 | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Richard Parsons
|
| | | Tony Priestman wrote (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Ray Sanders
|
| | | | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | Ray Sanders wrote (...) 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 (URL) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lance Scott
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lance Scott
|
| | | | | | | (...) locate. (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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! (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lance Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) He (...) 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. (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Heh. Yeah, I guess it's a lot different when you can fire more-or-less from all directions... Dave! (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | | | | Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) only (...) from (...) 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 (URL) the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | | | On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<Fp2xL2.D31@lugnet.com>) wrote at 04:23:36 (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes: (major snippage) (...) Hmmmmmmm. Wood. Hmmm...mmm. Canvas. So which ship are you planning to sink? The target or your own? :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fp3tv1.Lx5@lugnet.com>) wrote at 16:01:49 (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Richard Parsons wrote in message ... (...) of (...) '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 (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lance Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Lance Scott (<Fp7GBq.AzK@lugnet.com>) wrote at 14:59:50 (...) <*massive* snip> (...) groan! (...) With stuff as good as that, you should be settin' up with a nice little ship of yer own! :-) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lance Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Tony Priestman wrote (...) Capt., (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lance Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lance Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | SNIP (...) comes (...) 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. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<Fp4ws7.16n@lugnet.com>) wrote at 06:03:01 (...) But what about the poor souls you'd have to leave on it to fire the ordnance? They'd almost certainly be captured. (...) This is more like it. I can see a tactic (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fp7nEI.50G@lugnet.com>) wrote at 17:32:42 (...) Arr! And throw lubbers to the sharks! (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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... (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: (with various others, but the attribs get confusing) (...) could (...) (or (...) in (...) ships (...) impossible (...) I (...) Are you refering to congreaves (which is what this is primarily about) (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) No, I'm referring to barge-like platforms. (...) best, Lindsay (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Bruce Schlickbernd wrote (...) about (...) Richard Still baldly going... Check out Port Block at (URL) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Steve Campbell
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) He (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yeah--I guess aircraft carriers don't shoot at each other that much... (...) Maybe that's the battle I read/heard about. Thanks for the info! Dave! (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Jeffrey Watts
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Thanks for the clarification! Elsewhere Bruce was able to de-fog my mind on the subject, as well. I've so much to learn! (...) Hmm. I wish I could remember where I first heard about this, because my recollection seems to resemble the battle (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | Lance Scott wrote in message ... (...) measurement. (...) and (...) locate. Right. Cables it is. (...) Sympathies. Look sharp though, there still be a few treasures to be found. (...) enemy. (...) He (...) volley. (...) each (...) the (...) Mmmm. In (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) 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 (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —James Powell
|
| | | | | (...) three (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Adam Hoekwater
|
| | | | | (...) three (...) 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). (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Lance Scott
|
| | | | (...) three (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) a (...) a (...) The term was, "heaving the log". Bruce (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| | | | |
