T200.
Renia
a.spencer3
"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message
news:eOidndEqCaj...@giganews.com...
I've since seen that there were 17. 'I don't belieeeeeeve it!!!'.
Whatever, it was vastly over-rated in all preceding progs, and must have
been darned near invisible from the shore, as it was on TV!.
It didn't have to be a genuine re-enactment. But surely they could have got
50 sailing ships together for a 'display'?
What a chance was wasted.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
<ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1120090813.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Yep, it was the weather as well as international logistics.
I suppose that we were supposed to re-enact the accompanying massive storm,
also?
And off Cape Trafalgar where few would have seen it?
He really is a mindless twit.
Surreyman
Paul J Gans
>Yep, it was the weather as well as international logistics.
>I suppose that we were supposed to re-enact the accompanying massive storm,
>also?
Curious how many naval battles of the period were accompanied
by massive storms. I've read speculation that the particulate
matter in the powder used and the massive bangs did something
to start them.
---- Paul J. Gans
95 Thesen
Where exactly is "Trafalgar" ?
I thought it was off the Egyptian coast at Alexandria.
I have been to Trafalgar Square.... once.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a.spencer3
"95 Thesen" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1120201775....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Trafalgar is a cape off Spain, between Cadiz & Gibraltar.
Surreyman
renab...@aol.com
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> And the sorry-arsed, penurious Brits could only round up THREE tall
> ships for the out-of-season re-enactment?
SNIP
Hilarious!
Horseshit Hines - such a total failure as a sailor taht he was reduced
to being a BILLETING officer - commits Egregious PRATFALL yet again.
KAWHOMP!!!
Try ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN vessels - of which 17 were "historic ships"
from five nations - you ignorant cretin
>From the BBC
"Thousands see Trafalgar 'battle'
Thousands of spectators braved wet weather to watch a Battle of
Trafalgar re-enactment off Portsmouth - the climax of bicentenary
celebrations.
Fusillades of gunfire, blasts from cannons and fireworks helped mark
the 1805 victory over France and Spain.
Earlier the Queen conducted a massive international fleet review.
She and Prince Philip sailed from Portsmouth on HMS Endurance to
conduct the review of 167 naval, merchant and tall ships from 36
countries.
Historic flagship
Spectators were also treated to a series of sail-pasts and air displays
by the Red Arrows and vintage aircraft.
The evening's mock Napoleonic battle began when an actor playing the
part of Nelson sailed from shore in a small cutter to board the tall
ship the Grand Turk, a replica 19th century frigate.
The ship played the part of Nelson's historic flagship Victory during
the battle.
After the re-enactment, a massive fireworks display, one of the most
spectacular ever staged in the UK, was mounted over the ships.
MAJOR RECENT FLEET REVIEWS
May 1944 - before D-Day (unpublicised)
June 1953 - the Queen's coronation
May 1969 - the 20th anniversary of Nato
June 1977 - the Queen's Silver Jubilee
On board 2005's 'Victory'
The fleet was then illuminated as a commentary on the famous victory
boomed out over the Solent.
In the afternoon, it took about two hours for Endurance to sail up and
down the lines of anchored vessels, which the Queen inspected from a
specially constructed viewing platform.
As the Queen passed each vessel, she was saluted by its crew.
The vessels, including ships from the US, France, Spain, India, Japan,
South Korea, Pakistan, Nigeria and South Africa, lined up at the
Spithead mooring in the Solent with between 25,000 and 30,000 sailors
on board.
360-degree panorama from the deck of HMS Ocean
They had been arriving in the Solent for days, along with thousands of
spectator yachts.
The Queen said in a written message that the presence of such a large
international fleet was a tribute to Admiral Lord Nelson - who died in
the battle on 21 October 1805 - and the special bond between sailors.
"Admiral Lord Nelson's supreme qualities of seamanship, leadership with
humanity, and courage in the face of danger are shared among our
maritime community today. He could wish for no greater legacy," she
said.
The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were joined on the Endurance, a polar
survey ship, by Defence Secretary John Reid and the Chief of the Naval
Staff, Admiral Sir Alan West.
The royal couple had lunch on the ship, and received a 21-gun salute
from frigate HMS Chatham at the start of the review.
Spectators' yachts and patrol ships carrying armed police, as part of a
£1.7m security operation, sailed alongside Endurance.
The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall watched the review from
on board survey ship HMS Scott with other Royals travelling aboard
various ships.
The Duke of York was on HMS Enterprise, and the Princess Royal on RFA
Sir Bedivere. The Duchess of Gloucester watched from HMS Gloucester,
and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent from RFA Fort George.
The event follows a long tradition of reviews of the fleet at the
Spithead mooring, dating back to medieval times. The last was in 1977
to mark the Queen's Silver Jubilee.
After a series of further spectacles including the display by the Red
Arrow, the Queen attended a reception on board HMS Invincible.
The mock Battle of Trafalgar was held between a blue and a red team,
rather than Britain versus France.
The decision upset some who regarded it as unnecessary political
correctness.
It is one of 17 historic ships from five countries involved in the
spectacle, aimed at illustrating how sea battles were fought in the era
of Nelson and Napoleon."
renab...@aol.com
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> And the sorry-arsed, penurious Brits could only round up THREE tall
> ships for the out-of-season re-enactment?
SNIP
Hilarious!
Horseshit Hines - such a total failure as a sailor taht he was reduced
to being a BILLETING officer - commits Egregious PRATFALL yet again.
KAWHOMP!!!
William Black
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:da18lh$439$2...@reader1.panix.com...
Certainly that was the contemporary opinion.
However weather conditions aren't usually affected by what are, on a global
scale, trivial local conditions.
It might be more helpful to look at the weather conditions that allowed
large fleet actions to take place when you use the wind as your motive
power.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
D. Spencer Hines
rather than Britain versus France."
"The decision upset some who regarded it as unnecessary political
correctness."
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
Vivien, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Admiral Nelson was leading the Blue Team or the Red Team?
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Spiv
<renab...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120233767....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Try ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN vessels - of
> which 17 were "historic ships"
> from five nations - you ignorant cretin
I drove down to Portsmouth to see them - fantastic sight.
> The mock Battle of Trafalgar was held
> between a blue and a red team,
> rather than Britain versus France.
I saw that on TV - impressive. The largest ever firework display ever in
the UK directly after - impressive again.
The Victory is a "large" ship, even by today's standards. 3,000 men on
board. There gain a very impressive ship.
I was impressed and didn't laugh
William Black
"Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
news:42c5b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> The Victory is a "large" ship, even by today's standards. 3,000 men on
> board.
John McKay in 'The 100 Gun Ship Victory' gives her crew as 850 in wartime
and 650 in peace.
Where did you get 3,000 from?
William Black
>
> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:da4cse$l3c$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:42c5b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> > > The Victory is a "large" ship, even by today's standards. 3,000 men
on
> > > board.
> >
> > John McKay in 'The 100 Gun Ship Victory' gives her crew as 850 in
wartime
> > and 650 in peace.
> >
> > Where did you get 3,000 from?
>
> well.
Sounds like the usual bollocks the RN spouts about HMS Victory, Nelson and
Trafalgar.
If what they tell you about the diet on Victory was true they'd all have
been dead in a couple of months as well.
Vaughan Sanders
The largest ship at Trafalgar was the Spanish flag ship, it had a crew
of just over 1,000, this was the one they were after for prize money.
I think they got it but I'm not sure if it survived the storm.
The Victory carried a detachment of 146 Royal Marines included in the
820 crew, commanded by Captain Charles Adair, this figure does not
include the women and children (powder monkeys) who were aboard, the
Admiralty refused to recognise them because of pension rights.
Jamie
am...@hotmail.com
Santissima Trinidad. Presumably the biggest wooden battleship ever but
http://www.seabritain2005.com/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.370 says that
she
was actually smaller than French 3-deckers.
"...the Trinidad was originally a standard three-decked battleship,
mounting 116 guns. However, in 1795, her forecastle was joined to her
quarterdeck, and a light battery of eight pounder guns mounted, thus
creating her distinctive 'four-decker' appearance. But although this
change made her look most impressive, it also considerably worsened her
sailing qualities and her stability. So she tended to be a liability in
battle, rather than an advantage."
BTW, Spanish commander, Admiral Gravina, was on the Prince of Asturias,
not ST (she was under the flag of the Rear Admiral Cisneros).
> it had a crew
> of just over 1,000, this was the one they were after for prize money.
> I think they got it
>but I'm not sure if it survived the storm.
She did not.
> The Victory carried a detachment of 146 Royal Marines included in the
> 820 crew, commanded by Captain Charles Adair, this figure does not
> include the women and children (powder monkeys) who were aboard, the
> Admiralty refused to recognise them because of pension rights.
How about the grateful nation, etc.? :-)
a.spencer3
>
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:da18lh$439$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> > a.spencer3 <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Yep, it was the weather as well as international logistics.
> > >I suppose that we were supposed to re-enact the accompanying massive
> storm,
> > >also?
> >
> > Curious how many naval battles of the period were accompanied
> > by massive storms. I've read speculation that the particulate
> > matter in the powder used and the massive bangs did something
> > to start them.
>
> Certainly that was the contemporary opinion.
>
> However weather conditions aren't usually affected by what are, on a
global
> scale, trivial local conditions.
>
> It might be more helpful to look at the weather conditions that allowed
> large fleet actions to take place when you use the wind as your motive
> power.
>
The wind on the day of Trafalgar was quite slight, was it not?
Surreyman
a.spencer3
> > between a blue and a red team,
> > rather than Britain versus France.
>
> I saw that on TV - impressive. The largest ever firework display ever in
> the UK directly after - impressive again.
>
>
I saw all of 3 sailing ships through the murk during the (night-time, for
goodness' sake!) 'battle', and could distinguish no double columns crossing
the 'T' whatsoever.
The official description mentioned only 17 ships. So we had 4 ships per
column approaching 9?
Even that might have been a bit interesting, but where were they?
It was another Milennium 'River of Fire' as far as I was concerned.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
> >
> > "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:42c5b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> > > The Victory is a "large" ship, even by today's standards. 3,000 men
on
> > > board.
> >
> > John McKay in 'The 100 Gun Ship Victory' gives her crew as 850 in
wartime
> > and 650 in peace.
> >
> > Where did you get 3,000 from?
>
> well.
>
2,000 marines on an 18th. century ship? Get real!
Surreyman
Spiv
Have you ever seen the size of Victory? Well, I'm sure you haven't. It is
"big".
Spiv
>
> "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> news:42c5b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> > > > The mock Battle of Trafalgar was held
> > > between a blue and a red team,
> > > rather than Britain versus France.
> >
> > I saw that on TV - impressive. The largest ever firework display ever
in
> > the UK directly after - impressive again.
> >
> >
> You must have a bigger TV than I.
I'm sure I do. Mine is big.
> I saw all of 3 sailing ships through the murk during the (night-time, for
> goodness' sake!) 'battle', and could distinguish no double columns
crossing
> the 'T' whatsoever.
>
> The official description mentioned only 17 ships. So we had 4 ships per
> column approaching 9?
>
> Even that might have been a bit interesting, but where were they?
I can't account for your senility.
William Black
> Have you ever seen the size of Victory? Well, I'm sure you haven't. It
is
> "big".
Try looking in the next dock at a ship called Warrior.
It makes Victory look like a pleasure yacht.
John_Kane
I've done the tour. Three thousand in a working ship is ridiculous. I
suspect someone was pulling your leg
John Kane
Spiv
"John_Kane" <John...@tricolour.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:1120324760.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
With Marines on the decks and in every nook and cranny, I would think that
about right. Marines have always had to sleep in gangways and the likes,
until HMS Ocean.
Spiv
>
> "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> news:42c66626$3...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> > Have you ever seen the size of Victory? Well, I'm sure you haven't. It
> is
> > "big".
>
> Try looking in the next dock at a ship called Warrior.
>
> It makes Victory look like a pleasure yacht.
I thought Victory was bigger. It had massive masts and was far taller than
Warrior. What hit me about Warrior was the space in the captains/officers
quarters, while the gunners slept on mattresses at their guns. The captains
bedroom was gigantic for a ship of that size. The same on Victory, but it
appeared far more pronounced on Warrior. Warrior was declared by Napoleon
as the long back streak in Le Manche. It instantly made all other ship
obsolete, as did Dreadnought much later in 1906 - but none of the old battle
wagons were kept on, which is a shame. My Dad said they were awe inspiring
to look at.
a.spencer3
I live not far from it.
Study some history.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
>
> "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> news:42c66626$3...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> > Have you ever seen the size of Victory? Well, I'm sure you haven't. It
> is
> > "big".
>
> Try looking in the next dock at a ship called Warrior.
>
> It makes Victory look like a pleasure yacht.
>
> --
Yep. Having seen Victory many times, I'm ashamed to admit that last year was
the first time I actually boarded Warrior. Very, very impressive, especially
within its own time.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
But they didn't.
Just cite where 3,000 marines were carried on Victory or shut up.
The former you can't. The latter would be preferable.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
But how about answering the question.
Surreyman
William Black
> > It makes Victory look like a pleasure yacht.
>
> I thought Victory was bigger. It had massive masts and was far taller
than
> Warrior.
Victory 2,142 bm (burthen tonnes) 186' by 52'
Warrior 6,192 bm, 380' by 58.5'
Warrior is almost twice the length, 15% wider and about three times the
displacement.
All figures from 'Ships of the Royal Navy' by JJ Colledge, one of the half
dozen book I keep by the computer.
Look Spiv, this is obviously a subject you don't know a great deal about
and you've swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the rubbish the Victory 'old
salt' guides spew at every grockle who comes on board.
Victory was forty years old at Trafalgar, and had needed to be rebuilt five
years before hand. The reason she's in such a bad state now is that the
rebuild was a botch job (mind you, the rebuild in the nineteen fifties
wasn't any better)
Spiv
Senile idiot, it is big. I don't need to read a book to look at it.
Spiv
Senile one, you have been at the sherry, haven't you?
Spiv
Another senile one.
Spiv
>
> "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> news:42c6e4e5$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
>
> > > It makes Victory look like a pleasure yacht.
> >
> > I thought Victory was bigger. It had massive masts and was far taller
> than
> > Warrior.
>
> Victory 2,142 bm (burthen tonnes) 186' by 52'
>
> Warrior 6,192 bm, 380' by 58.5'
>
> Warrior is almost twice the length, 15% wider and about three times the
> displacement.
>
> All figures from 'Ships of the Royal Navy' by JJ Colledge, one of the
half
> dozen book I keep by the computer.
>
> Look Spiv, this is obviously a subject you don't know a great deal about
I have been on both. Is that clear? Warrior may be bigger, but Victory is
certainly taller and appears bigger. About tonnage? I never weighted them.
ray o'hara
Napoleon was long dead before the warrior was built , he never described as
anything.
might you mean louis napoleon?
the texas in galveston texas is a dreadnought era battleship.
a.spencer3
"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eLqdndp4e_4...@comcast.com...
Yep. It was Nap III who didn't like Warrior.
Surreyman
William Black
>
> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:da6rao$e6j$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:42c6e4e5$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> >
> > > > It makes Victory look like a pleasure yacht.
> > >
> > > I thought Victory was bigger. It had massive masts and was far taller
> > than
> > > Warrior.
> >
> > Victory 2,142 bm (burthen tonnes) 186' by 52'
> >
> > Warrior 6,192 bm, 380' by 58.5'
> >
> > Warrior is almost twice the length, 15% wider and about three times the
> > displacement.
> >
> > All figures from 'Ships of the Royal Navy' by JJ Colledge, one of the
> half
> > dozen book I keep by the computer.
> >
> > Look Spiv, this is obviously a subject you don't know a great deal
about
>
> I have been on both. Is that clear?
Everybody who's interested in naval history has been on both.
I've been on both, so has half the world.
You're talking balls, everybody has noticed, it's time to say 'Sorry, I
was wrong'.
Warrior may be bigger, but Victory is
> certainly taller and appears bigger.
I don't know if you noticed, but Warrior is steeam powered.
You know, those big turney roundy things in the basement.
Of course, in reality, the engines in Warrior today are made of fibre glass,
the original ones were taken out when she was an oil jetty in Wales...
> About tonnage? I never weighted them.
Oh dear, you're new to this aren't you.
I'm not going to explain displacement, read a book.
Spiv
Victory is taller and has more decks. It appears larger. Anyone can see that
by looking.
> Warrior may be bigger, but Victory is
> > certainly taller and appears bigger.
>
> I don't know if you noticed, but Warrior is steeam powered.
Yep I noticed. Which irrelevant to appearance of size.
> You know, those big turney roundy things in the basement.
>
> Of course, in reality, the engines in Warrior today are made of fibre
glass,
> the original ones were taken out when she was an oil jetty in Wales...
>
> > About tonnage? I never weighted them.
>
> Oh dear, you're new to this aren't you.
Nope. My family has a naval tradition.
William Black
>
> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:da8m9p$vjg$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> > > I have been on both. Is that clear?
> >
> > Everybody who's interested in naval history has been on both.
> >
> > I've been on both, so has half the world.
> >
> > You're talking balls, everybody has noticed, it's time to say 'Sorry,
I
> > was wrong'.
>
> Victory is taller and has more decks. It appears larger. Anyone can see
that
> by looking.
No, it has a pronounced tumblehome.
Anyone who knows what they're looking at realises that it gives the
impression of vast size and bulk.
> > I don't know if you noticed, but Warrior is steeam powered.
>
> Yep I noticed. Which irrelevant to appearance of size.
It isn't to mast height.
CJ Adams
variations on that theme:
Am I the only person who has (a) seen HMS Victory and (b) ever seen 3,000
men formed up, buttons winking in the morning sun? Ain't gonna fit. Trust
me. Give it up, folks!
Cheers
CJ Adams
Arte et Marte
Spiv
>
> "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> news:42c822f8$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> > "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:da8m9p$vjg$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
>
> > > > I have been on both. Is that clear?
> > >
> > > Everybody who's interested in naval history has been on both.
> > >
> > > I've been on both, so has half the world.
> > >
> > > You're talking balls, everybody has noticed, it's time to say
'Sorry,
> I
> > > was wrong'.
> >
> > Victory is taller and has more decks. It appears larger. Anyone can see
> that
> > by looking.
>
> No, it has a pronounced tumblehome.
>
> Anyone who knows what they're looking at realises that it gives the
> impression of vast size and bulk.
>
> > > I don't know if you noticed, but Warrior is steeam powered.
> >
> > Yep I noticed. Which irrelevant to appearance of size.
>
> It isn't to mast height.
One again, Victory appears a bigger ship.
ray o'hara
appearences are deceiving. in a fight the Warrior's more powerful guns would
have desroyed the victory from outside the victory's guns range.
holiman@westUSgulf
Spiv,
Have you actually been on a ship ? AFAIK,
no one sleeps on a gangway unless they're
gassed up. I think you mean passageways.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D. Spencer Hines
"Spiv" wallows in Nautical Ignorance.
He doesn't understand displacement either.
Even Pogue Black is making him look really stupid.
DSH
"holiman@westUSgulf" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1120449889....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
a.spencer3
>
>
> Nope. My family has a naval tradition.
>
I seem to remember that that was your father, whose main activity was
flogging black market goods in the war.
Unless, of course, you'd care to elaborate?
To those who don't realise, this moron has polluted this newsgroup before.
He's not even worth killfiling.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
"CJ Adams" <blue...@start.ca> wrote in message
news:ylVxe.521$is5....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Re: The discussion about 1,000 matelots and 2,000 marines in Victory and
> variations on that theme:
>
>
> Am I the only person who has (a) seen HMS Victory and (b) ever seen 3,000
> men formed up, buttons winking in the morning sun? Ain't gonna fit.
Trust
> me. Give it up, folks!
>
>
No-one else even started apart from moron 'Spiv'!
Surreyman
Spiv
As senile as ever. It is bad enough with senile Hines
Spiv
It obviously is, as Victory appears bigger.
Spiv
>
> "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> news:42c822f8$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> >
> > Nope. My family has a naval tradition.
> >
>
> I seem to remember that that was your
> father, whose main activity was
> flogging black market goods in the war.
Nope. He main activity was surviving and then working all hours God sent for
the allied effort. When the Yanks from the LIberty ships offered him some
stuff he would take it up and sell it on to friends. They had an abundance
of pineapples and bananas during the war.
> He's not even worth killfiling.
Please killfile me. You are not worth being in on the threads.
Spiv
"holiman@westUSgulf" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1120449889....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Spiv,
> Have you actually been on a ship ? AFAIK,
> no one sleeps on a gangway unless they're
> gassed up. I think you mean passageways.
No companionways.
Spiv
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9M2ye.133$4H2....@eagle.america.net...
> Yep....
>
> "Spiv" wallows in Nautical Ignorance.
>
> He doesn't understand displacement either.
Do you mean they don't weigh the ships on a scale?
a.spencer3
>
> "a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:b86ye.14642$iT1....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:42c822f8$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope. My family has a naval tradition.
> > >
> >
> > I seem to remember that that was your
> > father, whose main activity was
> > flogging black market goods in the war.
>
> Nope. He main activity was surviving and then working all hours God sent
for
> the allied effort. When the Yanks from the LIberty ships offered him some
> stuff he would take it up and sell it on to friends. They had an abundance
> of pineapples and bananas during the war.
>
>
And many other types of goods, you proudly maintained last time.
So he wasn't even at sea?
Surreyman
Spiv
He wasn't, all his brothers were, as were many of my mothers brothers too,
with deaths at sea via U boats, but he was bombed enough. He did more than
his bit, he was a very hard worker.
ray o'hara
"Spiv" <>
> It obviously is, as Victory appears bigger.
>
the victory has a shorter hull and its height to length ratio is extreme
you are confused by the height of the hull above the waterline. but by all
the ways they messure ships warrior is larger.
William Black
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9M2ye.133$4H2....@eagle.america.net...
>
> "Spiv" wallows in Nautical Ignorance.
>
> He doesn't understand displacement either.
>
> Even Pogue Black is making him look really stupid.
Not 'Black the Red' anymore, I'm disappointed.
Now, about my naval knowledge...
Remember 'Torpedo boats', and 'torpedo boat destroyers'?
Spiv ain't the only one who knows less than me about naval history...
Spiv
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9M2ye.133$4H2....@eagle.america.net...
> > Yep....
> >
> > "Spiv" wallows in Nautical Ignorance.
> >
> > He doesn't understand displacement either.
> >
> > Even Pogue Black is making him look really stupid.
>
> Not 'Black the Red' anymore, I'm disappointed.
>
> Now, about my naval knowledge...
>
> Remember 'Torpedo boats', and 'torpedo boat destroyers'?
>
> Spiv ain't the only one who knows less than me about naval history...
I know more.
William Black
Yeah...
Right...
You're the idiot who thinks Victory is bigger than Warrior because sailing
ships have taller masts.
Except, almost inevitably, Victory's main mast is shorter than Warrior's,
by a huge 6.5 inches.
That's because both ships were fitted with the Admiralty standard suit of
sails, and these sails fit masts of a standard size.
Spiv
>
> "Spiv" <nyl...@goawayspam.com> wrote in message
> news:42c97...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> > "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:dabpop$18i$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> > >
> > > "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9M2ye.133$4H2....@eagle.america.net...
> > > > Yep....
> > > >
> > > > "Spiv" wallows in Nautical Ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > He doesn't understand displacement either.
> > > >
> > > > Even Pogue Black is making him look really stupid.
> > >
> > > Not 'Black the Red' anymore, I'm disappointed.
> > >
> > > Now, about my naval knowledge...
> > >
> > > Remember 'Torpedo boats', and 'torpedo boat destroyers'?
> > >
> > > Spiv ain't the only one who knows less than me about naval history...
> >
> > I know more.
>
> Yeah...
>
> Right...
>
> You're the idiot who thinks Victory is
> bigger than Warrior because sailing
> ships have taller masts.
I looks bigger. Anyone with half a brain would conclude that.
> Except, almost inevitably, Victory's main mast is shorter than
Warrior's,
> by a huge 6.5 inches.
Doesn't look it.
a.spencer3
Nah - my Daddy was braver than your Daddy!
Surreyman
M. J. Powell
<ab...@hotmail.com> writes
>
snip
>> > >
>> >
>> > Now, about my naval knowledge...
>> >
>> > Remember 'Torpedo boats', and 'torpedo boat destroyers'?
>> >
>> > Spiv ain't the only one who knows less than me about naval history...
>>
>> I know more.
>
>Yeah...
>
>Right...
>
>You're the idiot who thinks Victory is bigger than Warrior because sailing
>ships have taller masts.
>
>Except, almost inevitably, Victory's main mast is shorter than Warrior's,
>by a huge 6.5 inches.
But is that at high tide or low tide?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
William Black
"M. J. Powell" <mi...@DeLeTe.pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cC5g7xBL...@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
I shall treat that remark with the contempt it deserves...
CJ Adams
"It was said: Except, almost inevitably, Victory's main mast is shorter
>> > Warrior's,
>> >by a huge 6.5 inches.
>>
>> But is that at high tide or low tide?
>
> I shall treat that remark with the contempt it deserves...
>
sea (or local equivalent). So, in a way.....
Gary Walker
They had to do this when taking prisoners in sea battles anyway but they'd
be locked down in the hold. Not a bad place for Bootnecks.
What trade were you CJ?
Kind regards
Gary "Wobbly" Walker
"CJ Adams" <blue...@start.ca> wrote in message
news:ylVxe.521$is5....@news20.bellglobal.com...
Julian Richards
wrote:
>
>"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9M2ye.133$4H2....@eagle.america.net...
>> Yep....
>>
>> "Spiv" wallows in Nautical Ignorance.
>>
>> He doesn't understand displacement either.
>>
>> Even Pogue Black is making him look really stupid.
>
>Not 'Black the Red' anymore, I'm disappointed.
We've both been demoted to the ranks.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
M. J. Powell
<ab...@hotmail.com> writes
>
Snip
>> >You're the idiot who thinks Victory is bigger than Warrior because
>sailing
>> >ships have taller masts.
>> >
>> >Except, almost inevitably, Victory's main mast is shorter than
>Warrior's,
>> >by a huge 6.5 inches.
>>
>> But is that at high tide or low tide?
>
>I shall treat that remark with the contempt it deserves...
Hehe!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Gary Walker
Bandicoot
>
[SNIP]
> >
> You can also get everyone in the world onto the
> Isle of Wight, apparently.
> But they didn't.
> Just cite where 3,000 marines were carried on
> Victory or shut up. The former you can't. The latter > would be
preferable.
>
The IOW would sink under the weight. So, one suspects, would Victory...
Peter
Bandicoot
> > >
> > > > > The mock Battle of Trafalgar was held
> > > > between a blue and a red team,
> > > > rather than Britain versus France.
> > >
> > > I saw that on TV - impressive. The largest
> > > ever firework display ever in the UK directly
> > > after - impressive again.
> > >
> > >
> > You must have a bigger TV than I.
>
> I'm sure I do. Mine is big.
>
Actually big, or just looks that way to you?
;-)
Peter
Andrew Chaplin
news:dag3r4$q56$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
|
| "CJ Adams" <blue...@start.ca> wrote in message
| news:ylVxe.521$is5....@news20.bellglobal.com...
| > Re: The discussion about 1,000 matelots and 2,000 marines in Victory and
| > variations on that theme:
| >
| > Am I the only person who has (a) seen HMS Victory and (b) ever seen
3,000
| > men formed up, buttons winking in the morning sun? Ain't gonna fit.
| > Trust me. Give it up, folks!
| >
yes.
| They had to do this when taking prisoners in sea battles anyway but they'd
| be locked down in the hold. Not a bad place for Bootnecks.
|
| What trade were you CJ?
He's usually coy when asked. Some variety of gun plumber, I believe.
[Please don't top-post.]
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)