You continue to discuss things which are not in dispute and bring new things into play which were not and are not in dispute. Can you not stick to the subjct of ramming being a common sailing ship tactic?
Ramming is not mere contact. Ramming is hard contact iuntended to do physical damage by ramming alone. Fireships did not ram.
Ramming also did not sink by breaking the keel, it sank ships by holing them below the water line. It would be almost impossible for any sailing ship to break another's keel.
Address the basic issue or switch the argument to the size of weather balloons used on ships which did not ram. I do not care.
You continue to talk about galley practices which are not in dispute, then mention one isolated sailing ship incident as if that made a common sailing ship practice. It does not. That is why I mentioned the isolated WW II boarding incident, to illustrate how useless isolated incidents are.
No one is disputing boarding as a common sailing ship tactic. The dispute is over ramming as a common sailing ship tactic.
You say ramming was meant to break "the main beam", whatever that is, by physical force. You also say fireships rammed other ships. They did not. They were set adrift and most commonly worked by tangling in other ships rigging and passing on the fire, not by breaking "main beams". Mere contact does not constitute ramming. Ramming as a weapon requires holing the rammed ship below the water line, which requires a forefoot extending forward of the above water structure. Galleys had such structures. The short lived trend in the late 1800s saw steel steam warships built with such structures. Sailing ships had no such structure. Smashing into another ship without a forefoot will so more damaged to the rammer's bow than the other ships sides.
Sailing ships had incredibly thick tough sides and weak bows and sterns. That is why raking the stern with cannon fire was so effective. They were also slow. They simply could not do much damage to each other by ramming with a broad bow which had little structural strength for such maneuvers.
You said "the Japanese were particularly fond of Ramming/beaching in WWII", which either implies they are the same, or you just throw in random facts which have no bearing on anything else. Now adding suicide tactics has nothing to do with the dispute over ramming by sailing ships.
Ships do not have "main beams". This is not a mere language problem. There is no such structural member, period. The closest to that is the keel, the lowest point in a ship, also centered, and hardly likely to be important in sinking by ramming -- if a rammer can break the keel, it has already broken so much of the underwater hull that the ship will aready be sinking quite quickly.
I say "ramming did not occur in sailing ships" and you tell me about triremes and the Japanese in WW II.
How useful.
Ramming to sink another ship requires something which will puncture the other ship's hull. Sailing ships did not have such. I suggest that if you think they armored the bow, you first explain, please, how that would do much damage to a ship's underwater hull, and second, provide an example.
Fireships as you describe were fireships, not rammers. The hope was that a drifting fireship would tangle rigging, get stuck, and the fire would spread. The damage was done by the fire, not any physical ramming. However, most of the damage was done by the enemy fleet scattering in panic.
As for quoting WW II "60 years" ago and singling out the Japanese, try a bit further back and use all anti-submarine forces of whatever nation -- US, Britain, Japan. They all rammed submarines when necessary.
One destroyer actually slid on top of the U-boat whose crew tried to board the destroyer to fight with pistols, knives, and whatever else was handy. The destroyer sent out the call to repel boarders. That doesn't make boarding a standard WW II tactic.
Also forget any attempt to confuse beaching with ramming. Are you suggesting that the beach was somehow sunk when rammed by a beaching ship?
I suggest you practice your reading comprehension skills and go back and read some of that history your memory has garbled.
Because you had two choices. You could assume I was a complete blithering idiot spouting nonsense, or you could assume I was just confused or there was some minor slipup twixt the fingers and the keyboard. You chose to extrapolate beyond all reason in your attempt to insult me. That is what makes you a maroon.
Yes, sorry, carronades were not invented until, I think, the late 1700s, as a result of better metallurgy allowing less metal with the same strength and better casting to get a more precise bore.
In the days when radio was the fanciest electronics on a ship, battleship were hard to harm. But once you put all those antennas topside, even puny gunfire can render a battleship useless even if not sunk. Look at one of the many battles off Guadalcanal where battleships were peppered by 5" and 8" inferior shells and put out of action due to being blind and having so many topside crew killed and wounded.
Battleships haven't been useful for ground support for a long time. Their maximum range is 22 miles, and armore piercing shells only carry about 50 pounds of explosive; all the rest of the 2700 pound shell is metal to hold it together during firing and to pierce battleship armor. Even so-called high capacity shells only have 150 pounds of explosive. Compare that to bombs or rockets which have much higher percentages of explosive, or to local artillery which is, well, local. Don't try to bring the saboted long range GPS-guided shells into the discussion; by definition, they are even smaller and have even less explosive.
For all that puny ground support they offer nowadays, they still need a crew of 1600. Battleships were great in the WW II Pacific island invasions and in the few European invasions, but the European invaders soon moved inland where the battleships couldn't reach.
Battleships were glorious in their day, but a waste of money in any modern navy, and have been since missiles became common after 1950 or so. One missile blast to the upper works and the battleship is blind and impotent.
You are wrong. The only "ramming" occurring in sailing ships was to come close for boarding. Oared galleys rammed but also tried just sweeping close by to break oars, the early ironclad steamships rammed wooden sailing ships, but sailing ships did not. They had no ramming forefoot to do any damage.
It's more than that. The British had developed gun making tech to the point that their guns had more uniform bores and had tighter tolerances twist bore and shot, so they could fire more shot with less powder and less danger of blowing up; their guns were lighter for their caliber than the French and Spanish, hence ships carried larger guns. These were carronades, short barreled, and shot best from close distances. I believe one British ship, firing down the stern of a French ship as each gun came to bear, killed or wounded one third of the French crew in just the one pass, at either the Battle of the Nile or Trafalgar.
The British also trained far more than The British and Spanish and could reload about 3:2 times as fast. The shorter length helped reload inside as noted.
I was not arguing homeless vs rich, only normal vs rich. It is ridiculous that Childs has spent 7 months in jail, no pay, expenses mounting. That is where the discrepancy lies. He is being punished for being neither rich nor stone broke.
Handle bail like traffic fines in Finland, where they are a percentage of income.
The point of bail is not to make it impossible to be free while awaiting trial, but to make it a losing proposition to not show up. You apparently think that rich people should get out of jail and poor people should not. Is that because poor people have nothing to lose by skipping town and rich people have too much to lose, so bail is not really necesary?
Oh, and bail is refunded if you show up for court.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge." -- Anatole France
So very useful, to know that if you could only have borrowed a frightful sum of money many times your yearly income, they would let you have it back years later after the wheels of Justice have ground ever so slowly.
Here we have a classic example of how the law screws the less than wealthy. This guy is thrown in jail at taxpayer expense when an ankle bracelet would have been good enough to keep track of him. He also has no income and gets deeper and deeper into debt.
He is being punished for being charged with a crime, not for being guilty.
Is the government going to pay him for lost wages if he is found innocent? Will they keep up mortgage payments while he is in jail before the trial?
I kinda fucking doubt it. You show me the justice.
All that light, equivalent to natural sunlight but crowded into one thousandth the space. That's hella efficient. I bet the people living there would appreciate it too. Why don't we invest in a few nucelar reactors to reproduce what the sun provides over regular farmland?
Sunlight comes from the sun in limited amounts. It takes far more sunlight than falls on a city to grow the food to feed that city. Atriums and skylights redistribute the sunlight, they don't increase it.
Tahoe was cleared for the Virgina City silver mines. There are pictures of clearcut forests, just stumps as far as the camera can see. Only forestry experts know the difference between the current new growth and the pre-white man old growth.
Plants need sunlight, which won't magically increase just because you have expanded the surface area. No city can feed itself with the available sunlight over its city limits.
Or maybe he includes lots of growlights and the associated bigass nuclear power plants, and figures people will get along jess fine with all that concentrated light.
Slashdot Mirror
You continue to discuss things which are not in dispute and bring new things into play which were not and are not in dispute. Can you not stick to the subjct of ramming being a common sailing ship tactic?
Ramming is not mere contact. Ramming is hard contact iuntended to do physical damage by ramming alone. Fireships did not ram.
Ramming also did not sink by breaking the keel, it sank ships by holing them below the water line. It would be almost impossible for any sailing ship to break another's keel.
Address the basic issue or switch the argument to the size of weather balloons used on ships which did not ram. I do not care.
You continue to talk about galley practices which are not in dispute, then mention one isolated sailing ship incident as if that made a common sailing ship practice. It does not. That is why I mentioned the isolated WW II boarding incident, to illustrate how useless isolated incidents are.
No one is disputing boarding as a common sailing ship tactic. The dispute is over ramming as a common sailing ship tactic.
You say ramming was meant to break "the main beam", whatever that is, by physical force. You also say fireships rammed other ships. They did not. They were set adrift and most commonly worked by tangling in other ships rigging and passing on the fire, not by breaking "main beams". Mere contact does not constitute ramming. Ramming as a weapon requires holing the rammed ship below the water line, which requires a forefoot extending forward of the above water structure. Galleys had such structures. The short lived trend in the late 1800s saw steel steam warships built with such structures. Sailing ships had no such structure. Smashing into another ship without a forefoot will so more damaged to the rammer's bow than the other ships sides.
Sailing ships had incredibly thick tough sides and weak bows and sterns. That is why raking the stern with cannon fire was so effective. They were also slow. They simply could not do much damage to each other by ramming with a broad bow which had little structural strength for such maneuvers.
You said "the Japanese were particularly fond of Ramming/beaching in WWII", which either implies they are the same, or you just throw in random facts which have no bearing on anything else. Now adding suicide tactics has nothing to do with the dispute over ramming by sailing ships.
Ships do not have "main beams". This is not a mere language problem. There is no such structural member, period. The closest to that is the keel, the lowest point in a ship, also centered, and hardly likely to be important in sinking by ramming -- if a rammer can break the keel, it has already broken so much of the underwater hull that the ship will aready be sinking quite quickly.
Yes, but unlike gun control, DRM doesn't leave the disarmed honest to the mercy of of the still armed dishonest.
Try fair use. Quite legal. Quite contrary to DRM.
I say "ramming did not occur in sailing ships" and you tell me about triremes and the Japanese in WW II.
How useful.
Ramming to sink another ship requires something which will puncture the other ship's hull. Sailing ships did not have such. I suggest that if you think they armored the bow, you first explain, please, how that would do much damage to a ship's underwater hull, and second, provide an example.
Fireships as you describe were fireships, not rammers. The hope was that a drifting fireship would tangle rigging, get stuck, and the fire would spread. The damage was done by the fire, not any physical ramming. However, most of the damage was done by the enemy fleet scattering in panic.
As for quoting WW II "60 years" ago and singling out the Japanese, try a bit further back and use all anti-submarine forces of whatever nation -- US, Britain, Japan. They all rammed submarines when necessary.
One destroyer actually slid on top of the U-boat whose crew tried to board the destroyer to fight with pistols, knives, and whatever else was handy. The destroyer sent out the call to repel boarders. That doesn't make boarding a standard WW II tactic.
Also forget any attempt to confuse beaching with ramming. Are you suggesting that the beach was somehow sunk when rammed by a beaching ship?
I suggest you practice your reading comprehension skills and go back and read some of that history your memory has garbled.
They may well have been licensed.
Because you had two choices. You could assume I was a complete blithering idiot spouting nonsense, or you could assume I was just confused or there was some minor slipup twixt the fingers and the keyboard. You chose to extrapolate beyond all reason in your attempt to insult me. That is what makes you a maroon.
"twixt" you maroon.
All the rest of your post is based on a faulty assumption on my typo.
Yes, sorry, carronades were not invented until, I think, the late 1700s, as a result of better metallurgy allowing less metal with the same strength and better casting to get a more precise bore.
In the days when radio was the fanciest electronics on a ship, battleship were hard to harm. But once you put all those antennas topside, even puny gunfire can render a battleship useless even if not sunk. Look at one of the many battles off Guadalcanal where battleships were peppered by 5" and 8" inferior shells and put out of action due to being blind and having so many topside crew killed and wounded.
Battleships haven't been useful for ground support for a long time. Their maximum range is 22 miles, and armore piercing shells only carry about 50 pounds of explosive; all the rest of the 2700 pound shell is metal to hold it together during firing and to pierce battleship armor. Even so-called high capacity shells only have 150 pounds of explosive. Compare that to bombs or rockets which have much higher percentages of explosive, or to local artillery which is, well, local. Don't try to bring the saboted long range GPS-guided shells into the discussion; by definition, they are even smaller and have even less explosive.
For all that puny ground support they offer nowadays, they still need a crew of 1600. Battleships were great in the WW II Pacific island invasions and in the few European invasions, but the European invaders soon moved inland where the battleships couldn't reach.
Battleships were glorious in their day, but a waste of money in any modern navy, and have been since missiles became common after 1950 or so. One missile blast to the upper works and the battleship is blind and impotent.
You are wrong. The only "ramming" occurring in sailing ships was to come close for boarding. Oared galleys rammed but also tried just sweeping close by to break oars, the early ironclad steamships rammed wooden sailing ships, but sailing ships did not. They had no ramming forefoot to do any damage.
It's more than that. The British had developed gun making tech to the point that their guns had more uniform bores and had tighter tolerances twist bore and shot, so they could fire more shot with less powder and less danger of blowing up; their guns were lighter for their caliber than the French and Spanish, hence ships carried larger guns. These were carronades, short barreled, and shot best from close distances. I believe one British ship, firing down the stern of a French ship as each gun came to bear, killed or wounded one third of the French crew in just the one pass, at either the Battle of the Nile or Trafalgar.
The British also trained far more than The British and Spanish and could reload about 3:2 times as fast. The shorter length helped reload inside as noted.
Neptune had to clean up the debris after Atlantis submerged and all the debris spread all over.
I was not arguing homeless vs rich, only normal vs rich. It is ridiculous that Childs has spent 7 months in jail, no pay, expenses mounting. That is where the discrepancy lies. He is being punished for being neither rich nor stone broke.
Handle bail like traffic fines in Finland, where they are a percentage of income.
The point of bail is not to make it impossible to be free while awaiting trial, but to make it a losing proposition to not show up. You apparently think that rich people should get out of jail and poor people should not. Is that because poor people have nothing to lose by skipping town and rich people have too much to lose, so bail is not really necesary?
Oh, and bail is refunded if you show up for court.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge." -- Anatole France
So very useful, to know that if you could only have borrowed a frightful sum of money many times your yearly income, they would let you have it back years later after the wheels of Justice have ground ever so slowly.
Here we have a classic example of how the law screws the less than wealthy. This guy is thrown in jail at taxpayer expense when an ankle bracelet would have been good enough to keep track of him. He also has no income and gets deeper and deeper into debt.
He is being punished for being charged with a crime, not for being guilty.
Is the government going to pay him for lost wages if he is found innocent? Will they keep up mortgage payments while he is in jail before the trial?
I kinda fucking doubt it. You show me the justice.
The float is portable, the jetpack wearer tows it along, and that range is 300 miles.
Now apologize to kdawson for your own stupidity.
All that light, equivalent to natural sunlight but crowded into one thousandth the space. That's hella efficient. I bet the people living there would appreciate it too. Why don't we invest in a few nucelar reactors to reproduce what the sun provides over regular farmland?
Sunlight comes from the sun in limited amounts. It takes far more sunlight than falls on a city to grow the food to feed that city. Atriums and skylights redistribute the sunlight, they don't increase it.
Tahoe was cleared for the Virgina City silver mines. There are pictures of clearcut forests, just stumps as far as the camera can see. Only forestry experts know the difference between the current new growth and the pre-white man old growth.
You have an abundance of power, water, and minerals.
You do not have an abundance of sunlight. No amount of cutesy fractal surface area enhancement will increase how much sunlight comes from the sun.
A little rebuttal to your point: sunlight.
You gonna pipe in all that sunlight too?
Plants need sunlight too. You may be able to pipe in water and nutrients, but where is the light coming from?
Plants need sunlight, which won't magically increase just because you have expanded the surface area. No city can feed itself with the available sunlight over its city limits.
Or maybe he includes lots of growlights and the associated bigass nuclear power plants, and figures people will get along jess fine with all that concentrated light.