User talk:Rif Winfield/Archive 2

HMS Centurion
Hello Rif, I wonder if you'd be able to cast your eyes over the current article on HMS Centurion (1732). There's a question been raised on the talkpage about the date of the AO to have a replacement ship built, and the time of Centurion's arrival back in Britain. The current information seems to be correct according to your book, but I wonder if you would be able to confirm this, and check the interpretation of it in the article. It's entirely possible that I've interpreted the information incorrectly. Much obliged, and best wishes, Benea (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ben, the details in the book are correct, in that the order for the replacement was placed on 10 April 1744, before the Centurion returned from her epic voyage, and certainly before the Navy Board were aware of her condition. The old ship was surveyed after her return, and was in fact found to be worthwhile repairing, so a fresh order was issued on 1 December 1744 to repair her, but as her structure was certainly too weak to continue to bear her original ordnance of 60 guns, she was to be reduced to 50 guns. As her intended replacement was planned to take her name over, the old ship was renamed Eagle on 15 December, but exactly a month later this decision was altered and the two vessels exchanged names, the old ship resuming the name of HMS Centurion and the new-building ship being renamed HMS Eagle. You may be interested to know that I wrote (although it did not reach publication stage) a book on "The 60-gun Ship" equivalent to my previous volume on "The 50-Gun Ship"; the new book would have focused particularly on the Centurion in the same way as "The 50-Gun Ship" focused on the Leopard, so I made a particular study of Anson's ship. There is one serious error in the article, in that the launch date for the Centurion was 6 January 1733, not 1732. Can you please change the heading and links!? An even greater error as regards dates in the title of articles occurs for the Yarmouth of 1745, which is currently mistakenly titled HMS Yarmouth (1748). This is due to an error in Brian Lavery's book (I'm not sure how he made it, but the Yarmouth had been in service for over three years by 1748, and had been a participant in the First Battle of Cape Finisterre in 1747)! You will also need to change the source reference for this date from Brian's book, as it is in error, to my own book (page 92). I shall post a copy of much of this exchange on the discussion page for HMS Centurion (1732). Meantime, a Happy Christmas to you (and other readers!). Rif Winfield (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this Rif! The launch date for the Centurion seems to be a wide spread error then, it appears as 1732 in Colledge, Paine and works by the NMM. Is it down to the difference between new and old style dating systems, or is there a more fundamental error? It would be good to get a note in explaining the discrepancies. Colledge also joins Lavery in listing Yarmouth's launch on 17 December 1748, though since the earlier Yarmouth was hulked in 1740 it makes the appearance of a ship of that name at Finisterre odd to say the least! And a Merry Christmas to you and yours! Benea (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The error over the Yarmouth launch date is difficult to understand, although it does show that Brian Lavery probably took the date from Jim Colledge's book rather than from source - demonstrating how Wikipedia's practice of quoting from published sources (secondary sources) rather than from original records (primary sources) can be dangerous - these errors do get duplicated in this way. There's certainly no doubt about the Yarmouth as the ship's logs for 1745-1748 (and later, of course) are in the Public Records office. As mentioned in my book, Roger Martin commissioned the new ship in February 1745 (before her launch, a rare but not unprecedented event) and she served with the Western squadron (as flagship for William Martin) for a year. Under Piercy Brett, she joined Anson's fleet off Finisterre in September or October 1746, and - as stated - participated in the First Battle of 3rd May. She was then in Warren's fleet in 1748 after the change in flag. Admiralty Order of 22 November 1748 instructed her to be reduced from active service to the status of a guard ship (at Chatham), and she filled this role until November 1752 (still commanded by Brett), when she paid off. She was refitted as a guard ship in February 1753, and served in that role at Sheerness (under George Cockburn's command) until the spring of 1754. Although I do not have the exact date when Yarmouth became a guard ship in response to the AO of 22.11.1748, it would make sense that this took effect in December 1748, so my guess is that this is where Jim Colledge made the mistake in dates.

The problem of pre-1753 dates is a major issue in looking through records. Until September 1752, when Britain adopted the Gregorian calendar in place of the Julian calendar (to bring Britain into line with the rest of Europe, it was necessary for the day following 2 September to 'skip' eleven days and become 14 September), each calendar year ran from 25th March until 24th March. So the day after 31.12.1751 was 1.1.1751 rather than 1.1.1752! Needless to say, this resulted in a lot of errors. In practice, what appears in most (but not all!) of the contemporary records is a compromise whereby the year quoted in any date up to 24th March is recorded with both years, so that for example the date in the previous sentence would appear as "1.1.1751/2" or "1.1.1751/52"; however, sometime the clerk would forget to put the second year in, causing the confusion. The launch date for the Yarmouth, as an example, is actually recorded as "8.3.1744/5". Similarly for the Centurion, the date as recorded is "6.1.1732/33". You will, I trust, now fully appreciate the situation. I think that Wikipedia does have articles explaining the Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar, which should strictly speaking explain this properly (I haven't read them). Rif Winfield (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

HMS Mahratta
Article moved as requested. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Many thanks for your prompt action. Happy New Year! Rif Winfield (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Article has been moved back, see my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Bellhalla is much more knowlegeable about ships than I am. No harm has been done as the title with a year in it redirects to the title with the pennant number. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Having looked at his talk.page, I suspect that his knowledge is primarily about US ships, and does not so easily understand the difference in approach for ships in Britain and elsewhere in the world - especially that pennant numbers and hull serial numbers are not the same thing. Let me draw your attention to what I carefully explained on your own talk.page. Please observe the Wikipedia convention of using the launch date rather than the pennant number for future articles (other than for US ships, where I fully accept that the existance of a hull number series merits that number being used in the title); otherwise I suspect we will end up with having two sets of articles duplicating each other! Rif Winfield (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can always ask at WT:SHIPS if you are unsure as to correct title. There's a lot of Royal Navy ship articles that use the pennant number to disambiguate the various ships of the same name. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, but I am not at all unsure what the correct nmame should be. I have noted that there are a lot of RN ship articles which use the pennant number to disambiguate. They are wrongly titled, and at some future date someone is going to have to spend a great deal of time re-titling them. One problem many writers overlook is that many of the names of RN ships go back over several centuries, while the system of pennant numbers only came into use at the start of the 20th century, and even then underwent several revisions, so that pennant numbers were only temporarily assigned and changed frequently. It is a problem because many of those who create or alter articles are not acquainted with the wider history of naval ships, but only in the recent past (especially WW2 and perhaps WW1). Rif Winfield (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Arctic convoys
I found this on my talk page; is it for me? On the issue, using years to distinguish them makes sense, but most of the pages on RN ships from the 20th century seem to use pennant numbers; do we have a guideline on it now? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see (above) you’ve already addressed this; this “new section” arrangement on talk pages really isn’t helpful.

Is it worth raising it as an issue at WP ships or WP naming conventions then? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Xyl, I have just read through the WP naming conventions page again, and would point out that I actually participated in that exhaustive debate last July (look at the last entry!). I suggest that you read through this (although it is exceedingly tedious). It is plain that a concensus was arrived at, whereby USN vessels (from the introduction of their system of hull numbers) would be titled according to those numbers, and that for post-1948 vessels in the RN the 'modern' pennant numbers would be used, but that for all vessels prior to that date we should use the launch date in the articles' titles to differentiate ships of the same name. I shall follow this convention. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pownall/Pownoll
Hi Rif, thanks for your work on Richard Haddock, its good to get those inconsistencies and gaps cleared up and filled in. I've been meaning to take another look it using the ONDB entry another user was kind enough to email me. One question though, in your 1714-1794 book, is the Philemon Pownoll who had command of the French prize Blonde in 1776 (pg. 193) the same as the Philemon Pownall who was killed the following year aboard the Glory? I've another source that names him as Philomon Pownall aboard the Blonde and I assume that's either a simple mistake, or representative of a contemporary variation. Benea (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating a point I think that I've made before (sorry!), pre-19th century spelling was inconsistent and not subject to any regulation. People (assuming they were literate at all) could and would vary the spelling of their own names, let alone that of other people and of ships. I keep explaining to sincere seekers after "accuracy" that it's not worthwhile their wasting time debating what the 'correct' spelling should be; there was no such thing as 'correct' or standardised spelling and thus logically there could be no 'mistake' about spelling.

In this particular instance, I can advise that I'm sure it was the same individual, as the list of Commissioned Sea Officers shows only one Philemon (or Philomon) Pownell (or Pownall or Pownoll) during the 18th century. My recommendation in researching names is to troll through variety of reasonable variations in spelling. He made post (i.e. became a Captain) on 10 January 1771 and held a variety of commands before being killed in action on 15 June 1780 (not "the next year" of course), as noted in Laird Clowes's History of the RN.

Reverting to the Haddock entry, I have now changed the details to reflect the actual situation (deleting incidentally reference to the Battle of Texel, by which date Haddock was no longer in command of a ship). One small problem I have is in inserting the link to the Royal Sovereign of 1660, which it does not seem possible to link to, because the disambiguation only provides reference to the article on theSovereign of the Seas, which of course was no longer her name by the time she was rebuilt in 1659-1660. Can you fix that? Rif Winfield (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictou/Picton again
I'm sorry to disturb you with this little nutshell, Rif. But there are differences between you and your coauthor David Lyon. In `The sailing navy list´,ISBN 0-85177-617-5, he listed Pictou/Picton as ex American Leyson. You are at the point to say this vessels original name was Syren/Siren. So I am confused. Can you help me? Greetings from Denmark  --Danskeren (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is confusing, and sadly the records of this ship are not entirely clear. It is not helped by the fact that there were at least two and possibly three vessels around this time named HMS Pictou. However, careful investigations by a number of people since the Sailing Navy List was produced in 1993 have left us to conclude that the vessel to which you refer was the ex-Syren or Siren (spelling was not standardised in this period, so there was no such thing as a 'correct' spelling - read the second paragraph of my remarks above in the section entitled Pownoll/Pownall) and was not previously called Leyson, which appears to be a recording error. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you! Hej --Danskeren (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Benea: Lowestoffe not Lowescroffe
It is Lowestoffe (1761) not Lowescroffe. I just keep wanting to type Lowescroft. I have similar problems with Hinchinbrook. Acad Ronin (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was originally tempted to type Lowestoft; nowadays the temptation is to type Lowestoffe when referencing the town in Suffolk!. Hinchingbrook, Hinchingbrooke and Hinchingbroke were all used at some time or other (you are probably aware of my constant reminder to people that there was no such thing as "correct spelling" in 18th century Britain; individuals, even educated individuals, would even spell their own names variously at that time). Incidentally, I have now put in a basic article for HMS Dido (1784), but without adding in her service history; can you remove the box which says the info is unsourced, as I have put in source references. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Rif, if you wanted to have a look over HMS Lowestoffe (1761) for accuracy I'd be very grateful. It's mostly based on your work, and Goodwin's detailed entry in his Nelson's Ships. There are a couple of discrepancies that I've notice. At one point you say '; paid off 5.1773. Reduced to 28-gun Sixth Rate.' (this presumably prior to her refit starting in 1776). But the Nelson biographies I've read record him joining her in 1777 as a 32-gun fifth rate, as well as accounts of her later in her career as a 32 gun ship? The other was the order of captains - you have 'In 1794 under Capt. Benjamin Hallowell (acting); action off Genoa 10.3.1794.  In 4.1794 under Capt. Charles Cunningham, then Capt. Robert Middleton in 9.1794.' Goodwin instead has 'Cunningham (7 March 1794 - 11 August 1794); Hallowell (12 August 1794 - 17 June 1795) and Middleton (18 June 1795 - 28 September 1795). Hallowell is meant to have commanded her at Genoa on 14 March 1795, so this would seem to fit with Goodwin, but I wonder if you can provide any clarification? Best wishes, Benea (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben, thanks for that. The Lowestoffe's notes simply say that she was reduced to a 28-gun ship some time after her 1769-1773 commission. This also happened to four other 32-gun Fifth Rates - Boston and Jason in late 1777 and Stag and Quebec in 1778; all four were restored to 32 guns in 1779. The implication is that Lowestoffe was similarly reduced during her 1776-77 Large Repair at Sheerness, but the records omit any date when she was restored to being a 32-gun Fifth Rate; it was probably sanctioned in 1779 as well, but I cannot be sure. I will try to find out and let you know. As regards the second discrepancy, I'm convinced Peter Goodwin must have the dates correct for her 1792-1795 commanders; my listing was based on David Lyon's notes, and as he has the date for the action off Genoa as 10.3.1794 (whereas it should be 10.3.1795) this means that Hallowell's command must have been in late 1794 and early 1795 (i.e. following Cunningham), as Hallowell was certainly commanding her during that action off Genoa. Peter Goodwin went right through the logs for each of the ships in which Nelson served (to achieve a degree of precision that I couldn't follow for the 2,000+ ships I had to summarise), although for many ships the logs are no longer in existance. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Rif, and for fixing up the article! I wonder if you could shed some light on the origins of HMS Arab that entered the Navy in 1798? A user removed the detail that she was originally the French Brave, taken by Phoenix on 24 April that year (as described in Colledge), stating that he had seen somewhere that she may have been a collier taken up for service (possibly at least partly based on the entry in Michael Phillips's website here). She falls between the gap of your 1714-1794 work, and the 1815 onwards work you did with David Lyon, that you both kindly sent me, so I'm at a bit of a loss for further information at the moment. Much obliged, Benea (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben, the Colledge entry is correct, and the vessel was definitely not a collier. She was the French flush-decked privateer Le Brave, built at Nantes (probably in 1797) and captured by the Phoenix off Cape Clear on 24 April 1798. She was added to the RN as a Sixth Rate on 24 July 1798, but before being put into service by the RN, she was refitted at Plymouth between November 1798 and April 1799 (with a lower deck, quarterdeck and forecastle being added) and was commissioned in December 1798 under Peter Spicer. Incidentally, I have deleted the reference to the schooner of 1797 from the Arab disambiguation section; originally named the Lovely Lass (and so presumably British or American in origin), and seemingly in French hands as the Arabe, she was purchased in 1797 and commissioned in March 1797 as HMS Ant, retaining this name throughouther RN service until sold on 23 March 1814. She was never HMS Arab at any time.

Can I ask you to put in a disambiguation page for HMS Crocodile? The sole page with this heading at present describes the 1867 troopship, whereas there were three predecessors - (1) the Sixth Rate of 1781-1784, (2) the Sixth Rate of 1806-1816, and (3) the Sixth Rate of 1825-1861. Many thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

HMS Yarmouth
Hi Rif, hope all is well. I noticed you created HMS Yarmouth (1695). User:Martocticvs had created an article on the same ship at HMS Yarmouth (1694), using the date given in Lavery. The two both use 7 January, but differ by the year. Colledge uses 1695, and I assume this is the date you have in your researches? You might want to drop by Talk:HMS Yarmouth (1695) and clarify the matter, then we can merge the two articles at the correct disambiguated title. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done so (1695 is correct). Rif Winfield (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Euphrates class
Hi Rif, I've knocked up an article at Euphrates class troopship, feel free to work around on that. You can probably clarify a lot of the details of the ships' dimensions/engines etc. More details on their active careers for that section would also fill a major gap in the article! I've recently written HMS Spitfire (1783), but I've noticed a discrepancy in the launch date. Your book has 1782, while Colledge has the same date but 1783. Since there's a year's worth of commissioned officers listed (Mostyn, Byard, Bartholomew) I assume that 1782 is correct? Is it the same confusion of Julian/Gregorian calenders? If you can clarify this I can move the article to the correct year, add the missing details and an explanatory note, and fix any links. Best wishes, Benea (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have added a couple of changes to the Euphrates class troopships article. There is a printing error in my Sail and Steam Navy List 1815-1889 on page 283 where the launch date of the Malabar should read 8 December 1866 rather than 1865. Also, I have subsequently learnt that the Crocodile was re-engined like her sisters, except that this happened later in her career than the others. I have altered these details in your article. I can confirm that the launch date of the Spitfire was 19 March 1782, so kindly amend the title of the article and any links, as you kindly suggest. Is there an article on Tisiphone class fireships? Come to think of it, are there articles on the preceding fireship classes? Perhaps a List of fireships of the Royal Navy or List of fireship classes of the Royal Navy is required; probably the former title would be better. Did I, when sending you emailed copies of chapters of my 1714-1792 volume, include Chapter 10 on Miscellaneous Vessels (bomb vessels, fireships, etc)? If not, remind me which Chapters you received and and I shall do so. Incidentally, there could not have been the Julian/Gregorian calender confusion by this era - in September 1752 they moved the year end from 24th March to 31st December, at the same time as adopting the Gregorian calender. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rif, I realised after I had edited that the Gregorian/Julian calender could not be to blame here, and assumed it was a typographical error. Thanks for confirming this, I'll sort that out. I had also meant to mention the Malabar as well, but it must have slipped my mind! As to the 'list of fireships', the short answer is no, but we could definitely do with one! The other list that's been on my mind is a 'list of bomb vessels of the Royal Navy', which we also lack. You kindly sent my copies of all the chapters of your 1714-1793 work, the gaps would be for the pre-1714 Navy, and the 1794-1815 Navy, before the 'Sail and Steam Navy List' comes in from 1815. Benea (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll shortly email you copies of the 1793-1817 chapters, on the same basis as before. I think I should leave the 1603-1714 ones until after that volume is published later this year, although I'm happy to send extracts on request or answer any specific points. I think that you are correct as regards the list of bomb vessels, and would be most grateful if you could start this. For both that one and fireships, I'm happy to check through and expand the articles once they are in place. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem at all, I quite understand! I've started List of bomb vessels of the Royal Navy, so that's all ready for the addition of the pre-1714 vessels. Benea (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ben, thanks - I will add to both articles. Can I raise another error, this time on French naval vessels? There is currently an article on Ariane class frigates of the French navy. As you will see from Chapter 5 of the files just emailed to you, and also from the Wiki-article on List of French sail frigates, there was no separate Ariane class - the three vessels included in that page were standard units of the Pallas class, to which design over sixty frigates were ordered - they constituted the standard design of the Napoleonic Empire period. Can you please alter the article title (and any links) to Pallas class frigate, and I shall add in the remaining vessels? The only item of particular attention is not to have this confused with the existing article on Pallas class frigates of the Royal Navy, but I shall leave you to decide how. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rif, I've moved the article accordingly and submitted the category to be renamed. I've used the standard method of using the year of launch of the first ship of the class, so that article is now at Pallas class frigate (1808). The Royal Navy class could probably also be similarly moved to disambiguate by launch year to avoid any confusion. Benea (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ben, many thanks. I have added in much detail to your new Pallas class frigate (1808) article. I agree that a disambiguation page would be useful here, if you would be so kind. I have also added an article on the Hortense class frigates; however, I mis-spelt the title as Hotense, so can you kindly correct this? Rif Winfield (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Lewis
Hi Rif, I saw your name on the talkpage of one of the lists of warships and wondered if you knew aught about the Great Lewis? She's mentioned in the Siege of Duncannon.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Great Lewis and her consorts at Duncannon do not feature in any Navy records; they were clearly not naval vessels, but appear to have been merchantmen hired at that time. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for looking in to that for me.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A few queries
Hello Rif, I hope you don't mind but I've come across a few discrepancies in some sources and I wonder if you could shed some light on the matter. In the case of HMS Seine (1798) Colledge has wrecked off the Texel on 5 June 1803, whereas you have her as grounding off the Elbe on 21 July 1803 and burnt the next day to avoid capture? The other thing was in the case of HMS Algerine, ex-HMS Tigress (1808) and HMS Algerine (1810), some of the details for both entries seem to be repeated. They both seem to fight an action against 3 Danish brigs under J. A. Blow with Brevdrageren, and go on to be commanded by Daniel Carpenter in the West Indies? Much obliged, Benea (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to respond to queries. Having checked my sources, I stand by the 21 July date for the loss of the Seine; this is the date reported in the court-martial report (a court-martial was always obligatory upon the loss of a RN vessel), and I'm not sure why Colledge had the date wrong. As regards the Tigress and Algerine, I apologise for my error, caused by a confusion over the date of renaming of the Tigress as Algerine (21 April 1814 is correct for this event). The info is correct for the Algerine of 1810. The ex-French vessel was - as stated - commissioned 10.1808 under Robert Bones, and sailed for West Africa on 5.5.1809. However, Bones remained her commander until 1812, and was still in charge when she sailed again for West Africa on 3.8.1810. I have no further news of her until she came under Lieut. Carnegie in 1813. Trust this clarifies the data. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Sophie (1809)
For good or ill, I live in the US, not Malta. I ended up editing some Malta stuff based on a couple of days tourism after I attended a conference there. I got interested in the De Redin towers, and one thing led to another, pretty much as is currently happening to me now with the British warships of the Nelson era. I do most of my research via google, every now and then dropping in on a university library near the town where I live. Unfortunately, its collection of books on that era is thin. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Acad Ronin, I note and apologise for my mistaken assumption (although you will understand why I guessed at the Malta connection). Perhaps I might suggest that you try and persuade your university library to invest in a copy of my book (ISBN 978-1-84415-717-4 if you can do so)? If not, feel free to contact me (sailing.navy@btinternet.com) if you have any queries on Napoleonic era warships. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Former French ships
Hello Rif, I've moved the Rising Castle to her correct pennant number. On another now I was wondering about the title of HMS L'Egyptienne (1801). My understanding was that the French articles (which may not have been used in the original case) were not generally carried through to RN usage, similarly with the diacritics. Colledge lists her with the format 'L'Egyptienne' (and also uses the article in some other cases, such as 'HMS La Forte'), but you do not. Should the title be HMS Egyptienne (1810), or was she an exception to a general rule? Many thanks, Benea (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ben, many thanks for fixing Rising Castle; I've made a number of additions to the Castle class corvette article, although there is still a bit left to do. I can confirm that Egyptienne was not an exception (nor was Forte), and no definite article was used for any ex-French ship in British service. My practice is always to apply the definite article to French naval vessels while in French service, but never for ships in British service. Another general rule was that in British usage they generally dropped any accents which had been part of the French name - which made it quite difficult with such frigates as L'Unité (1787) which became Unite (1796). I am not certain whether the RN then pronounced the name as two syllables or three, but I think they retained the three-syllable pronunciation (by definition, we cannot now be certain). Rif Winfield (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Middlesbrough
Hi

Great work on Castle class corvette. I thought you might like to note that that place name you want is Middlesbrough in the northeast, not Middlesborough in Kentucky. Hope this helps, best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am suitably chastened! I even have friends on Teesside, so no excuse. I apologise and would amend the Castle class corvette now if you hadn't done so already. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh! Please don't feel chastened, it's a very common error! I fixed it already so no worries. Just thought you might like to know for your next shipyard or whatever! Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fireships
Hello Rif, per discussion with you I've started List of fireships of the Royal Navy. Any missing ships or futher details on the general history of fireships with the navy you could add would be gratefully appreciated! Best, Benea (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Ben, I shall do so, although it may be a few weeks before I can get around to it as I shall be away for part of May. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

HMS Phoebe
Hello Rif, I wonder if you can help me with a quick query. On page 136 of your 1794-1817 work you describe the service life of HMS Phoebe (1795). You have her initially under Robert Barlow (Royal Navy officer), followed by Thomas Baker (Royal Navy officer), the latter taking command in January 1801, and capturing the French frigate Africaine (1798) in February. Other sources I've seen have Barlow taking Africaine, with Baker taking command on 26 May 1801. I wonder if you could shed some light on this? Benea (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ben! Sorry to be late in responding; I've been abroad since 12th May, and just back this weekend. I shall look into this and get back to you in a few days. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Euphrates class
Rif I wonder if I might ask you to look at the discussion between Benea and myself at User talk:Shem1805. Is there any chance that the launch is 1866, not 1865? I'm afraid the errata that you sent me a while ago for The Sail and Steam Navy List is not immediately to hand, or I would check it first. Yours, Shem (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rif Apologies - I checked your talk page where you discuss the issue with Benea. I've made all the changes, and I believe no more action is required.  I've made it clear in the articles that the current facts are correct, so that the next keen editor with a copy of The Sail and Steam Navy List doesn't go and change them back again! Yours, Shem (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No doubt Ben will also have noted this. I'm put a note into your usertalk. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rif; I've got the bit about Crocodile into the article. Ben is certainly aware. Yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted. At the risk of being accused of publicity, I should mention that British Warships in the Age of Sail: 1603 - 1714 is now complete and just going into the hands of the printers, for release by Seaforth Publishing (i.e. Pen & Sword) around November. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Hello Rif, congratulations on the progress of your book by the way! I've replied to your comments on my talkpage. On a different subject, I've recently been looking at the career of Hugh Cloberry Christian. Laughton's entry in the dictionary of national biography indicates that he was commander of the hired ship Vigilant off North America in 1778, with Christian's obituary in Campbell's Naval History, indicating that this was during the encounter with d'Estaing's fleet on 9 August (presumably the naval actions around the Battle of Rhode Island). Tracey's collection of naval biographies of the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars omits this detail. Checking your shiplists I see that the commander of the the Vigilant (the former Empress of Russia) during the period and the encounter with d'Estaing, was one 'Commander Brabazon Christian'. Have Laughton and Campbell confused Brabazon Christian with Hugh Cloberry Christian? And therefore Hugh never was commander of a Vigilant? Unfortunately I cannot check the online and updated ODNB (at least until October) so I can't find out if this was an error that has subsequently been corrected. Best, Benea (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Bucentaure class
Hi Rif, no problem. I've opened a page in your user space at User:Rif Winfield/Bucentaure class ship of the line. At the moment I've moved off some of the information from the Tonnant Class that related to the Bucentaures. If you could fill in the infobox details about measurements, armament, etc, add the sources you're using and if you'd like expand the information on the details and fates of the remaining ships in the list, we can move the whole thing to mainspace, cut down the Tonnant class, and sort out new categories and templates to highlight the differences. Let me know what you think, and if you have any queries. Best, Benea (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ben, I have done so (not adding sources, but in fact you could use for that purpose the Demerliac volumes which contain all this data (in French, obviously). You could now move it out of my user space and create a proper article in mainspace, and the other adjustments you mention above.

Meanwhile I have also made some major changes (and additions) to the List of ships of the line of France article, as you will see. Until now, this listed (roughly chronologically) all two-deckers and three-deckers in a single list, making it impossible to see the development of different sizes/rates of ship. I have now separated most of these out into separate sections under each reign. Please tell me if you find this easier.

One thing that bugged me as regards the Tonnant class was the assertion that these 80-gun ships were preceded by the (74-gun) Temeraires and succeeded by the (120-gun) Oceans. Of course this isn't true, as each rate has its own line of development. Thus in reality the 80-gun Tonnant class was preceded by the 80-gun Deux Freres of 1784, and followed by the Bucentaures. Can you keep an eye open for other descriptions of the succession of French warship types which are similarly garbled? Rif Winfield (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Rif, I've made a few final tweaks and moved the article to mainspace (Bucentaure class ship of the line). At the same time I've trimmed the Tonnant class article down to the 8 ships, and similarly fixed Template:Tonnant class ship of the line to display only those ships. Template:Bucentaure class ship of the line has been created to replace it on those ships. I've also recategorised the ships in Category:Bucentaure class ships of the line, and changed the in-article texts on the individual ships. Hopefully there should now be a clear distinction between the two classes, and nowhere on wikipedia where a Bucentaure is described as a Tonnant.


 * Yes, I think the list of French ships of the line has needed a good going over for some time, your changes definitely make the progression of designs easier to follow, and fit in well with the structure at List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy. I had noticed the odd 'preceded/succeeded' issue too, though only on the Tonnant class page, I'm not sure if it crops up elsewhere. I've changed this to the Deux Freres/Bucentaure as I agree that this should be traced through ships of the same rate, rather than jumping between 110 guns to 74 guns (and who knows between frigates, corvettes, etc!) You could also add the class succeeding the Bucentaures if you wanted to, since I don't know this myself. Hope this has cleared up the situation, and feel free to bring anything else I can help with to my attention. Benea (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ben, thanks for your help on this. There was actually no further 80-gun class to follow the Bucentaure class during the Napoleonic era. Post-war (i.e. post-1815) developments are usefully summaried on http://www.shipscribe.com/marvap/intro3.html from which you would find useful input for the post-1815 sections of the wiki- List of ships of the line of France article. I've similarly been making some corrections to the pages for the 74s of the same Sané era, although here I've kept all the ships together on the Téméraire page as the small (Pluton) and large (Cassard) variants from the basic Téméraire design were usually grouped under the same class name - although I need to correct the misapprehension that there were only 12 examples built of the Pluton variant (see full list of the latter now in the List of ships of the line of France article). Rif Winfield (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

HMS Lark (1794)
Thanks re HMS Lark. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) You're very welcome. I have now added in technical data and construction dates panel. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Outstanding. Many thanks. Now, if we could just find a picture... Acad Ronin (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I have none of Lark. I've also introduced an article on her sister-ship Cormorant, and ones are in place for Favourite and Hazard of the same class, but it would be useful if you could start similar articles on the remaining sister-ships Hornet, Lynx and Stork - which I would then add in data for. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I have no plan for my contributions. I follow my whim as things catch my eye. If you could look at HMS Calcutta (1795) that would be kind as I have been working on her. I am unsure of her rating, both as a fourth-rate when some accounts have her as a 50-gun, some as 54, and the table shows 58, and earlier as an armed transport.  I'll look at the Cormorant class and see what I can do. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The re-armament was a little complex, so I'll give you the complete picture. Calcutta was one of nine large merchantmen purchased by the Navy Board during 1795 for conversion as convoy escorts. She was not a new ship; like most of the nine, she had made two round trip voyages to the Far East (1789-90 and 1792-94) prior to being purchased. As the Warley, she was actually launched by Perry & Co on 16 October 1788 (not 1795!). She was registered into the Navy (i.e. purchased) on 9 March 1795, and was then refitted by her original builders, Perry & Co, at a cost of £10,300 from April until 2 June 1795. She was fitted with the 56 guns which you list in the article, viz. 28 x 18pdrs on the LD, 26 x 32pdr carronades on the UD, and 2 x 32pdr carronades on the forecastle. Bligh commissioned her in May 1795, and commanded her - as a 56-gun Fourth Rate - throughout this first commission from which she was paid off in February 1796. She was then delivered to the Transport Board, and it was at this time that her LD guns were taken out and she was used as a transport until 1802. She was commissioned in this role in June 1796 under Lieut. Robert Arnold, and command passed in August 1797 to Lieut. Edward Jekyll Canes, in January 1798 to Lieut. Richard Poulden, and in 1799 to Lieut. John Anderson. Between May 1802 and February 1803 she was converted at Chatham to be a convict ship and received a new armament of 16 x 24pdr carronades on the UD and 2 x 6pdrs on the forecastle. In this role she recommissioned under Capt. Daniel Woodriff in November 1802. She sailed for Port Philip on 25 April 1803, returning from Australia by 24 July 1804. She then reverted to her original role as a Fourth Rate with her established armament of 56 guns on 5 September 1804. On 26 September 1805 she was captured by Allemand's squadron off the Isles of Scilly. Her final fate was to be destroyed in action with British ships during the road on the Basque Roads on 12 April 1809. Her original complement as a Fourth Rate was 324; as a storeship she had a complement of 160. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Outstanding. I will work this in. Many thanks. One wants to be accurate.Acad Ronin (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm NOT trying to advertise my own work, but you really should try and get hold of a copy of my British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates (from which ALL the above data for Calcutta would be found) as a reference source. While it's not faultless, it's the ONLY publication to go into the service details of every vessel, as collated from Admiralty/Navy Board records. For example, are the equivalent articles for the other eight of these purchased Fourth Rates of 1795 accurate? The 1714-1792 volume covers the preceding period, and the 1603-1714 volume will be available in a couple of months. Rif Winfield (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the university that I work at doesn't hold the volume but following your suggestion I have arranged for them to borrow it for a month from another university. That should help. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just created a page on HMS Hornet (1794). When the copy of your volume arrives, I will add what I can to the text. Unfotunately, I am not finding much on her. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done, I accept that she did not have a very notable career. I have added in a techical column to the article. It may be worth mentioning that there were 'two vessels named HMS Hornet added during 1794; the second was a former Dutch hoy purchased on 3 February 1794 and registered on 7 March as HM Gunboat Hornet, so it is necessary to distinguish between the two. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you verify the "John Nash" under Hornet (1794). I have only found references ot a "James Nash''. Thanks. Also, could you look at USS Cyane (1806)? Shouldn't this be moved to USS Cyane (1815), which could then follow-on to HMS Cyane (1806)?

In the meantime, I'll start work on Lynx (1794), or Stork (1796). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have removed redirect concerning USS Cyane (1806) as no articles link to it anymore.Acad Ronin (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted (after some searching!). Thanks!. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it's John Nash. There were two officers mentioned in the Commissioned Sea Officers of the Royal Navy 1660-1815 (Naval Records Society, 1994). James Nash was commissioned as a Lieutenant on 25 October 1793 and promoted a Commander on 8 March 1797. John Nash was commissioned as a Lieutenant on 16 August 1793 and promoted a Commander on 16 September 1796. James should therefore not have been able to be in command of the Hornet in November 1796, whereas John could be. You are absolutely correct about the USS Cyane. In its USN role, the date should definitely be 1815 when it was taken into the USN, not 1806 which was its original launch for the RN; please move the article as you suggest, leaving a link to HMS Cyane (1806). I have just noticed that there is no separate article for HMS Cyane (1806), which links simply to the article on the USN vessel. There clearly out to be a separate article covering the ship in RN service from 1806 to 1815; can you create this and change the links? Incidentally, I've changed the wording "light frigate" in the article to "Sixth Rate"; the description "light frigate" has no technical meaning in RN terminology - in fact, it should correctly be described as a "Post ship", which was the correct useage for a ship of less than 28 guns (the minimum for a frigate) but over 20 guns or more. And, when time permits, perhaps an article on Banterer class post-ships would be helpful? Rif Winfield (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

HMS Cyane (1806) and HMS Lynx (1794) are up. I have also moved USS Cyane (1806) to USS Cyane (1815). Lastly, I have created a disambiguation page for HMS Cyane. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC) That's fine. I shall put a 'technical data' column into right-hand side of your new articles on Cyane (1806) and Lynx (1794) as soon as I can find time. Many thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I have put the promised data columns into these two articles. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw that. Thanks. Have added to the Cyane article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

French sailing warships
Work is progressing slowly in proportion of the task at hand, but you might be interested to know that we now have minimal articles for all three-deckers from Louis XV to Louis-Philippe (unless some were missing from List of ships of the line of France, in which case I should scan the Dictionnaire to spot the missing ones).

I plan to complete smaller ships involved in certain battles before possibly applying the same treatment to 80-guns, starting by the Tonnant class. Cheers! Rama (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Many thanks! On a quick check, all the Vaisseaux de Premier Rang seem to be there from Louis XV onwards. Of course, there were a great number of three-deckers built under Louis XIV (I have put a complete list into List of ships of the line of France, so you can see what's missing), but I appreciate it will take some time to get around to these. As regards 80s, there is now a full list of the Sané-designed Tonnant and (slightly different) Bucentaure classes in the articles for those classes. No doubt you will in due course go back to the earlier Tonnant of 1743, the first 80-gun ship built under Louis XV. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think it is more urgent to go through the Vaisseaux de Premier Rang of the Louis XIV era? I can set my priorities of these rather that on the 80-guns of the Revolutionnary and Napoleonic era, if needed. Cheers! Rama (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The priorities are entirely down to your choice. I am a little concerned that there is virtually nothing on the ships of Louis XIV, so it would be helpful if there were some stubs, at least, which could be expanded later. On the other hand, it might be sensible to complete the references to the Revolutionnary and Napoleonic era ships of the line first, not forgetting the Louis XV ships which survived into that era, so that at least we can know that that is complete. As I say, the choice is yours. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Rif, just noticed in the French ships of the line list page that both the 1746 Conquerant and the 1765 Conquerant are listed as having been captured by the British at the Nile in 1798.

There is also an excellent site you may know of http://www.shipscribe.com/marvap/classes.html

Cheers!,

User SpookyMulder (Milton)

HMS Camilla (1776)
Hi Rif, FYI I just created the Camilla article. If and when you have the time, an info box would be great. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC) As requested, I have inserted an info box for HMS Camilla (1776) and also corrected that for HMS Ariel (1777) of the same Class. Two items need correction which I shall leave to you, as I'm not certain how to correct the "references" and "category" items - (i) the "category" at the foot of the article refers to a "Sphinx class frigate" which should be a "Sphinx class post ship" (the article for the class still needs creating); in the RN, only ships rated with 28 guns or more were legally frigates, those with 20 - 26 guns were post ships (this situation changed after 1817) (ii) in the "references", my book is mentioned but wrongly quoted as "British warships of (sic!) the Age of Sail" without the years (1714-1792) which form an essential part of the title (the series so far comprises three volumes British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817, British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792 and - from October - British Warships in the Age of Sail 1603-1714); also the Camilla entry is on page 266, not page 261. Many thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rif, Thanks for the ship boxes. I made the corrections. The incorrect citations came from a different article that I had lifted material from, so I went back and fixed that source too. Incidentally, Camilla is on page 226 of your book, not page 266. :-) I don't yet know how to create a Category page, so I have stuck simply with creating the category name: Sphinx class Sixth Rates. Eventually I, or perhaps someone with more knowledge than I, will create the category page. Also, what is the correct terminology with respect to both Post-ships and Post-captains concerning both capitalization and hyphenation? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but the Camilla reference should definitely be page 266 in the 1714-1792 volume (the book is open in my hand as I type), although the Camilla does also appear on page 226 in the 1793-1817 volume (as it was one of the surviving Sphinx class left by 1793, it happens to be covered in both volumes). Sphinx Class Sixth Rate is fine - just don't refer to them as 'frigate'. As regards your question, contemporary use (e.g. on Admiralty records) was not to use hyphen, but to use initial capital 'P'. Incidentally, initial capitals were always used for 'Sixth Rate', (and other Rates too); I'm sad to see wiki use with lower case 'r'. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rif, Ah, but the inline citations were to the 1793-1817 book, so I left the page ref at 226. I have tried to correct the Post ship usage where I have been able to find it. I will honour the capitalization of Rate in the future, and that of Post captain. I don't have the stomach to go back and correct all the incorrect usages in Wikipedia. You might give a look at the Rating system of the Royal Navy article. The table in the article implicitly classifies Post ships as Frigates. The table probably needs a new row for Sixth Rate Post ships. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rif, I see that you added the row to the table in the Rating System article. That does the job nicely, thanks. I have mucked about with the page further, introducing some examples to try to make the abstract concrete. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, I have previously amended this article somewhat, so the text already records the difference between frigates and post ships. As the rating system did alter over the period of nearly three centuries during which it was in use, naturally it is difficult to explain everything easily in an article without going into great detail (not least that the changes which came into effect in February 1817, whereby carronades on the quarter decks and forecastles of warships were finally included in the gun rating, altered the rating of most ships overnight). In putting in the extra row, I have assumed that the '1794' and '1815' figures for commissioned ships were those on 1 January of each of those years (the column headings do not explain this) and acted accordingly in 'splitting' the Sixth Rates into two rows. The article still deals poorly with the smaller two-deckers, which were cruisers too small to stand in the line of battle. Obviously this category includes the two-decker 40-gun and 44-gun ships (from 1690) as well as the demi-batterie 32s and 36s of the 1690-1730 period, and also includes the 50-gun ships from ca.1756. The "Type" column in the table is thus particularly misleading. Perhaps someone (you?) could write explaining that there were these categories of rated ships which were neither ships of the line nor frigates! Rif Winfield (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rif, I'll put it on my To Do list. In the meantime, do you anything about the other guns that vessels apparently carried? Whenever I read about boats on a cutting out expedition or the like, they often seem to have howitzers, 12-pounder guns, and the like. However, these seem to be smaller, brass guns, not the normal deck guns. I'd like to include a line on them in the Ratings article too. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Boat guns, and other mainly anti-personnel weapons, were never included in a ship's Rating, so in the Ratings article you can keep things quite simple. There were obviously a variety of small arms (some firearms, plus edged weapons) carried by every vessel; this would include weapons carried as boat guns, swivel-mounted guns, howitzers and mortars. Gun Ratings were simply based on the number of truck(carriage)-mounted guns which a ship was established to carry (sometimes what the ship actually carried would vary, particularly if there were shortages of a particular grade of gun when that ship went into a dockyard to arm or re-arm). The only exceptions were carronades (which were usually mounted on slides rather than on trucks) where these were mounted instead of carriage guns; but as you know after February 1817 all carronades were counted, even if they were extra guns mounted on the forecastle and quarter deck. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

HMS Crescent (1932)
My Dear Rif If you can spare the time, could you please add your opinion to the discussion at Talk:HMS Crescent (1932)? Thanks, Shem (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC) I have done so; you will note that I agree with you, except that the launch date was 1931 and not 1932!. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Correcting
Hi Rif, I'll try to remember to keep a scratch pad for any errors, typos, or whatever that I catch. There certainly haven't been many, and whatever they were were trivial, which is why I sort of noted it my mind, and then forgot about them. I thought at the time that you would probably want to know, and then it slipped my mind to write anything down. I'll try and do better in the future. Of course, the other thing I am noticing more and more is discrepancies in historical accounts, which is not surprising. I am just working on Diamond Rock, among other things, and there are disagreements about things as fundamental as which cannons went on the top of the Rock, and which were at the base. Sometimes we will simply have to note the disagreement and accept that we will almost certainly never resolve it. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Noted and agreed, although often a little study may identify the cause of the discrepancy (if not simply a clerical error, as many of them were) and enable the truth to be puzzled out. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Post ship classes
Hi Rif, nice work on the classes, notwithstanding the fact that I have gone through and tweaked the intro paragraph on most of them. However, I have some questions not related to the classes. First, I found out that HMS Cyane (1806) was given two howitzers. Normally I would think that these would be boat guns. If they were boat guns, any idea why they would be mentioned, and if they weren't, how would they have been used? Second, are you aware of any accounts of captains deploying boat guns on deck to augment their vessel's firepower during an action? The reason I ask is that I am thinking of doing a small article on boat guns.

Lastly, why did the Royal Navy proliferate different calibres on small vessels? The 9-pounder stern chaser/32-pounder carronade makes sense, but the reasoning behind adding in 12 or 24-pounder carronades, or perhaps some 6 pounders, is less clear as each calibre meant having to store different cannon balls and powder charges, running the risk of having too much of some and not enough of the other. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that you are talking about boat guns. Howitzers were almost never part of the establishment of a warship, and were used for boat operations. As you know, there were a variety of anti-personnel small arms used, including swivels and coehorns - not forgetting muskets. Swivels were often (not always) stated as part of a ship's establishment, but other small arms were not. Some of these were certainly used aboard the ship itself, but I do not recall any specific mention of howitzers being used in this fashion.
 * Over the centuries, the RN did try to reduce the number of different calibres aboard each ship, but certainly the problems you mention did occur. The reason why there were smaller calibre guns mounted on the upperworks (forecastle and quarter deck) was generally a question of the weight of the guns themselves (not of the projectiles they fired). One of the major problems with small wooden warships was that their hulls were liable to distortion because of the weight of the guns and the gun carriages, particularly when those guns were mounted towards the extremities of the ships. Another reason to use lighter guns on the upper works was to provide better stability, as having heavy guns high up in the ship would raise the centre of gravity and make the ship liable to roll heavily (although to some extent this problem could be got around by increasing the ballast in the hold). Rif Winfield (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the mention of the two howitzers just doesn't make sense. No harm done by the source mentioning them, it's just confusing.

There must have been good discussions at the Navy Board about the trade-offs involved in arming the vessels - weight of broadside, stability of the vessel, expected tactics (guns vs carronades),sailing speed, proliferation of ammunition types, etc. Clearly, replacing 9 pounders and the like with 32-pounder carronades was a big change that must have been discussed at length. Thanks & regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

HMS Hippomenes (1803) and HMS Fort Diamond
Hi Rif, I have just created these two small articles. The first needs an infobox, and both have info that is inconsistent with your book (the 1793-1817 one). James has Autridge as commanding Gauchpin before moving to Hippomenes (you have no mention of him), and the info in James and elsewhere on Hippomenes's armament when she was captured is completely inconsistent with the data you have. I am not saying you are wrong, only that these are interesting puzzles, particularly the armament. As for Fort Diamond, and HMS Diamond Rock, you have no mention of either. Unfortunately, I can't find any info that would permit one to create an infobox for Fort Diamond, not even her origins. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks. The information as regards the Hippomenes's guns which you quote is for the 14 Dutch guns she mounted as captured. Wm James appears to have made the same eror. On capture, she was taken to Antigua where she was added to the RN and established as an 18-gun sloop, with the guns as stated in my book. It was officially with this armament that she joined the RN (rather than with her former 14 Dutch guns, which were removed as incompatable with British requirements - Dutch 8-pounders, in particular, couldn't take RN ammunition). Note that these 18 guns are what she was formally established to carry; I cannot be sure how long it took before her Dutch guns were removed. I'm afraid that I have no official evidence I can find to agree with you as regards Lt Autridge, too. Incidentally you mis-spell the vessel's name as well - it was Guachapin, not Gauchpin which you quote above and in the article. Records show that Cmdr. Samuel Butcher commanded her from 19 February 1801 until he was made post on 29 April 1802; Cmdr. Kenneth Mackenzie was made her commander on 29 April 1802 and stayed with her until he was promoted into the Hippomenes in June 1804, and then Cmdr. Robert Henderson was made her commander on 21 June 1804. Lt William Autridge was not promoted to the rank of Commander until 17 October 1804. It is possible that he commanded the Guachapin briefly after Henderson, and before taking over the Hippomenes, but his name doesn't show up in Admiralty records in connection with her. Please remember that my book is based on actual Admiralty/Navy Board records, and not on contemporary unofficial writings (even though I would concur that Wm James is normally exceedingly accurate). Let me deal more quickly with the Diamond Rock and Fort Diamond. I deliberately did not include the Diamond Rock, as she was not a ship (even though, like other shore establishments, she was commissioned as one). I carefully and expressly made the point in the introduction to my book that shore establishments were not included - otherwise I would have been dealing with naval dockyards and stations ashore in the UK and elsewhere, and I didn't have room (or inclination) to do so. The Fort Diamond is certainly a vessel I might have included; the difficulty was the lack of any information whatsoever about her, her origins, or even her size/armament. From the reference in Wm James and also in Laird Clowes, she must have been extremely small - more of a sloop-rigged boat than a sloop, but that's a guess. Sadly there were many small vessels (some hundreds) which were taken in the West Indies or other far-flung locations during the Anglo-Fremch wars which only lasted a few months in British service, never came to the UK, and failed to get a mention in reports to the Admiralty (so never was listed in naval records here); hopefully I have included the vast majority of these, but unfortunately there is no systematic way or tracking all of them since by definition they are only mentioned in unofficial sources, and I'm sure that a few are overlooked (as I do warn in the book). I have noted this one on the basis of adding it should a further revised volume be possible, and thanks you for drawing it to my attention. Hope this lengthy explanation helps. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Rif, as always, good stuff. I will amend the info on Hippomenes. Benea has done nice articles on the Battle of Diamond Rock and on Maurice, her/its commander. He suggests that several vessels may have borne the Fort Diamond/Diamond Rock name. It may have been a name of convenience for whichever hired vessel was acting as tender to the fort.
 * Also, you might look at HMS Calpé (1800). I have just added her and the info I found suggests that the order of her commanders was the reverse of the order you have in your book. Apparently the Admiralty did not support Saumarez's appointments.
 * I also did some work on HMS Hannibal (1786). Can you send me to a source that might have info re her French career? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I think that you are correct about Lamburn, other than that his name is given as John Lamborn in most records. I have made a few alterations in your otherwise very good article (attention to spelling was needed, in particular note your mis-spelling of Caesar). Unlike several of the officers bearing the name Dumaresq, Philip always has a "ue" added at the end, although he later changed it to "Dumaresquin" (see Commissioned Sea Officers of the Royal Navy 1660-1815). I have also added a bit to the item on French service (as L'Annibal) of the former HMS Hannibal (1786); this extra data comes from a variety of sources, notably Alain Demerliac's Nomenclature des navires français de 1800 à 1815 and Jean-Michel Roche's Dictionnaire des Bâtiments de la Flotte de Guerre Française de Colbert à nos jours (Tome 1). My sole remaining difficulty is your use of the "é" at the end of Calpe; not only did the RN always drop any accent in the name of a vessel captured from the enemy (e.g. Guerrière was renamed Guerriere), even when this was at odds with its pronunciation (e.g. Unité became Unite); but also I cannot see that the "former name of Gibraltar" was spelt other than "Calpe". Rif Winfield (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Rif, Thanks for the French info on Hannibal, the editing and ship box for Hippomenes, and the editing on Calpe. You must have a great library, which is not surprising.
 * I have moved the article from Calpe with an accent to Calpe without one. You are also obviously right about my spelling errors. Spelling was never my strong suite; when I was a schoolboy the Jesuits would strap me for spelling mistakes but it didn't help, or maybe it did, but not enough. I find it difficult to catch errors when I am editing as the Wiki syntax and all the redlines under foreign words, American spelling, etc., mean that I start ignoring them. I find that I must go back to an article after several days and look at it again to catch (some) spelling errors. Basically, fresh eyes help.
 * By the way, I am finding many instances of mistakes in references to your books in Wikipedia. The most common is "of" instead of "in" in "in the Age of Sail". I am fixing them when I see them.I suspect there was an initial error, and then everyone has just copied that citation. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. It's true that I have a sizeable home library, collected over the years; but mostly it's a question of the data out of public (mainly Admiralty) records collected by myself that counts; however extensive, published sources are not as reliable as going to the official data. I agree with your final remark. Do please contact me if you have any further queries (I think I quoted my email address earlier, if you prefer to contact direct rather than on wiki). Rif Winfield (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)