| |
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> > Man you guys have some hardware.
> >
> > My fleet is based on just 4 RBR and 3 AF. That gives me the Agamemnon (4
> > centres), the Pequad (2) the something else (2) that hasn't made it off the
> > chocks yet, and two little AF based raider types.
>
> Ah, but you are using Lego in a fashion more to the conception of what it
> should be: build and display. Wackos like Frank and myself are using them as
> miniatures for gaming. I assure you, my stuff doesn't look half as nice as
> yours.
Nor does mine--for some reason, I can't build an attractive sailing ship. I always
end up having to stuff a funnel on it somewhere.
> > And you could most certainly shake a thingy at my fleet of row boats.
Mine too. And your thingy would most likely sink them.
> >
> > Pictures gentlemen - more pictures! My imagination is getting its neurons
> > in a twist over the sorts of port scenes one could create with two or three
> > 1st raters.
>
> My mother-in-law is getting a digital camera. Perhaps I can borrow it in
> return for fixing her computer.
I'm going to try to hijack my mother's thousand-dollar sony digital camera for a
month between Thanksgiving and New Years'--in the hopes that it'll be a mighty
spate o' building for yours truly. I can dream! I also dream of getting my own
"cheapie," maybe under $200 with insanely low resolution (352x284 or somesuch).
> > Lord help you all if I can get some (small) parts of your fleets under my
> > guns ;-)
>
> Arrrr, you be not wantin' to be squarin' off wif me massed fleet. Port Block
> be doomed and me men'll have thar way wif the horses (Arrrr, they be a confused
> lot).
_The Art of War_ makes that one of its central tenets--not the "manhandle the
horses" thing, but "don't hit them where they're strongest". Wheel out the long
carronades and circle 'em with sloops! Arrr...1588 all over again.
I can perhaps understand the horses--after all, there's only one pirate wench.
LFB.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> _The Art of War_ makes that one of its central tenets--not the "manhandle the
> horses" thing, but "don't hit them where they're strongest". Wheel out the • long
> carronades and circle 'em with sloops! Arrr...1588 all over again.
>
> I can perhaps understand the horses--after all, there's only one pirate wench.
>
> LFB.
Them carronades be throwing a big ball a short ways. Good fer poundin' in
close. "Long carronades" be what they call an oxymoron (I be an eddicated
pyrate).
Cap'n Redbeard
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> > _The Art of War_ makes that one of its central tenets--not the "manhandle the
> > horses" thing, but "don't hit them where they're strongest". Wheel out the • long
> > carronades and circle 'em with sloops! Arrr...1588 all over again.
> >
> > I can perhaps understand the horses--after all, there's only one pirate wench.
> >
> > LFB.
>
> Them carronades be throwing a big ball a short ways. Good fer poundin' in
> close. "Long carronades" be what they call an oxymoron (I be an eddicated
> pyrate).
Ahhh heck. You're right. What am I thinking of? Not culverins--those are old
bronze art-deco cannon, though they were long...I think that may be the term used
to refer to the long-range chasers as well.
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
>
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> >
> > > _The Art of War_ makes that one of its central tenets--not the "manhandle • the
> > > horses" thing, but "don't hit them where they're strongest". Wheel out the • long
> > > carronades and circle 'em with sloops! Arrr...1588 all over again.
> > >
> > > I can perhaps understand the horses--after all, there's only one pirate • wench.
> > >
> > > LFB.
> >
> > Them carronades be throwing a big ball a short ways. Good fer poundin' in
> > close. "Long carronades" be what they call an oxymoron (I be an eddicated
> > pyrate).
>
> Ahhh heck. You're right. What am I thinking of? Not culverins--those are • old
> bronze art-deco cannon, though they were long...I think that may be the term • used
> to refer to the long-range chasers as well.
>
> LFB
Long cannons were simply refered to as long cannons, or long (shot weight).
E.G. Long 18s, long 12s, long 9s. Long versions of a shot size were
considerably heavier than than non-long version, so often they were reserved as
bow-chasers or stern-chasers.
I'm not sure if Culverin somehow indicated construction method, or if the term
was attached to an older style (bronze with external ribbing?).
Bruce
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > Ahhh heck. You're right. What am I thinking of? Not culverins--those are • old
> > bronze art-deco cannon, though they were long...I think that may be the term • used
> > to refer to the long-range chasers as well.
> >
> > LFB
>
> Long cannons were simply refered to as long cannons, or long (shot weight).
> E.G. Long 18s, long 12s, long 9s. Long versions of a shot size were
> considerably heavier than than non-long version, so often they were reserved as
> bow-chasers or stern-chasers.
>
> I'm not sure if Culverin somehow indicated construction method, or if the term
> was attached to an older style (bronze with external ribbing?).
It was an older style, originally, but I think the term enjoyed something of a new
genesis in the 19th century--but in what context, I'm unsure.
As for my fleet, well, I have a few things up, now that my old B&W scanner is
working again:
http://www.msu.edu/user/braunli1/indomitable.html (HMS Indomitable, the
battlecruiser.)
http://www.msu.edu/user/braunli1/steamer.jpg (The steamer I mentioned before.)
Better detail pictures of everything forthcoming, now that I have a decent camera
*and* a scanner...arrrrrr.
LFB.
|
|
| |
Mr L F Braun wrote
> As for my fleet, well, I have a few things up, now that my old B&W scanner • is
> working again:
>
> http://www.msu.edu/user/braunli1/indomitable.html (HMS Indomitable, the
> battlecruiser.)
>
> http://www.msu.edu/user/braunli1/steamer.jpg (The steamer I mentioned
before.)
I like it! I like it fine!
HMS Indomitable is the finest example of the art that I think I have seen.
If anything, I think its enhanced by the B&W. Not only does it reduce the
pic to very realistic colours, but it also gives it that WW2 reconnaissance
shot feel.
And the Torpedo boat looks cool too - can we see some more :-)
Richard
Still baldly going...
Visit Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/
PI[so,ig+++ pi++ is,ia-]++ AD++ NI+ TO---- S+ LS- A+ LM- YB66m :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> If anything, I think its enhanced by the B&W. Not only does it reduce the
> pic to very realistic colours, but it also gives it that WW2 reconnaissance
> shot feel.
Thanks for the kind words--and for mentioning the B&W as a positive.
I'd wondered about that possibility (which has the added benefit of
offsetting the odd colour scheme of those early ships) of "aging"
the photo--if possible I'll try to "sepia-tone" the next batch to
make it more of a WWI feel than a WWII, since the pattern-ship is
the actual HMS Indomitable of 1909, *very* loosely translated from
its 1921 appearance.
> And the Torpedo boat looks cool too - can we see some more :-)
I have to get some more film (from the "bad camera," of course)
developed, but once that's done, there should be plenty. It's
three rolls, so there should be a few useable pieces there. The
better colonial cruiser, a few more sailing ships, and a later
(c.1930s) cruiser will also be on those. Hopefully by the weekend
they'll be up.
best,
LFB
|
|
| |
Hey all,
I've updated the site a bit--added more ships of various sorts, and
fixed bad attributions. I've got some good ones of the destroyers
coming on Sunday!
best
LFB.
|
|
|
