Battleships and Merchants was Re: Mercs, yet again

[quoted original message omitted]

> At 06:04 13/01/02 +0100, Karl wrote:
not
> to mention size of crew, artillery etc. The difference may have been

HMS Victory is indeed a specialized warship, the end result a period of
evolution of naval ships. But please note that I was saying that there were
common characteristics (besides the fact that they both float on water).

The reason for this commonality was to a large degree due to the weapon,

the ship's cannon, being used. Excluding the gun decks and the larger crew
there was little difference between warships and merchants. The wooden hull
proved quite resilient to cannon shot, ships of the period were more often
forced out of action via crew casualties rather than damage to the hull.

Crew members unlike the hull which was able to retain it's structure after
being holed were not so fortunate, suffering terrible wounds from the cannon
shot and the wood splinters the shot's passage through the hull produced.

It's a case of function defining form, the ships that would one day become HMS
Victory and her sisters had needed strong hulls to survive the waters they
travelled (eg: the North Sea). These hulls in turn required little adaption to
become men of war.

This is the reason why the 'Spurance class Destroyers of the US Navy have
such a large hull, they were designed for anti-submarine warfare in the
heavy seas of the North Atlantic [more trivia:)]

> "Endeavour" is not really a counterexample. It was not a real warship,

I think the Endeavor is a excellent example, Or perhaps the 'Alfred' formerly
the 'Black Prince' or 'Andrew Doria' formerly a merchant named 'Defiance' or
many of the other American ships used in the American War of Independence.
These were merchant vessels refitted for naval service.

Cheers