|
|
 | | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
| | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
| 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 (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
| | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
| | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
| | | | | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
| Bruce Schlickbernd wrote (...) 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'.? (...) and (...) Wasn't lady Washington the Enterprise of Trek 7? (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
|
