| |
Gentlemen,
With all this Captain John E. Doolittle stuff (and that's not over - go
http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/doo.htm and see where its up to and make
your mark), I find myself hankering for a decent pirate ship. Not one of
these RR or AF builds - I mean like the Agamemnon
http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/aga.htm only shorter, being built up from a
standard RBR hull. Two gun decks, eight ports a side, plus bow chasers and
aft cabins, probably two square rigged masts
I have massed all the necessary pirate gear (hull, masts, rigging, plates,
banners, cannons etc).
I find myself short in the special blocks department.
2x2x3 (wxdxh) high slopes, 2x2x1 & 1x2x1 inverse slopes, 1x2x3 inverse high
slopes lattice windows (either kind), and those 2x2ish banner thingies used
as gunport shutters - this sort of stuff. Some I just haven't got, some I
have not got in long enough suits.
Even if I curb my avarice, and go for a Sutherland style vessel, I'll still
need most of these (just not so many high slopes).
Can you suggest some worthy sources?
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> Gentlemen,
>
> With all this Captain John E. Doolittle stuff (and that's not over - go
> http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/doo.htm and see where its up to and make
> your mark), I find myself hankering for a decent pirate ship. Not one of
> these RR or AF builds - I mean like the Agamemnon
> http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/aga.htm only shorter, being built up from a
> standard RBR hull. Two gun decks, eight ports a side, plus bow chasers and
> aft cabins, probably two square rigged masts
A two gun deck pirate ship? Ah....a Hollywood vessel! That's just up the
freeway from the lab here in Pasadena. :-)
>
> I have massed all the necessary pirate gear (hull, masts, rigging, plates,
> banners, cannons etc).
>
> I find myself short in the special blocks department.
>
> 2x2x3 (wxdxh) high slopes, 2x2x1 & 1x2x1 inverse slopes, 1x2x3 inverse high
> slopes lattice windows (either kind), and those 2x2ish banner thingies used
> as gunport shutters - this sort of stuff. Some I just haven't got, some I
> have not got in long enough suits.
>
> Even if I curb my avarice, and go for a Sutherland style vessel, I'll still
> need most of these (just not so many high slopes).
>
> Can you suggest some worthy sources?
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
> Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/
Auczilla XI is winding down - the gunport shutters have all sold (I got 6).
Honestly, you can take the ninja banners and Brasso off the designs. You might
want to check for inverse slopes and windows.
http://www.auczilla.com/lego/xi
Matthew Brown (Canada) has frequent auctions - the last one was fairly huge.
http://users.uniserve.com/~brown2/ma/
|
|
| |
Richard Parsons <rparsons@hinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:FnwvCu.Hx7@lugnet.com...
> Gentlemen,
>
> With all this Captain John E. Doolittle stuff (and that's not over - go
> http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/doo.htm and see where its up to and make
> your mark), I find myself hankering for a decent pirate ship.
Richard:
This is a marvelous little piece of storytelling. You've done a great job
of weaving the story lines developed here in lugnet.pirates and meshing them
into a very clever story.
If you will allow one criticism (in the editorial sense only). In the
paragraphs preceding the one which begins "And these weren't all his
problems...", you were talking about the widower Waite, Doolittle's former
law partner. However, in this paragraph, you appear to switch back to
Doolittle without using a proper noun to indicate a switch - "his" still is
linked to Waite even though I think you mean Doolittle. I had to read it
twice because the first time through, I thought that you were still speaking
about Waite.
If I am reading this incorrectly, please feel free to throw a third grade
grammer book at me. Again, an excellent story. Keep up the good work.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Timothy D. Freshly writes:
>
> Richard Parsons <rparsons@hinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:FnwvCu.Hx7@lugnet.com...
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > With all this Captain John E. Doolittle stuff (and that's not over - go
> > http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/doo.htm and see where its up to and make
> > your mark), I find myself hankering for a decent pirate ship.
>
> Richard:
>
> This is a marvelous little piece of storytelling. You've done a great job
> of weaving the story lines developed here in lugnet.pirates and meshing them
> into a very clever story.
>
> If you will allow one criticism (in the editorial sense only). In the
> paragraphs preceding the one which begins "And these weren't all his
> problems...", you were talking about the widower Waite, Doolittle's former
> law partner. However, in this paragraph, you appear to switch back to
> Doolittle without using a proper noun to indicate a switch - "his" still is
> linked to Waite even though I think you mean Doolittle. I had to read it
> twice because the first time through, I thought that you were still speaking
> about Waite.
>
> If I am reading this incorrectly, please feel free to throw a third grade
> grammer book at me. Again, an excellent story. Keep up the good work.
>
> Tim
I feel off my chair laughing about sailing with Impunity! It was a great
amalgam of the ideas bandied about here.
Bruce
|
|
| |
Timothy D. Freshly wrote in message ...
> If you will allow one criticism (in the editorial sense only). In the
paragraphs preceding the one which begins "And these weren't all his
problems...", you were talking about the widower Waite, Doolittle's former
law partner. However, in this paragraph, you appear to switch back to
Doolittle without using a proper noun to indicate a switch - "his" still is
linked to Waite even though I think you mean Doolittle. I had to read it
twice because the first time through, I thought that you were still speaking
about Waite.
True enough. I knew there was _something_ wrong somewhere around there, and
that's it.
'And these weren't all his problems' now reads 'And these weren't all
Doolittle's problems'.
Thanks Tim.
And the part in the story about his first act of piracy seems a bit rushed
no? How did he turn from practicing law to breaking the law? It seems to
me that 'his first act of piracy' was probably an act of mercy, sallying
forth to rescue a foundering vessel, transferring the contents of her hold
to his, discovering in her hold the stolen artifact and say some very
decrepit islanders, kidnapped and caged for transport to the Brikish Museum
of Natural History. 'Oh, the humanity' etc etc, frees the islanders, cages
the foundering ship's master, impounds the foundering ship's cargo and
commits it to the welfare of the islanders, and sets off to the Pacific, to
try to restore the islanders and their artifact to their respective homes.
Et voilà, a pirate is born.
Regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/
|
|
| |
"the top London commercial firm Waite, Fidget and Doolittle"
hahaha, great stuff.
--
Paul Davidson
Richard Parsons <rparsons@hinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:FnwvCu.Hx7@lugnet.com...
> Gentlemen,
>
> With all this Captain John E. Doolittle stuff (and that's not over - go
> http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/doo.htm and see where its up to and make
> your mark), I find myself hankering for a decent pirate ship. Not one of
> these RR or AF builds - I mean like the Agamemnon
> http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/aga.htm only shorter, being built up from • a
> standard RBR hull. Two gun decks, eight ports a side, plus bow chasers and
> aft cabins, probably two square rigged masts
>
> I have massed all the necessary pirate gear (hull, masts, rigging, plates,
> banners, cannons etc).
>
> I find myself short in the special blocks department.
>
> 2x2x3 (wxdxh) high slopes, 2x2x1 & 1x2x1 inverse slopes, 1x2x3 inverse • high
> slopes lattice windows (either kind), and those 2x2ish banner thingies • used
> as gunport shutters - this sort of stuff. Some I just haven't got, some I
> have not got in long enough suits.
>
> Even if I curb my avarice, and go for a Sutherland style vessel, I'll • still
> need most of these (just not so many high slopes).
>
> Can you suggest some worthy sources?
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
> Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/
>
>
|
|
| |
Richard Parsons <rparsons@hinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:FnxrtJ.un@lugnet.com...
> And the part in the story about his first act of piracy seems a bit rushed
> no? How did he turn from practicing law to breaking the law? It seems to
> me that 'his first act of piracy' was probably an act of mercy, sallying
> forth to rescue a foundering vessel, transferring the contents of her hold
> to his, discovering in her hold the stolen artifact and say some very
> decrepit islanders, kidnapped and caged for transport to the Brikish • Museum
> of Natural History. 'Oh, the humanity' etc etc, frees the islanders, • cages
> the foundering ship's master, impounds the foundering ship's cargo and
> commits it to the welfare of the islanders, and sets off to the Pacific, • to
> try to restore the islanders and their artifact to their respective homes.
> Et voilà, a pirate is born.
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
> Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/
Richard:
It does seem a bit rushed but I thought that was intentional - as if you
were saying that his "first act of piracy" was practicing law - the
inference being that it was no great step to go from "legal" piracy (law) to
"illegal" piracy on the high seas.
I like the idea about an act of mercy pirating being his first. How about
this: "Upon rescuing the cargo and native islanders from the sinking vessle,
Capt. Doolittle, still heavily influenced by the customs of his law
practice, retained 40% of the loot as his fee. Believing this to be fair
compensation for his efforts, Doolittle continued this practice for the
remainder of his pirating days (the other 60% going to various expenses such
as the Port Block Christmas Party fund and other "political" donations)."
Tim
|
|
| |
Timothy D. Freshly wrote
> I like the idea about an act of mercy pirating being his first. How about
> this: "Upon rescuing the cargo and native islanders from the sinking • vessle,
> Capt. Doolittle, still heavily influenced by the customs of his law
> practice, retained 40% of the loot as his fee. Believing this to be fair
> compensation for his efforts, Doolittle continued this practice for the
> remainder of his pirating days (the other 60% going to various expenses • such
> as the Port Block Christmas Party fund and other "political" donations)."
Sounds great to me - I'll add it in the next update :-)
But what about his adventures on the high seas - is nothing known at all?
Doesn't anyone know anything about what he got up to? A newspaper clipping
from London? An insurance report? A sighting at a 7-11 in Roswell?
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so (to
new and larger accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<Fo5yxv.3nE@lugnet.com>) wrote at
09:13:50
>
> But what about his adventures on the high seas - is nothing known at all?
> Doesn't anyone know anything about what he got up to? A newspaper clipping
> from London? An insurance report? A sighting at a 7-11 in Roswell?
Report in 'a London newspaper':
DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY LOSES FACE
It is reported that a ship of the Dutch East India company was attacked
in the South Pacific, and native artefacts, including one of the head
statues from Easter Island were removed from the vessel.
None of the crew were killed, but all of the armament on the Dutch ship
was spiked.
Reports of a parrot advising on personal injury claims, suggest that the
attack was carried out by John E. Doolittle.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman:
> Report in 'a London newspaper':
[...]
> Reports of a parrot advising on personal injury claims, suggest that the
> attack was carried out by John E. Doolittle.
Wonderful!!!
LOL
Jacob
------------------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL: http://hugin.ldraw.org/LEGO/Tog/ > --
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<Fo5yxv.3nE@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 09:13:50
>
> >
> > But what about his adventures on the high seas - is nothing known at all?
> > Doesn't anyone know anything about what he got up to? A newspaper clipping
> > from London? An insurance report? A sighting at a 7-11 in Roswell?
>
> Report in 'a London newspaper':
>
> DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY LOSES FACE
>
> It is reported that a ship of the Dutch East India company was attacked
> in the South Pacific, and native artefacts, including one of the head
> statues from Easter Island were removed from the vessel.
> None of the crew were killed, but all of the armament on the Dutch ship
> was spiked.
> Reports of a parrot advising on personal injury claims, suggest that the
> attack was carried out by John E. Doolittle.
> --
> Tony Priestman
"What kind of party pirates be ye, ya silly nits? I TOLD ye to spike the
PUNCH, not the guns!"
An alleged pirate-type but not until ye prove it in court or I'll have a
personal-injury anti-defamation suit slapped on you so fast....
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote in message
news:Fo6HLL.8wK@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<Fo5yxv.3nE@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> > 09:13:50
> >
> > >
> > > But what about his adventures on the high seas - is nothing known at • all?
> > > Doesn't anyone know anything about what he got up to? A newspaper • clipping
> > > from London? An insurance report? A sighting at a 7-11 in Roswell?
> >
> > Report in 'a London newspaper':
> >
> > DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY LOSES FACE
> >
> > It is reported that a ship of the Dutch East India company was attacked
> > in the South Pacific, and native artefacts, including one of the head
> > statues from Easter Island were removed from the vessel.
> > None of the crew were killed, but all of the armament on the Dutch ship
> > was spiked.
> > Reports of a parrot advising on personal injury claims, suggest that the
> > attack was carried out by John E. Doolittle.
> > --
> > Tony Priestman
>
>
> "What kind of party pirates be ye, ya silly nits? I TOLD ye to spike the
> PUNCH, not the guns!"
>
> An alleged pirate-type but not until ye prove it in court or I'll have a
> personal-injury anti-defamation suit slapped on you so fast....
And I think I know a certain parrot who would be willing to advise you on
your case...
Tim
|
|
| |
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fo6HLL.8wK@lugnet.com>) wrote
at 15:56:09
>
> "What kind of party pirates be ye, ya silly nits? I TOLD ye to spike the
> PUNCH, not the guns!"
Arr, they're a rum lot! But at least they're not your here toddy, gone
tomorrow buccaneers.
'Where's your buccaneers?'
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman wrote in message ...
> Report in 'a London newspaper':
> DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY LOSES FACE
> It is reported that a ship of the Dutch East India company was attacked in
the South Pacific, and native artefacts, including one of the head statues
from Easter Island were removed from the vessel. None of the crew were
killed, but all of the armament on the Dutch ship was spiked.
> Reports of a parrot advising on personal injury claims, suggest that the
attack was carried out by John E. Doolittle.
Presumably, anyone finding a face at sea in the vicinity should return it to
the Dutch East India Company, (somebody give me a reasonable address here)
London, SW1. Reward offered for the capture of John E. Doolittle, the scalp
of the parrot and/or the aforementioned face.
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so (to
new and larger accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd indicated that he was
> An alleged pirate-type but not until ye prove it in court or I'll have a
> personal-injury anti-defamation suit slapped on you so fast....
Now it seems to me that there is an opening here for a bright, technically
able parrot to make quite a tidy living out of this sort of behaviour.
Impunity might end up hanging out a shingle.
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so (to
new and larger accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Timothy D. Freshly wrote in message ...
>
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote
> > An alleged pirate-type but not until ye prove it in court or I'll have a
> > personal-injury anti-defamation suit slapped on you so fast....
>
> And I think I know a certain parrot who would be willing to advise you on
> your case...
For a fee perhaps. I mean, Impunity may be a parrot, and a pretty stupid
one at that, but he's still a lawyer ;-)
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so (to
new and larger accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
I am honored. Thank you.
On to another suggestion. As you have already set out in the story,
Doolittle sends money back to his wife in England to provide for her.
However, her affair with Waite becomes more public, eventually reaching the
ears of young Aurora. Already in love with Doolittle, and now angered at
the adulterous actions of Mrs. Doolittle (how could she treat such a fine
man so horribly?), Aurora fakes her own kidnapping, and eventually joins up
with Doolittle.
NEW SUBPLOT: Aurora tells Doolittle of his wife's infidelity. Although he
understands, he is none the less disappointed and decides to discontinue his
self-imposed support payments. When Waite hears about Aurora and Doolittle,
he is incensed. But he is even more upset about Doolittle cuting off his
support payments to Mrs. Doolittle (Waite has been "counseling" Mrs.
Doolittle on her marital situation at his normal hourly fee ever since
Doolittle left months ago. Once Doolittle stops payments, Mrs. Doolittle
can no longer afford to continue employing Waite on her case and Waite loses
one of his most profitable clients).
Tim
Richard Parsons <rparsons@hinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:Fo89z6.F4v@lugnet.com...
> Gentlemen (and others ;-)
>
> Timothy Freshly has joined the writer's guild. Still a few empty chairs • at
> the authors' table, and plenty of rum.
>
> http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/doo/welcome.htm
>
> regards
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
> Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/
> Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so • (to
> new and larger accommodations)
> Do adjust your set.
>
>
>
|
|
| |
Richard Parsons wrote:
> Tony Priestman wrote in message ...
>
> > Report in 'a London newspaper':
>
> > DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY LOSES FACE
>
> > It is reported that a ship of the Dutch East India company was attacked in
> the South Pacific, and native artefacts, including one of the head statues
> from Easter Island were removed from the vessel. None of the crew were
> killed, but all of the armament on the Dutch ship was spiked.
>
> > Reports of a parrot advising on personal injury claims, suggest that the
> attack was carried out by John E. Doolittle.
>
> Presumably, anyone finding a face at sea in the vicinity should return it to
> the Dutch East India Company, (somebody give me a reasonable address here)
> London, SW1. Reward offered for the capture of John E. Doolittle, the scalp
> of the parrot and/or the aforementioned face.
Ooops-the Dutch East India Company operating out of London? I don't think
so--for a long time the British and Dutch companies were arch-rivals, and the
DEIC even slaughtered an English settlement that dared to get too close to
Indonesia. The British East India Company might be more plausible, but they
didn't do anything in the Pacific (near Easter Island, anyhow--they had India to
keep them busy until Crown administration came in 1858). You'd need to
substitute Amsterdam or the Hague (den Haag) to use the Dutch.
Sorry, just a nitpick from the resident Empire historian.
best
LFB
(PS: In Northeast Africa, however, European powers were notorious for carrying
off Egyptian and Nile Valley artefacts--including obelisks; there's one in Rome
that is still a very sore point between Ethiopia and Italy. Anyone want to use
all those Adventurers obelisks as stolen cultural treasures? ;) )
|
|
| |
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Mr L F Braun (<387CCD37.8DE52DE2@pilot.msu.edu>)
wrote at 18:51:35
> > Presumably, anyone finding a face at sea in the vicinity should return it to
> > the Dutch East India Company, (somebody give me a reasonable address here)
> > London, SW1. Reward offered for the capture of John E. Doolittle, the scalp
> > of the parrot and/or the aforementioned face.
>
> Ooops-the Dutch East India Company operating out of London? I don't think
> so--for a long time the British and Dutch companies were arch-rivals
Double oops. I missed that. It's got to be the Dutch one though, it's
another reason why the Brickish navy isn't too bothered :-)
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman wrote
> Mr L F Braun wrote
> > Ooops-the Dutch East India Company operating out of London? I don't think • so--for a long time the British and Dutch companies were arch-rivals
>
> Double oops. I missed that. It's got to be the Dutch one though, it's
another reason why the Brickish navy isn't too bothered :-)
Mmmm, wasn't particularly paying attention myself. Did you know that when
at 2am the edge kind of goes off your attention to detail?
<<presents posterior for impact adjustment>>.
I've gone for it being an East India Company vessel - it still seems to hang
together.
http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/doo/welcome.htm
I guess attention should be turning to Doolittle's 'do little' aspect.
What sort of grand theft naval did he get up to while demonstrating great
economy of effort?
Regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so (to
new and larger accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Timothy D. Freshly wrote another worthy sub-plot element.
Minor mods makes this
"Aurora gently tells Doolittle of his wife's infidelity. In the best
traditions of the understanding male, Doolittle repressed his hurt feelings,
saw his wife's issues as she saw them, and understood and accepted her
chosen path. Being a supportive male, he immediately recognised and
supported her decision by discontinuing his self-imposed support payments."
"When Waite heard about Aurora and Doolittle, he was incensed. But he was
hopping mad about Doolittle cutting off the support payments to Mrs.
Doolittle. Not only would Waite have to help Mrs Doolittle in her
vainglorious quest to become the most well-thought-of Lady in all Brikain,
now he'd have to pay for her upkeep as well. And she needed considerable
upkeeping."
Tim's original called for Waite to be giving marital advice. Lawyers giving
marital advice. I just cannot wrap my brain around this concept. I know a
lot of lawyers who have to _take_ marital advice from time to time, but
giving such advice? Come now ;-)
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so (to
new and larger accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Richard Parsons <rparsons@hinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:Fo9xuw.EpC@lugnet.com...
[snip]
> Tim's original called for Waite to be giving marital advice. Lawyers • giving
> marital advice. I just cannot wrap my brain around this concept. I know • a
> lot of lawyers who have to _take_ marital advice from time to time, but
> giving such advice? Come now ;-)
I guess this comes from me actually being an attorney (and a happily-married
one at that). Chalk one literary idea to the circular file. I'll try to do
better next time.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Timothy D. Freshly writes:
>
> Richard Parsons <rparsons@hinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:Fo9xuw.EpC@lugnet.com...
> [snip]
>
> > Tim's original called for Waite to be giving marital advice. Lawyers • giving
> > marital advice. I just cannot wrap my brain around this concept. I know • a
> > lot of lawyers who have to _take_ marital advice from time to time, but
> > giving such advice? Come now ;-)
>
> I guess this comes from me actually being an attorney (and a happily-married
> one at that). Chalk one literary idea to the circular file. I'll try to do
> better next time.
>
> Tim
But OF COURSE Lawyers give marital advice, and it's always the same: GET A
DIVORCE! I mean, how the heck can lawyers make money otherwise? It wasn't
much of a career change to go from Lawyer to Pirate, after all.
(oooOOOOoooOOOOOooo, I'm a bad boy) :-)
Bruce
|
|
| |
Richard Parsons wrote:
> Tony Priestman wrote
> > Mr L F Braun wrote
> > > Ooops-the Dutch East India Company operating out of London? I don't think • so--for a long time the British and Dutch companies were arch-rivals
> >
> > Double oops. I missed that. It's got to be the Dutch one though, it's
> another reason why the Brickish navy isn't too bothered :-)
>
> Mmmm, wasn't particularly paying attention myself. Did you know that when
> at 2am the edge kind of goes off your attention to detail?
Yeah--it's understandable. Granted, if I made that particular gaffe at *any*
time of day, I'd probably be forced to turn in my Imperial Historian Employment
Card. Let's hope they don't find out about my "Boer War starting in 1999"
ooops.
> <<presents posterior for impact adjustment>>.
>
> I've gone for it being an East India Company vessel - it still seems to hang
> together.
>
> http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/doo/welcome.htm
>
> I guess attention should be turning to Doolittle's 'do little' aspect.
>
> What sort of grand theft naval did he get up to while demonstrating great
> economy of effort?
How about a story where Doolittle has a moral imperative that, unfortunately,
requires he "borrow" a much larger ship for a while? For greater dramatic
effect, make it a large Brickish ship, and have everything turn nearly
pear-shaped but come out OK in the end. Maybe have him chasing a slaver (which
could place it anywhere from West Africa to Formosa)?
best
LFB
|
|
| |
Hi,
By the way, just a potential "checkbook" oops--did the story begin compiling so
long ago, on 5 January 1999? Just saw it on the page and was curious.
It all looks magnificent, though--and the story holds together nicely. That
Johnny Thunder head really looks great as a swashbuckler/privateer!
So when's the paperback coming out?
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> Yeah--it's understandable. Granted, if I made that particular gaffe at *any*
> time of day, I'd probably be forced to turn in my Imperial Historian • Employment
> Card. Let's hope they don't find out about my "Boer War starting in 1999"
> ooops.
Heh... Just call it a Y2K bug... everyone else is using it <grin>
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
| |
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Mr L F Braun (<387E6CA9.1DB73BA2@pilot.msu.edu>)
wrote at 00:24:09
> For greater dramatic
> effect, make it a large Brickish ship
Hee hee!
Glad to see you're using the Brickish version of the word, rather than
the colonial 'Brikish' :-)
BTW, Great Brickain is (c) me 1999:
http://www.you-rang.demon.co.uk/gb/mapofgb.htm
Currently lying fallow, awaiting literary inspiration.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Mr L F Braun (<387E6CA9.1DB73BA2@pilot.msu.edu>)
> wrote at 00:24:09
>
> > For greater dramatic
> > effect, make it a large Brickish ship
>
> Hee hee!
>
> Glad to see you're using the Brickish version of the word, rather than
> the colonial 'Brikish' :-)
Why wouldn't I? I'm a Bricki...er, British historian, not prone to
Colonial degeneralities (oooh, a neologism, ™ me, oh yeah). Ardour,
candour, endeavour, and/our...hmm, that last one sounds a bit funny, but
the others are aboot (1) right.
best,
LFB
(1) That's a colonialism of a different sort.
|
|
| |
Timothy D. Freshly wrote in message ...
> I guess this comes from me actually being an attorney (and a
happily-married one at that)
Forget about ad-hoc advice - you want to be writing a book for lawyers!
A happily married lawyer....... So like, wow ;-)
I'll have to go back and look at whether I can work that in......
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so (to
new and larger accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Mr L F Braun wrote in message <387E6DA4.CB015F6F@pilot.msu.edu>...
> By the way, just a potential "checkbook" oops--did the story begin
compiling so long ago, on 5 January 1999?
Got it. Killed it dead ;-)
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so (to
new and larger accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Mr L F Braun wrote in
> Tony Priestman wrote:
> > Hee hee! Glad to see you're using the Brickish version of the word,
rather than the colonial 'Brikish' :-)
> Why wouldn't I? I'm a Bricki...er, British historian, not prone to
Colonial degeneralities (oooh, a neologism, ™ me, oh yeah). Ardour,
candour, endeavour, and/our...hmm, that last one sounds a bit funny, but the
others are aboot right.
Now, see, its conversations like this that lead to the American War of
Independence ;-)
And if I recall correctly, in the not too distant future (1850s) we're going
to discover gold over here, and the empire is going to make a great deal of
money out of us. Then there's the sheep and the grain to consider. are you
sure you want us throwing up the barricades just yet?
I've gone with the k instead of ck on the basis that since the words are
going to be read, a close visual similarity would be helpful. Its a
trade-off obviously, but rest assured it is not an accident, nor just a
colonial contraction.
British
Brikish
Brickish
Britannic
Brikannic
Brickannic
Great Britain
Great Brikain
Great Brickain
Consistency has a value also, and since the idea was indeed Tony's in the
first place, whatever happens there will have a persuasive value.
So, what do you all reckon?
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so (to
new and larger accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoBLH7.DHF@lugnet.com>) wrote at
10:13:06
>
> I've gone with the k instead of ck on the basis that since the words are
> going to be read, a close visual similarity would be helpful. Its a
> trade-off obviously, but rest assured it is not an accident, nor just a
> colonial contraction.
>
> British
> Brikish
> Brickish
>
> Britannic
> Brikannic
> Brickannic
>
> Great Britain
> Great Brikain
> Great Brickain
>
> Consistency has a value also, and since the idea was indeed Tony's in the
> first place, whatever happens there will have a persuasive value.
>
> So, what do you all reckon?
Given that this is an imaginary world, I have no problem with either,
and can see advantages in either spelling.
I can see where you're coming from completely, Richard. But I feel that
'ck' has the aesthetic edge over plain 'k'.
Actually, I'm inclined to mix and match. After all, there's no such word
as Britainnic, so I don't see why Brikannic shouldn't be the 'proper'
word. Or Brikish, come to think of it. Although that would tend to be
pronounced brI-kish without the c, if you were to look at it out of
context.
But I'm sticking with Great Brickain, because all of the place names
I've come up with tie in with it.
YMMV :-)
(my spell checker has just gone berserk! :-)
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoBLH7.DHF@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 10:13:06
>
> >
> > I've gone with the k instead of ck on the basis that since the words are
> > going to be read, a close visual similarity would be helpful. Its a
> > trade-off obviously, but rest assured it is not an accident, nor just a
> > colonial contraction.
> >
> > British
> > Brikish
> > Brickish
> >
> > Britannic
> > Brikannic
> > Brickannic
> >
> > Great Britain
> > Great Brikain
> > Great Brickain
> >
> > Consistency has a value also, and since the idea was indeed Tony's in the
> > first place, whatever happens there will have a persuasive value.
> >
> > So, what do you all reckon?
>
> Given that this is an imaginary world, I have no problem with either,
> and can see advantages in either spelling.
> I can see where you're coming from completely, Richard. But I feel that
> 'ck' has the aesthetic edge over plain 'k'.
>
> Actually, I'm inclined to mix and match. After all, there's no such word
> as Britainnic, so I don't see why Brikannic shouldn't be the 'proper'
> word. Or Brikish, come to think of it. Although that would tend to be
> pronounced brI-kish without the c, if you were to look at it out of
> context.
>
> But I'm sticking with Great Brickain, because all of the place names
> I've come up with tie in with it.
>
> YMMV :-)
>
> (my spell checker has just gone berserk! :-)
> --
> Tony Priestman
I'm for Great Brikain, Brikannic, and Brikish myself.
But then, I think "colour" is a silly way to spell color, and I like cheque
over check, so I'm not sure you should pay the slightest attention to my
opinions.
Bruce
|
|
| |
DISCLAIMER: I'm a little loopy today. Medication.
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> > On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoBLH7.DHF@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> > 10:13:06
> > > I've gone with the k instead of ck on the basis that since the words are
> > > going to be read, a close visual similarity would be helpful. Its a
> > > trade-off obviously, but rest assured it is not an accident, nor just a
> > > colonial contraction.
> > >
> > > British
> > > Brikish
> > > Brickish
> > >
> > > Britannic
> > > Brikannic
> > > Brickannic
> > >
> > > Great Britain
> > > Great Brikain
> > > Great Brickain
> > >
> > > Consistency has a value also, and since the idea was indeed Tony's in the
> > > first place, whatever happens there will have a persuasive value.
> > >
> > > So, what do you all reckon?
> >
> > Given that this is an imaginary world, I have no problem with either,
> > and can see advantages in either spelling.
> > I can see where you're coming from completely, Richard. But I feel that
> > 'ck' has the aesthetic edge over plain 'k'.
It also has the LEGO edge--"brik" to me brings to mind "blok," something about
which no more should be spoken. 'Nuff said. *suppressing shudder*
> > Actually, I'm inclined to mix and match. After all, there's no such word
> > as Britainnic, so I don't see why Brikannic shouldn't be the 'proper'
> > word. Or Brikish, come to think of it. Although that would tend to be
> > pronounced brI-kish without the c, if you were to look at it out of
> > context.
I hope you mean to get at the "Britainnic/Britannic" spelling thing and not to
suggest that there is no such word as "Britannic." The Queen (Bricktoria,
naturally--or would that be "Brictoria"?) would Not Be Amused. ;)
> > But I'm sticking with Great Brickain, because all of the place names
> > I've come up with tie in with it.
> >
> > YMMV :-)
In kilometers, kilometres, or miles per liter, litre, or gallon, however you
prefer to measure it. I personally like furlongs per dram, but it makes the
petrol, or gas, station attendants hate me.
> > (my spell checker has just gone berserk! :-)
Another reason I disable the damnable things. Every time I write "foetal" or
"manoeuvre" it acts like I've just committed a felony.
> I'm for Great Brikain, Brikannic, and Brikish myself.
>
> But then, I think "colour" is a silly way to spell color, and I like cheque
> over check, so I'm not sure you should pay the slightest attention to my
> opinions.
It's interesting to see how much drift there also is in pronunciation, even
among a supposedly "homogenous" entity like North America. (For all the "We
Are Not Americans" that Canadians utter, the dark deep secret is that aside
from Quebec, we're all an awful lot alike--especially around the Great Lakes.
I could be killed for divulging this secret, as the bastard child of both
nations.) I know a lot of people who really do voice the "-our"--it's no more
unnatural than the "-our-" in "courage". Corage?
best,
Lindsay
|
|
| |
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Mr L F Braun (<387F7F9F.766BF76@pilot.msu.edu>)
wrote at 19:57:19
> > > >
> > > Given that this is an imaginary world, I have no problem with either,
> > > and can see advantages in either spelling.
> > > I can see where you're coming from completely, Richard. But I feel that
> > > 'ck' has the aesthetic edge over plain 'k'.
>
> It also has the LEGO edge--"brik" to me brings to mind "blok," something about
> which no more should be spoken. 'Nuff said. *suppressing shudder*
I *knew* there was something about it that made me uneasy :-)
>
> > > Actually, I'm inclined to mix and match. After all, there's no such word
> > > as Britainnic, so I don't see why Brikannic shouldn't be the 'proper'
> > > word. Or Brikish, come to think of it. Although that would tend to be
> > > pronounced brI-kish without the c, if you were to look at it out of
> > > context.
>
> I hope you mean to get at the "Britainnic/Britannic" spelling thing and not to
> suggest that there is no such word as "Britannic."
Absolutely! Spell checker overridden on that one.
> The Queen (Bricktoria,
> naturally--or would that be "Brictoria"?) would Not Be Amused. ;)
Hmmm. Interesting point, but not relevant for another 20-30 years :-)
There's not much one can do with George, really.
>
> > > But I'm sticking with Great Brickain, because all of the place names
> > > I've come up with tie in with it.
> > >
> > > YMMV :-)
>
> In kilometers, kilometres, or miles per liter, litre, or gallon, however you
> prefer to measure it. I personally like furlongs per dram, but it makes the
> petrol, or gas, station attendants hate me.
I want some of that medicine!
>
> > > (my spell checker has just gone berserk! :-)
>
> Another reason I disable the damnable things. Every time I write "foetal" or
> "manoeuvre" it acts like I've just committed a felony.
>
> > I'm for Great Brikain, Brikannic, and Brikish myself.
> >
> > But then, I think "colour" is a silly way to spell color, and I like cheque
> > over check, so I'm not sure you should pay the slightest attention to my
> > opinions.
>
> It's interesting to see how much drift there also is in pronunciation, even
> among a supposedly "homogenous" entity like North America. (For all the "We
> Are Not Americans" that Canadians utter, the dark deep secret is that aside
> from Quebec, we're all an awful lot alike--especially around the Great Lakes.
D'you know, I was going to make an observation aboot the Great Lakes,
but I wasn't sure if it was true, never having been there. :-)
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> DISCLAIMER: I'm a little loopy today. Medication.
>
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
Snipping all that stuff that I didn't write....
> > I'm for Great Brikain, Brikannic, and Brikish myself.
> >
> > But then, I think "colour" is a silly way to spell color, and I like cheque
> > over check, so I'm not sure you should pay the slightest attention to my
> > opinions.
>
> It's interesting to see how much drift there also is in pronunciation, even
> among a supposedly "homogenous" entity like North America. (For all the "We
> Are Not Americans" that Canadians utter, the dark deep secret is that aside
> from Quebec, we're all an awful lot alike--especially around the Great Lakes.
> I could be killed for divulging this secret, as the bastard child of both
> nations.) I know a lot of people who really do voice the "-our"--it's no more
> unnatural than the "-our-" in "courage". Corage?
>
> best,
>
> Lindsay
Kind of like someone from Boston, "I have to pahk the cah." Even my Boston
Terrier has to bark, "Bahk, bahk!" :-)
Canadians are hard to pick out, but I can usually do it (and these are vertical
moves from Vancouver to Los Angeles). My father moved from Nebraska when he
was 3, but enough of the accent from the region remained that I could recognize
it in others. In California, it would be easier to hide being Canadian than
being Nebraskan (or worse, my co-worker from New York).
English is just about the craziest language on the face of the planet.
Anyway, I like Brikish because of the reasons Richard notes - it just seems
closer visually to British.
Bruce
|
|
| |
Let's see....
Tim's 'lawyers giving marital advice' got a guernsey after all
'Brikish' stands for now, while the issue remains open
The pics and description of Shangrila were filled out a bit
There are a couple of pics of the HMS Guy Fawkes making after Doolittle
Before anyone complains about load time, I know I know. Next week I'll
split it up into sub pages Colin & Wanda style. I have put lines across
where I plan to make the page breaks.
And I still need stuff about his missions.
Lindsay's
"...story where Doolittle has a moral imperative that,
unfortunately, requires he "borrow" a much larger ship for a while? For
greater dramatic effect, make it a large Brickish ship, and have everything
turn nearly pear-shaped but come out OK in the end. Maybe have him chasing
a slaver (which could place it anywhere from West Africa to Formosa)?"
is cool. I now have the required
larger (and quite glamorous ;-) ship, and I'm fine with it starting out
Brikish, or _even_ Brickish, but details gentlemen, details. What moral
imperative? What brings Doolittle into the same orbit as a slaver? Who put
the tribbles in the quadrotriticale, and what was in the grain that killed
them? And why is something pear shaped such a bad thing anyway?
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoFJJ0.76H@lugnet.com>) wrote at
13:15:26
> Let's see....
>
> I now have the required
> larger (and quite glamorous ;-) ship, and I'm fine with it starting out
> Brikish, or _even_ Brickish, but details gentlemen, details. What moral
> imperative? What brings Doolittle into the same orbit as a slaver? Who put
> the tribbles in the quadrotriticale, and what was in the grain that killed
> them? And why is something pear shaped such a bad thing anyway?
And I want some of the stuff *you're* on as well :-)
Not quite a moral imperative, but what if Aurora got captured somewhere,
and John E. needed a big ship to rescue her?
Good 'ole white slave trade. Chains, skimpy clothing, harems, Sultan of
somewhere or other, you get the picture. I only make the bullets,
someone else can fire 'em :-)
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman wrote
> Good 'ole white slave trade. Chains, skimpy clothing, harems, Sultan of
> somewhere or other, you get the picture.
I like this.
How do I do minifigs in the appropriate (skimpy) garb - or do you know
something about TLCs next release that I don't?
regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
<FoCEr4.D8C@lugnet.com> <FoFJJ0.76H@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Richard Parsons wrote:
> Let's see....
>
> Tim's 'lawyers giving marital advice' got a guernsey after all
A cow? :)
> There are a couple of pics of the HMS Guy Fawkes making after Doolittle
*LOL* I love the name! I wonder, do they have a problem with the powder
magazine on that ship...? Or maybe it's just a facsimilie ship, brought out
every year at about the same time. "Sorry, we can't chase him, it's now *6*
November..." :)
> Before anyone complains about load time, I know I know. Next week I'll
> split it up into sub pages Colin & Wanda style. I have put lines across
> where I plan to make the page breaks.
>
> And I still need stuff about his missions.
>
> Lindsay's
>
> "...story where Doolittle has a moral imperative that,
> unfortunately, requires he "borrow" a much larger ship for a while? For
> greater dramatic effect, make it a large Brickish ship, and have everything
> turn nearly pear-shaped but come out OK in the end. Maybe have him chasing
> a slaver (which could place it anywhere from West Africa to Formosa)?"
>
> is cool. I now have the required
> larger (and quite glamorous ;-) ship, and I'm fine with it starting out
> Brikish, or _even_ Brickish, but details gentlemen, details. What moral
> imperative? What brings Doolittle into the same orbit as a slaver? Who put
> the tribbles in the quadrotriticale, and what was in the grain that killed
> them? And why is something pear shaped such a bad thing anyway?
What could bring him into the same orbit as a slaver? Brit..er, Brickain's
outlawing of the slave trade in 1807, coupled with the fact that the squadrons
sent to enforce said ban were so pitifully weak that it would fall to free
agents to follow their own morality. But if we're placing this a bit earlier
(say, 1770s?) you might eliminate the official nature and just get into the grey
issue where the "official" powers were noncommittal. Perhaps Doolittle could
land somewhere familiar, only to find sorrow as a slave raider had just come
through and taken away friends and family under cover of night--so Doolittle
wishes to set out after the fiend with a powerful frigate (because the Aurora,
for all her spunk, isn't powerful enough to take on a two-deck slaver with
20-plus guns) but the Brickish governor nearby (A retired rear admiral,
naturally, who's very comfortable on his expanding bottom) demands that they go
through "proper channels," which would take *far* too long (no telegraphy,
naturally--but even if there was, this *is* Parliament we're talking about
here).
So Doolittle enlists the aid of his friends in the town/village/wherever the
slaver struck, and together under cover of darkness they "steal" a large ship
(Agamemnon?) and sail off, fully intending to return it. This offers lots of
potential for humour as these landlubber locals have to learn how to become
seafarers and face down the slaver on his own "home turf"--the sea. Of course,
the theft itself can be pretty interesting, because most of these people won't
have seen a ship that size up close--much less tried to steal one.
For extra oomph, have the large ship somewhat damaged in the altercation, but
returned with the aforementioned "slaver" as a prize and the slave raider as a
prisoner, thus mending some of the fences with the local constabulary while
cementing Doolittle's reputation among the local folk. It's got
everything--morality, secrecy, gallant chases, a pitched sea battle, a happy
ending, *and* a tweak of the nose of an amoral Establishment.
Just a few thoughts, feel free to tweak, alter, demolish, or appropriate as
necessary.
best,
Lindsay
|
|
| |
Mr L F Braun wrote
> What could bring him into the same orbit as a slaver? • <<snip>>
> It's got everything--morality, secrecy, gallant chases, a pitched sea
battle, a happy ending, *and* a tweak of the nose of an amoral
Establishment.
COOL. In fact this is SO cool, it probably deserves the two syllable
rating; COOO-WEL.
Agamemnon under Doolittle v a 2 deck slaver! I wonder whether the Captain
of the Agamemnon might not team up with Doolittle after the capture of the
big ship, to work together to bring the slavers in. He'd always been keen
to go but his orders specifically prohibited it etc
This is going to require some thought.......
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoG7w2.BKt@lugnet.com>) wrote at
22:02:14
> Tony Priestman wrote
>
> > Good 'ole white slave trade. Chains, skimpy clothing, harems, Sultan of
> > somewhere or other, you get the picture.
>
> I like this.
>
> How do I do minifigs in the appropriate (skimpy) garb - or do you know
> something about TLCs next release that I don't?
'fraid not. Time to call in craigo...
Although, thinking about it, an adapted Islander babe might do the
trick.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
<38824981.7374FB63@pilot.msu.edu> <FoGAr7.1Fv@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Richard Parsons wrote:
> Mr L F Braun wrote
>
> > What could bring him into the same orbit as a slaver? • <<snip>>
> > It's got everything--morality, secrecy, gallant chases, a pitched sea
> battle, a happy ending, *and* a tweak of the nose of an amoral
> Establishment.
>
> COOL. In fact this is SO cool, it probably deserves the two syllable
> rating; COOO-WEL.
Thank God it wasn't any better, or you would have "kewled" me or something (or
is that a "1.5" cool?). It seems like a logical trajectory, and is the very
sort of thing that Victorians would have loved to read--come to think of it,
we love to see these sorts of things in literature and on the Big Screen even
today.
> Agamemnon under Doolittle v a 2 deck slaver! I wonder whether the Captain
> of the Agamemnon might not team up with Doolittle after the capture of the
> big ship, to work together to bring the slavers in. He'd always been keen
> to go but his orders specifically prohibited it etc
Well, the motivation of the characters are the privilege of the Legoverse's
creator. ;) But it would be interesting to see--a testament to the hero's
ability to persevere.
Even more interesting of a challenge would be if (as often happened when
slavers were being pursued in the mid-19th to early-20th C.--yes, twentieth
century--by British ships) the slavers begin throwing "ballast" overboard to
gain speed and manoeuverability when their situation looks hopeless--thus
creating the quandary: Does Doolittle stop to save the drowning captives, or
does he continue forth for justice? Or (as all good and intelligent heroes
can) can he somehow do it all--maybe by someone back at the coast, perhaps a
trusted crewmember who was supposed to watch over the Aurora, instead taking
her to sea without Doolittle's knowledge, and shadowing him when the slaver
makes the moral gambit, expecting to escape the "soft and weak" moralist?
That would provide you both with an illustration of the slavers' inhumanity
*and* the triumph of loyalty to a great leader by his crew--by being
righteous, Doolittle is rewarded by inspiring initiative and greatness around
him. A truly epic story?
best,
Lindsay
|
|
| |
Mr L F Braun wrote a truly epic story.
It needs a bit of a beginning.
How about.....
So, at the height of their (John E. and Aurora's) success, while Waite is
broken and penniless having blown his not inconsiderable fortune in vain
(and often comic) attempts to undo Doolittle, Aurora feels the need to be
reconciled with her father.
She and Doolittle, travelling under assumed names, book passage on a supply
ship returning to England from Port Block. En route, they are accosted by
black hearted pirates (masquerading as Doolittle's men). Grossly
outnumbered by the pirates, and with only the lack lustre and uncertain
support of the merchant crew, the supply ship is taken. Doolittle is a
little peeved.
The cargo (probably just rum from Port Block) is transferred to the pirate,
and in their disgust at such a light haul, they also take the darling
Aurora. Doolittle is probably more than peeved.
In dastardly pirate style, they set the merchantman afire, and sail away.
Doolittle is now feeling so incredibly more than peeved that peeved just
doesn't belong in the same sentence as what Doolittle was feeling, unless
the sentence also included words like 'incredibly more than'.
Under Doolittle's direction, the fire is controlled, and he takes over (what
remains of) the ship himself, and immediately steers for Shangrila. Walking
from the quarterdeck of the still smoking merchantman onto the quarterdeck
of the Aurora, he sallies forth. He encounters the pirate ship that stole
his love away, and by playing possum, takes the pirate, only to discover
that the day before, Aurora had been sold to a slaver! (shock horror etc!
Etc!!).
Knowing that even he could not bring a two decker slaver to heel without
running a substantial risk of blowing it, and the (dear Aurora) to blazes,
Doolittle drives on to Port Block in full view, hands over the captured
pirate as a gesture of good faith, and respectfully requests the Agamemnon
join the Aurora in pursuit of the slaver.
Governor Bligh, temporarily in command at Port Block, and hiding under his
bed as usual, refuses. And impounds the Aurora. And confines Doolittle to
the Aurora, until Bligh can work out what he should do, and whether it is
safe for him to come out from under the bed.
Captain Sheridan can make no sense of these proceedings at all, and is
almost overwhelmed by his desire to set sail and set all this to rights, but
he is bound by his honour and his oath. Stout fellow!
He joins Doolittle for dinner aboard the Aurora, and in the midst of a game
of hypothetical, moderated by the chief steward (one Geoffrey Robertson QC -
that's Quite a Cook), they stumble upon a course of events which would seem
to allow the Legoverse to assume more proper proportions. Hypothetically.
Extraordinarily, the very next day, those self same events as were talked
about in a frivolous parlour game the night before, began to unfold.
Hmmm. Big post. Kind of got on a roll there. Sorry ;-)
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
<3882AC0B.420D2906@pilot.msu.edu> <FoHHML.7B6@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Richard Parsons wrote:
> Mr L F Braun wrote a truly epic story.
>
> It needs a bit of a beginning.
>
> How about.....
>
> <biiiig snip>
I like it! However, I still really like the
theft-with-the-help-of-landlubber-locals
thing--after all, that ship will take quite a few people to operate, even if the
captain
goes along with it (because in order for it to succeed, you've got to do it
without
most of the crew). That's why the slaver could have taken people locally, and
this
would be a way for them to get their loved ones back.
best,
Lindsay
|
|
| |
Mr L F Braun wrote
> I like it! However, I still really like the
theft-with-the-help-of-landlubber-locals thing--after all, that ship will
take quite a few people to operate, even if the captain goes along with it
(because in order for it to succeed, you've got to do it without most of the
crew). That's why the slaver could have taken people locally, and this
would be a way for them to get their loved ones back.
Yes yes, I'm with you, I'm with you. Sheesh some people are keen! I
thought my last post was way too big and likely to start raising the ire of
the non-storytellers. I promise future posts of that size will go straight
to the site :-)
It wouldn't surprise me one little bit if John E. found a way to slip out of
Port Block, go rally some friendlies from nearby native villages, and come
back and take the Agamemnon. Wouldn't surprise me at all....
And I'm with you on the lubber types trying to come to grips with issues
maritime. Not only has the potential to be amusing, it can act as a tour de
force for issues maritime, giving plenty of opportunities for inducting new
kiddies into the 'age of sail society of awe and respect'.
In the meantime, one might start contemplating the sorts of things that can
happen when a largish group of bright Pacific islanders and swashbuckling
farmers embark upon the maritime adventure of their lives, with only a few
officers and a handful of experienced seamen (Doolittle's and Sheridan's)
to guide them.
Right then, where's my quill......
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Guys,
Now I know replying to your own posts is not exactly de rigeur, but I could
use the expertise of someone who knows something about sailing ships.
John E Doolittle has managed to rescue the (I've had just about enough of
thinking of superlatives for tonight) Aurora, but in writing up the tactics
and battle, I fear my reach has exceeded my grasp.
http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/doo/do6.htm
No doubt some of you will recognise the mistakes of language, structure and
tactics - pointers would be helpful :-)
A warning, do6 alone is now 30(odd)k of text. I'll fully understand if the
reading and offering corrections takes a bit of time.
regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
|
|
| |
Guys,
Now I know replying to your own posts is not exactly de rigeur, but I could
use the expertise of someone who knows something about sailing ships.
John E Doolittle has managed to rescue the (I've had just about enough of
thinking of superlatives for tonight) Aurora, but in writing up the tactics
and battle, I fear my reach has exceeded my grasp.
http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/doo/do6.htm
No doubt some of you will recognise the mistakes of language, structure and
tactics - pointers would be helpful :-)
A warning, do6 alone is now 30(odd)k of text. I'll fully understand if the
reading and offering corrections takes a bit of time.
regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> Guys,
>
> Now I know replying to your own posts is not exactly de rigeur, but I could
> use the expertise of someone who knows something about sailing ships.
>
> John E Doolittle has managed to rescue the (I've had just about enough of
> thinking of superlatives for tonight) Aurora, but in writing up the tactics
> and battle, I fear my reach has exceeded my grasp.
>
> http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/doo/do6.htm
>
> No doubt some of you will recognise the mistakes of language, structure and
> tactics - pointers would be helpful :-)
>
> A warning, do6 alone is now 30(odd)k of text. I'll fully understand if the
> reading and offering corrections takes a bit of time.
>
> regards
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
> Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Wading through long, long story trying to figure out where this battle is...
Hard a'starboard. A command that will actually turn the boat to the left
(port, larboard). The command is which way to turn the wheel, not the boat. I
think (and here I was watching the America's Cup last night and didn't notice
how it works on modern ships - yes, it's a sloop, not a ship, dang).
Notes on how it is to catch a slaver from behind? "Here be yer freedom, jus'
hold this cannonball and walk off that plank o'er there." :-0
Cables, not yards. Unfortunately, I forget how long a cable is.
Cannons were brought up on deck? Maybe a swivel gun, but these things weighed
tons.
Hmmmm, I'll have to read this more thoroughly. You don't want me to get into
my editor's mode where I start stepping all over the purple prose (heavy-handed
training from computer games). :-)
Bruce
|
|
| |
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fp0A9s.4wq@lugnet.com>) wrote
at 18:05:52
> Cables, not yards. Unfortunately, I forget how long a cable is.
200 yards.
More when I've read it myself :-)
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ...
> Hard a'starboard. A command that will actually turn the boat to the left
> (port, larboard). The command is which way to turn the wheel, not the • boat. I
> think (and here I was watching the America's Cup last night and didn't • notice
> how it works on modern ships - yes, it's a sloop, not a ship, dang).
Really? So I turn the wheel left to steer right. I didn't know that. I
though only airplanes were that cock-eyed.
And despite having taken the wheel of HMS Bounty (the one they built for the
Mel Gibson version) on Sydney Harbour for half an hour one lovely afternoon,
including for some hard braking, I never noticed this.
Is that why the helmsman was looking so strained, do you think?
(When you come to Australia, include Sydney in the itinerary, and make sure
you have lunch aboard the Bounty. Not dinner - take one of the modern
cruisers for the harbour lights cruise. Have lunch, in the sun, on the hot
deck, look up into the heaving rigging and imagine what it must have been
like. You'll notice I'm using the imperative. I'm not asking, I'm telling.
Do it. You'll love it. :-)
Conceptualising naval battles is never particularly easy. Its probably even
harder since I just made it up (I bet _that's_ a shock ;-), and quite
conceivably got parts of it upside down and inside out. How about if I drew
a picture? Although maps of naval battles aren't all that helpful either
sometimes. I'll have a go.
regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman wrote
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote
>
> > Cables, not yards. Unfortunately, I forget how long a cable is.
>
> 200 yards.
Cool.
Anyone know how long a chain was? How about a league? And a fathom was
about 6 feet, yes?
And thanks for the email - I'll get those corrections sorted out over the
weekend.
regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
|
|
| |
Quoting from the book [1]:
<quote>
Units of Linear Measure
1 chain = 100 links
= 66 feet
1 mile = 80 chains
= 5280 feet
Units of Area
1 acre = 10 square chains
= 43,560 square feet
1 square mile = 640 acres
The chain unit, devised in the seventeenth century, by Edmund Gunter,
an English astronomer, is so designed that 10 square chains are
equivalent to one acre. In the english colonial area of the United
States the boundries of land were usually measured in the chain unit,
lengths of lines were expressed in poles. One pole is equal to 25 links,
and four poles equals one chain. The field notes of some early
rectangular surveys in the southern States show the distance in
"perches," equivalent to poles. The term now commonly used for the same
distance is the rod.
</quote/
It goes on to talk about the french using "arpents" and the spanish and
mexican using "varas".
Does this help ?
Ray
[1] Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the
United States, 1973. B.L.M. Technical Publication 6, US Dept of the Interior.
Richard Parsons wrote:
>
> Tony Priestman wrote
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote
> >
> > > Cables, not yards. Unfortunately, I forget how long a cable is.
> >
> > 200 yards.
>
> Cool.
>
> Anyone know how long a chain was? How about a league? And a fathom was
> about 6 feet, yes?
>
> And thanks for the email - I'll get those corrections sorted out over the
> weekend.
>
> regards
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
> Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
|
|
| |
Ray Sanders wrote
> 1 chain = 100 links
> = 66 feet
> 1 mile = 80 chains
> = 5280 feet
>
> Units of Area
> 1 acre = 10 square chains
> = 43,560 square feet
> 1 square mile = 640 acres
For every fact there is at least one person who knows it.
This internet thingie - very clever!
Thanks Ray.
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> Ray Sanders wrote
> > 1 chain = 100 links
> > = 66 feet
> > 1 mile = 80 chains
> > = 5280 feet
> >
> > Units of Area
> > 1 acre = 10 square chains
> > = 43,560 square feet
> > 1 square mile = 640 acres
>
>
> For every fact there is at least one person who knows it.
>
> This internet thingie - very clever!
>
> Thanks Ray.
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
> Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
You have to remember though that the chain was a land surveyors measurement.
Not really suited for the seafarer. They tended to use the League, Fathom and
Cable. Don't have the specifics for each at hand, but might be able to locate.
Like the Story, am sorry my own Lego Dark Age lasted through Pirates. Hope
they release more in the future!
The Ideal Tactic in the Wooden Ships Age was to 'Cross the T' with the enemy.
That means to sail your broadside across the bow or stern of the opponent. He
could not bring his broadside to bear whilst you let him have a full volley.
Just have the RN ship make the turn in front of the Sea Princess and let each
Gun add his (or hers, depending upon your crews preference) punctuation to the
argument at hand. Then turn and let him have the other side if necessary.
Generally to take care of sails and rigging chain and bar shot was used,
grapeshot was more an anti-personnel weapon.
Keep up the good work!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Lance Scott writes:
> In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> > Ray Sanders wrote
> > > 1 chain = 100 links
> > > = 66 feet
> > > 1 mile = 80 chains
> > > = 5280 feet
> > >
> > > Units of Area
> > > 1 acre = 10 square chains
> > > = 43,560 square feet
> > > 1 square mile = 640 acres
> >
> >
> > For every fact there is at least one person who knows it.
> >
> > This internet thingie - very clever!
> >
> > Thanks Ray.
> >
> > Richard
> > Still baldly going...
> > Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
>
> You have to remember though that the chain was a land surveyors measurement.
> Not really suited for the seafarer. They tended to use the League, Fathom and
> Cable. Don't have the specifics for each at hand, but might be able to • locate.
>
> Like the Story, am sorry my own Lego Dark Age lasted through Pirates. Hope
> they release more in the future!
>
> The Ideal Tactic in the Wooden Ships Age was to 'Cross the T' with the enemy.
> That means to sail your broadside across the bow or stern of the opponent. He
> could not bring his broadside to bear whilst you let him have a full volley.
>
> Just have the RN ship make the turn in front of the Sea Princess and let each
> Gun add his (or hers, depending upon your crews preference) punctuation to the
> argument at hand. Then turn and let him have the other side if necessary.
>
> Generally to take care of sails and rigging chain and bar shot was used,
> grapeshot was more an anti-personnel weapon.
> Keep up the good work!
Found it!
Main Entry: league
Pronunciation: 'lEg
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English leuge, lege, from Late Latin leuga
Date: 14th century
1 : any of various units of distance from about 2.4 to 4.6 statute miles (3.9
to 7.4 kilometers)
2 : a square league
Main Entry: cable length
Function: noun
Date: 1555
: a maritime unit of length variously reckoned as 100 fathoms, 120 fathoms, or
608 feet
Main Entry: fath·om
Pronunciation: 'fa-[th]&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fadme, from Old English fæthm outstretched arms,
length of the outstretched arms; akin to Old Norse fathmr fathom, Latin patEre
to be
open, pandere to spread out, Greek petannynai
Date: before 12th century
1 : a unit of length equal to six feet (1.83 meters) used especially for
measuring the depth of water
2 : COMPREHENSION
Love this stuff!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ...
> > Hard a'starboard. A command that will actually turn the boat to the left
> > (port, larboard). The command is which way to turn the wheel, not the • boat. I
> > think (and here I was watching the America's Cup last night and didn't • notice
> > how it works on modern ships - yes, it's a sloop, not a ship, dang).
>
>
> Really? So I turn the wheel left to steer right. I didn't know that. I
> though only airplanes were that cock-eyed.
I grew up with small sailboats that only had a tiller, where you push the
tiller one way to go the other. But I've specifcally read somewhere that "hard
a'starboard" is the command for the wheel and the ship very specifcally goes
the other way. I'll be watching the next America's Cup race closely, as I
said.
>
> And despite having taken the wheel of HMS Bounty (the one they built for the
> Mel Gibson version) on Sydney Harbour for half an hour one lovely afternoon,
> including for some hard braking, I never noticed this.
I would love to see it, and I'd love to go to Australia some day (my father was
there in the less than ideal circumstances of WWII). I have been on the upper
decks of the remake of the Golden Hind (which appeared in the movie
Swashbuckler), but that was quite a while ago. For anyone in southern
california, the tall ships are in Long Beach right now (quick cut and paste
from No Quarter Given's event calander):
Present -- March 12, 2000: TALL SHIPS TOUR 99-00
California Coast, San Diego -- Santa Cruz
With the "Hawaiian Chieftain" with "Pilgrim of Newport, "Bill of Rights", and
"Lady Washington". Reservations & Information: (800) 401-7835
Ports o' Call:
--Long Beach, Rainbow Harbor, January 25-February 6 <<----***
--Ventura February, Venture Village Harbor, 8-21
--Morro Bay February 24-27
--Santa Cruz March 1-12
--San Francisco March 14-21
--Redwood City March 22-April 2
--Oakland March 3-9
--Sausalito April 10-16
--Dockside tours for the public - free tours on day of arrival in port.
--Guided tours for the public include tours below decks. Weekdays except Fri.
4pm-6pm. Sat. 10am-1pm. $7 family, $3 adult, $2 student/senior, $1 child.
Reservations not required.
--Cannon Battle Reenactment Sails -- Passengers can sail along with the
costumed crew on these exciting three hour events. Sat. 2pm -5pm (except Dec.
11, sail is
1pm-4pm). Sun. 10am-1pm & 2pm to 5pm. $40 adult, $25 child.
--Parade of Lights - December 11 -- Join us on the Parade of Lights harbor
cruise on board the Hawaiian Chieftain & Pilgrim of Newport in Marina del Rey
on
Saturday December 11, 6-8pm. $20 adult, $10 child
Reservations & Information: (800) 401-7835
>
> Is that why the helmsman was looking so strained, do you think?
>
> (When you come to Australia, include Sydney in the itinerary, and make sure
> you have lunch aboard the Bounty. Not dinner - take one of the modern
> cruisers for the harbour lights cruise. Have lunch, in the sun, on the hot
> deck, look up into the heaving rigging and imagine what it must have been
> like. You'll notice I'm using the imperative. I'm not asking, I'm telling.
> Do it. You'll love it. :-)
There's only one problem with me and boats - the open ocean makes me seasick!
I don't even let my wife drive the car. :-)
>
> Conceptualising naval battles is never particularly easy. Its probably even
> harder since I just made it up (I bet _that's_ a shock ;-), and quite
> conceivably got parts of it upside down and inside out. How about if I drew
> a picture? Although maps of naval battles aren't all that helpful either
> sometimes. I'll have a go.
Just take pictures of your ships in action - that'll do it!
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> Tony Priestman wrote
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote
> >
> > > Cables, not yards. Unfortunately, I forget how long a cable is.
> >
> > 200 yards.
>
>
> Cool.
>
> Anyone know how long a chain was? How about a league? And a fathom was
> about 6 feet, yes?
I bow to the other post on the chain. A league is variable, but usually three
miles. A fathom is six feet. It should be noted a nautical mile is 6000 feet,
not 5280.
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> I bow to the other post on the chain. A league is variable, but usually three
> miles. A fathom is six feet. It should be noted a nautical mile is 6000
> feet, not 5280.
Since my knowledge of maritime issues extends only far enough to know that a
whale is not a fish, I ask the following question:
How many whats are in a "knot?" Is it shorthand for "nautical mile?" Is it a
standard value, or is it a more elastic measurement depending on who's using
it? Did I even spell it right?
Help a poor landlubber understand...
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.pirates, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > I bow to the other post on the chain. A league is variable, but usually • three
> > miles. A fathom is six feet. It should be noted a nautical mile is 6000
> > feet, not 5280.
>
> Since my knowledge of maritime issues extends only far enough to know that a
> whale is not a fish, I ask the following question:
> How many whats are in a "knot?" Is it shorthand for "nautical mile?" Is it a
> standard value, or is it a more elastic measurement depending on who's using
> it? Did I even spell it right?
> Help a poor landlubber understand...
Ah...
A Knot is 12 feet, or a Nautical Mile. Drop a float overboard, and count how
many Knots go through your hands in (forget how many seconds). This tells you
how fast you are moving relative to the water, in Nautical Miles per hour.
James (a helpful sailor)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Lance Scott writes:
> The Ideal Tactic in the Wooden Ships Age was to 'Cross the T' with the enemy.
> That means to sail your broadside across the bow or stern of the opponent. He
> could not bring his broadside to bear whilst you let him have a full volley.
I think I read or saw somewhere that this same tactic was used in WWII
(Battle of Midway, maybe?). It's cool (insofar as war is cool) that such
venerable methods still see use in more modern times.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.pirates, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > I bow to the other post on the chain. A league is variable, but usually • three
> > miles. A fathom is six feet. It should be noted a nautical mile is 6000
> > feet, not 5280.
>
> Since my knowledge of maritime issues extends only far enough to know that a
> whale is not a fish, I ask the following question:
> How many whats are in a "knot?" Is it shorthand for "nautical mile?" Is it a
> standard value, or is it a more elastic measurement depending on who's using
> it? Did I even spell it right?
> Help a poor landlubber understand...
>
> Dave!
Webster's Dictionary says:
<quote>
In nautical usage knot is a unit of speed, not of distance, and has a built-in
meaning of “per hour.” Therefore, a ship would strictly be said to travel at
ten knots (not ten knots per hour).
knot: (a) A division of the log line, serving to measure the rate of the
vessel's motion. Each knot on the line bears the same proportion to a mile
that thirty seconds do to an hour. The number of knots which run off from the
reel in half a minute, therefore, shows the number of miles the vessel sails
in an hour. Hence: (b) A nautical mile, or 6080.27 feet; as, when a ship goes
eight miles an hour, her speed is said to be eight knots.
<endquote>
I don't quite know what all this means, but maybe you can figure it out from
here...
-Adam
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.pirates, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > I bow to the other post on the chain. A league is variable, but usually • three
> > miles. A fathom is six feet. It should be noted a nautical mile is 6000
> > feet, not 5280.
>
> Since my knowledge of maritime issues extends only far enough to know that a
> whale is not a fish, I ask the following question:
> How many whats are in a "knot?" Is it shorthand for "nautical mile?" Is it a
> standard value, or is it a more elastic measurement depending on who's using
> it? Did I even spell it right?
> Help a poor landlubber understand...
>
> Dave!
Here ya go
7 a : a division of the log's line serving to measure a ship's speed b (1) :
one nautical mile per hour (2) : one nautical mile -- not used technically
They would measure the ship's speed by dropping a piece of wood (the log)
overboard and measure the time it took to get to the first knot on the line.
With some math you can determine the speed of the ship.
Yo Ho, Yo Ho, A Pirate's Life for Me!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.pirates, Lance Scott writes:
> > The Ideal Tactic in the Wooden Ships Age was to 'Cross the T' with the enemy.
> > That means to sail your broadside across the bow or stern of the opponent. • He
> > could not bring his broadside to bear whilst you let him have a full volley.
>
> I think I read or saw somewhere that this same tactic was used in WWII
> (Battle of Midway, maybe?). It's cool (insofar as war is cool) that such
> venerable methods still see use in more modern times.
>
> Dave!
The tactic does still hold with turret mounted guns, the enemy can still only
bear a fraction of his firepower, while you can use all of yours.
Missiles on the other hand negate that advantage entirely.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Lance Scott writes:
> The tactic does still hold with turret mounted guns, the enemy can still only
> bear a fraction of his firepower, while you can use all of yours.
>
> Missiles on the other hand negate that advantage entirely.
Heh. Yeah, I guess it's a lot different when you can fire more-or-less from
all directions...
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Lance Scott writes:
> In lugnet.pirates, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.pirates, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > I bow to the other post on the chain. A league is variable, but usually • three
> > > miles. A fathom is six feet. It should be noted a nautical mile is 6000
> > > feet, not 5280.
> >
> > Since my knowledge of maritime issues extends only far enough to know that • a
> > whale is not a fish, I ask the following question:
> > How many whats are in a "knot?" Is it shorthand for "nautical mile?" Is it • a
> > standard value, or is it a more elastic measurement depending on who's using
> > it? Did I even spell it right?
> > Help a poor landlubber understand...
> >
> > Dave!
>
> Here ya go
> 7 a : a division of the log's line serving to measure a ship's speed b (1) :
> one nautical mile per hour (2) : one nautical mile -- not used technically
>
> They would measure the ship's speed by dropping a piece of wood (the log)
> overboard and measure the time it took to get to the first knot on the line.
> With some math you can determine the speed of the ship.
>
> Yo Ho, Yo Ho, A Pirate's Life for Me!
The term was, "heaving the log".
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.pirates, Lance Scott writes:
> > The Ideal Tactic in the Wooden Ships Age was to 'Cross the T' with the enemy.
> > That means to sail your broadside across the bow or stern of the opponent. • He
> > could not bring his broadside to bear whilst you let him have a full volley.
>
> I think I read or saw somewhere that this same tactic was used in WWII
> (Battle of Midway, maybe?). It's cool (insofar as war is cool) that such
> venerable methods still see use in more modern times.
>
> Dave!
The fleets never saw each other at the Battle of Midway (aircraft carrier
warfare).
The Battle of Jutland in WWI would be more appropriate. The entire british
fleet crossed the T on the german fleet. The germans used their "battle turn
away" tactic to get out with their skins.
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> The fleets never saw each other at the Battle of Midway (aircraft carrier
> warfare).
Yeah--I guess aircraft carriers don't shoot at each other that much...
> The Battle of Jutland in WWI would be more appropriate. The entire british
> fleet crossed the T on the german fleet. The germans used their "battle turn
> away" tactic to get out with their skins.
Maybe that's the battle I read/heard about. Thanks for the info!
Dave!
|
|
| |
Lance Scott wrote in message ...
> You have to remember though that the chain was a land surveyors • measurement.
> Not really suited for the seafarer. They tended to use the League, Fathom • and
> Cable. Don't have the specifics for each at hand, but might be able to
locate.
Right. Cables it is.
> Like the Story, am sorry my own Lego Dark Age lasted through Pirates. Hope
> they release more in the future!
Sympathies. Look sharp though, there still be a few treasures to be found.
> The Ideal Tactic in the Wooden Ships Age was to 'Cross the T' with the • enemy.
> That means to sail your broadside across the bow or stern of the opponent. • He
> could not bring his broadside to bear whilst you let him have a full • volley.
>
> Just have the RN ship make the turn in front of the Sea Princess and let • each
> Gun add his (or hers, depending upon your crews preference) punctuation to • the
> argument at hand. Then turn and let him have the other side if necessary.
Mmmm. In this particular engagement, carnage was more or less out as a
tactic.
You'd have to have been playing like a twonk to have your T crossed though,
wouldn't you?
> Generally to take care of sails and rigging chain and bar shot was used,
> grapeshot was more an anti-personnel weapon.
Right. Bar shot. Got it.
> Keep up the good work!
Thanks - can't help myself ;-)
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote
> Hard a'starboard. A command that will actually turn the boat
> to the left (port, larboard). The command is which way to turn
> the wheel, not the boat. I think (and here I was watching
> the America's Cup last night and didn't notice how it works
> on modern ships - yes, it's a sloop, not a ship, dang).
> I grew up with small sailboats that only had a tiller, where you
> push the tiller one way to go the other. But I've specifcally
> read somewhere that "hard a'starboard" is the command for
> the wheel and the ship very specifcally goes the other way.
> I'll be watching the next America's Cup race closely, as I said.
How about if the helmsman, instead of
'slammed the wheel hard a'starboard',
'pushed the wheel hard over, and the Aurora heaved sharply to starboard'.?
> Present -- March 12, 2000: TALL SHIPS TOUR 99-00
> California Coast, San Diego -- Santa Cruz
> With the "Hawaiian Chieftain" with "Pilgrim of Newport, "Bill of Rights", • and
> "Lady Washington". Reservations & Information: (800) 401-7835
Wasn't lady Washington the Enterprise of Trek 7?
> > Conceptualising naval battles is never particularly easy. Its
> > probably even harder since I just made it up (I bet _that's_ a
> > shock ;-), and quite conceivably got parts of it upside down and
> > inside out. How about if I drew a picture? Although maps of
> > naval battles aren't all that helpful either sometimes. I'll have a go.
> Just take pictures of your ships in action - that'll do it!
Reckon I'll do both - but the pics will take longer. I have the ships, but
not yet the sails. I'm working on it.
regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Dave Schuler wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.pirates, Lance Scott writes:
> > The tactic does still hold with turret mounted guns, the enemy can still • only
> > bear a fraction of his firepower, while you can use all of yours.
> >
> > Missiles on the other hand negate that advantage entirely.
>
> Heh. Yeah, I guess it's a lot different when you can fire more-or-less • from
> all directions...
Ok, sounds good.
So what's the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century equivalent of a
missile system - a carronade? ;-)
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<Fp2xL2.D31@lugnet.com>) wrote at
04:23:36
>
> So what's the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century equivalent of a
> missile system - a carronade? ;-)
I don't think so - carronades were only good a short range.
You might be able to put a very large cannon on a very small, fast ship,
but even so, you'd probably only get a few shots off before you were hit
or shaken to bits.
You *could* use rockets. Someone on the British army (Congreve) was
experimenting with them round about this time, or earlier.
Ooh!
'At the battle of Bladensburg (Aug 24 1814) the use of rockets assisted
British forces to turn the flank of the American troops defending
Washington DC. As a result, the British were able to capture the city.'
(Brittanica)
Plus other references, including a naval bombardment of Boulogne in
1806, but the Washington one was more fun :-)
Actually, there's loads of good stuff here.
Later, the British attempted to take Ft McHenry in Baltimore Harbour
using a specially designed ship, the Erebus.
The night attack inspired Francis Scott Key to write the Star Spangled
Banner.
Woo hoo! I'm going to build me a rocket-ship!
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
(major snippage)
> Woo hoo! I'm going to build me a rocket-ship!
>
>
> --
> Tony Priestman
Hmmmmmmm. Wood. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Canvas. So which ship are you planning
to sink? The target or your own? :-)
Bruce
|
|
| |
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fp3tv1.Lx5@lugnet.com>) wrote
at 16:01:49
> In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> (major snippage)
> > Woo hoo! I'm going to build me a rocket-ship!
>
>
> Hmmmmmmm. Wood. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Canvas. So which ship are you planning
> to sink? The target or your own? :-)
Yes, I had the same thoughts, but you can't make an omelette without
breaking eggs :-)
I can see the added risk making for a few comic situations!
I can't find any pictures of this Erebus. They're all of the one after,
the NW Passage one. But if they built a special ship, there must be a
reasonable way of doing it.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
OK, now that I've recovered, but lost all the knowledge of which messages I
had read... (I've been thinking of writing my own customized newsreader, OEs
little crashes are making me seriously consider it...)
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> > Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ...
> > > Hard a'starboard. A command that will actually turn the boat to the left
> > > (port, larboard). The command is which way to turn the wheel, not the • boat. I
> > > think (and here I was watching the America's Cup last night and didn't • notice
> > > how it works on modern ships - yes, it's a sloop, not a ship, dang).
> >
> >
> > Really? So I turn the wheel left to steer right. I didn't know that. I
> > though only airplanes were that cock-eyed.
>
> I grew up with small sailboats that only had a tiller, where you push the
> tiller one way to go the other. But I've specifcally read somewhere that • "hard
> a'starboard" is the command for the wheel and the ship very specifcally • goes
> the other way. I'll be watching the next America's Cup race closely, as I
> said.
>
> >
> > And despite having taken the wheel of HMS Bounty (the one they built for • the
> > Mel Gibson version) on Sydney Harbour for half an hour one lovely • afternoon,
> > including for some hard braking, I never noticed this.
Ok, I found a nice little web page which describes how the confusion came
about, it even details why I thought I remembered something about the
command given to the Titanic helmsman was incorrect (though it doesn't
explicitly mention that, it does mention one of the references that I might
have heard this from). Anywise, what it comes down to is that when you have
a tiller, you need to turn the tiller opposite the direction you want the
boat to go. When you have a whipstaff or wheel, you turn the whipstaff or
wheel in the direction you want to go. However, the command given to turn
the rudder was historically always given in reference to a tiller, so you
turn a whipstaff or wheel opposite the command.
Here's the reference:
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/wheel.html
Incidentally, looking through several books on ships I have, every
illustration, which shows enough of the steering gear to figure out which
way you turn it to turn the rudder, shows that you turn a whipstaff or wheel
in the direction you want the ship to go.
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Frank Filz writes:
> Ok, I found a nice little web page which describes how the confusion came
> about, it even details why I thought I remembered something about the
> command given to the Titanic helmsman was incorrect (though it doesn't
> explicitly mention that, it does mention one of the references that I might
> have heard this from). Anywise, what it comes down to is that when you have
> a tiller, you need to turn the tiller opposite the direction you want the
> boat to go. When you have a whipstaff or wheel, you turn the whipstaff or
> wheel in the direction you want to go. However, the command given to turn
> the rudder was historically always given in reference to a tiller, so you
> turn a whipstaff or wheel opposite the command.
>
> Here's the reference:
>
> http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/wheel.html
>
> Incidentally, looking through several books on ships I have, every
> illustration, which shows enough of the steering gear to figure out which
> way you turn it to turn the rudder, shows that you turn a whipstaff or wheel
> in the direction you want the ship to go.
>
> Frank
Well done. Thanks for the excellent refernce. Yes, the America's Cup boats
turn in the direction of the wheel. I learned to sail before I could drive, so
the opposite direction tiller thing never bugged me.
Bruce
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman and Bruce Schlickbernd wrote about the relspective meruts of
rockets as an offensive weapon aboard late 17th and early 18th century
warships.
Ok ok ok.
How about a barge-like monitor?
No sails or rigging to set afire while arguing with the bad guys. You could
tow it (a considerable distance) behind your ship, or anchor it in position
and leave it. Ideal for leaving in harbour mouths.
You could tow it into battle, and leave it among the bad guys. I'm
thinking fireship, only better.
This would have to be an idea use for 10 wide hull pieces, wouldn't it? And
a much more sensible use for spare hulls, that leaving them lying to rot
anchored in the Thames, full of prisoners we can't be bothered to transport,
surely.
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
| |
Richard Parsons wrote in message ...
> Tony Priestman and Bruce Schlickbernd wrote about the relspective meruts • of
> rockets as an offensive weapon aboard late 17th and early 18th century
> warships.
'relspective meruts'? - why do I pay this spellchecker anyway?
Come here little spellchecker. Look at this. 'respective merits', see? Get
it?
Why is this so hard?
Now go and write "I will always remember to check ALL the message, EVERY
time." a hundred and fifty times.
Mmm?
Yes, now.
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
|
|
| |
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<Fp4ws7.16n@lugnet.com>) wrote at
06:03:01
>
> How about a barge-like monitor?
>
> No sails or rigging to set afire while arguing with the bad guys. You could
> tow it (a considerable distance) behind your ship, or anchor it in position
> and leave it. Ideal for leaving in harbour mouths.
But what about the poor souls you'd have to leave on it to fire the
ordnance? They'd almost certainly be captured.
>
> You could tow it into battle, and leave it among the bad guys. I'm
> thinking fireship, only better.
This is more like it. I can see a tactic involving two ships and a
barge.
The first ship tows the barge. Obviously, it's slowed down by this.
The barge is crewed by a few petty officers and gunners, to let the
rockets off, and keep the barge pointing in the right direction, etc.
In the event of having to leave the barge in a hurry, because it's
caught fire, or you're being chased by a superior force, the second
ship, which is stationed a reasonable distance upwind, can come in and
collect the crew of the barge, without the first ship having to loose
time manoeuvring back to pick them up.
>
> This would have to be an idea use for 10 wide hull pieces, wouldn't it? And
> a much more sensible use for spare hulls, that leaving them lying to rot
> anchored in the Thames, full of prisoners we can't be bothered to transport,
> surely.
Hangin's too good for 'em :-)
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Got an Idear for ya, Matey!
Set during the illustrious career of the indomitable J.E. Doolittle, Capt.,
etc., etc.
Doolittle hears rumours of another Brikish Museum expedition to "gather native
artifacts for preservation by the infinitely more cultured and advanced Great
Brikain society" i.e. looting anything not nailed down (and most of them were
carrying great, big crowbars, so that is up for speculation).
After visiting several islands and hob-nobbing with the nabobs in charge,
Doolittle cathes the scent of his quarrey. A small, fast ship that is ideal
for punting about the islands and running away quickly when the natives catch
on to what you are up to.
Doolittle pursues (after all, that's what heroes do to villains) and chases the
looters for several days. Finally, to avoid him, the varlets steer towards a
circular reef/island. Timing their arrival to just as the tide is going out,
the scoundrels take refuge in the interior, thumbing their collective noses at
our hero. Doolittle knows that the jagged coral would gut his Aurora as surely
as a fishwife taking care of a codfish for a customer.
There is enough room in the interior for Doolittle not to be absolutely certain
where the rogues will attempt to leave when the tide comes back in, so it is
time once again to "do little".
Dolittle engages his ship's carpenter, Jack Q. Boothroyd, (Maj. of Engineers,
ret.) in a round of speculation and idea generation. Hampered somewhat by
Impunity interjecting comments about the "potential liability" and "suit
potential inherent" etc., etc. Maj. Boothroyd retired from the Army and wanted
to get as far away from land as possible, so his current position is well-nigh
ideal as Doolittle's chief carpenter and engineer. He had been mucking about
with an idea for a non-fouling paint for ship's hulls. A noxious aggregation
involving coal soot and other, less savory ingredients. It hasn't quite
worked, yet, but has made a really, really black paint. I mean absolutely
stunningly black. Think of black velvet in a coal mine at midnight when the
lamps go out and that just begins to describe the absolute, utter, unrelieved
blackness of this paint.
After some deliberation, Doolittle decides to use the paint to conceal the
small boats and launch a raid to capture the enemy vessel. But how to make
them think Doolittle and his men were still aboard? Dolittle puzzled and
puzzled 'til his puzzler was sore until he remembered a parlor toy he had seen
demonstrated in London. A lamp was used to project the shadows of puppets on a
screen for the amusement of all in attendance. He called in Boothroyd and
explained the concept. Working like dervishes, they hastily rigged up several
life-sized puppets and appointed men to operate them. Since one man could
handle up to three at a time, they figured it would be enough to fool the
looters.
To make a long story short (TOO LATE!!!) Dolittle and his hand picked boarding
party circle around behind the looters vessel, and come up over the railing
silent as the shadows of owls on new snow by the full moon. They quickly
subdue the deck watch and Dolittle entered the cabin of the Captain. With
drawn cutlass and pistol, he spoke the immortal words
"We will have no trouble here, right?"
Suffice it to say, the stolen artifacts were returned to their rightful places,
the looters were dumped unceremoniously in their BVD's on the beach an all was
temporarily right with the world. And Capt. John E. Dolittle once again saved
the day by "doing little" and also named the island.
Oh, you haven't heard of No Trouble Atoll?
Apologies for the length, but when the Muse strikes.....
"Yo Ho, Yo Ho, A Pirates Life for Me!"
|
|
| |
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Lance Scott (<Fp7GBq.AzK@lugnet.com>) wrote at
14:59:50
> Got an Idear for ya, Matey!
>
> Set during the illustrious career of the indomitable J.E. Doolittle, Capt.,
> etc., etc.
<*massive* snip>
>
> Oh, you haven't heard of No Trouble Atoll?
groan!
>
> Apologies for the length, but when the Muse strikes.....
>
> "Yo Ho, Yo Ho, A Pirates Life for Me!"
With stuff as good as that, you should be settin' up with a nice little
ship of yer own! :-)
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> Tony Priestman and Bruce Schlickbernd wrote about the relspective meruts of
> rockets as an offensive weapon aboard late 17th and early 18th century
> warships.
>
> Ok ok ok.
>
> How about a barge-like monitor?
>
> No sails or rigging to set afire while arguing with the bad guys. You could
> tow it (a considerable distance) behind your ship, or anchor it in position
> and leave it. Ideal for leaving in harbour mouths.
>
> You could tow it into battle, and leave it among the bad guys. I'm
> thinking fireship, only better.
Hmmm, well, that would seem to work. Don't quite know why it wasn't tried (or
maybe it has been, but I haven't run across it yet). Too slow to aim,
especially when the target is moving?
I think it would work best as a surprise weapon under limited conditions.
Surprise, point-blank range, that kind of thing. Harbor defense possibly.
Towing would work best in the same kind of condition fire-ships worked best:
when the other fleet is in port.
Ship's captain probably didn't like them for the same reason they didn't bother
with heated shot (to cause fires): just too dangerous to the firing ship.
But then again, this is fictional, so we can throw caution to the wind! :-)
Bruce
|
|
| |
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fp7nEI.50G@lugnet.com>) wrote
at 17:32:42
>
> But then again, this is fictional, so we can throw caution to the wind! :-)
Arr!
And throw lubbers to the sharks!
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Lance Scott (<Fp7GBq.AzK@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 14:59:50
>
> > Got an Idear for ya, Matey!
> >
> > Set during the illustrious career of the indomitable J.E. Doolittle, Capt.,
> > etc., etc.
>
> <*massive* snip>
> >
> > Oh, you haven't heard of No Trouble Atoll?
>
> groan!
> >
> > Apologies for the length, but when the Muse strikes.....
> >
> > "Yo Ho, Yo Ho, A Pirates Life for Me!"
>
> With stuff as good as that, you should be settin' up with a nice little
> ship of yer own! :-)
>
> --
> Tony Priestman
I'll be needin' some Pirate set's then. Me own DarkAge lasted through Pirates,
more's the pity. Certainly have considered it, might be able to cobble
somethin' together with other bits an' pieces, but I might have to fight off a
suit from a certain bird, who shall remain nameless, but none the less is
unhappy with the miniscule amount of copy he got from that exploit, him
providing all the voices to keep up the deception, and all.
Paronomasia, it's not a disease. It's a lifestyle.
"Show 'em yer larboard side, dearie!"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fp7nEI.50G@lugnet.com>) wrote
> at 17:32:42
>
> >
> > But then again, this is fictional, so we can throw caution to the wind! :-)
>
> Arr!
>
> And throw lubbers to the sharks!
>
> --
> Tony Priestman
Ye be making a mistake. Lubbers be good fer sumting 'board ship. We need
sumone ta be pulling on the lines and hawsers, an' reefin' the sails. Timmies
we throw to the sharks. It not be wise ta get me a'goin' on the subject o'
Timmies again...
But now that I'm a'thinkin' abou' it, thar was a lubber by the name o' Tom
O'Caution. We threw him ta the wind (downwind - he ne'er took his monthly
bath) AND ta the sharks. Be ye satisfied now?
The Corsair
|
|
| |
Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.pirates, Lance Scott writes:
> > The Ideal Tactic in the Wooden Ships Age was to 'Cross the T' with the enemy.
> > That means to sail your broadside across the bow or stern of the opponent. He
> > could not bring his broadside to bear whilst you let him have a full volley.
>
> I think I read or saw somewhere that this same tactic was used in WWII
> (Battle of Midway, maybe?).
Ack, no. The only side with battleships at Midway was Japanese, and they never
took any part of the battle (they were part of the "invasion force"). It was a
purely carrier-driven action (with bits of submarineness about).
You may be thinking of the 1944 Battle of the Suraigo Strait, which was the last
battleship action ever fought--six US battleships and attendant destroyers crossed
the "T" of two Japanese vessels at night, with predictable results. However,
crossing the "T" was the favoured goal of all naval commanders until that war; the
Grand Fleet managed this feat not once but twice at Jutland, and the Germans merely
turned away (another tactic that would have been pure chaos in the age of sail, but
one that proved highly effective here).
> It's cool (insofar as war is cool) that such
> venerable methods still see use in more modern times.
You might want to pick up a book that I first read in 1994 (and actually just
bought my own copy of this week), Robert O'Connell's _Sacred Vessels: The Cult of
the Battleship and the Rise of the US Navy_. He talks about "naval tradition"
inertia and why the battleship and its associated tactics were maintained long
after the actual weapon was really outmoded by three-dimensional warfare, starting
with torpedo boats around 1900 and carrying through to submarines and guided
missiles. The most striking point he makes--and a valid one--is that modern
battleships have almost never actually managed to sink one another by gunfire
alone. If you remove the "accelerated" cases like the British battlecruisers, then
I don't think there's a single case. It's always been torpedoes or aerial bombs
(or in the case of _Roma_, an early guided missile) to deliver the coup de grace.
best,
Lindsay
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<Fp2xL2.D31@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 04:23:36
>
> > So what's the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century equivalent of a
> > missile system - a carronade? ;-)
>
> I don't think so - carronades were only good a short range.
>
> You might be able to put a very large cannon on a very small, fast ship,
> but even so, you'd probably only get a few shots off before you were hit
> or shaken to bits.
>
> You *could* use rockets. Someone on the British army (Congreve) was
> experimenting with them round about this time, or earlier.
> <snip elation>
Yeah, but if you need *guidance*, you need the only sort of guidance system
available in the age of sail: Well-liquored sailin' wretches and Greek
Fire. I'm thinking of the destruction of the USS Philadelphia at Tripoli by
a small party after it was captured by the Barbary Pirates.
best
Lindsay
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
>
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> > I think I read or saw somewhere that this same tactic was used in WWII
> > (Battle of Midway, maybe?).
>
> Ack, no. The only side with battleships at Midway was Japanese, and they
> never took any part of the battle (they were part of the "invasion force").
> It was a purely carrier-driven action (with bits of submarineness about).
Thanks for the clarification! Elsewhere Bruce was able to de-fog my mind on
the subject, as well. I've so much to learn!
> You may be thinking of the 1944 Battle of the Suraigo Strait, which was the
> last battleship action ever fought--six US battleships and attendant
> destroyers crossed the "T" of two Japanese vessels at night, with predictable
> results. However, crossing the "T" was the favoured goal of all naval
> commanders until that war; the Grand Fleet managed this feat not once but
> twice at Jutland, and the Germans merely turned away (another tactic that
> would have been pure chaos in the age of sail, but one that proved highly
> effective here).
Hmm. I wish I could remember where I first heard about this, because my
recollection seems to resemble the battle you describe. I'll have to look
into it.
Thanks again for the information!
Dave!
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> > Tony Priestman and Bruce Schlickbernd wrote about the relspective meruts of
> > rockets as an offensive weapon aboard late 17th and early 18th century
> > warships.
> >
> > Ok ok ok.
> >
> > How about a barge-like monitor?
>
> > No sails or rigging to set afire while arguing with the bad guys. You could
> > tow it (a considerable distance) behind your ship, or anchor it in position
> > and leave it. Ideal for leaving in harbour mouths.
> >
> > You could tow it into battle, and leave it among the bad guys. I'm
> > thinking fireship, only better.
>
> Hmmm, well, that would seem to work. Don't quite know why it wasn't tried (or
> maybe it has been, but I haven't run across it yet). Too slow to aim,
> especially when the target is moving?
It was tried--in 1862. That was part of the theory behind the Confederate ram
Virginia (formerly the Federal frigate USS Merrimack). It just sort of sailed in
and among the blockade force at Hampton Roads, and caused mayhem. However, ships
weren't as close together as I think we're imagining, so it really was impossible
to take out more than one at a time. Ammunition, after all, is limited. :) I
think the tactic did need to wait for a viable alternative to sail propulsion
before it would be feasible.
> I think it would work best as a surprise weapon under limited conditions.
> Surprise, point-blank range, that kind of thing. Harbor defense possibly.
> Towing would work best in the same kind of condition fire-ships worked best:
> when the other fleet is in port.
Or if you have some non-sail method of propulsion--Robert Fulton's 1829 steam "74"
Duegolos (sp.-which I believe the USN actually built) was the first attempt at
this. It was a standard second-rate ship of the line pattern with only a short
pipe atop. It had a single wide paddle wheel in the centre of the ship (odd as
that sounds). One could theoretically do that with human power, however
inefficiently...
best,
LFB
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.pirates, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.pirates, Lance Scott writes:
> > > The Ideal Tactic in the Wooden Ships Age was to 'Cross the T' with the enemy.
> > > That means to sail your broadside across the bow or stern of the opponent. • He
> > > could not bring his broadside to bear whilst you let him have a full volley.
> >
> > I think I read or saw somewhere that this same tactic was used in WWII
> > (Battle of Midway, maybe?). It's cool (insofar as war is cool) that such
> > venerable methods still see use in more modern times.
> >
> > Dave!
>
> The fleets never saw each other at the Battle of Midway (aircraft carrier
> warfare).
>
> The Battle of Jutland in WWI would be more appropriate. The entire british
> fleet crossed the T on the german fleet. The germans used their "battle turn
> away" tactic to get out with their skins.
That last is the classic example of how steam changed the tactical lexicon. The
Royal Navy hadn't even considered the possibility that this could be done, because
it couldn't be done under sail in anything approaching an orderly manner. The
Hochseeflotte however executed it twice without ill effect.
Why didn't the RN have a Battle Turn-Away or similar course-reversal tactic? Why,
because British ships would never *need* to turn away...sort of the same myopia
exhibited by the German army regarding withdrawal. Sometimes an exalted
institution ends up flawed by its exultation.
best,
Lindsay
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
(with various others, but the attribs get confusing)
> > >
> > > How about a barge-like monitor?
>
> >
> > > No sails or rigging to set afire while arguing with the bad guys. You • could
> > > tow it (a considerable distance) behind your ship, or anchor it in position
> > > and leave it. Ideal for leaving in harbour mouths.
> > >
> > > You could tow it into battle, and leave it among the bad guys. I'm
> > > thinking fireship, only better.
> >
> > Hmmm, well, that would seem to work. Don't quite know why it wasn't tried • (or
> > maybe it has been, but I haven't run across it yet). Too slow to aim,
> > especially when the target is moving?
>
> It was tried--in 1862. That was part of the theory behind the Confederate ram
> Virginia (formerly the Federal frigate USS Merrimack). It just sort of sailed • in
> and among the blockade force at Hampton Roads, and caused mayhem. However, • ships
> weren't as close together as I think we're imagining, so it really was • impossible
> to take out more than one at a time. Ammunition, after all, is limited. :) • I
> think the tactic did need to wait for a viable alternative to sail propulsion
> before it would be feasible.
Are you refering to congreaves (which is what this is primarily about) or
barge-like platforms for firing? I can't recall the Virginia using rockets,
but the civil war isn't something I really paid much attention to since the
centennial (ahhhh, all those National Geographic articles when I was a boy).
For anyone interested in the barge-monitor thingie (didn't spot anything about
them using rockets, alas, but I only skimmed the article):
http://www.thehistorynet.com/AmericasCivilWar/articles/07963_text.htm
Bruce
|
|
| |
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Mr L F Braun wrote:
> Why didn't the RN have a Battle Turn-Away or similar course-reversal
> tactic? Why, because British ships would never *need* to turn
> away...sort of the same myopia exhibited by the German army regarding
> withdrawal. Sometimes an exalted institution ends up flawed by its
> exultation.
Von Manstein's book, _Lost Victories_ came to the same conclusion. Von
Manstein advocated a strategic retreat along the Stalingrad front for the
winter, letting the Russians deal with reclaiming the land, then crushing
them in the spring when the Germans would be rested and resupplied.
Hitler of course disagreed and history was made.
J.
o-----------------------------------o
| Jeffrey Watts |
| watts@jayhawks.net o-------------------------------------------o
| Systems Programmer | "You only have power over people as long |
| Network Systems Management | as you don't take everything away from |
| Sprint Communications | them. But when you've robbed a man |
o----------------------------| of everything he's no longer in your |
| power -- he's free again." |
| -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn |
o-------------------------------------------o
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> (with various others, but the attribs get confusing)
> > > >
> > > > How about a barge-like monitor?
> >
> > >
> > > > No sails or rigging to set afire while arguing with the bad guys. You • could
> > > > tow it (a considerable distance) behind your ship, or anchor it in position
> > > > and leave it. Ideal for leaving in harbour mouths.
> > > >
> > > > You could tow it into battle, and leave it among the bad guys. I'm
> > > > thinking fireship, only better.
> > >
> > > Hmmm, well, that would seem to work. Don't quite know why it wasn't tried • (or
> > > maybe it has been, but I haven't run across it yet). Too slow to aim,
> > > especially when the target is moving?
> >
> > It was tried--in 1862. That was part of the theory behind the Confederate ram
> > Virginia (formerly the Federal frigate USS Merrimack). It just sort of sailed • in
> > and among the blockade force at Hampton Roads, and caused mayhem. However, • ships
> > weren't as close together as I think we're imagining, so it really was • impossible
> > to take out more than one at a time. Ammunition, after all, is limited. :) • I
> > think the tactic did need to wait for a viable alternative to sail propulsion
> > before it would be feasible.
>
> Are you refering to congreaves (which is what this is primarily about) or
> barge-like platforms for firing? I can't recall the Virginia using rockets,
> but the civil war isn't something I really paid much attention to since the
> centennial (ahhhh, all those National Geographic articles when I was a boy).
No, I'm referring to barge-like platforms.
> For anyone interested in the barge-monitor thingie (didn't spot anything about
> them using rockets, alas, but I only skimmed the article):
>
> http://www.thehistorynet.com/AmericasCivilWar/articles/07963_text.htm
I don't think any of them used rockets.
best,
Lindsay
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman wrote
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Lance Scott wrote
>
> > Got an Idear for ya, Matey!
> >
> > Set during the illustrious career of the indomitable J.E. Doolittle, • Capt.,
> > etc., etc.
> With stuff as good as that, you should be settin' up with a nice little
> ship of yer own! :-)
Ditto! I love it! Why is there no website, Lance Scott commanding?
I mean, I'm happy to host the story, and eventually put pics to it, and it
fits in perfectly (top marks) but but but, what other ideas might be
swirling around in that creative vortex?
And and and, who was that masked man?
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> Tony Priestman wrote
> > On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Lance Scott wrote
> >
> > > Got an Idear for ya, Matey!
> > >
> > > Set during the illustrious career of the indomitable J.E. Doolittle, • Capt.,
> > > etc., etc.
>
> > With stuff as good as that, you should be settin' up with a nice little
> > ship of yer own! :-)
>
>
> Ditto! I love it! Why is there no website, Lance Scott commanding?
>
> I mean, I'm happy to host the story, and eventually put pics to it, and it
> fits in perfectly (top marks) but but but, what other ideas might be
> swirling around in that creative vortex?
>
> And and and, who was that masked man?
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
> Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Oh, I am soooooo glad you asked ;-) (insert sfx of evil laughter echoing
through a very echo-ey place here)
Capt. Doolittle needs a Nemesis. A thorn in his side. How about the Captian
that Waite hires to un-do Dolittle?
Meet Captain Otto von Wurstluk. (fanfare and appropriately martial music comes
up). Captain Wurstluk graduated at the top of his class in the Lichtenstein
Naval Academy, spent some time attached to the Tibetan Navy and is recently
returned from a tour making the Bolivian Navy a force to be reckoned with.
I envision the figure being a bi-plane baron head on an appropriate admiral
body, with the white epaulets.
Actually, Capt. vW is available for Waite to hire because he was the Captain of
the ill-fated Brickish Museum expedition broken up by Our Hero at No Trouble
Atoll. All right, all right... by Our Hero and his incredibly talented, highly
educated parrot, Impunity. Will you please remove your beak from my ear?
Unfortunately for Waite, while Capt. vW has impeccable credentials and an
aristocratic bearing, faultless tailoring and an extra-ordinarily impressive
monocle, he hasn't had a lot of real-world experience, mostly book larning as
they say in the hills. He's got just enough going on to be mildly dangerous
(or mostly harmless) and is good for all kinds of potentially comedic
downfalls.
You know the kind of gags, Doolittle puts one over on him and in the surprise
the monocle comes flying out. Generally with enough force and rapidity to do
an injury to whatever hapless crewman is unfortunate enough to nearby.
As for the website....I must plead sheer, unadulterated laziness. Well, that
and not having any decent pirate stuff to tell a story around. Am trying to
remedy that situation even as we "speak". There may be another ally for Capt.
J.E. Dolittle waiting to come on-stage.
Well, not exactly laziness, but I maintain the internal website here at work,
and more coding is not my idea of recreation. When I get the work site
"finished" then we do fun things
"We pillage and plunder and even highjack! Drink up, me hearties! Yo Ho!"
Lance
|
|
| |
SNIP
> Capt. Doolittle needs a Nemesis. A thorn in his side. How about the Captian
> that Waite hires to un-do Dolittle?
>
> Meet Captain Otto von Wurstluk. (fanfare and appropriately martial music • comes
> up).
Awfully sorry about that, it seems he already has several people in a not-happy
mood at him. That's what I get for not re-reading the back-story.
Perhaps Capt. Otto vW can be the "worst" sort of merchantman Doolittle takes
on. The perpetual captain of the Brickish Museum expeditions "because it's
always been done that way"
Lance
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> In lugnet.pirates, Richard Parsons writes:
> > Tony Priestman and Bruce Schlickbernd wrote about the relspective meruts of
> > rockets as an offensive weapon aboard late 17th and early 18th century
> > warships.
> >
> > Ok ok ok.
> >
> > How about a barge-like monitor?
> >
> > No sails or rigging to set afire while arguing with the bad guys. You could
> > tow it (a considerable distance) behind your ship, or anchor it in position
> > and leave it. Ideal for leaving in harbour mouths.
> >
> > You could tow it into battle, and leave it among the bad guys. I'm
> > thinking fireship, only better.
>
> Hmmm, well, that would seem to work. Don't quite know why it wasn't tried (or
> maybe it has been, but I haven't run across it yet). Too slow to aim,
> especially when the target is moving?
>
> I think it would work best as a surprise weapon under limited conditions.
> Surprise, point-blank range, that kind of thing. Harbor defense possibly.
> Towing would work best in the same kind of condition fire-ships worked best:
> when the other fleet is in port.
There's a book by David Drake called Surface Action. It's sci-fi about a
mostly water world and the conflicts that arise on it. During the
climactic naval battle the "good" guys took one of their monitors and
disguised it as a floating wreck. They set ot loose several days ahead
and let it drift into the battle area. The "bad" guys ignored it until
it opened fire. Great fun was had by all.
SteveC
|
|
|
