Re: HBMS Princess Royal in 1781: 90 or 98? -- NAVAL WARFARE IN THE AGE OF SAIL 1650-1815

Hermosa Beach Florist, Expressive Flowers has been Serving flowers nationwide since 1995.

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:54:07 07/02/09 Thu
Author: Albert Parker
Subject: Re: HBMS Princess Royal in 1781: 90 or 98?
In reply to: Albert Parker 's message, "Re: HBMS Princess Royal in 1781: 90 or 98?" on 17:12:16 07/02/09 Thu

I finally found Beatson’s list of Howe’s fleet (VI, 367). He, too, has Princess Royal as a 90, not a 98. He has all of the 90’s at that rate, even Blenheim, which Caruana says was raised to a 98 by the end of the war, only four months away. As usual, Mahan did not compile an order of battle for his chapter in Clowes, and Clowes himself did not add one. Charnock, in his biography of Adam Duncan, Blenheim’s captain, also calls her a 90 at this time. It is difficult to know whether Beatson and Charnock, contemporaries of the event, are reporting actual armaments or did not trouble themselves to find those out and are reporting the formal rating without regard to the addition of a few more pieces of ordnance.

I would rate the probability that Princess Royal was a 98 in 1779–81 around 5 percent, the probability in 1782 higher, around 40 percent.

Changes in British warship armaments are an interesting, if also frustrating, topic in themselves. Fortunately, four 6-pounders should not make a difference to the combat effectiveness of a three-decker in any simulation system.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>I finally found Beatson’s list of Howe’s fleet (VI, >367). He, too, has Princess Royal as a 90, not >a 98. He has all of the 90’s at that rate, >even Blenheim, which Caruana says was raised to >a 98 by the end of the war, only four months away. As >usual, Mahan did not compile an order of battle for >his chapter in Clowes, and Clowes himself did not add >one. Charnock, in his biography of Adam Duncan, >Blenheim’s captain, also calls her a 90 at this >time. It is difficult to know whether Beatson and >Charnock, contemporaries of the event, are reporting >actual armaments or did not trouble themselves to find >those out and are reporting the formal rating without >regard to the addition of a few more pieces of >ordnance. > >I would rate the probability that Princess >Royal was a 98 in 1779–81 around 5 percent, the >probability in 1782 higher, around 40 percent. > >Changes in British warship armaments are an >interesting, if also frustrating, topic in themselves. > Fortunately, four 6-pounders should not make a >difference to the combat effectiveness of a >three-decker in any simulation system.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.