Talk:Second Battle of Cape Finisterre

untitled
"The French made a very gallant resistance, and the fine quality of their ships enabled them to counteract to some extent the superior numbers of the British."

When that is said it implies that the quality of British crews and ships was inferior. That was quite simply not the case.

Decisive?
I think it's quite reasonable to challenge some of these assumptions of what makes an engagement 'Decisive', as has been doing a lot. But this piecemeal approach to just the infobox result doesn't really help anyone. It still states in the text that it was a 'decisive victory'. Given that the sources are the best way to go to avoid OR, we should look at what they say. We would be equally guilty of OR if we assumed based on our own opinion that the result wasn't decisive when the sources say that it was.

The current source used, Black's Military History of Britain, makes a number of claims to justify the 'Decisive' tag. '...won the most brilliant action of the war...', 'Six of the French ships were forced to surrender and the French also lost 4,000 sailors, a crucial limitation of their maritime strength.' '"All difficulties that could be apprehended in Parliament will by this be removed, the pride of France a little humbled, and I hope our allies so far encouraged, that your Royal Highness will find them willing and able to exert themselves for our own safety and support". The Duke was also confident that victory would also disappoint Jacobite hopes of a possible invasion. The French fleet could no longer escort major convoys bound for French colonies, and this destroyed the logic of the French imperial system.' and 'Victory transformed the invasion threats of 1744-5 and the danger of the loss of Cape Breton in 1746 into a completely political, strategic and diplomatic situation.' It all reads as a pretty significant outcome, though it perhaps lacks the ideal pairing of 'decisive' and 'victory' for User:Moagim if summaries like 'nothing on the source stat such a thing' is anything to go by.

Sources which do state that Finisterre was a "decisive victory": And many other sources which state the importance in the same vein as Black, in that essentially it lifted the threat of invasion and isolated France from its colonies, while ensuring British control of the seas. So if you want it explicitly stated, there it is. Benea (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * David Wallace, Premodern Places: Calais to Surinam, Chaucer to Aphra Behn, p. 30. "In October 1747, the English Channel fleet won a decisive victory against the French off Cape Finisterre."
 * John Cannon, A Dictionary of British History, p. 314 "Off Cape Finisterre in October 1747 he won a decisive victory, taking seven out of nine enemy vessels."
 * Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery, p. 93 "In October Hawke achieved an even more decisive victory against a West Indian convoy..."
 * I will add to that in a recent source placed on the page. Here is the link and the quote: The ensuing eight hour battle ends in a decisive British victory ChrisWet (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see how this action differs from a hundred engagements fought on the same period. It didn't lead to anywhere, Great Britain didn't gain anything from it and all the war ended in a big stalemate.Moagim (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're using statements like 'I can't see...' it really becomes a problem of OR. It's not our interpretation, our analysis of the sources to come to a judgement on what battles have the significant outcomes, it's the third-party sources that we must rely on. Benea (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that that was my just my opinion, I don't wanna fight against any source. Moagim (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My understanding is Wikipedia prefers to avoid designating battles as 'decisive' since it is often a matter of opinion. Even if that's what the sources say. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing ref
B class. Nice work. Please note that the Willis 2009 citation does not point to any reference. Since the material was already cited by another reference, I removed the Willis ref. I looked up Sam Willis books on Amazon.com and did not see any published in 2009 or any with 761 pages. If you can find the correct Willis ref, feel free to add it back in. Djmaschek (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

British OOB
I think Hawke had more out of line ships than the one I've managed to cite. Clowes mentions "and some frigates" in his list, but does not name them (Clowes vol. 3, p. 127), but I believe that Richmond (The Navy in the War of 1739-48 vol. 3) lists more vessels, including Weazel, Vulcan, and Dolphin. I can't find any way of accessing that source, however. Perhaps you'll be able to do better than me..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Took me a while, but see . Some tweaks made accordingly. Not sure but that Vulcan shouldn't be listed as a fireship. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As part of my ongoing internet problems I can't actually access IA right now, but I'll take your word for it! Not knowing whether these details tally with what Richmond says, I'll leave them in talk here rather than in the article:
 * Winfield records Dolphins's CO from June 1747 as Commander Edward Crickett; the ship had been fitted as a fireship in April, armed with six guns.
 * Does Winfield record that she was rated to carry six guns? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pre fireship she was armed, per Winfield, with twenty 6-pounders and had a crew of 120. Then "as a fireship, 55 men, 6 guns and 8 swivels." Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the thing is, footnote e: " The number after each ship indicates number of guns it was rated to carry." As we both know, this often didn't match well with the number actually carried. Although the correspondence was better for smaller ships and for this period than later. Hmm. Any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They were ad hoc ships purchased or converted for one purpose only. As such I don't believe there is any set down number of guns for a fireship; more the case of how many they could fit on considering the size of the platform. Winfield notes that in 1714 "the fireship was virtually interchangeable with the 20-gun Sixth Rate", but that clearly changed soon afterwards. In the case of Dolphin, Winfield records her six guns and eight swivels as the armament assigned to her as a fireship, which is probably the closest thing you could get to a rated number of guns. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ibid., Vulcan's CO was Commander William Pettigrew; she had been fitted as a fireship in June 1746. Winfield also notes that while she was described as a frigate she was actually a converted merchant ship and fitted before becoming a fireship as a sloop. Armament not recorded.
 * Weazle was a 16-gun sloop. Winfield records her last CO before Finisterre as Samuel Barrington, but he left the ship in May. Weazle's article has Commander John Midwinter in command, but I'll have to leave that one up to you too.
 * Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Three smaller ships added, and some other useful additional detail. Thank you for your help and patience. Still need a source for the Weasel's commander. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)