| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| dave |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 7:34:22 PM
DC, this is a composite reply to the points you raised about HMS Trusty.
Firstly, with my limited resources I'm doing my best to provide an accurate reply, but I really don't have access to all the information I'd really like. So if you don't find this particularly satisfactory, neither do I, but its all I can offer.
According to Conways "Steam, Steel and Shellfire" : The Steam Warship 1815 - 1905.
"The value of the turret itself was in little doubt and a prototype carrying a single gun was built and fitted to the armoured battery Trusty in 1861. During trials it was shown that the turret mounting could fire 12 rounds in 6 minutes 5 seconds, nearly twice as fast as a similar gun on the broadside. The turret was then fired on and hit by 29 rounds from 68 pdrs and 100 pdrs but was still able to train freely.
The Admiralty saw the next step as a coastal defence vessel and Prince Albert was designed by Watts and ordered in February 1862 to carry four 9in MLR (Muzzle Loading Rifles) in single turrets with a 4.5 in belt on a draught of 20ft. The turret was trained by hand, eighteen men being able to complete a revolution in a minute but these men were out of sight of the turret officer and control was difficult."
So that should answer one question, rotation by hand cranking. To answer the rest of your questions I've located a usenet posting by Dr Andrew Breen of the University of Wales. Dr Breen while not a history lecturer is nevertheless a keen enthusiast of ironclads. In any event judge for yourself whether you consider him authorative or not, his webpage is at
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
On the Trusty, Dr Breen wrote
"She had all round fire from the single cupola (Coles called a revolving mount with sloping sides a cupola, a mount with vertical sides a turret) - from the drawings the cupola was mounted on the roof of the original battery. As built she had a light rig, but this was removed for the cupola trials. I have no idea whether she was later rigged again, but RN doctrine of the time viewed the batteries as land attack ships, with Cherbourg being the prime target, and some minimal sail rig would at least help steady the armoured ships during the channel crossing (of course an unrigged ship could be towed, which was common USN practice with monitors).
I doubt if _trusty_ would have done more than run trials without sails. The admiralty regarded unriggd single-screw ships as "obnoxious", and the introduction of unrigged warships into the fleet matched exactly the introduction of twin-screw ships (both in HMS _Staunch_, in 1867). Come to that, the Admiralty didn't like the idea of a single-turret ship either: _Trusty_, in converted form, really was just intended for trials of the gun mounting - but she was capable of service and should be remembered as the first turret-gun ship"
Ah well. I was wrong about the Trusty being twin screw.
Regarding your comment about 360 deg coverage. Not all turret ships had this. Turret ships having a restricted arc of fire include HMS Wyvern, Scorpion, Monarch and Captain. Thats not an all inclusive list, there were others. Some of these turret ships can be seen at
http://www.colonialwargames.org.uk/Miscellany/Warships/Ironclads/EIroncladsRNImages.htm
http://www.klaus-kramer.de/Schiff/Panzerschiffe/Panzerschiffe_1/Panzerschiffe_1_engl_top.html
Just to add a couple of closing comments. From Conways, the class to which the Trusty belonged were flat bottomed (hence the reference to them being rafts) with bluff extremities. Armour was bolted to the hull with tongue and groove joints. They are described as being hard to steer, making slow progress under steam (one battery of the class had a top speed of 4.5 knots under steam). They employed a temporary rig for overseas voyages, but apparently had to towed frequently (in this they were no different to the Monitor however).
Despite being built for the Crimean war they saw no action, arriving 3 days too late to see action in the battle of Kinburn. One of the Trusty's sisters was later sent to Bermuda in order to deter any attempt by the North to occupy the island during the Civil War.
A profile picture in Conways of the HMS Terror (the battery sent to Bermuda) shows a single gun deck (broadside that is) sloop like vessel, with 3 masts, bowspirit and central smoke stack. |
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| wILD I |
Posted - September 01 2005 : 3:51:08 PM
This debate is about whether Trusty and Warrior are on the same evolutionary branch as the USS Monitor. That's all. I claim they are not. You both say they are.
Not at all DC I only posted some points of information on gun turrets.Personally I feel that the USS Monitor had more in common with the USS Holland than either Trusty and Warrior.But probably it was the Suez Canal which had the greatest influence on early battleship design.
and again it is a Big Book of pictures which no doubt isn't published beyond the Gutenberg hand set press and hand coloring of his island.Of course DC in common with all Yanks wants his information like his food, fast, simple and pre-digested.The world according to Google and MacDonalds.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 01 2005 : 2:17:35 PM
This debate is about whether Trusty and Warrior are on the same evolutionary branch as the USS Monitor. That's all. I claim they are not. You both say they are.
You've both managed to equate field of fire with the ability of the turret to turn 360 degrees, which the USS Monitor's could. Being able to turn that much doesn't mean you can fire at each degree, although I claim it for the Monitor. I haven't read the USS Monitor couldn't fire over its boilers or over the pilot house. They might well have chosen not to do the latter because it would deafen the pilot, who got wounded anyway. Regarding the Danish ship, I refuse to believe that three wounded prevented the Coles turret from being operated if not physically damaged, and forcing the ship's retreat. We don't know what happened, but you were claiming superiority for the Cole design, and the evidence provided doesn't suggest superiority.
Wild again has no url or page reference for his source, and again it is a Big Book of pictures which no doubt isn't published beyond the Gutenberg hand set press and hand coloring of his island. The portion I read of what Dave provided regarding monitor from a cw forum I read yesterday word for word at another site. Somebody's cribbing. In any event, if we're talking field of fire, and the painting is of the Trusty (anyone have another graphic if that's wrong?), the Trusty looks to have had a forecastle and quarterdeck and masts and whatever and did not have anything approaching the Monitor's field of fire, even if if the Monitor could not fire over its small pilot house or, less likely, over its boilers. But the Peruvian ship, built later, physically could not.
The Erickson turret, which Dave claimed without reference was known to jam, seemed to survive in the examples he provided as well or better than the Coles' turrets presented, even though they were later. You ask what would be the point of a turret without the ability to turn 360 degress? Well, if it's to be placed in a ship where you can only fire broadsides and neither straight ahead or back, that could save you track and weight, perhaps. Those ship designs make no sense to me anyway, and the dual turret with conning tower between seems the logical advance, not the turret on Viking longboat, African river steamer, ugly slave ship designs of these other offerings. I don't know what the criteria would be to compare the success of the two turret designs, but the evidence presented doesn't seem to favor the Cole, particularly.
But again, this is all after the USS Monitor, which was the polaroid all advance worked from then on. |
| dave |
Posted - August 31 2005 : 7:47:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I'd feel better if there was a source for that missing 10 degrees. Or is it an assumption?
I'm always happy to oblige when I know I'm right.
http://www.mmcwrt.org/2004/default0407.htm
quote:
In any case, the turret was steam powered and able to turn360 degrees. Trusty's? You've both called me wrong, disagree with each other, and neither of you offers a source. The one I provided claims two revolutions per minute, if true.
I personally have no idea. Maybe Wild has a source, because I don't. But unless you have a solid reason, why believe that the Trusty's turret was capable of less than 360 degrees of rotation. It really, really defeats the purpose of having a turret, doesn't it.
quote:
Second, you blend the Trusty's turret with that which came after. We're talking about what preceded the Monitor.
Because the later ships also had Coles turrets. Just like later monitors had Erricson turrets.
quote:
The Trusty's turret, hand powered, did not have the field of fire.
I've provided URL's, quotes from Conways, why don't you start putting up references for your allegations.
quote:
I don't believe it had the ability to contain the same size weapons, although clearly the later turrets did. Did it?
I have no idea, I simply assume that you are right, and that was the reason behind using a breech loading cannon, the Monitor of course was able to use muzzle loaders. But I really don't see what this has to do with anything.
quote:
Given the slamming Virginia gave the Monitor's turret, it seems to have held up well.
Yes, exceptionally well. They did a great job with the armour.
quote:
Third, were there no differences or upgrades to the newer Cole turrets from the Trusty's?
Of course there were upgrades. Constant upgrades. Some of the later turrets were steam powered. Hand cranked turrets remained current in new ships until the mid 1870's however.
quote:
And what comparison is available between the frequently hit Monitor types and great naval battles that featured the navies of Denmark, Peru, and Italy using the "Cole type" turret? The Danish ship had a turret knocked out right out in its first battle. With three wounded? I'd hope not.
Even one of the monitors crew was injured during the battle. At least one monitor was pounded apart by gunfire. And the crew of another suffered injuries from bolts popping out of the turret walls as they were being hit by heavier shot. As to the Rolf Krake, we had no idea whether the turret was penetrated, or if the missile entered fully or partially by the gun port.
quote:
The Peruvian ship fought a lot it reads as if. Great design, if it didn't have to shoot forward, back, into the masts......... Unclear if hit a lot till the last battle from this url.
The Cerberus sounds and looks like a larger Monitor. Was it ever in combat?
Of course not. We (Australia) weren't at war until the such time as the Cerberus was a floating relic.
quote:
Regardless, it's what preceded the Monitor of interest, and that's the Trusy's turret, of which I have no information other than it existed and was tested, perhaps before the Monitor saw action.
The date of testing was 1861, but I'll provide a quote from Conway's when I have time. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 31 2005 : 5:23:14 PM
Wrong as far as I'm aware. The only monitors which would have had a 200 degree arc of fire would have been the Ead's side paddle monitors. To the best of my knowledge the Monitor had a 340 - 350 degree field of fire, the only fire shadow coming from an armoured pilots lookout.
Hi Dave
Thanks for the confirmation of the points re monitor's turret.My understanding is that the gun could not be fired within 30 degrees of the bow or 50 of the stern I'm taking that to mean 160 degrees in total[2 sides of bow and stern].Reason blast damage to coning tower and boilers.My source is WARRIOR TO DREADNOUGHT by DK Brown.
They thought they were in port, as you say, so how were they not surprised?
They knew they were coming out so the surprise was in location.They expected to see them but not so soon.If you like a tactical surprise not a strategic surprise.
Yes, the air fleet had lots of coded teleprinters in the cockpit.So you think that instructions were issued to the air fleet while in the air in english and uncoded?
So, if only Squadron Admirals had these new fangled contraptions, how was the battle conducted, do you think? By flag
and light........
Strategic moves between different squadrons by radio, local signals by radio confirmed by flag.
Given the slamming Virginia gave the Monitor's turret, it seems to have held up well.Virginia fired only shells ineffective against armour and it should be noted that the Monitor's turret allowed firing only in calm waters.It is even suggested that the turret because it pierced the deck caused flooding which contributed to her sinking.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 31 2005 : 1:58:13 PM
I'd feel better if there was a source for that missing 10 degrees. Or is it an assumption? In any case, the turret was steam powered and able to turn360 degrees. Trusty's? You've both called me wrong, disagree with each other, and neither of you offers a source. The one I provided claims two revolutions per minute, if true.
Second, you blend the Trusty's turret with that which came after. We're talking about what preceded the Monitor. The Trusty's turret, hand powered, did not have the field of fire. I don't believe it had the ability to contain the same size weapons, although clearly the later turrets did. Did it? Given the slamming Virginia gave the Monitor's turret, it seems to have held up well.
Third, were there no differences or upgrades to the newer Cole turrets from the Trusty's? And what comparison is available between the frequently hit Monitor types and great naval battles that featured the navies of Denmark, Peru, and Italy using the "Cole type" turret? The Danish ship had a turret knocked out right out in its first battle. With three wounded? I'd hope not.
ROLF KRAKE ceased fire after expending only 72 rounds, and retired from the scene after sustaining her first combat casualties - three wounded, including a turret commander.
It's not known whether the wounding of the turret commander of one of ROLF KRAKE's two turrets, thereby possibly depriving the turret crew of leadership and direction and thus perhaps incapacitating this turret - which comprised ½ of the ROLF KRAKE's main armament - played a part in the Danish captain's decision to break off the action. Gee, if the armor wasn't breached, and the Monitor's guys managed to perform under fire.
The Peruvian ship fought a lot it reads as if. Great design, if it didn't have to shoot forward, back, into the masts......... Unclear if hit a lot till the last battle from this url.
The Cerberus sounds and looks like a larger Monitor. Was it ever in combat?
Regardless, it's what preceded the Monitor of interest, and that's the Trusy's turret, of which I have no information other than it existed and was tested, perhaps before the Monitor saw action.
|
| dave |
Posted - August 31 2005 : 06:04:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
6. I find reference that it could make two complete turns in one minute. What is your reference for 200 degrees and, for that matter, everything else you contend? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/monitor/tour02.html
Since Wild has beaten me to the punch on one issue, I'll answer.
The Monitor's turret was only operational through 200 degrees.
Wrong as far as I'm aware. The only monitors which would have had a 200 degree arc of fire would have been the Ead's side paddle monitors. To the best of my knowledge the Monitor had a 340 - 350 degree field of fire, the only fire shadow coming from an armoured pilots lookout.
It was also prone to jamming and unlike the Trusty's turret was not ready for action at all times.
This is true. The Ericsson turret was a jack up type. The entire turret being lifted a couple of inches or so clear of the deck and then being dropped back to the deck when in position. To hoist and then rotate the turret (which weighed 120 tonnes) a good deal of steam power was required. So if the monitor did not have a good head of steam up, as was the case when it was being towed or sitting idle at station, then the turret couldn't be rotated.
Ericsson style turrets were prone to being jammed from shell fire damage, although this is true of the Coles type albiet to a lesser degree.
This "inferior " turret was fitted to naval ships of Denmark,Peru,and Italy.
Denmark - Rolf Krake
http://www.milhist.dk/weapons/rolf_krake/rolf_krake.htm
Peru - Huascar
http://members.lycos.co.uk/Juan39/THE_HUASCAR.html
Italy - ???
Australia - Cerberus
http://www.cerberus.com.au/
Also
Confederate States of America - The Laird Ram's (never delivered)
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/uk/uksh-w/wivern.htm |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 30 2005 : 7:06:48 PM
Wild,
1. Of course. I'm gracious. The non Celtic portion of my blood.
2. No. The Brits were surprised to run into the High Seas Fleet. They thought they were in port, as you say, so how were they not surprised? Beatty claimed as much. You previously claimed that the Brits "Pinpointed" the German fleet, but neither Jellicoe nor Beatty knew they were at sea till Beatty ran into them? Meld your various stories and quote a source, Wild. Beatty's flag officer wasn't solely responsible.
3. You see above.
4. Yes, the air fleet had lots of coded teleprinters in the cockpit.
5. So, if only Squadron Admirals had these new fangled contraptions, how was the battle conducted, do you think? By flag and light........
6. I find reference that it could make two complete turns in one minute. What is your reference for 200 degrees and, for that matter, everything else you contend? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/monitor/tour02.html |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 30 2005 : 2:15:23 PM
Okay. Setting aside whether radio and wireless telegraph are the same thing, I admit there were radio waves used at the battle of Jutland for telegraph.
Well done.
It often had to be relayed by land based units, and it didn't prevent anyone from being surprised.
Oops wrong yet again.
The Brit fleet were at sea before the High Seas fleet because of wireless intercepts.So the Brits were not surprised to encounter a strong force of Germans.They were surprised however to encounter them so soon because after they had put to sea some intelligence officer made a mistake and sent a message saying the Germans were still in port.But the main thing to understand is that because of wireless the Brit fleet did not fall into the German ambush in fact the tables were turned with Scheer being lured onto Jellicoe's guns.
How come Beatty didn't know the German Fleet was at sea if radio was a factor.
See above.
, and Leyte was pretty much defined by the presence of voice radioWrong yet again DC.Admirals did not relay orders by voice radio .I think you mean teleprinter with codes.
Did they have them at Jutland? Doesn't sound like it.
There was only need for squadron admirals to use wireless to receive and send orders and reports.
and the Trusty's turret was so inferior it doesn't seem in the same league at all.
The Monitor's turret was only operational through 200 degrees.It was also prone to jamming and unlike the Trusty's turret was not ready for action at all times.This "inferior " turret was fitted to naval ships of Denmark,Peru,and Italy.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 6:39:21 PM
1. Okay. Setting aside whether radio and wireless telegraph are the same thing, I admit there were radio waves used at the battle of Jutland for telegraph. It often had to be relayed by land based units, and it didn't prevent anyone from being surprised. That wasn't my point to Heavy Runner, because the difference between Tushima, Jutland, and Leyte was pretty much defined by the presence of voice radio and radar at Leyte and their lack of existence and importance at the other two, which were in turn distinguished by gun ranges. For example: http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/jutland2.htm How come Beatty didn't know the German Fleet was at sea if radio was a factor. You previously claim the British had intercepted communications and "pinpointed" the German fleet. Yet they didn't notify Beatty who was surprised running into Scheer while chasing Hipper. Huh. And Scheer didn't know the Grand Fleet was at sea at all. How come, do you think? If radio was a factor in any meaningful sense?
2. Yes, yes. Did they have them at Jutland? Doesn't sound like it. They apparently didn't have them for the Titanic who had to periodically ask these other ships to shut up. In any case, apparently not used or relied on.
3. I don't know how Jellicoe found out. Relayed message do you think?
4. You said Crossing the T was the STANDARD practice of naval warfare in the time of Nelson, fleshed out by deliberately confusing it with breaking the line, something else entirely. Togo crossed the T, first to do so, and it was done twice at Jutland and once at Leyte Gulf. That's it. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 3:33:21 PM
At Jutland, at high latitude dusk with coal smoke from hundreds of ships, no radar or radio, or anything but bad flag or light communication
The presence of radio at Jutland is the issue not the apperatus by which signals were exchanged.And you concede you were wrong by now posting Yes, I said some ships had radio-telegraph, others did not.So lets end this discussion by agreeing that radio was in fact present and used [limited or otherwise at Jutland]
Now this other issue of the battle not being conducted by radio.Well you did state that flag and light signalling were bad and if you consider the following ---
I want to note three recent studies of Jutland by British historians: V. E. Tarrant's Jutland: The German Perspective:
Tarrant chronicles the proceedings of May 31-June 1 as they appeared to the Germans at the time and later, quoting extensively from the official German history published in 1925, the memoirs of Tirpitz and Scheer, and other German accounts. While it remains essentially a British view of Jutland, with the German reports used to provide not so much an alternative vantage point for the narrative as an additional dimension, it enables the reader to get a sense of the battle as involving opposing strategies and tactics. Not the least interesting feature of the book is a summary of the more important German wireless messages and signals in sequence.
So without going into too much research there seems to be evidence that the Germans as well as the british used radio to communicate during the battle.
Now imagine 250 ships, many sinking or hurt or needing aid sending out similar messages in a relatively small area.
No DC that's you applying your civilian intellect to a naval/military problem.They have systems and disciplines for this kind of thing.Believe me I worked in the company office.
The battle was conducted by flag and light
How did Jellicoe get news of Beatty's encounter with Hipper when he was at least 3 hours behind Beatty.
You can't say it couldn't be done because it was.
Never denied it only pointed out that it ranked somewhere between getting your opponent silhouetted against the western sky and getting him to paint his funnels a bright yellow [acomplished by Togo]
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 1:14:02 PM
Wild,
1. Yes, I said some ships had radio-telegraph, others did not. You have an example here of one who did. The battle was not conducted by radio, Wild. Imagine 250 ships on various frequencies deciphering Morse or whatever code, easy to jam by intent or mistake. You cannot tell the source of the beeps, that requires the sender to ID itself. The battle was conducted by flag and, sometimes, light signals.
2. That's correct.
3. It is typical. One ship sinking, sending off a gazillion messages but managed to be way off in it's stated position. Now imagine 250 ships, many sinking or hurt or needing aid sending out similar messages in a relatively small area. Sound confusing? What could anyone make of that gibberish in a battle? The battle was conducted by flag and light.
4. My opinion, and very much the issue here. It wasn't trusted for reason.
5. Neither Boulder nor Denver Library has it. Still, if it were an accepted and famous manuever, it would show up outside that one book. Besides, you've been caught in self-serving fabrications before, so it's the penalty you pay.
6. Well, you need to argue with Togo, Jellicoe, and whoever the US battleship commander was (Lee?) at Surigao Strait/Leyte Gulf. You're arguing as if it were theory and never done. It was done four times, with a powered fleet and long range guns. You can't say it couldn't be done because it was.
David,
1. You had inquired if I knew that the British predated the Monitor with turretted ships, and later asked me what ground breaking innovations the Monitor had over the Trusty. With the exception of the Trusty, the other turreted British ships lived on the page previous to Monitor, and the Trusty's turret was so inferior it doesn't seem in the same league at all.
2. Then I don't get how you can question the Monitor's groundbreaking innovations over the Trusty. The Brits may have had the notion long before, but they didn't build it.
3. That 360 degree strikes me as a huge innovation right there.
4. I provided a quote saying they were not built previous to the Monitor. To repeat: "Many credit John Ericsson with the introduction of the turret with his design for the USS Monitor of 1862 and the monitor was indeed the first ship actually built with this feature but others had the same idea, long before the Monitor was ever started. Captain Cowper Coles of the Royal Navy had designed an armored battery which had a turret for use in the Crimean War in 1855 and in 1859 prepared a design which featured eight twin gun turrets on centerline with two twin gun turrets abreast at the bow. Neither of these designs were built but in 1861 the Royal Navy did place a revolving turret on the floating battery, Trusty, in order to test the idea of the turret." That means only months previous to the Monitor that sole afterthought of a hand-cranked turret is the only argument Monitor wasn't the first. By field of fire, labor intensity, and size of the gun suite, I'd think it far advanced. That's what I'm talking about.
5. Nothing above water that didn't need to be, no fancy wood work. The Virginia, I believe, actually had made provisions for a mast.
6. They didn't build Coles' designs, did they? As for Leonardo, a parachute isn't a plane, or a winged human. For that matter, you could possibly use a buffalo robe for a succesful parachute, but you know, nobody credits Leonardo with the first parachute either. I hope. I'm not looking it up but taking a principled stand.
7. The Great Eastern was before the Gloire, wasn't it? Other commercial vessels? Showing the way to huge iron warships? And the Monitor did pioneer all those things in one package built in four months with a steam turret. That it wasn't the first in each or any is true, but it was an entire commitment forward. The Trusty was still a look back with new trinkets. |
| dave |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 09:15:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
This from a previous post of yours:
So?
The Trusty was steam powered, with twin screws. It was armoured - 4 inches of iron backed by 6 inches of teak. It also had a traversible turret. So technically what really ground breaking innovations did the Monitor offer over the Trusty?"
If that painting is of the Trusty in question, and apparently it is,
When I congratulated you on doing your homework that was regard to finding the reference to Captain Coles who was the driving force behind the early adoption of the turret in the Royal Navy. I wasn't congratulating you on finding a picture of an 18th century man-o-war.
If you want to have a rough approximation of what the Trusty looked like then take a look at the following URL.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-g/galena.htm
The USS Galena seems to fit the general description of the Trusty, similar displacement, appearance etc. Its possible that the Galena may have been based on the British floating batteries (or of course it may be simple co-incidence). The picture of the side of Galena would fit a reference that the British ironclads possessed a glacis (sloped side to deflect cannon balls). The turret would have probably slotted in behind the smoke stack (which seems to have been positioned a little closer to the front in the Trusty). For the installation of the turret the masts would have been taken half down as you see on the Galena.
quote:
and if our combined references are correct, than the Monitor was full of innovations over the Trusty.
Absolutely. Theres no doubt that the Monitor was chock full of innovations. That there were 17 patents on the Monitors systems tells me that without even having to do any research.
quote:
The Trusty's turret was nailed on as an afterthought for testing at some point, and I don't see the 360 degree clear fire you do, given those masts and all.
So what, even the Passaic class monitors didn't have a full 360 deg arc of fire.
quote:
I further don't think I can agree that a hand cranked turret (for a gun suite decidedly smaller than the Monitor's it sure sounds like)is more than notionally similar.
Of course not. And the Ericsson turret mounted on the Monitor was no more than notionally similar to the Ead's turret. And all three, Ead's, Coles and Ericsson's turret are no more than notionally similar to the modern turret.
The later Coles turret mounted guns as large (and larger) then the Monitors.
quote:
These other great turetted ships of the Brits of the time seem to have lived and died on the page and were never built.
???
What on earth are you talking about?
quote:
To credit that and the Trusty as functional predecessor to the Monitor I think rather iffy, like crediting Leonardo with invention of the airplane because of those drawings. He visualized something similar but it wouldn't have worked and he couldn't build one.
The Trusty obviously worked, or the British Admiralty wouldn't have ordered the Royal Sovereign based on the successful conclusion of the trial.
As an aside, an Englishman tested a parachute based on Leonardo's design, and contructed using 15th century tools, techniques and materials and it worked just fine.
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/808246.stm
quote:
If nothing else, just denying masts the Navy Department wanted - and Trusty had - was a major break with tradition in the Monitor.
Yes, certainly revolutionary, although even then the Monitor was pipped at the post by the Virginia.
quote:
Then, looking ahead to Fisher, the all big gun mentality with steam powered turrets that worked well, first time. A ship cleverly designed for combat from the keel up with none of the crap that burned and splintered.
The hull was still wood which splittered and burnt. But yes, it was an exceedingly clever design.
quote:
It was a coffin if the swell broke three inches but four months, start to launch, achieving its goal (nullifying Virginia, and just in time)and pointing the way to the modern navies.
Oh, the Monitors weren't quite that bad (its alright, I do recognise theatrical exaggeration). One of the Civil War monitors was towed down to Peru after the end of the war. And of course the USS Miantonomoh crossed the Atlantic in 1866.
quote:
Whatever Trusty was with her attractive new turret, I don't think anyone looked at her and sighed "pointing the way" to her. At least, pointing the way forward.
You don't see the Rodney and Yamato in utero in Trusty, but you SURELY do in the Monitor. These were dead ends on the evolutionary tree.
I can see Monitor in modern warships. But I can also see the Warrior (or more correctly the Gloire). It was the Gloire which broke the mold, and revolutionised naval warfare by ensuring that iron and steel in place of wood which had been used for 30 centuries or more, would be the dominant construction materials of the future.
The Monitor despite being full of technological breakthroughs did not pioneer the adoption of iron armour, or the adoption of breech loading cannon, turrets, steam power or the screw propellor. With or without the Monitor all these technologies were going to be the future. At the time of the commissioning of the Monitor, all had been trialled or were already seeing widespread use. This is the reason why I mentioned the Trusty. Not that it was brilliant or advanced design. But simply the fact that all these technologies were already present in the Trusty, and it was simply going to be a matter of time before these innovations spread through the worlds navies. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 28 2005 : 2:33:21 PM
No error, Wild. The battle was conducted without radio.
DC the following is just one passage taken from Beattys offical report on the battle.Hope it helps.
At 6.16 p.m. Defense and Warrior were observed passing down between the British and German Battle Fleets under a very heavy fire. Defense was seen to blow up and Warrior passed to the rear disabled. It is probable that Sir Robert Arbuthnot, during his engagement with the enemy's light cruisers and in his desire to complete their destruction, was not aware of the approach of the enemy's heavy ships, owing to the mist, until he found himself in close proximity to the main fleet, and before he could withdraw his ships they were caught under a heavy fire and disabled. It is not known when Black Prince, of the same squadron, was sunk, but as a wireless signal was received from her between 8 and 9 p.m. reporting the position of a submarine, it is possible that her loss was the result of a torpedo attack. There is much strong evidence of the presence of a large number of enemy submarines in the vicinity of the scene of the action.
And why do you think the California and the others did not?
Well the California did hear the Titanic but its radio was not manned [I think]
In the event, the position info given was wrong,
This is so typical of you DC.Put everything on make as much smoke as possible.What in God's name has a navavation error got to do with the use of radio at sea?
Radio was not trusted back then, and with reason.
Your opinion and not the issue here.
It's easy, Wild. Just list a source where we may find reference to Lord Howe's Manuever.
Epic Sea Battles [for big boys vol 2]
which is why Crossing the T was never a big deal till the steam fleet with long range guns
And at 15000 yards it was impossible to tell what bearing the opposing fleet was on and with 100 and 1 other strategic considerations if it happened at all it was by luck or mistake. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - August 28 2005 : 1:38:03 PM
Some first person accounts of the Glorious 1st of June can be found here:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/personal/stewart/war/
Later,
Billy |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 27 2005 : 5:43:58 PM
1. No error, Wild. The battle was conducted without radio. No radar. No radio. There would not have been all those surprises if either fleet was in radio contact with the land, would there? Most ships DID NOT HAVE radio. If they did, Neither Jellicoe nor Scheer would have been surprised. Proof. You also said radio "pinpointed" the German Navy. Really? Huh. No reference I can find.
2. And why do you think the California and the others did not? In the event, the position info given was wrong, things were confused. And that was one ship under stress. Radio was not trusted back then, and with reason.
3. Malarkey. You're the one who claimed crossing the T was the common tactic in the Nelson era. Back it up. You can't and you don't admit it you can't.
4. Wild: Togo is credited in history with crossing the T. You can cross the T with your fleet going in circles, ovals, octagons. I've provided proof, you have not. It's not a cursive writing class, it's a manuever.
5. It's easy, Wild. Just list a source where we may find reference to Lord Howe's Manuever. Which, by the way and whatever it is, was not crossing the T by your description. Neither Nelson nor Howe crossed the T but invaded the enemy line, having their own T crossed. Back then it made little or no difference, which is why Crossing the T was never a big deal till the steam fleet with long range guns.
Google isn't a source, just a tool to find the source. If you can find a reference to this Lord Howe's Manuever, just post it. Otherwise, just another inflated Irish fiction, like Ireland "wetnursing" American soldiers today and that academic backbone of Africa. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 27 2005 : 2:37:47 PM
The Brit land based radio did pick up the German landbased radio and knew the fleet was at sea, is all.
Having come around to admitting your error you now try to down play the important role radio had to play in the battle.
That the Brits by monitoring German radio signals knew that the High seas fleet was planing something big and was a major intelligence coup not as you dismiss it "is all".
and Scheer was surprised running into Jellicoe.Ya know why?Because Sheer expected only part of the Grand fleet to put to sea but as pointed out above by monitoring radio signals the Brits were aware that this was not a limited excursion by the High Seas Fleet.[you are aware that the exercise was a German ambush]
This is only four years after the Titanic, after all.
Yeh so?How do you think the Carpathia rescued the survivors?
but I'm requesting still urls and references from experts that back up any of these contentions of yours.
Well the board has heard enough of your opinions on military/naval "experts" to be amused by your demand now for their intelectual droppings.
I have no problem providing urls to back up facts but the substantive issue here is naval tactics which is subjective rather than factual.To lace a post with expert opinion would be boring and prove what?.Try using your own intellect for a change DC and leave google for the brain dead.
that Togo did not cross the T because it looked more like a UDon't be silly now.The main manuever by Togo was a U turn to bring his fleet onto a parallel course with the Russians where he outgunned them wounding the Russian admiral and rendering his ship uncontrollable.
Google returns nothing for Lord Howe's Manuever,
So that's it DC?If yar not on google ya never existed.
Google must be in existence about 8 years now.Tell me DC please that I'v not spent the last year debating with a 7 year old.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 26 2005 : 3:20:51 PM
1. Fourth grade, Wild. Many of the Jutland ships did not have even radio telegraph so it could not be used, and officers who had it didn't trust it. The Brit land based radio did pick up the German landbased radio and knew the fleet was at sea, is all. Beatty was surprised running into Scheer and Scheer was surprised running into Jellicoe. They signalled with lights and flags. This is only four years after the Titanic, after all.
2. You've pointed out lots of stuff, the vast majority incorrect with no reference. You can rewrite your opinion again and again, but I'm requesting still urls and references from experts that back up any of these contentions of yours.
a. that Crossing the T was the standard tactic in the time of Nelson
b. that Togo did not cross the T because it looked more like a U (not even fourth grade)
c. that Ireland is considered the backbone of education anywhere outside of Ireland but especially in the an African nations, as you claimed. Just name one African country where this was ever true. Or retract it and admit it for what it was: another grotesque exaggeration of the sort you think you should be forgiven for.....because you're Irish.
3. Google returns nothing for Lord Howe's Manuever, this one example of breaking the line is NOT crossing the T (you're trying to redefine terms), and yet again, some proof would be nice. Just like when you had to pretend you understood aborigine wasn't a racial taunt and fixate on "just" as your defense, this doesn't work either. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 26 2005 : 09:07:08 AM
That's right. All they had was radio telegraph on ships and it was unreliable and they didn't use it. It's there in those urls I posted.
The issue was the presence of radio at Jutland.You said there was none which is wrong.You then go on to compound your error by saying
the Brits could not pinpoint the Highseas fleet by this means which is also wrong. [The Brits actually had the German code books]
Reference Wild. I've provided several stating Togo successfully used this manuever, easy since nearly every description of the battle mentions it. Now, you provide one saying he did not. See?
If you took the trouble to read my last post you would see that I agreed but pointed out that the Russian Admiral was wounded and unconscious and his Flagship [his 2i/c had died somedays before but he did not inform the fleet]was out of control So Togo not only crossed his T but dotted his I.[Oh by the way these ships were equipted with radio.That's 9 years before Jutland]
You stated crossing the T was the standard operating procedure, not the battle line, in Nelson's time. Proof? Proof, by the way, would be quotes from somebody who knows what they're talking about, not you rewriting your losing proposition.
In Nelson's time the British Navy was faced with the problem of bringing the French fleet to a decisive action.The problem was that the battle line could only result in a stalemate.The answer was to break the line [cross the T].This maneuver was first carried out at the Battle known as the Glorious First of June by Lord Howe and became known as Lord Howe's Maneuver.
[Because of the complexity of the maneuver the British admiralty had to update its Telegraphic Signals and Marine Vocabulary.]
These tactics were also governed by the development of the carronade a piece of naval artillery which required close contact.A combination of war strategy ,Howe's tactics and the carronade decided the actions at The Saintes,The G.F.of J,Camperdown,St Vincent,the Nile,Copenhagen and Trafalgar.I think that after 7 battles one could describe crossing the T as standard attack procedure [Nelson's time]
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 10:39:40 PM
This from a previous post of yours:
So?
The Trusty was steam powered, with twin screws. It was armoured - 4 inches of iron backed by 6 inches of teak. It also had a traversible turret. So technically what really ground breaking innovations did the Monitor offer over the Trusty?"
If that painting is of the Trusty in question, and apparently it is, and if our combined references are correct, than the Monitor was full of innovations over the Trusty. The Trusty's turret was nailed on as an afterthought for testing at some point, and I don't see the 360 degree clear fire you do, given those masts and all. I further don't think I can agree that a hand cranked turret (for a gun suite decidedly smaller than the Monitor's it sure sounds like)is more than notionally similar. These other great turetted ships of the Brits of the time seem to have lived and died on the page and were never built. To credit that and the Trusty as functional predecessor to the Monitor I think rather iffy, like crediting Leonardo with invention of the airplane because of those drawings. He visualized something similar but it wouldn't have worked and he couldn't build one.
If nothing else, just denying masts the Navy Department wanted - and Trusty had - was a major break with tradition in the Monitor. (from your recent urls: "The british turretship HMS DEVATATION, launched 1871. The ships of the DEVASTATION-class were the first ironclads without sails." Hello?)
Then, looking ahead to Fisher, the all big gun mentality with steam powered turrets that worked well, first time. A ship cleverly designed for combat from the keel up with none of the crap that burned and splintered. It was a coffin if the swell broke three inches but four months, start to launch, achieving its goal (nullifying Virginia, and just in time)and pointing the way to the modern navies.
Whatever Trusty was with her attractive new turret, I don't think anyone looked at her and sighed "pointing the way" to her. At least, pointing the way forward.
You don't see the Rodney and Yamato in utero in Trusty, but you SURELY do in the Monitor. These were dead ends on the evolutionary tree. |
|
|
