History Trivia Thread Reducks

[HisMajestyBOB]

It was cheaper?

[Razgovory]

The wood was held together with pipe clay and undyed Austrian uniforms.

[Alatriste]

I could go for un indicio, vato.

What's a "vato", friendo?

Hint: Great Britain in 1805 had at least 140 ships of the line. But in spite of the crisis that led to Trafalgar far less than 50% of them were in actual service... and pretty much the same happened with the British, Dutch, Spanish and French fleets during the XVIII century and the Napoleonic Wars.

[Caliga]

errr.... the Baltic is infested with some kind of worm that really likes to eat wood?

[Alatriste]

errr.... the Baltic is infested with some kind of worm that really likes to eat wood?

Nope. I will say it in another way: Why did Britain, France, Spain, etc. build so many ships when they couldn't find crews for more than 30% or 40% of them at the most?

[Admiral Yi]

What's a "vato", friendo?

Central American equivalent of dude.  No clue what it actually means.

[Threviel]

errr.... the Baltic is infested with some kind of worm that really likes to eat wood?

Nope. I will say it in another way: Why did Britain, France, Spain, etc. build so many ships when they couldn't find crews for more than 30% or 40% of them at the most?

There wasn't enough sheer hulks?

[Caliga]

Who was the guy who used to google/wiki every trivia question and then deny he had done that?  Agelastus?

[Viking]

We don't know! and when we tried to google it we FAILED!

Just tell us the answer.

[Habbaku]

Why did Britain build so many ships when they couldn't find crews for more than 30% or 40% of them at the most?

They were optimistic about how many ships they'd be able to crew with American pressgangs?

[grumbler]

I didn't want to answer because, if I'm right, it's quite related with Spanish history. Anyway... during the XVI century the biggest ships, the galleons for example, carried one company of infantry... commanded by a captain. In consequence, the ships had to be commanded by captains to avoid the godamned landlubbers being in charge!

Close enough. In fact, the "captain" was, indeed, the commander of the ship's company of soldiers.  The modern naval crew is, in fact, descended from those soldiers, and not the civilian crews who used to man the ship (under the "master").  This is also why the RN has a position in the British Army order of precedence.

[saskganesh]

I take the floor, gentlemen.

Napoleonic trivia, part MMCLVIII: Russian warships of this era had a much shorter life span than those of other powers, quite a few were scrapped after barely 10 years afloat. Why?

guessing with thanks from google! these ships were temporary, and were built to escape high timber taxes. once they reached destination, they were salvaged and the wood was sold for profit. Russia was a timber exporter so the practise was widespread, maybe aided by a corrupt tsarist naval bureaucracy who got paid twice for 1) building the warships and then after a polite period of floating storage 2) selling the timber at market.

???

[Siege]

Whoa, so pre-XIX century ships weren't durable?

What life-span are we talking about here? Years?

[Alatriste]

Whoa, so pre-XIX century ships weren't durable?

What life-span are we talking about here? Years?

On the contrary, HMS Victory is still afloat for a reason. If timber was properly cured (a process that took years) wooden ships could last for 100 years in service and some actually did.

Sorry about the delay, but the reason, ironically, was that Russia had a secure, cheap and endless supply of everything needed to build ships: timber, hemp, pitch, copper, iron... and workers too, more dirt cheap serfs that you can shake a stick at.

The other powers had to take into account that their vital naval supplies were always in danger. Just Denmark closing the Sund would cut their vital supply line and force them to close their shipyards once they exhausted their stocks.

Regarding timber, their answer was to buy in times of peace, cure it properly, build all the ships they could, and make sure that the ships would last for decades. In war they kept building ships if they could, but crewing the ships already built and kept in reserve was much faster.

The Russians were in the opposite situation. They controlled the supply and the prices, and serfs weren't paid at all... in consequence the Tsar paid a far lower price for a new ship of the line than Britain, France or Spain.  in those conditions it made perfect sense to build shoddy ships with green timber. Sure, they would rot in 10 or 15 years, but why bother spending time, space and resources in curing the timber when one has all the inmense forests of Russia and Siberia?

[Admiral Yi]

You're right, I was close.