What if Spanish ship captain and inventor Blasco de Garay,
developed a practice side-wheel steam ship around 1550 A.D.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasco_de_Garay

On 5/27/2022 10:12 AM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> What if Spanish ship captain and inventor Blasco de Garay,
> developed a practice side-wheel steam ship around 1550 A.D.?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasco_de_Garay

Interesting ideas.
But, I'd tend to think, that the same as with the more
commonly well known Leonardo da Vinci (1452 to 1519)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci

that the knowledge and skill of making a variety
of metals, products, and machining was advanced
enough to actually produce on his 'dreams'.

Or to quote from the above citation,
"as the modern scientific approaches to metallurgy and
engineering were only in their infancy during the Renaissance."

---
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ---
I'm sorry, even if "Heron of Alexandria 10 AD – c. 70 AD,
(a Greek mathematician and engineer in Alexandria)
had gotten full governmental support, you still
would not have steamships on a scheduled Alexandria
to Aswan route, or railroads running from Cairo to
Damascus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria

On 6/2/2022 8:53 AM, a425couple wrote:
> On 5/27/2022 10:12 AM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> What if Spanish ship captain and inventor Blasco de Garay,
>> developed a practice side-wheel steam ship around 1550 A.D.?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasco_de_Garay
>
> Interesting ideas.
> But, I'd tend to think, that the same as with the more
> commonly well known Leonardo da Vinci (1452 to 1519)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
>
> that the knowledge and skill of making a variety
> of metals, products, and machining was
obviously, I meant
was NOTadvanced
> enough to actually produce on his 'dreams'.
>
> Or to quote from the above citation,
> "as the modern scientific approaches to metallurgy and
> engineering were only in their infancy during the Renaissance."
>
> ---
> Yeah, yeah, yeah, ---
> I'm sorry, even if "Heron of Alexandria 10 AD – c. 70 AD,
> (a Greek mathematician and engineer in Alexandria)
> had gotten full governmental support, you still
> would not have steamships on a scheduled Alexandria
> to Aswan route, or railroads running from Cairo to
> Damascus.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria
>

On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:47:23 -0700, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> that the knowledge and skill of making a variety
>> of metals, products, and machining was
>obviously, I meant
>was NOTadvanced
>> enough to actually produce on his 'dreams'.
>>
>> Or to quote from the above citation,
>> "as the modern scientific approaches to metallurgy and
>> engineering were only in their infancy during the Renaissance."

So WATT (pun intended) are you saying? That Watt's steam engine was
largely due to the advances in metallurgy from the Renaissance at
least as much as any other factor?? (and yes I know there were other
inventors who made similar engines though Watt was the one who both
gets all the credit and made the filthy lucre from it)

On 6/3/2022 12:08 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:47:23 -0700, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> that the knowledge and skill of making a variety
>>> of metals, products, and machining was
>> obviously, I meant
>> was NOTadvanced
>>> enough to actually produce on his 'dreams'.
>>>
>>> Or to quote from the above citation,
>>> "as the modern scientific approaches to metallurgy and
>>> engineering were only in their infancy during the Renaissance."
>
> So WATT (pun intended) are you saying? That Watt's steam engine was
> largely due to the advances in metallurgy from the Renaissance at
> least as much as any other factor?? (and yes I know there were other
> inventors who made similar engines though Watt was the one who both
> gets all the credit and made the filthy lucre from it)

Yes, to a noticeable degree I am saying,
> That Watt's steam engine was
> largely due to the advances in metallurgy from the Renaissance
>

Metallurgy
Metallurgy is a domain of materials science and engineering
that studies the physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements,
their inter-metallic compounds, and their mixtures, which are known
as alloys ----as…

so more I'm considering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_science

Materials science
The interdisciplinary field of materials science covers the design
and discovery of new materials, particularly solids. The field is
also commonly termed materials science and engineering emphasizing
engineering aspects of building useful items, and materials physics,
which emphasizes the use of physics to describe material properties.
The intellectual origins of materials science stem from the Age
of Enlightenment, when researchers began to use analytical thinking
from chemistry, physics, and engineering to understand ancient,
phenomenological observations in metallurgy and mineralogy.[1][2]
Materials science still incorporates elements of physics,
chemistry, and engineering. As such, the field was long considered
by academic institutions as a sub-field of these related fields.
Beginning in the 1940s, materials science began to be more widely
recognized as a specific and distinct field of science and
engineering, and major technical universities around the world
created dedicated schools for its study.

I am saying, there have always been great 'dreamers' like:
Heron of Alexandria 10 AD – c. 70 AD,
Blasco de Garay
Leonardo da Vinci (1452 to 1519).

But no matter what anyone dreamed, or drew on paper,
many things were not possible until until a range
of lessor products and inventions were completed.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 10:14:41 -0700, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>But no matter what anyone dreamed, or drew on paper,
>many things were not possible until until a range
>of lessor products and inventions were completed.

Sounds a lot like what Sid Meier said in his book on the creation of
the Civilization series of games

On 6/4/2022 1:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 10:14:41 -0700, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But no matter what anyone dreamed, or drew on paper,
>> many things were not possible until until a range
>> of lessor products and inventions were completed.
>
> Sounds a lot like what Sid Meier said in his book on the creation of
> the Civilization series of games

Or James Burke in the TV show 'Connections' before that.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6/4/2022 1:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 10:14:41 -0700, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But no matter what anyone dreamed, or drew on paper,
>> many things were not possible until until a range
>> of lessor products and inventions were completed.
>
> Sounds a lot like what Sid Meier said in his book on the creation of
> the Civilization series of games

Or,
Often enough, a time traveler arrives back
at an important time,,,, but nobody seems
willing to believe the 'crazy'. So the warning
is disregarded.

I wish I could now find my Harry Turtledove
book, "The Guns of the South".
But the interesting 'gist' of what got to me, is:

The time traveler has given Robert Lee an
AK-47 and ammunition. He comes back later
to talk. Lee already understood, this had
to be time travel, no experts available could
figure out how to even make copies.
A great number of the aspects of it were just
generations ahead of where the best minds and materials
were.

And, kind of the same idea in Turtledove's series
on "In the Balance", the bad invaders have
exploded A-bombs. The USA also has. And as angry as
Stalin is, he has to be convinced that even
if he threatens with torture and death, Russia'
/ the USSR's top nuclear Physicists do not have
the ability yet to give him an A-bomb.

On 6/3/2022 7:28 AM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> a425couple
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> What if Spanish ship captain and inventor Blasco de Garay,
>>> developed a practical side-wheel steam ship around 1550 A.D.?
>>
>> that the knowledge and skill of making a variety of metals, products,
>> and machining was not advanced enough to actually produce on his
>> 'dreams'.
>
> I would say the skills were up to snuff, as for example, armor made
> at the time was very high quality and so the mechanical components
> of a steam ship were well within the capability of craftsmen back then
> but the technology and practices for mass manufacturing hadn't been
> developed yet, meaning these 1500s steam ships would be hand-made
> one-off products with each one in effect being a custom made prototype
> and they'd still be primarily sail-driven.
>
> https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/united-states-confederate-side-wheel-steamship-css-hope-cutaway-picture-id89167369

I do not think they could even measure accurately
enough for the needed tolerances to fit a piston
and it's rings inside a cylindar, and as the various
parts heat up to operating temperature, still have
adequate tolerances.

Sorry, I do not see possibility of 'steam-punk'
walking machines in the 1500s-----

On 6/4/2022 8:10 PM, a425couple wrote:
> On 6/4/2022 1:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 10:14:41 -0700, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But no matter what anyone dreamed, or drew on paper,
>>> many things were not possible until until a range
>>> of lessor products and inventions were completed.
>>
>> Sounds a lot like what Sid Meier said in his book on the creation of
>> the Civilization series of games
>
> Or,
> Often enough, a time traveler arrives back
> at an important time,,,, but nobody seems
> willing to believe the 'crazy'.  So the warning
> is disregarded.
>
> I wish I could now find my Harry Turtledove
> book, "The Guns of the South".
> But the interesting 'gist' of what got to me, is:
>
> The time traveler has given Robert Lee an
> AK-47 and ammunition.  He comes back later
> to talk.  Lee already understood, this had
> to be time travel, no experts available could
> figure out how to even make copies.
> A great number of the aspects of it were just
> generations ahead of where the best minds and materials
> were.
>
Turtledove also had Lee telling the time traveler that the rations the
traveler was eating at their meeting in volume would be even more
helpful to the CSA Army than better guns. :D

> And, kind of the same idea in Turtledove's series
> on "In the Balance", the bad invaders have
> exploded A-bombs.  The USA also has.  And as angry as
> Stalin is, he has to be convinced that even
> if he threatens with torture and death, Russia'
> / the USSR's top nuclear Physicists do not have
> the ability yet to give him an A-bomb.
>

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 20:10:43 -0700, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>The time traveler has given Robert Lee an
>AK-47 and ammunition. He comes back later
>to talk. Lee already understood, this had
>to be time travel, no experts available could
>figure out how to even make copies.
>A great number of the aspects of it were just
>generations ahead of where the best minds and materials
>were.

For me the best part of that whole book when I figured out who "AWB"
was about 50 pages before Turtledove revealed it. Oh and the traveller
gave Lee considerably more than ONE AK-47

[AWB = "Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging"meaning "Afrikaner Resistance
Movement", sometimes referred to as the 'Afrikaner White Brotherhood'
which is or was a real Afrikaner nationalist group that was strongly
pro-Apartheid - some of them adopted terror tactics when Mandela took
power]

>And, kind of the same idea in Turtledove's series
>on "In the Balance", the bad invaders have
>exploded A-bombs. The USA also has. And as angry as
>Stalin is, he has to be convinced that even
>if he threatens with torture and death, Russia'
>/ the USSR's top nuclear Physicists do not have
>the ability yet to give him an A-bomb.

On 6/4/22 1:02 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 10:14:41 -0700, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But no matter what anyone dreamed, or drew on paper,
>> many things were not possible until until a range
>> of lessor products and inventions were completed.
>
> Sounds a lot like what Sid Meier said in his book on the creation of
> the Civilization series of games

So I myself tend to think that the metal machine screw, first made
in the later 1700s but gradually more and more of them were made
throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, is something much different
from the screw of Archimedes, a water pump in classical civilization.

And of course the paddle wheel on a paddle boat is similar to the
water wheels in rivers running various mills and other machines
since much earlier in places during the middle ages.

What inventions might require the machine screw to effectively
run and what inventions might not require it?

Could either the cathode ray tube or the microwave oven
have been invented before the metal machine screw?

Hi all,

It is worth noting that some of the very first steam engines (stationary ones, usually powering mine water pumps) actually used cylinders that were very similar in construction to the wood and iron barrels of the day. The 'seal' between piston and cylinder was maintained by periodically adding grease to the exposed side of the piston. The grease used was often animal based, lard or suete (sp?). Now despite being ridiculously inefficient and crude compared with even Watt's earliest engine these engines were enough of a step up from all previous forms of power for people to consider investing in them. These engines operated at very low temperatures and pressures compared with latter engines, even to the extent that their most common failure mode could be described as an implosion.

New materials were needed to create the sort of engines that could power the Industrial Revolution, but are they absolutely necessary to get a wheel turning from the power of steam alone? Maybe. It is worth noting that the first attempt to actually build a paddle steamer (a small one) ended poorly (or at least the inventor was much poorer) because the engine simply didn't have enough power to push the boat up steam.

Also worth considering is the general safety of early steamships. It was until relatively late in the 19th century that they were able to make the journey from Europe to China around the Cape of Storms. OK, so the Cape of Storms (called the Cape of Good Hope by someone whose marketing tactics obviously borrowed from which ever nutjob named "Greenland") was (and still is) pretty rough on any sea traffic, especially at the wrong time of year. Early ocean-going steam ships had trouble with being swamped in rough seas, and with turning turtle. The ironclads of the American Civil War era only operated in coastal waters and on rivers because of these issues. The deep water fleets of the time seemed to have been sail only. I do remember a Confederate commerce raider that had a steam engine to help it run down and capture bigger faster cargo ships.

When did Sail finally surrender to Steam? I have vague recollections of sail powered grain ships in the early 20th century still racing to get their cargo to Europe (from Australia I think). The Russian fleet that sailed to its glorious defeat in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904 seems to have been all sail, but then Russia of that day wasn't exactly a technological superpower. AFAIK certainly no mention of sails by 1914. Various navies retain sail ships (modern-ish ones) as training ships. I have no idea how they are relevant in a modern setting, unless it is an education in obeying the chain command

I'm still surprised that Da Vinci never produced any thing like a steam engine. Did he know about Hero's engine from ancient Greece. Maybe he did attempt it and somewhere along the line materials failed him. Or he measured Hero's engine's efficiency or output and concluded it was just a silly toy.

Anyway,

Regards
Frank

a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> on Sat, 4 Jun 2022 10:14:41 -0700
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>
>I am saying, there have always been great 'dreamers' like:
>Heron of Alexandria 10 AD – c. 70 AD,
>Blasco de Garay
>Leonardo da Vinci (1452 to 1519).
>
>But no matter what anyone dreamed, or drew on paper,
>many things were not possible until until a range
>of lessor products and inventions were completed.
>

Even to this day. I've been told that my grandfather had a design
for a bridge from the earth to the moon. The actual bridge was pretty
much straight forward engineering (expansion joints and all). It was
the on and off ramps and the anchoring which posed the greatest
challenge. (I.e., Could not be done with 1950's technology.)
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

> a425couple
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > I would say the skills were up to snuff, as for example, armor made
> > at the time was very high quality and so the mechanical components
> > of a steam ship were well within the capability of craftsmen back then
> > but the technology and practices for mass manufacturing hadn't been
> > developed yet, meaning these 1500s steam ships would be hand-made
> > one-off products with each one in effect being a custom made prototype
> > and they'd still be primarily sail-driven.
>
> I do not think they could even measure accurately
> enough for the needed tolerances to fit a piston
> and it's rings inside a cylindar, and as the various
> parts heat up to operating temperature, still have
> adequate tolerances.

Armorers of the 1500s were producing hardened steel more than sufficiently
strong enough for a steam engine (and bronze is easier to work with) and the
lathe has been around since 500 B.C. and while the measuring tools of the
day weren’t standardized as they are now, it wouldn’t matter as the same
measuring tools (for example, a caliper) would be used for all the components.

So you turn a cylinder on a lathe and then turn the piston and it would be
a case of “rework” as we call it today in the machining industry; you keep
turning that piston a little bit more until it fits nice and tight.

As I said, each steam engine would be a one-off product and the parts would
not interchange with other steam engines but they would work together for
_that_ steam engine.

And one working steam engine (even if not particularly powerful) then kicks
the entire process into high gear, as each subsequent steam engine will be
better made then the last and this has follow-on effects on other industries
(i.e. the metallurgy, measuring tools, etc. keeps getting better).

On 6/6/2022 1:00 PM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> a425couple
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> I would say the skills were up to snuff, as for example, armor made
>>> at the time was very high quality and so the mechanical components
>>> of a steam ship were well within the capability of craftsmen back then
>>> but the technology and practices for mass manufacturing hadn't been
>>> developed yet, meaning these 1500s steam ships would be hand-made
>>> one-off products with each one in effect being a custom made prototype
>>> and they'd still be primarily sail-driven.
>>
>> I do not think they could even measure accurately
>> enough for the needed tolerances to fit a piston
>> and it's rings inside a cylindar, and as the various
>> parts heat up to operating temperature, still have
>> adequate tolerances.
>
> Armorers of the 1500s were producing hardened steel more than sufficiently
> strong enough for a steam engine (and bronze is easier to work with) and the
> lathe has been around since 500 B.C. and while the measuring tools of the
> day weren’t standardized as they are now, it wouldn’t matter as the same
> measuring tools (for example, a caliper) would be used for all the components.
>
> So you turn a cylinder on a lathe and then turn the piston and it would be
> a case of “rework” as we call it today in the machining industry; you keep
> turning that piston a little bit more until it fits nice and tight.
>
> As I said, each steam engine would be a one-off product and the parts would
> not interchange with other steam engines but they would work together for
> _that_ steam engine.
>
> And one working steam engine (even if not particularly powerful) then kicks
> the entire process into high gear, as each subsequent steam engine will be
> better made then the last and this has follow-on effects on other industries
> (i.e. the metallurgy, measuring tools, etc. keeps getting better).

Perhaps you will find this worth reading,
perhaps not.

https://wondersofworldengineering.com/steam_engine.html#:~:text=The%20first%20practical%20attempts%20to%20produce%20a%20workable,about%20A.D.%2050%20invented%20an%20elementary%20steam%20turbine.

On 6/6/22 3:05 AM, Frank Scrooby wrote:
> The Russian fleet that sailed to its glorious defeat in the
> Russo-Japanese war of 1904 seems to have been all sail...

Don't be silly. There were no sailing ships in the Russian fleet.
The flagship, _Knyaz Suvorov_ (14,415 tons), had triple-expansion
steam engines making 15,575 hp, and mounting 4 12" guns. She was
equivalent to the British "standard battleship" of the pre-Dreadnought
period.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Greetings,

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 6:32:54 AM UTC+2, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/6/22 3:05 AM, Frank Scrooby wrote:
> > The Russian fleet that sailed to its glorious defeat in the
> > Russo-Japanese war of 1904 seems to have been all sail...
>
>
> Don't be silly. There were no sailing ships in the Russian fleet.
> The flagship, _Knyaz Suvorov_ (14,415 tons), had triple-expansion
> steam engines making 15,575 hp, and mounting 4 12" guns. She was
> equivalent to the British "standard battleship" of the pre-Dreadnought
> period.

Unless the 2 South African daily newspapers that have been around since long before (as in half century) the Russo-Japanese conflict have perpetuated a colossal lie then the above statement must be in error.

Photographs from the time that the Russian Fleet sailed (or steamed) passed Capetown and Durban both show vessels that have masts and rigging, and sails and no apparent smoke stacks or armor. Nothing looks like an ironclad or pre-Dreadnought.

The fleet's passage around Africa's southern end was a bit of an event for locals. The inability of Russian gunners to sink a redundant life boat during gunnery practice made for headline news. The English press in South Africa predicted that the fleet was sailing to its demise, if not by enemy fire than by its own incompetence and obsolete hardware.

Could all have been pre-Great War propaganda, but considering how the alliances worked themselves out ten years later I would not have expected so much venom from the English-speaking press unless there was actually something to report.

Maybe the cunning Russians were keeping the good equipment out of sight. But that only makes their defeat by supposed 3rd rate Asian navy more embarrassing (not that the Japanese navy was 3rd-rate, they were definitely a first rate navy in terms of equipment, training and leadership - heck even the British made sure they had observers in place).
>
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Regards
Frank

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:50:22 AM UTC-4, Frank Scrooby wrote:
> Greetings,
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 6:32:54 AM UTC+2, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> > On 6/6/22 3:05 AM, Frank Scrooby wrote:
> > > The Russian fleet that sailed to its glorious defeat in the
> > > Russo-Japanese war of 1904 seems to have been all sail...
> >
> >
> > Don't be silly. There were no sailing ships in the Russian fleet.
> > The flagship, _Knyaz Suvorov_ (14,415 tons), had triple-expansion
> > steam engines making 15,575 hp, and mounting 4 12" guns. She was
> > equivalent to the British "standard battleship" of the pre-Dreadnought
> > period.
> Unless the 2 South African daily newspapers that have been around since long before (as in half century) the Russo-Japanese conflict have perpetuated a colossal lie then the above statement must be in error.
>
> Photographs from the time that the Russian Fleet sailed (or steamed) passed Capetown and Durban both show vessels that have masts and rigging, and sails and no apparent smoke stacks or armor. Nothing looks like an ironclad or pre-Dreadnought.
>
> The fleet's passage around Africa's southern end was a bit of an event for locals. The inability of Russian gunners to sink a redundant life boat during gunnery practice made for headline news. The English press in South Africa predicted that the fleet was sailing to its demise, if not by enemy fire than by its own incompetence and obsolete hardware.
>
> Could all have been pre-Great War propaganda, but considering how the alliances worked themselves out ten years later I would not have expected so much venom from the English-speaking press unless there was actually something to report.
>
> Maybe the cunning Russians were keeping the good equipment out of sight. But that only makes their defeat by supposed 3rd rate Asian navy more embarrassing (not that the Japanese navy was 3rd-rate, they were definitely a first rate navy in terms of equipment, training and leadership - heck even the British made sure they had observers in place).
> >
> > --
> > Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> > --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
> Regards
> Frank

I think there may be room for everyone here to be partially correct and partially incorrect. The Russian Baltic Fleet that sailed around Africa contained many older ships that did indeed originally carry sails (cruiser Dmitri Donskoi for example). However, by 1904-1905, these vessels no longer used sails yet they still carried rather massive masts with equally massive yards. Those yards were still useful for carrying aerials (radio was just beginning) and signal flags. Also, there was still a significant portion of the Russian merchant fleet that still used sailing vessels. I am reasonably certain that none of those accompanied the Baltic Fleet but still, those could lend to confusion. The following link contains a few period images that show some of the ships I am referring to: https://paulkarlmoeller.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/russo-japanese-war-history-through-old-postcards/

Dean

On 6/8/22 2:50 AM, Frank Scrooby wrote:
> Unless the 2 South African daily newspapers that have
> been around since long before (as in half century)
> the Russo-Japanese conflict have perpetuated a colossal lie
> then the above statement must be in error.

I'm not sure what the heck you think you are reading there.

There are dozens of authoritative references on ships of the Russian
Imperial Navy. For instance, _Jane's Fighting Ships_ for 1905.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024018411&view=1up&seq=275&q1=Russia

links to to the section for Russia. Page 163 is the description of the
BORODINO class battleships, completed 1901-1903. KNYAZ SUVAROV, the
Russian flagship at Tsu-Shima, was one.

13,566 tons - 397 ft x 76 ft x 26 ft

Guns: 4 x 12", 12 x 6", 20 x 3", 20 x 3pdr.

Armor: 9" belt, 6" deck, 11" main turret.

Engines 3 cylinder trip[e expansion, 2 screws. 16,300 hp, 18 kts.

I hope this will dispel the absurd suggestion that Russia sent
sailing ships to fight the Japanese navy. MIKASA, the Japanese
flagship at Tsu-Shima, is described on page 230.

15,200 tons - 400 ft x 76 ft x 28 ft

Guns: 4 x 12", 14 x 6", 20 x 3", 6 x 3pdr.

Armor: 9" belt, 4" deck, 14" barbettes.

Engines 2 sets trip[e expansion, 2 screws. 15,000 hp, 18 kts.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On 6/9/2022 4:54 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/8/22 2:50 AM, Frank Scrooby wrote:
>> Unless the 2 South African daily newspapers that have
>> been around since long before (as in half century)
>> the Russo-Japanese conflict have perpetuated a colossal lie
>> then the above statement must be in error.
>
> I'm not sure what the heck you think you are reading there.
>
> There are dozens of authoritative references on ships of the Russian
> Imperial Navy. For instance, _Jane's Fighting Ships_ for 1905.
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024018411&view=1up&seq=275&q1=Russia
>
>
> links to to the section for Russia. Page 163 is the description of the
> BORODINO class battleships, completed 1901-1903. KNYAZ SUVAROV, the
> Russian flagship at Tsu-Shima, was one.
>
> 13,566 tons - 397 ft x 76 ft x 26 ft
>
> Guns: 4 x 12", 12 x 6", 20 x 3", 20 x 3pdr.
>
> Armor: 9" belt, 6" deck, 11" main turret.
>
> Engines 3 cylinder trip[e expansion, 2 screws. 16,300 hp, 18 kts.
>
> I hope this will dispel the absurd suggestion that Russia sent
> sailing ships to fight the Japanese navy. MIKASA, the Japanese
> flagship at Tsu-Shima, is described on page 230.
>
>
> 15,200 tons - 400 ft x 76 ft x 28 ft
>
> Guns: 4 x 12", 14 x 6", 20 x 3", 6 x 3pdr.
>
> Armor: 9" belt, 4" deck, 14" barbettes.
>
> Engines 2 sets trip[e expansion, 2 screws. 15,000 hp, 18 kts.
>
>
or go to wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Knyaz_Suvorov

and then go to Google images and request:
russian battleship knyaz suvorov
russian battleship knyaz suvorov under sail

Hmm, seems to be none available.

In alt.history.what-if on Fri, 10 Jun 2022 10:48:49 -0700
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
> or go to wiki
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Knyaz_Suvorov
>
> and then go to Google images and request:
> russian battleship knyaz suvorov
> russian battleship knyaz suvorov under sail
>

Looking at the pic in wikipedia could someone have seen those masts with
what definitely look like yard arms and made assumptions?

In pre-radio and pre-radar days maybe they are just to put signal flags
and lookouts on.

Zebee

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/6/22 3:05 AM, Frank Scrooby wrote:
>> The Russian fleet that sailed to its glorious defeat in the
>> Russo-Japanese war of 1904 seems to have been all sail...
>
>
> Don't be silly. There were no sailing ships in the Russian fleet.
> The flagship, _Knyaz Suvorov_ (14,415 tons), had triple-expansion
> steam engines making 15,575 hp, and mounting 4 12" guns. She was
> equivalent to the British "standard battleship" of the pre-Dreadnought
> period.
>

Not an expert on Russian ships but

The last Royal Navy capital ship with only sails was HMS Queen (1839)
The first Royal navy capital ship with no sails was HMS Devastation
(commissioned 1873)
The last Royal Navy ship to make port under sail alone was HMS Temeraire
in October 1890
The last RN ship to use sail at all,I believe,was in a fleet review
in 1893 and its engines were malfunctioning and being equipped with
sails received permission to use them to get up to speed.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.