Conversation:

Entry: From Sail to Steam - Evolution of a Navy - A87780928
Author: Florida Sailor - U235886

Here is another offering, I hope no one is getting sea sick yet

This one is a little more modern.

FS

What do you mean that the Opium War wasn't a major combat?

Excellent entry - only thing I'd change is capitalise the 'the' in the header 'The War at Sea'.

(I'd also consider a footnote when you mention US ships exploding, that one ship explosion, that of the USS Maine in 1898, led to the Spanish-American War.)

Thanks for the link to my Warrior article!

<BB<

Thanks >>BB
That header was one of the last things I changed before posting

Added a full paragraph on the Maine in the Dreadnought section. Good addition.


FS

I've been thinking and wonder whether you would consider rephrasing the first paragraph? Steamships were used in the Crimean War - which was a major conflict - even if mainly in a blockade and troop ship capacity.

<BB<

<BB<

I did not mean to slight European wars, you have to admit the use of steam was a bit one sided?
Reworded, let me know what you think.

Back to the grind in the morning, no Boxing Day in the US

FS

You will enjoy the website Queen Victoria's Navy which has photographs that cover the evolution of warships and include some very odd ships as well was some very famous ones.
My great-uncle George served on HMS Dreadnought, HMS Jupiter (the most powerful pre-dreadnought battleship), HMS Alexandria (the last broadside battleship in the Royal Navy), the Edwardian cruisers Cresent and Ariadne, the revolutionary light cruiserr HMS Bristol and on the the Royal Yacht Osbourne.

The French used ironclads during the Crimean War (all be it old ships of the line covered in iron plate and towed into position to bombard shore defemces). La Glorie was a purpose built ironclad, Warrior was a battleship rather than a frigate.

I think I'm right in saying the first war in which ironclad ships* fought major engagements was the War of the Pacific in the 1870's between Bolivia and Peru, and Chile.

* as opposed to ironclads blowing junks out of the water (Opium Wars), or converted wooden frigates duelling with glorified river boats (US Civil War)

I'd say the Battle of Lissa in 1866, Austria v Italy, in the Austro-Prussian War. Both sides had ironclads.

<BB<

Not normally a contributor to Peer Review, but compelled by the subject
and a fondness for FS's tellings, I came round to have a sneak peek at
what will be an excellent article on a huge and ponderous topic which may
well be better titled (if only parenthetically) '..evolution of the US navy' with
allusions and reference to foreign navies only as necessary for context and
the chronology of technologies.

As a Fulton I applaud the inclusion of so much of "Uncle Robert's" career
beyond the Claremont. The 'Demologos' design was defensive in nature
but presaged the twin hull concept.

May I point out an apparent spelling error or typo in that an E seems to be
missing from "She spent her carer as a receiving ship in New York..."



I hesitate to offer much in the way of historical data but suggest some
further research on the role of Teddy Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary
of the Navy in President McKinley's administration and the subsequent
creation of the 'great white fleet' described as an orgy of Imperialism by
Sarah Vowell in 'Unfamiliar Fishes'.

http://www.thebookladysblog.com/2011/03/10/sarah-vowell-unfamiliar-fishes-and-an-orgy-of-imperialism/

And as a reader of Mark Twain I am currently looking for much more info
on the civil war battles on the Mississippi River. His 'Life On the Mississippi',
like so many of his writings, avoids detail or opinion of the great war. No
doubt it all happened too close to home for him to be objective or even willing
to share his personal thoughts. Though he does offer some perspective and
insight into the nature of human nature in the chapter (XXXV) on the six week
siege and riverboat bombardment of Vicksburg.

I'm digressing aren't I...


~jwf~

BB - you are correct, the Italians even had a turret armed battleship

Thank you all for your comments, I am still digesting and forming a full reply, but for now a few comments so as not to keep you all hanging.

tucuxii;

>You will enjoy the website Queen Victoria's Navy which has photographs....

An interesting site, only wish there was a bit of text to go with the pictures



>The French used ironclads during the Crimean War (all be it old ships of the line covered in iron plate and towed into position to bombard shore defemces). La Glorie was a purpose built ironclad...

Purpose built, but not by design, La Gloire was a modification of an existing ship of the line plans, with the upper gun deck removed to compensate for the weight of the iron. I will probably add something to this effect.


>Warrior was a battleship rather than a frigate.

Definitions are hard when the fabric of the world changes, before this shift the basic definition of ship of the line of battle was two or more gun-decks, a frigate had one, and a sloop had all her guns on the open spar deck. The British system of classification by number of guns also follows as the number of guns carried on a single deck was limited by the maximum length of a wooden ship. After Dreadnought battleships were defined by their armour and cruisers for their speed. I want to study a bit more on this before I change anything.

>I think I'm right in saying the first war in which ironclad ships* fought major engagements was the War of the Pacific in the 1870's between Bolivia and Peru, and Chile.

>* as opposed to ironclads blowing junks out of the water (Opium Wars), or converted wooden frigates duelling with glorified river boats (US Civil War)

I think we are getting sidetracked by ironclad vs steamship. With the exception of the Union Monitors and Confederate casement ships the rest of the "ironclads" carried sail as, at least, auxiliary power. I do not want this to digress into "My is better than your ship".

Bluebottle

>I'd say the Battle of Lissa in 1866, Austria v Italy, in the Austro-Prussian War. Both sides had ironclads.

Noted, still considering how sidetracked we should get on the ironclad issue.







jwf

>... a huge and ponderous topic which may well be better titled (if only parenthetically) '..evolution of the US navy' with allusions and reference to foreign navies only as necessary for context and the chronology of technologies.

That was why I chose "Evolution of a Navy" rather than "the navies" my main concern is that including too many international ships could make this too technical and dissuade the casual reader. I think the US makes a good focus, especially with Demologos and Sea Gull. I hesitate to add nationality to the title as it may limit the readership.


>As a Fulton I applaud the inclusion of so much of "Uncle Robert's" career beyond the Claremont. The 'Demologos' design was defensive in nature but presaged the twin hull concept.

I find it interesting that several modern texts referrer to her as a "catamaran", with both bow and stern fully enclosed this seems to be totally incorrect, at least in the mind of naval architects. It was still a displacement hull.


>May I point out an apparent spelling error or typo in that an E seems to be missing from "She spent her carer as a receiving ship in New York..."

Thank you, I hate it when a dropped letter creates another word recognized by the spell checker


>I hesitate to offer much in the way of historical data but suggest some further research on the role of Teddy Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in President McKinley's administration and the subsequent creation of the 'great white fleet' described as an orgy of Imperialism by Sarah Vowell in 'Unfamiliar Fishes'.

Again in the interest of simplicity I am trying to focus more on the the technology, rather than the politics, as much fun as that could be.

>And as a reader of Mark Twain I am currently looking for much more info
on the civil war battles on the Mississippi River...

The battle for Island #10 is interesting, as it opened the back door to Vicksburg.



FS

>> trying to focus more on the the technology, rather than the politics <<

Fair enough. Point taken.
Except/accept a reminder that war is basically a political action.

But I recognise that I am politically motivated to expose
the late 19th century policies of 'sea power' as engaged in
by America, Britain, Germany and Japan. The size and power
of the new battleships gave:
1. America the courage to play the game of Imperialism throughout
the "Spanish" Caribbean, South America and across the Pacific.
2. Britain the conviction that the Empire would last 1000 years.
3. Germany the conviction that an arms race with British Industry
was the key to establishing a German Empire in Africa and the Orient.
4. Japan the power to challenge China and set its sights on taking
over eastern Asia and the Pacific Islands.

All four would of course collide into warfare a couple of times
before the mid-2oth century. And America would take the battleship
and sea-warfare to its next logical step, the carrier group.


~jwf~

Updated, I think I have addressed all of the points made.


FS

Well done!
Now just double check the spelling of centerline
in the Demologos section.




~jwf~

>Now just double check the spelling of centerline
in the Demologos section.

I believe 'centreline' is the correct UK spelling, which I try to use on all my Hootoo Entries. I know the new guidelines allow "...in instances where an American author is writing on an American subject, then use of American spelling for that Entry is both sensible and acceptable. .." it is not mandatory, and I still do not think this is strictly an American Entry I use British spelling throughout, and am writing under a UK spell-checker.

Thanks
FS

"1. America the courage to play the game of Imperialism throughout
the "Spanish" Caribbean, South America and across the Pacific. "

Courage seems an odd term especially as Spain was so enfeebled at the time

2. Britain the conviction that the Empire would last 1000 years.

Britain was already working towards withdrawl from much of the Empire and the creation of a Commonwealth trading bloc by the late 19th Century, the Navy was to protect it's trade routes - I think you are thinkning of the Third Riech

3. Germany the conviction that an arms race with British Industry
was the key to establishing a German Empire in Africa and the Orient.

The German high command was convinced the France and Russia were plotting to draw Germany into a protected war while the Royal Navy blockaded them into submission which was quite untrue - France and Russia were convinced Germany was planning to invade them, Britain was convince Germany was enlarging its navy in order to snatch their colonies and damage Btitish trade - all untrue but sadly it all became a self forfilling prophesy

4. Japan the power to challenge China and set its sights on taking
over eastern Asia and the Pacific Islands.

Defeating China at sea and ceasing Korea and Tiawan wasn't that great a feat as China's fleet was hopelessly obsolete, destroying the Russian Pacific, Baltic and Black Sea fleets and grabbing Manchuria was a demostration of sea power that shocked the world.

All four would of course collide into warfare a couple of times
before the mid-2oth century. And America would take the battleship
and sea-warfare to its next logical step, the carrier group

I rather think that Britain and Japan developed the successful use of carrier groups at Taranto and Pearl Harbour

FS

"An interesting site, only wish there was a bit of text to go with the pictures"

When I was researching great uncle George's ships I found there was text for most of them on Wiki and I used the Queen Victoria's Navy site for the images - did you check out the spar torpedo boat at the bottom of the page which has to be the madest vessel ever.

As regards to frigates the historic definition was the class of ship one down from a ship of the line - given Warrior was by far the most powerful warship in the world when it was built and it is larger than HMS Victory (they are berthed close enough to compare) I think it should be classified as an early battleship.

>>And America would take the battleship and sea-warfare to its next logical step, the carrier group

>I rather think that Britain and Japan developed the successful use of carrier groups at Taranto and Pearl Harbour

I could make the argument that the attack force at Taranto contained two heavy cruisers and the Japanese had both battleships and cruisers at Pearl Harbor. The carrier group was developed because there were no capital ships left to accompany them. But we are getting well off-topic.

>When I was researching great uncle George's ships I found there was text for most of them on Wiki and I used the Queen Victoria's Navy site for the images - did you check out the spar torpedo boat at the bottom of the page which has to be the madest vessel ever.

I am well used to going to several site to research a single ship just wishing. Spar torpedoes were used in several attacks on the blockading squadrons during the US Civil War. The Housanic was sunk by a spar torpedo, although Hunley did not fair much better.

>As regards to frigates the historic definition was the class of ship one down from a ship of the line - given Warrior was by far the most powerful warship in the world when it was built and it is larger than HMS Victory (they are berthed close enough to compare) I think it should be classified as an early battleship.

I though I covered that sufficiently in the footnote, <BB< gives a far more detailed explanation in the link. This is not a matter of opinion, but a fact, she was classified a frigate at the time. The term 'battleship' was only a slang expression of 'line of battle ship' and Warrior was never intended to fight in a line.


FS

I'd just like to say how much I've enjoyed reading the discussions here. Tempted as I am to say why I feel HMS Devastation should be considered the first true battleship, it really would be going off topic...
Florida Sailor has done an admirable job at keeping the balance between noting all our comments, considering which ones are relevant and replying to us all despite the fact we've definitely gone off at a tangent. And going off on a tangent can definitely be very positive - an article of Florida Sailor's about Nelson inspired first a discussion and then an excellent article about the crew onboard HMS Victory.

Sadly in any article covering this wide-ranging topic, it is impossible to include everything and discuss events from every angle. But it seems that many of us have enjoyed reading this article and may even be inspired to write a related article ourselves.

(Incidentally, Florida Sailor is correct that, using contemporary definitions, Warrior was a frigate. Of course looking back it is easy to say with hindsight that she was the first step in the ladder leading to Dreadnought, but with her lack of manoeuvrability she was never a line-of-battle ship.)

The thing I was going to say actually about the entry, rather than the discussion, was that if you are keeping to British English, I would say that there are a few words ending in 'ize' that in British English end in 'ise', including specialized, modernized, publicized and revolutionize.

<BB<

There's an important historical question as to why so much time passed from the development of the steam engine to its first applications for transportation.

There's a hint to that in the year Watt and Boulton's first steam powered textiles factory went on line, 1776.

Fulton's establishment of steam ship service on the Hudson River, 1814, during the late Napoleonic era, forced the issue.

The reason for the delay, I think, was similar to that for the early 1970s shut-down of the Apollo program, to the purpose of avoiding a costly arms race.