Talk:Naval ram

Suggested merge
This article is more or less a duplicate of Naval Ram. It does have information that the other doesn't, so it should be merged rather than just deleted. Any thoughts? Parsecboy 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes to proposed merge. Ships that have intentionally rammed without an actual ram or extra structural strength designed into the bow can be treated as an anomaly. Binksternet 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support merge. Ram (ship) is a bad article name, as this is precisely what we would use for a ship named Ram. The related article ramming contains an incomplete section on ramming at sea. Suggest:
 * naval ram - should describe the device's form and purpose across the ages
 * ramming - should cover tactics and actual ramming events
 * Both articles should clearly reference the other. ram (ship) should remain as a redirect to naval ram. Maralia 20:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion sounds reasonable. Should we do this now, or wait a little longer? I doubt anyone will object to the proposed merger. Parsecboy 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support merge. As link from Naval Ram to merger discussion has just been redirected here, I suggest waiting a couple of days.  Kablammo 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support merge. Sounds reasonable with little controversy.Brumhildaa 02:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I may work on it later on today, if I have time. Parsecboy 11:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The merge is done. If anyone wants to rearrange stuff more, that's cool too. Parsecboy 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First modern ram
The assertion that Taureau was the first ram built in the modern era is ambiguous. I presume that you mean 'built from the keel up,' as several modern rams preceded her in the American Civil War. The first of these was CSS Manassas Better known was the noted CSS Virginia (ex-USS Merrimack (sic, not Merrimac)). The latter made a successful ramming attack on USS Cumberland during the Battle of Hampton Roads, 8 March 1862. PKKloeppelPkkphysicist (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Pkkphysicist (Minor edit of the above.) PKKloeppel (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Clumsy wording?
In the section The Athlit Ram, the wording "to prevent that the ram twisted off and damage the attacking ship" isn't very good English.

I suggest "to prevent the ram twisting off and damaging the attacking ship" is better. R L Lacchin (Gloucester, UK) (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the Athlit artefact merit its own article? This information should be included somewhere:
 * The four symbols on the ram are integral to the casting. They are: Poseidon's trident, a helmet surmounted with a star - the sign of the Dioscuri, an eagle's head, and a caduceus - the wand of Hermes. They symbolize the deities who safeguard ships and protect seamen, and are also those of the ruling powers. They appear on coins minted in Cyprus between 204 and 164 BCE, allowing us to estimate that the ram was made in one of the Cypriot ports, and was intended for a vessel in the fleet of Ptolemy V Epiphanes, or of his successor Ptolemy VI Philometor.

DancesWithGrues (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

the only known surviving ancient naval ram
Since 2005 several ancient rams possibly related to the Battle of the Aegates Islands of 241 BC have been found north of Sicily. Two were attributed to Punic, seven or eight to Roman ships: http://archeologiaedintorni.blogspot.de/2012/07/ritrovato-un-nuovo-rostro-nord-ovest-di.html Another ram was found 2008 at Acqualadroni near Messina, possibly related to the Battle of Naulochus between Sextus Pompeius and Agrippa in 36 BC: http://svagheggio.forumfree.it/?t=32376003 --176.6.110.63 (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naval ram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121218141955/http://www.hms.org.il/Museum/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=84&FID=1196&PID=2949 to http://www.hms.org.il/Museum/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=84&FID=1196&PID=2949

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

19th Century gunnery developments
Excellent article all round.

I note the following, however: " The fixation on ramming may also have inhibited the development of gunnery". This may not be especially valid an assessment, since there were numerous attempts to improve the accuracy of gunfire from ironclads, as early as the 1870s.

For example, HMS Monarch was completed with an early form of what would later be termed centralised fire control, being completed with a spotting top equipped with voice tubes to communicate corrections to ranging back to the gun turrets. Notably unsuccessful when first employed at Alexandria, due to noise in the turrets drowning out the voice commands, it was however used with success by HMS Carysfort and HMS Orion a short time later.

Methods of accurately controlling warships' main batteries continued apace during the last two decades of the century, as innovators like Fiske came up with systems which appeared workable on paper but were somewhat ahead of the technology to provide effective equipment, until the Barr & Stroud rangefinder entered service.

In the meantime, gun technology proceeded in line with advances in both metallurgy and propellants, allowing significantly longer battle ranges as early as 1894 at the Yalu, where fighting took place at greater ranges than at Angamos a decade and a half earlier.

So really there is little evidence that the supposed 'ram mania' retarded the development of longer-ranged naval gunnery - if anything, it was technological lag which held back these developments for a couple of decades. The effort was certainly there.

Otherwise, a pretty exceptional article. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:1976:2278:946D:2C45 (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

COI?
The section smells like COI to me; the only two edits by, and misuse of inline external links (now corrected). I've left them a message on their UTP. Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The user could be affiliated Nautical Archaeology Program or maybe knows someone who is. I don't see any problem with the external linking since it's not that easy to keep track of highly technical guidelines WP:NOELBODY as a newcomer. If someone actually is involved in academic research on maritime archeology, they should be encouraged to contribute as long as they're informed about WP:NPOV and other basics.


 * The details in the new section could probably be better integrated with the article, though. Peter Isotalo 09:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)