Favourite/Least Favourite Vessels
Sarah Hotdesking
or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
or examples of good/bad technology.
Over to you .....
(Trying for something on-topic here, especially as I've subverted/perverted
too many threads)
--
Sarah H
http://www.messybeast.com
http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/folder404/firstamendment404.htm
USA Patriot Act - First Amendment Not Found
Keith Willshaw
"Sarah Hotdesking" <shart...@MAWAYshartwell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:cmltr6$72p$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be
> ships
> or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified -
> whether
> it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
> or examples of good/bad technology.
>
> Over to you .....
>
Considering British warships
Favourite has to be the V&W class destroyers of WW1.
If ever a range of warships earned their keep they did.
Least favourite has to be the K Class submarines.
Who ever thought of building oil fired steam driven
submarines should have been given the ultimate
punishment - being made to serve in them.
Keith
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Sarah Hotdesking <shart...@MAWAYshartwell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be ships
>or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
>it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
>or examples of good/bad technology.
>
>Over to you .....
Favourite: The old Calliope - Nathaniel Barnaby's corvette/3rd class
cruiser of the 1880s. At the same time the final development of the
sailing warship and at the same time one the first real steam and steel
cruisers. Oh, and there's the escape from the Samoa typhoon in 1889 (18
hours at 120% of rated emergency power...- and no-one else got out). And
she visited my current home as part of the recruiting squadron in the
1900s, and she ended up as a reserved depot near where I grew up,
_and_ I was a guest at the Samoa Night dinner in the current stone frigate
to present the wardroom with pictures of the old Calliope in Aberystwyth..
And she was a damned handsome ship.
Enough for me.
Note for the Canadians here - anything left of her sister ship (Briton,
originally Calypso, stuck on a beach in Newfoundland in the late 60s/early
70s)?
Least favourite: Easy. Bismarck. The brute nearly ran over a convoy
my father was serving in an escort with.
>(Trying for something on-topic here, especially as I've subverted/perverted
>too many threads)
You? ;)
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
Joachim Schmid
> Least favourite has to be the K Class submarines.
> Who ever thought of building oil fired steam driven
> submarines should have been given the ultimate
> punishment - being made to serve in them.
Good suggestion. How much worse would have been the coal fired
submarines with bicarbonate boilers, in design in Germany at the
outbreak of WW I ?
So let me throw in the Resurgam of 1879 - the first mechanically powered
submarine. "This vessel was powered by steam that was stored under
pressure whilst running on the surface and then used when submerged. The
crew of 3 had to endure a cramped interior with intense heat from the
coal fired boiler together with its fumes requiring them to breathe from
a compressed air supply. Lighting was by candle which, when starting to
gutter indicated the need to surface and refresh the air." (Bob Digby)
Regards
Joachim
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Joachim Schmid <E94...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> Least favourite has to be the K Class submarines.
>> Who ever thought of building oil fired steam driven
>> submarines should have been given the ultimate
>> punishment - being made to serve in them.
>
>Good suggestion. How much worse would have been the coal fired
>submarines with bicarbonate boilers, in design in Germany at the
>outbreak of WW I ?
Or the French steam-powered submarines that served right through
Big Mistake One - generally against the Austrians, who were the first to
get ASW right, The French submariners that fought those abortions
against co-ordinated airbourne and surface ASW surely deserve a "balls of
solid forged steel" award. The fact that very few of the boats had valves
which worked in the same direction -and valves didn't work in the same
consistent directio in the same boat - must have just added to the fun.
Not :(
Horrible devices. The Ks were dreams by comparison.
>So let me throw in the Resurgam of 1879 - the first mechanically powered
>submarine. "This vessel was powered by steam that was stored under
>pressure whilst running on the surface and then used when submerged. The
>crew of 3 had to endure a cramped interior with intense heat from the
>coal fired boiler together with its fumes requiring them to breathe from
>a compressed air supply. Lighting was by candle which, when starting to
>gutter indicated the need to surface and refresh the air." (Bob Digby)
Plans to salvage her real soon now. I recommend crewing her with some of
the group trolls, lackwits and sock-puppets. And then enegaging with
devices fro Limbo onwards.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
RENABORNEY
>What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be ships
>or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
>it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
>or examples of good/bad technology.
>
>Over to you .....
>
>(Trying for something on-topic here, especially as I've subverted/perverted
>too many threads)
>
>--
>Sarah H
Hi Sarah, I asked a smiliar question when I kicked off the "Worst Warship
Contest" last sping....
Best
BB/CC: US Iowa class - Unmatched combination of speed and firepower
2nd Place: HMS Vanguard - Better seaboat than the Iowas, but older main battery
CV: US Essex class - They won the greatest naval campagn in history
CA: US Des Moines class - Power loaded
8-inch guns which could deliver more steel on target during a given time than
some modern battleships..
CL: US San Diego class (Second Group): The most graceful warships ever built -
almost delicate looking - but they could take care of an air attack and were
more rugged than they looked
Worst
BB/CC: British Battlecruisers: "Eggshells armed with sledgehammers". Armed with
battleship guns and protected with cruiser armor, they managed to kill over
4000 sailors - all British, unfortunately
CA/CL/DD: German WW2 deisgns - Advamced high pressure/high temperature
machinery set new records in lack of reliability
SS: British K (for Katastrophy) class -
Maoeuverable as a sick blue whale, with too many harches that could be left
open upon submerging, they had an unbelievable string of disasters - look up
the "Battle of May Island"
SSN/SSBN: Soviet boats equipped with the HEN reactor -
Q "How do you tell a sailor of the Northern Fleet (which had a number of
nukes)?"
A "He glows in the dark"
One boat was nicknamed "Hiroshima"
Joachim Schmid
> What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be ships
> or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
> it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
> or examples of good/bad technology.
OK, another round of one of our favourite games.
Since there are many good and bad ships in technical regards, I will
this time nominate my favourite in looks: The German heavy cruiser
"Hipper" of 1939. A ship, of which had been said even in the German
navy: Absolutely beautiful, although unsuitable.
For the most ugly, I'm nominating the French pre-dreadnought battleship
"Danton".
And here's my favourite in courage and luck: S.S. "Stephen Hopkins", a
merchantman who in 1942 fought down the German commerce raider "Stier"
(armed with 6 - 6" and 4 - 1.45" guns) with a single, unprotected 4" gun.
Regards
Joachim
Keith Willshaw
"Joachim Schmid" <E94...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:cmm641$h37$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Sarah Hotdesking wrote:
>
>
> And here's my favourite in courage and luck: S.S. "Stephen Hopkins", a
> merchantman who in 1942 fought down the German commerce raider "Stier"
> (armed with 6 - 6" and 4 - 1.45" guns) with a single, unprotected 4" gun.
Not so lucky for her crew however - 2/3 of them died
Keith
Andrew Chaplin
>
> "Sarah Hotdesking" <shart...@MAWAYshartwell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:cmltr6$72p$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be
> > ships
> > or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified -
> > whether
> > it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
> > or examples of good/bad technology.
> >
> > Over to you .....
> >
>
> Considering British warships
>
> Favourite has to be the V&W class destroyers of WW1.
> If ever a range of warships earned their keep they did.
I think my father would have agreed with you. Of all the ships he
knew, he seemed to have the softest spot for WRESTLER, in which he
served in '40 and '41 before being drafted to QE.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Andrew Chaplin
>
> In article <cmltr6$72p$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Sarah Hotdesking <shart...@MAWAYshartwell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be ships
> >or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
> >it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
> >or examples of good/bad technology.
> >
> >Over to you .....
>
> Favourite: The old Calliope - Nathaniel Barnaby's corvette/3rd class
> cruiser of the 1880s. At the same time the final development of the
> sailing warship and at the same time one the first real steam and steel
> cruisers. Oh, and there's the escape from the Samoa typhoon in 1889 (18
> hours at 120% of rated emergency power...- and no-one else got out). And
> she visited my current home as part of the recruiting squadron in the
> 1900s, and she ended up as a reserved depot near where I grew up,
> _and_ I was a guest at the Samoa Night dinner in the current stone frigate
> to present the wardroom with pictures of the old Calliope in Aberystwyth..
> And she was a damned handsome ship.
>
> Enough for me.
>
> Note for the Canadians here - anything left of her sister ship (Briton,
> originally Calypso, stuck on a beach in Newfoundland in the late 60s/early
> 70s)?
At last report (2003) her hull was on the north coast of Newfoundland
near Lewisport and decaying. Rather sad, really. She was
decommissioned in 1922 and used as a storage hulk. She was towed to
Lewisport in 1952, thence to Embree in 1968, and beached in 1970.
dwelsh46
message news:cmltr6$72p$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
ships
> or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified -
whether
> it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
> or examples of good/bad technology.
>
Here is a vote for the Casablanca class escort carriers of WWII. They may be
the most underappreciated ships of WWII.
These brainchildren of Henry Kaiser, all 50 of them, were built in a single
year at a specially constructed shipyard in Washington without using any
strategic war materials. Their combined air complements, 28 planes each,
were equal to 16 new Essex class fleet carriers, and they required a
slightly smaller crew per plane operated than a fleet carrier.
These ships were originally designed to secure the Atlantic sea lanes from
U-boat attacks and they and their British counterparts quickly did that, so
effectively that most of the Casablancas were then deployed to the Pacific.
There they became extremely important in the roles of fast aircraft
transports combined with providing air support to amphibious operations.
These ships and their near sisters of the Bogue class, along with other
escort carriers of amaller classes, relieved the fast fleet carriers of
everything except front line combat duties. They brought thousands of
replacement planes and pilots to the fleet, took damaged aircraft back for
repair, transported casualties to Stateside hospitals, and supported all of
the fleet's carrier pilot qualification training. They also stayed off
invasion beaches for long periods of time providing air support for ground
forces, while fleet carriers went off to other missions. One task group of
these carriers even fought off a powerful Japanese striking force during the
Battle of Leyte Gulf.
Without escort carriers supporting them, fast fleet carriers could not have
stayed at sea for such extended combat deployments. They would have had to
spend much more time at bases being replenished, and would have had to spend
much more time loitering off invasion beaches to support the needs of ground
forces.
The Navy didn't like Kaiser's concept and had little or nothing to do with
the design of these ships. They were built by the Maritime Commission, to
the design of a New York naval architect, George Sharp. As an example of
rapid American assembly line war production, their construction is
unmatched. They were all commissioned between mid 1943 and mid 1944, in time
to play a significant part in the war, whereas the more sophisticated escort
carriers the Navy designed (the Commencement Bay class) did not begin to go
into commission until 1945. Many of that class missed the war entirely and
those that served only made one or two deployments.
After the war the Navy found no use for these ships and they were scrapped
or mothballed, although some returned for a second commission as aircraft
transports during the 1950s. Too small to operate jets, these were one war
ships - but they made a huge contribution to winning that war.
Dave Welsh
dwel...@cox.net
Joachim Schmid
> Here is a vote for the Casablanca class escort carriers of WWII.
Yes, another good choice.
Joachim
William Hamblen
wrote:
> What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be ships
> or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
> it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
> or examples of good/bad technology.
As far as looks go, nothing beats a sailing man of war, especially the
way they look in paintings by Turner.
Jdf4cheval
large model of HMS Princess Royal Which I made in the late 60s, and she's still
the most elegant item in my office - unless my wife comes in.
With other criteria, the Canadian "Cadillacs" and the USN's Pegasus class PHMs.
Bill
>>What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be ships
>>or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
>>it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
>>or examples of good/bad technology.
>>
CSS Hunley?
Brian Allardice
>
>Sarah Hotdesking wrote:
>
>> What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be ships
>> or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
>> it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
>> or examples of good/bad technology.
>
>OK, another round of one of our favourite games.
>
>Since there are many good and bad ships in technical regards, I will
>this time nominate my favourite in looks: The German heavy cruiser
>"Hipper" of 1939. A ship, of which had been said even in the German
>navy: Absolutely beautiful, although unsuitable.
I've always liked HMS Tiger - actually the bulk of RN battlecruisers strike me
as being the iconic warships, albeit in a certain retro sense. In a more
modern vein, HMCS Nipigon or Annapolis.
>For the most ugly, I'm nominating the French pre-dreadnought battleship
>"Danton".
A lot of competition for that one, although I've a particular dislike for
USS Ticonderoga et al.
Cheers,
dba
Sarah H
news:R6SdnTsoyb_...@comcast.com...
OK William, sub-thread: favourite painting of a ship! Any medium: oil,
water-paint [more apt!], pastel ....
My parents had "Fighting Temeraire" over the fireplace throughout my
childhood.
--
Sarah H
Disclaimer 1: All opinions are my own
Disclaimer 2: Any non-work-related links in this post should be viewed in
your own time
And when at the Court of Enquiry
They ask for the reason I died, I died,
Please say I forgot twice iota
Was the minimum angle of glide.
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Sarah H <sarah.DOT.hartwell.AT.baesystems.DOT.com> wrote:
>
>OK William, sub-thread: favourite painting of a ship! Any medium: oil,
>water-paint [more apt!], pastel ....
>My parents had "Fighting Temeraire" over the fireplace throughout my
>childhood.
As, indeed, did mine.
Got to say that I've got a very soft spot for some of Geoff Hunt's
recent paintings of sailing ships - the one used for the cover
of (IIRC) P o'B's "The Ionian Mission" catches the sheer weight
and heft of the ship in a way which - well, it brought it home
to me as never before just how hefty and dense-packed those
ships were..
Dott.Piergiorgio
> OK William, sub-thread: favourite painting of a ship! Any medium: oil,
> water-paint [more apt!], pastel ....
> My parents had "Fighting Temeraire" over the fireplace throughout my
> childhood.
The works of Rudolf Claudius, painter of the Austro-Hungarian Navy and the
Italian navy, surely the best acquisition from the A-U navy.
Saluti,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Bill
> or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
> it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
> or examples of good/bad technology.
I guess I'll go along with 'Old Ironsides'. A heroic vessel which also
was blessed with some outstanding captains. Could be I have a soft spot
for her due to reading time after time that Landmark book back in the fifties.
Of course, there is always a ship named Enterprise. Be it CV-6 or NCC-1701.
Bill Morlitz
Peter McLelland
"RENABORNEY" <renab...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041107164223...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >
>
> SS: British K (for Katastrophy) class -
> Maoeuverable as a sick blue whale, with too many harches that could be
left
> open upon submerging, they had an unbelievable string of disasters - look
up
> the "Battle of May Island"
>
more accidents, the real problem was the CONOPS that had them built, the
concept of submersible destroyers working with the Grand Fleet was never
going to work, hell even with good U/W comms the concept is very scary, with
none at all, count me out completely.
As to the 'Battle of May Island' that was partly bad luck and partly a
demonstration of the folly of making submarines operate with the fleet. It
in no way shoed that the 'K's were bad boats, just used badly. The result
would probably have been the same with a squadron of destroyers with the
same bad luck and conditions.
Peter
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
>
>Of course, there is always a ship named Enterprise. Be it CV-6 or NCC-1701.
Or, for that matter, H88 ;)
DM
look at)
Least favourite - hmm, this is a toughie, but probably HMS Ocean, possibly
the ugliest warship ever to grace the Royal Navy :-)
DM
Daniel Silevitch
Nah. The early sea-going turret ships with the full sailing rigs (eg HMS
Captain) look worse. They look like someone took a perfectly normal
sailing battleship, cut a big hole all the way through the upper gun deck
and installed a pair of turrets.
-dms
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
DM <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Favourite - Type 21 frigates (vastly underrated IMHO, and quite lovely to
>look at)
Hmm. More of a Leander man myself, though the Counties were pretty.
>Least favourite - hmm, this is a toughie, but probably HMS Ocean, possibly
>the ugliest warship ever to grace the Royal Navy :-)
I submit not: HMS Royal Sovereign (the 1860s version) is probably
the prime contender.
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/hms_royal_sovereign_1857.htm
Effective, potent, technically innovative. And 'orrible to behold.
Malcolm
Favourite would be Battle Class destroyers - but I am biased.
As for OCEAN, I'd agree (and I'm on the OCEAN Association committee!!).
--
Regards
Malcolm
HMS SOLEBAY ASSOCIATION
HTTP://www.solebay.org
Jack Linthicum
> "William Hamblen" <wrha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:R6SdnTsoyb_...@comcast.com...
> > On 2004-11-07, Sarah Hotdesking
> <shart...@MAWAYshartwell.freeserve.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be
> ships
> > > or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified -
> whether
> > > it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on
> looks
> > > or examples of good/bad technology.
> >
> > As far as looks go, nothing beats a sailing man of war, especially the
> > way they look in paintings by Turner.
> >
>
> OK William, sub-thread: favourite painting of a ship! Any medium: oil,
> water-paint [more apt!], pastel ....
> My parents had "Fighting Temeraire" over the fireplace throughout my
> childhood.
>
>
Did the "Manet and the Sea" exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art
in April. (http://www.philamuseum.org/exhibitions/exhibits/manet.shtml)
and (http://www.philamuseum.org/exhibitions/exhibits/manet/home.htm)
It was at the Chicago Art Institute before that, but I don't remember
any date afterwards or find one on the web.
There were other painters of maritime scenes in the exhibit and an
outside gallery of American and European paintings, most of the
ship-to-ship variety.
I would take Manet's Kearsarge vs. Alabama as a gift.
They had Manet, Monet,
Peter McLelland
"Malcolm" <mal...@clarkeassoc.com> wrote in message
news:xJAPnJBE...@clarkeassoc.demon.co.uk...
> In article <cmnq3f$eit$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, DM
> <david....@btinternet.com> writes
> >Favourite - Type 21 frigates (vastly underrated IMHO, and quite lovely to
> >look at)
> >
> >Least favourite - hmm, this is a toughie, but probably HMS Ocean,
possibly
> >the ugliest warship ever to grace the Royal Navy :-)
> >
> >DM
>
> Favourite would be Battle Class destroyers - but I am biased.
>
As for bad lookers the type 15s were pretty grim.
Peter
David McArthur
> news:R6SdnTsoyb_...@comcast.com...
> > On 2004-11-07, Sarah Hotdesking
> <shart...@MAWAYshartwell.freeserve.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be
> ships
> > > or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified -
> whether
> > > it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on
> looks
> > > or examples of good/bad technology.
> >
> > As far as looks go, nothing beats a sailing man of war, especially the
> > way they look in paintings by Turner.
> >
>
> OK William, sub-thread: favourite painting of a ship! Any medium: oil,
> water-paint [more apt!], pastel ....
> My parents had "Fighting Temeraire" over the fireplace throughout my
> childhood.
>
Mmmm a difficult one - no sure, but huge fan of Robery Taylor's naval
and aviation artwork. Had a print of HMS Ark Royal (3?) as a kid.
David
Interested Party
><david....@btinternet.com> writes
>>Favourite - Type 21 frigates (vastly underrated IMHO, and quite lovely to
>>look at)
>>
>>Least favourite - hmm, this is a toughie, but probably HMS Ocean, possibly
>>the ugliest warship ever to grace the Royal Navy :-)
>>
>>DM
>
>Favourite would be Battle Class destroyers - but I am biased.
>
>As for OCEAN, I'd agree (and I'm on the OCEAN Association committee!!).
>
and ugly, the ideal booty carrier.
As a human being the award for the ugliest has to go to the Type 82 HMS
BRISTOL, rarely does the cancellation of a programme do the fleet a favour, but
not even her mother could love her.
As for good looking, I've always had a soft spot for the Arleigh Burkes.
Trev
Arved Sandstrom
message news:cmltr6$72p$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
ships
> or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified -
whether
> it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
> or examples of good/bad technology.
>
>
> (Trying for something on-topic here, especially as I've
subverted/perverted
> too many threads)
Favourites (5 choices):
1. Viking longship - where do I need to start as to its merits? :-) Extreme
length:width ratios (6:1 up to about 11:1), very shallow depth so that they
could beach almost anywhere and raid far up rivers, and high speed. The
longest Viking longship I have heard of was 35 metres long;
2. The Hanseatic cog, not least because it was the forebearer of the next
great line of sailing ships, but because it did its job well;
3. The late 18th c./early 19th c. broadside sailing warships. Again - merits
many, drawbacks few. Merits - sail forever as long as you had wind and
provisions, and they were hard to sink. Demerits - they didn't sail at all
if you had no wind, and they splintered under shot.
4. WW2 corvettes. They did their job, and you could build them like crazy.
Demerits...well, you wouldn't want to live on one in a North Atlantic storm.
5. Clipper ships, fishing schooners etc.
Least favourites (2 choices):
1. Late 19th c./ early 20th c. battleships and battlecruisers. I can't
exactly explain why - they are awesome ships. But I think they were the
product of an out moded mentality.
2. The Canadian MCDV. The idea wasn't bad, in and of itself, but given its
piggish speed, I can't admire it much.
AHS
Andrew Chaplin
> 2. The Canadian MCDV. The idea wasn't bad, in and of itself, but given its
> piggish speed, I can't admire it much.
I believe I have heard them referred to by their hands as "pig boats".
Jack Linthicum
> What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be ships
> or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
> it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
> or examples of good/bad technology.
>
> Over to you .....
>
> (Trying for something on-topic here, especially as I've subverted/perverted
> too many threads)
Least: any DER ever built
Paul J. Adam
<sarah.DOT.hartwell.AT.baesystems.DOT.com@?.?.invalid> writes
>OK William, sub-thread: favourite painting of a ship! Any medium: oil,
>water-paint [more apt!], pastel ....
>My parents had "Fighting Temeraire" over the fireplace throughout my
>childhood.
It's the wallpaper on one of my machines at work...
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Graeme Wall
"Sarah Hotdesking" <shart...@MAWAYshartwell.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be ships
> or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
> it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
> or examples of good/bad technology.
>
Least favourite has to HMS Captain, a total disaster of a ship that should
never have been built, least of all by a Navy with more appreciation of
sea-keeping qualities than any other at the time.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Jack Linthicum
minor point the Hunley was never bought by the Confederacy and never
commissioned, therefore the H.L. Hunley has a place in history as the
first submersible to sink an enemy vessel and, probably, the first
last and only privateer submarine.
Jeff Crowell
> What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels?
Seems like there ought to be room for a clever comment about women in there
(as mosts ***and*** leasts), especially given the wondererfully lusty nature
of the Stimulator of this thread, but pre-coffee on a Friday I just ain't up
to the challenge...
Favorites:
Fletcher-class DD - The ultimate all-purpose warship, excellent
combination of speed and hitting power. I admit to having a
weakness for destroyers in general, having been a tincan sailor
myself. But leave the salt shakers on their sides at all times
while underway, and eat your soup as fast as you can manage...
Essex-class CV - The ships that won a war. Not particularly
armored, but able to take a licking (and give one!) and still
make it home. (Almost) endlessly mutable, look at how they
were modified over the years.
Iowa BBs - They just look "cool" however you define it. I was
privileged to operate with one of 'em briefly in the 80s, watching
a fire demo remains to this day one of the most awe-inspiring
experiences of my life.
The Tea Clippers - In person or in paintings, IMO the most
romantic of the sailing ships. Running her Easting down,
stuns'ls and moons'ls flying...
Leasts:
Dreadnoughts of any flag - damn ugly ships, slow, etc. Yeah,
I know they were revolutionary.
Jeff
Sarah Hotdesking
news:cn2lph$8jh$1...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com...
> Sarah Hotdesking wrote:
> > What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels?
>
> Seems like there ought to be room for a clever comment about women in
there
> (as mosts ***and*** leasts), especially given the wondererfully lusty
nature
> of the Stimulator of this thread, but pre-coffee on a Friday I just ain't
up
> to the challenge...
>
> The Tea Clippers - In person or in paintings, IMO the most
> romantic of the sailing ships. Running her Easting down,
> stuns'ls and moons'ls flying...
Mmmm. Have to agree with you there.
--
Sarah H
http://www.messybeast.com
http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/folder404/firstamendment404.htm
USA Patriot Act - First Amendment Not Found
Arved Sandstrom
> "Jeff Crowell" <jeffDOT...@hp.com> wrote in message
> news:cn2lph$8jh$1...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com...
> > Sarah Hotdesking wrote:
> > > What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels?
> >
> > Seems like there ought to be room for a clever comment about women in
> there
> > (as mosts ***and*** leasts), especially given the wondererfully lusty
> nature
> > of the Stimulator of this thread, but pre-coffee on a Friday I just
ain't
> up
> > to the challenge...
> >
> Alas, few men are up to the challenge these days .....
Show up in this particular part of Nova Scotia, most mornings, and after a
hearty meal of fish & brewis, washed down with some strong tea, we'll tackle
(naval content) the challenge.
> > The Tea Clippers - In person or in paintings, IMO the most
> > romantic of the sailing ships. Running her Easting down,
> > stuns'ls and moons'ls flying...
>
> Mmmm. Have to agree with you there.
As I said in my original reply - the clippers and fishing schooners are some
of my favourite ships.
AHS
Sarah Hotdesking
news:x_dld.160475$9b.103938@edtnps84...
> "Sarah Hotdesking" <shart...@MAWAYshartwell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:cn33g0$63v$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "Jeff Crowell" <jeffDOT...@hp.com> wrote in message
> > news:cn2lph$8jh$1...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com...
> > > Sarah Hotdesking wrote:
> > > > What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels?
> > >
> > > Seems like there ought to be room for a clever comment about women in
> > there
> > > (as mosts ***and*** leasts), especially given the wondererfully lusty
> > nature
> > > of the Stimulator of this thread, but pre-coffee on a Friday I just
> ain't
> > up
> > > to the challenge...
> > >
> > Alas, few men are up to the challenge these days .....
>
> Show up in this particular part of Nova Scotia, most mornings, and after a
> hearty meal of fish & brewis, washed down with some strong tea, we'll
tackle
> (naval content) the challenge.
Sounds good to me ....
> > > The Tea Clippers - In person or in paintings, IMO the most
> > > romantic of the sailing ships. Running her Easting down,
> > > stuns'ls and moons'ls flying...
> >
> As I said in my original reply - the clippers and fishing schooners are
some
> of my favourite ships.
They do have a certain romance and are very picturesque. Modern ships may
be faster, more efficient and safer, but we've lost something of the romance
of the sea. Probably there will be plenty to disagree with me on that point
especially on exactly how much romance is involved in manning them.
Jack Linthicum
The second paragraph explains why there is a Pride II, the romantic
Pride I got caught up in a sudden squall and lost nearly half of her
crew, including the captain.
http://www.intandem.com/NewPrideSite/Pride2/P2Home.html
Pride of Baltimore II
Whether making harbor in a new port of call half way around the world
or returning home to her berth in the Inner Harbor, Pride of Baltimore
II grabs attention! Whether blasting off her shipboard cannons or
skimming majestically over the waves with all sails aloft, Pride II
makes a proud statement about her sponsors and her colorful maritime
history. As the Goodwill Ambassador of the State of Maryland and the
Port of Baltimore, Pride II represents the business, tourism, and
educational interests of the state with unmistakable flair and
panache.
Pride of Baltimore II was commissioned in 1988 as a sailing memorial
to her immediate predecessor, the original Pride of Baltimore, which
was tragically sunk by a white squall off Puerto Rico in 1986, taking
her captain and three crew members down with her. Both ships were
built in the Inner Harbor as replicas of 1812-era topsail schooners,
the type of vessels, called Baltimore Clippers, that helped America
win the War of 1812 and finally secure its freedom.
Since her commissioning, Pride II has sailed nearly 200,000 miles, and
visited over 200 ports in 40 countries in North, South, and Central
America, Europe, and Asia. In 1998 she undertook her first voyage to
Asia with port calls in China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. In 2000
she made her fourth trip to Europe capturing First Place in her Class
in a Transatlantic Tall Ship race. With her sharply raked masts, her
abundance of sail, and her sleek profile, Pride of Baltimore II
captures the imagination and makes friends for Baltimore and Maryland
wherever she goes. She is indeed a memorable Goodwill Ambassador.
http://www.sailbaltimore.org/baltships.htm
Pride of Baltimore II
The first Pride of Baltimore was built in 1977-79. During nine years
at sea, between her maiden voyage to Bermuda, New York, and Nova
Scotia in 1979 to her final European voyage in 1986, the Pride of
Baltimore logged over 150,000 miles, equal to six times around the
globe. In May 1986, she was struck and sunk by a violent squall north
of Puerto Rico. She capsized in 80 mile per hour winds that developed
suddenly and with no warning. It happened so quickly that there had
been no time to radio for help. Eight crew members climbed into a five
by five foot rubber life raft where they floated helpless for four
days and seven hours with little food or water. The captain and three
crew members were missing and presumed dead.
Alan Minyard
>
>"Sarah Hotdesking" <shart...@MAWAYshartwell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>message news:cmltr6$72p$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be
>> ships
>> or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified -
>> whether
>> it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
>> or examples of good/bad technology.
>>
>> Over to you .....
>>
Nimitz class CVNs. The most powerful ships in the world for conventional warfare. It is
hard to argue with their success.
Al Minyard
Peter Kemp
<shart...@MAWAYshartwell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>What are your favo(u)rite and least favo(u)rite vessels? They can be ships
>or subs, modern or historical, but your choices must be justified - whether
>it is personal reminiscences or based on merits/drawback or based on looks
>or examples of good/bad technology.
>
>Over to you .....
>
Naval favourite is Probably HMS Warspite. In addition to being a
feasome looking ship, she had a tremendous record, and on occasion, a
mind of her own.
Non naval, I fell in love with Sandbaggers the first time I saw one.
If you're not familiar with these small racing yachts (more like
dinghies really), imagine a small wooden vessel, with far more sail
area than seems practical - now double the area of sail.
Or, if your imagination isn't up to it, go to
http://www.myc.org/Newsletters/1999/p990720.htm
which has a few photos of some sandbaggers (the name comes from the
way they avoided capsizing - the crew would lug huge bags of sand from
one side to the other as ballast during a race.
Also
http://www.phillyseaport.org/workshop/Bull/Bull%20and%20the%20Philly%20skyline.jpg
http://www.phillyseaport.org/workshop/Bull/Bull%20on%20the%20Delaware%20.jpg
--
Peter Kemp
"Life is short...drink faster"
Nicholas Smid
"Peter McLelland" <peter.m...@nospambae.com> wrote in message
news:418f5388$1...@baen1673807.greenlnk.net...
them as handling like a cruiser but with the pilotage facilities of a packet
boat. Other problems were in a stern sea they soon got pooped and water
coming down the air intakes put the fires out, opps, a fine discription of a
group of them coming into port with a flagship, flagship ordered x knots,
the seas from behind were doing x+ knots, one captain had the nerve to clap
on full speed, overtake the flag and got into port, the rest were pooped,
fires out and they had to dive, since elctric motors weren't enough on the
serface. Then there were the open bottom fuel tanks so in a seaway you soon
had a nice emultion of oil and water going into the boilers, fires out soon
after. They might have been the best oil fired subs but that is damning with
faint prace.
> Peter
>
>
Peter McLelland
"Nicholas Smid" <smi...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:41ae84fb$1...@clear.net.nz...
was always a problem for conventional submarines, foe example it caused
problems on boats running on surface mufflers, so all pre snort boats had to
be careful about course in rough weather. The fuel water problem was common
for many boats as most used 'open to sea' tanks to avoid the weight problems
associated with full diving pressure closed tanks. It was only solved by the
centrifuge water separator.
Peter