|
Post by maxman on May 28, 2015 0:27:22 GMT
I was wondering about a suggestion brought up periodically on the old board. Would a cargo of rice exposed exposed to water in a compromised hold cause the hull to bulge and leak?
In the book, the rice is stated as 60 tons. Would a large quantity of rice absorb all water and exert outward pressure on its container?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 28, 2015 3:08:40 GMT
I was wondering about a suggestion brought up periodically on the old board. Would a cargo of rice exposed exposed to water in a compromised hold cause the hull to bulge and leak? In the book, the rice is stated as 60 tons. Would a large quantity of rice absorb all water and exert outward pressure on its container? I have been doubtful of this. rice does expand as it absorbs water, but there are limits to how far it expands - and it doesn't expand past the total volume of the rice and the water available. - I don't know whether putting rice into a permeable container and soaking it in water would cause it to put pressure on the container or not.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 28, 2015 8:41:16 GMT
I have soaked rice for a long period. It doesnt expand until you start to cook it.... But then again, the longest I have soaked rice is overnight?
SALT water?... I know certain foods will not absorb water of there is salt in it.
And again, how far can it expand if it is contained?
Will rice even break through the Hessian sack its in?.. them sacks is quite strong. And those sacks were not that big... just a biot more than a man could carry, as unloading was manual labour. Will it expand enough to break the sides of a ship built to take the worst an ocean can throw at it?.. Or will it just blow the deck hatches off, if it even gets that far.
"The ships of that time" Yes they had cargo holds.... But they also had crew. The crew would be under deck, and passing the cargo on regular intervals. Surely they would notice?...
And from what I know, Cargo was stored in the centre of the ship anyway, underneath the deck hatches, to make it easier to load/unload, the crew lived around the sides of that cargo, had walkways and even gun emplacements at the sides of the cargo, "Someone would have seen" if there was a problem....?...
We think of modern cargo holds as being from one side to the other of the ship to maximise the space. Those ships had more than just that cargo, they were after all the main transport, they carried people, passengers, and mixed cargo.
"Dry" goods were kept up above the normal water line to keep them away from the bilge water. This is why the "myth" of store-high-in-transport labels came about.
Test, and one you can do at home, put some rice in water and leave it for a month.
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on May 28, 2015 20:16:29 GMT
Two key issues were discussed when this was mentioned on the disco boards;
1. The hold in a wooden merchant ship (or warship for that matter) was a construction within the hull. It was intended to keep the goods away from the water that would inevitably seep through the hull and decks. This method of construction also allowed the ship's carpenter and his mates to have access directly to the hull without having to move sacks and barrels about. As a consequence, the rice sacks would not be resting directly against (or putting pressure on) the hull.
2. If your vessel has enough water in the hold to completely soak your cargo then your ship is probably already sinking.
|
|
|
Post by maxman on May 29, 2015 20:00:51 GMT
In the book (and miniseries) they didn't notice until it was too late.
The French crew broke into the wine and were drunk on capture, while the British prize crew were too preoccupied with repairing damaged rigging.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 30, 2015 6:32:28 GMT
In the book (and miniseries) they didn't notice until it was too late. The French crew broke into the wine and were drunk on capture, while the British prize crew were too preoccupied with repairing damaged rigging. Then I call bogus. On all "prize ships", yes, get it under control, but before you go anywhere, inspect what the prize was. If the prize was small and transferable, get it on your own ship. Then look at crew... If you have enough crew, including those only to ready to change allegiance from the other ship, they yes, divide and sail two ships, otherwise, if you are short handed, and the prize is not worth the risk, take what you can and sink the rest. Either way, knowing what you captured was important, so the load would have been closely inspected. VERY closely. Smuggling and hiding 'gold' in sacks of food was common. I therefore suggest that as many as were repairing rigging would have been under the deck taking an inventory.
|
|
|
Post by maxman on Jun 1, 2015 6:54:37 GMT
On all "prize ships", yes, get it under control, but before you go anywhere, inspect what the prize was. If the prize was small and transferable, get it on your own ship. Then look at crew... If you have enough crew, including those only to ready to change allegiance from the other ship, they yes, divide and sail two ships, otherwise, if you are short handed, and the prize is not worth the risk, take what you can and sink the rest. While that may have been how pirates dealt with prizes, that is not how it was done in the Royal Navy. When a prize was taken, a prize crew was assigned and would sail it to the nearest British port to await further instructions. The ship and its cargo was then sold off and the proceeds distributed among the captain and crew who captured it. Naval vessels, privateers and heavily armed merchantmen were often (though not always) bought by the Navy and commissioned as warships. The commander's executive officer was sometimes promoted and put in command of the vessel. Captains did have leeway to top up their stores, but would not do so while pursuing a fleeing convoy. Either way, knowing what you captured was important, so the load would have been closely inspected. VERY closely. Smuggling and hiding 'gold' in sacks of food was common. No, it wasn't. Especially not in Revolutionary or Napoleonic France. Smuggling gold was the exception, not the rule. I therefore suggest that as many as were repairing rigging would have been under the deck taking an inventory. They did inspect the vessel before setting off. It wasn't until Matthews pointed out the brig was drawing more water than normal that Hornblower realised something was wrong. The well was dry when they sounded it. It took Hornblower a while to figure out what that meant. The Marie Galante was a small brig and required a prize crew of only four, commanded by a midshipman.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 1, 2015 7:38:57 GMT
This maybe tombstone technology, but....
I never EVER accept a load that I do not check over. Sealed shipping crates are sealed shipping crates, and sealed, therefore, counted as "one", in that the insides are presumed capable of looking after themselves, as those are the laws on sealed crates. Otherwise, you check everything. Do an internet search on "Daily driver checks", yes we are that pernickerty, even on a vehicle we drove "just yesterday".
I will NOT accept responsibility for a vehicle I have not checked over, and checked its safe to move. It doesnt make sense NOT to check it over.
Just when the Royal Nave changed their ways then in unknown, but, I have always known that you check over your new command as soon as its given to you.
If you are saying that Hornblower didnt make a good check on the news hip, then he is a bigger fool than I first thought?... What part of [soaking?] wet sacks of rice wasnt giving the game away?. And how the heck would they soak up water if they were not wet anyway?...
Just one other thing, the commander who gave Hornblower the ship to sail to port didnt take inventory?... "Oh it was full of boring old potatoes and rice" by the time he gets his share.....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 1, 2015 15:33:25 GMT
I can see certain conditions wherein a commander might want to get under way as soon as possible, but once under way, he would almost certainly survey the vessel.
the only circumstances under which I can see the possibility of such a mishap occurring is when everything else is going wrong as well.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 1, 2015 15:35:03 GMT
OTOH, if Hornblower was a midshipman at the time, then he is, by definition, inexperienced in the extreme, and if he was placed in command of a crew no more experienced than he was, I can see all sorts of mistakes taking place.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 2, 2015 7:43:32 GMT
Questions, first why wasnt the XO given the ship, as was usual on that kind of command, second, if he didnt know what he was doing, why was he allowed?...
The XO was the captains second-in-command, and the next in line for any promotion to captain, and the one usually put on a different ship to take command should the need arise. Midshipman was sort of a few rungs below that....
TLW, you may be right on the getting under way, its not as if you can just pull over to the side and do a walkabout, so getting control of the ship and giving it a heading is wise, but then, as you say, you would want to do some checks, kicks the rudder from side to side to see how it steers and if that is any better than a cow on rollerskates on ice, but after that, checking what you actually have here is important.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 3, 2015 23:33:38 GMT
Points, given that this is a period I know fairly well;
The first officer was a Lieutenant on frigates and above. Sloops were commanded by Masters and Commanders, who did not serve as first officers, (long since shortened to just Commander) and also had a lieutenant as the first officer. Brigs and below were commanded by lieutenants or for very small ships a midshipman. On all but the largest frigates there was usually only one lieutenant.
The first officer of a ship might well expect a promotion after a successful battle. But only if that was against other warships - privateers generally didn't count and merchant ships certainly didn't. This practice came about because there was no other way to reward good service, awards and medals were not issued by navies at this time. This practice wasn't strictly held to by the middle and latter stages of the Napoleonic wars, since there were already five times more commanders than ships for them to command - as noted they did not act as first officers.
Prize crews were rarely commanded by lieutenants unless the captured ship was considered important - say a captured warship. For merchant ships it was more usual to hand command over to a senior midshipman, and it wasn't unknown for command of smaller prizes to be given to experienced (and trusted) sailors rather than officers.
Cargo was stored in the hold on top of planking over the bilges. On merchant ships cargo was quite often carried on all of the decks between the masts, including the weather deck. Cargo wasn't limited to the central area around the main mast, but distributed throughout the deck. (The extra weight was more of a stability problem if it was too heavy on the sides rather than fore and aft.) Cargo could, and usually was, moved around to aid in stability or in the case of warships to help fine tune the ships sailing qualities. Naval ships stored their stores in the hold and on the orlop deck above it. Neither civilian or naval ships kept supplies resting against the hull, since a certain amount of water would be expected to leak though the seams even in good weather. As well, as mentioned, the need for the crew to be able to get to or check the hull quickly in case they hit anything and started to take on water.
Although we think of midshipmen as being kids or teens, the reality is that there were a LOT of midshipmen who were in their thirties or even older. The reason is that in the Royal Navy you had to pass an exam before you would be considered for promotion to Lieutenant. This included time at sea (often theoretical time, as many a youngster was placed on a ships books while studying on shore for several years) as well as inspection of log books (they were expected to keep their own) and a verbal exam to show they knew their trade. There were those who just couldn't work up the courage to take the test. And others who knew full well that they would never pass it - sailors who had been promoted from the lower deck might have known their trade, and would have been expected to know how to read and write prior to being promoted (which might not have been as uncommon as we think for common sailors). What they would have lacked was the maths skills needed to navigate, or prove that they could navigate to senior officers when put on the spot.
As for the myth. No ship packed its cargo so tightly that expanding bags wouldn't just push themselves away from the hull.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 4, 2015 0:46:47 GMT
Points, given that this is a period I know fairly well; The first officer was a Lieutenant on frigates and above. Sloops were commanded by Masters and Commanders, who did not serve as first officers, (long since shortened to just Commander) and also had a lieutenant as the first officer. Brigs and below were commanded by lieutenants or for very small ships a midshipman. On all but the largest frigates there was usually only one lieutenant. The first officer of a ship might well expect a promotion after a successful battle. But only if that was against other warships - privateers generally didn't count and merchant ships certainly didn't. This practice came about because there was no other way to reward good service, awards and medals were not issued by navies at this time. This practice wasn't strictly held to by the middle and latter stages of the Napoleonic wars, since there were already five times more commanders than ships for them to command - as noted they did not act as first officers. Prize crews were rarely commanded by lieutenants unless the captured ship was considered important - say a captured warship. For merchant ships it was more usual to hand command over to a senior midshipman, and it wasn't unknown for command of smaller prizes to be given to experienced (and trusted) sailors rather than officers. Cargo was stored in the hold on top of planking over the bilges. On merchant ships cargo was quite often carried on all of the decks between the masts, including the weather deck. Cargo wasn't limited to the central area around the main mast, but distributed throughout the deck. (The extra weight was more of a stability problem if it was too heavy on the sides rather than fore and aft.) Cargo could, and usually was, moved around to aid in stability or in the case of warships to help fine tune the ships sailing qualities. Naval ships stored their stores in the hold and on the orlop deck above it. Neither civilian or naval ships kept supplies resting against the hull, since a certain amount of water would be expected to leak though the seams even in good weather. As well, as mentioned, the need for the crew to be able to get to or check the hull quickly in case they hit anything and started to take on water. Although we think of midshipmen as being kids or teens, the reality is that there were a LOT of midshipmen who were in their thirties or even older. The reason is that in the Royal Navy you had to pass an exam before you would be considered for promotion to Lieutenant. This included time at sea (often theoretical time, as many a youngster was placed on a ships books while studying on shore for several years) as well as inspection of log books (they were expected to keep their own) and a verbal exam to show they knew their trade. There were those who just couldn't work up the courage to take the test. And others who knew full well that they would never pass it - sailors who had been promoted from the lower deck might have known their trade, and would have been expected to know how to read and write prior to being promoted (which might not have been as uncommon as we think for common sailors). What they would have lacked was the maths skills needed to navigate, or prove that they could navigate to senior officers when put on the spot. As for the myth. No ship packed its cargo so tightly that expanding bags wouldn't just push themselves away from the hull. so it has changed. according to wikipedia, at the time a midshipman was about the equivalent of a modern petty officer. today, in the US, a midshipman is an officer's school student. if a midshipman proves to be competent, he is promoted. - so there is not an expectation that any given midshipman has any actual naval experience. (some do work through the ranks to officer school, but others enter directly from high school)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 4, 2015 6:37:32 GMT
Money for old rope. This was a JOB at one time. Old rope was recycled, on any dock, you may expect to see certain people teasing apart old rope. The rope was then used as caulking, hammered into place between planks on ships and covered with tar to make them more watertight. (Obviously on the outside?...}
As this was an accepted job, it showed there was a good trade in re-waterproofing of ships hulls on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 4, 2015 12:06:18 GMT
Actually its not dissimilar, even though we are talking about two navies with slight but often confusing differences in rank structures. (The US has had 'Commodore' as an actual rank for as long as its had a navy. The British only had commodore as a rank, rather than a position, from 1997). Midshipmen were (or at least were meant to be) trained and taught by the captain in the art of sailing, navigation and how to be a gentleman. In practice Captains seem to have relied on others to do the actual teaching, either due to personal preference or simply because they had enough work to do even at sea, for most things. Some ships (usually line ships) carried a school master, smaller ships might employ a chaplain in a duel role or use the captains secretary. Midshipmen would also be taught by the lieutenants and able seamen. Most Captains in the RN seem to have taken an interest in the training and teaching of the midshipmen (or the younger ones). For some this was out of a sense of duty, since these kids might one day go on to command ships of their own. For the more calculating it was enlightened self-interest, as a reputation for being a good teacher of kids got you noticed by anyone who wanted their young boy to go into the navy. This would have included sending the Captain money for the upkeep of the kid and probably other minor bribes - all of which were in the interests of a Captain as their pay was usually well below the cost of keeping the captains table. (Even as an Admiral, and a man who didn't drink, Nelson spent a fortune on wine for his table). The other part of enlightened self-interest was that on the majority of ships at least one midshipman would have to stand watch. So you wanted to know you were turning the watch over to someone who could sail the ship safely.
In practice boys would usually go to sea for the first time at seven or eight. Then it was recommended (semi-officially) that at eleven or twelve they spent a year or two on shore learning mathematics before returning to sea. (This time on shore ate into the requirement for a certain amount of time to have been spent at sea before a midshipman could take the Lieutenants exam. Which is why young boys were placed on ships books even when they were not on, and in some cases never even saw, that ship.)
The other route was to come up from the lower decks. This could be young boys from the lower deck who caught the captains eye, or masters mates who likewise impressed the captain. Unlike Lieutenants, who were commissioned officers who's rank had to be confirmed by the Admiralty*, Midshipman could be appointed (or removed) directly by the Captain. In the case of mates they tended to be older, and most likely would not expect to become full officers - although that was actually possible at this period as ability counted for a great deal, in practice more than parentage. (As evidenced by the future George IV being kept on shore after a single cruise as a Captain).
(*Admirals on overseas stations could 'promote' men to Lieutenant and above, since the distances involved made waiting for confirmation from the Admiralty in London impractical. In theory such appointments were acting ranks that the Admiralty had to approve of. In practice it was unusual for the Admiralty to refuse to confirm the promotion, unless the Admiral was clearly abusing his authority and harming the Navy in the process.)
So while there is some truth in the idea that Midshipman and Lieutenants were young men. But the nature of the service and the complexities of the promotion process meant that many were overlooked or quite rightly never given promotions. Lieutenants tended, for example, to fall into two groups. The young rising stars who were aiming for promotion, and the older lieutenants who had been passed over and lacked a certain something...be that drive, ability or just good luck in having a chance to get noticed.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 4, 2015 14:07:40 GMT
Actually its not dissimilar, even though we are talking about two navies with slight but often confusing differences in rank structures. (The US has had 'Commodore' as an actual rank for as long as its had a navy. The British only had commodore as a rank, rather than a position, from 1997). Midshipmen were (or at least were meant to be) trained and taught by the captain in the art of sailing, navigation and how to be a gentleman. In practice Captains seem to have relied on others to do the actual teaching, either due to personal preference or simply because they had enough work to do even at sea, for most things. Some ships (usually line ships) carried a school master, smaller ships might employ a chaplain in a duel role or use the captains secretary. Midshipmen would also be taught by the lieutenants and able seamen. Most Captains in the RN seem to have taken an interest in the training and teaching of the midshipmen (or the younger ones). For some this was out of a sense of duty, since these kids might one day go on to command ships of their own. For the more calculating it was enlightened self-interest, as a reputation for being a good teacher of kids got you noticed by anyone who wanted their young boy to go into the navy. This would have included sending the Captain money for the upkeep of the kid and probably other minor bribes - all of which were in the interests of a Captain as their pay was usually well below the cost of keeping the captains table. (Even as an Admiral, and a man who didn't drink, Nelson spent a fortune on wine for his table). The other part of enlightened self-interest was that on the majority of ships at least one midshipman would have to stand watch. So you wanted to know you were turning the watch over to someone who could sail the ship safely. In practice boys would usually go to sea for the first time at seven or eight. Then it was recommended (semi-officially) that at eleven or twelve they spent a year or two on shore learning mathematics before returning to sea. (This time on shore ate into the requirement for a certain amount of time to have been spent at sea before a midshipman could take the Lieutenants exam. Which is why young boys were placed on ships books even when they were not on, and in some cases never even saw, that ship.) The other route was to come up from the lower decks. This could be young boys from the lower deck who caught the captains eye, or masters mates who likewise impressed the captain. Unlike Lieutenants, who were commissioned officers who's rank had to be confirmed by the Admiralty*, Midshipman could be appointed (or removed) directly by the Captain. In the case of mates they tended to be older, and most likely would not expect to become full officers - although that was actually possible at this period as ability counted for a great deal, in practice more than parentage. (As evidenced by the future George IV being kept on shore after a single cruise as a Captain). (*Admirals on overseas stations could 'promote' men to Lieutenant and above, since the distances involved made waiting for confirmation from the Admiralty in London impractical. In theory such appointments were acting ranks that the Admiralty had to approve of. In practice it was unusual for the Admiralty to refuse to confirm the promotion, unless the Admiral was clearly abusing his authority and harming the Navy in the process.) So while there is some truth in the idea that Midshipman and Lieutenants were young men. But the nature of the service and the complexities of the promotion process meant that many were overlooked or quite rightly never given promotions. Lieutenants tended, for example, to fall into two groups. The young rising stars who were aiming for promotion, and the older lieutenants who had been passed over and lacked a certain something...be that drive, ability or just good luck in having a chance to get noticed. not quite the point I was making. the point I was making is that by Hornblower's standard, a midshipman might already have 20 years at sea. by modern standards, a midshipman might not have been to sea at all - and have less than 20 years on land. (my brother's high school friend was a midshipman at 19) - until he became a midshipman it is unlikely he was on a boat bigger than a charter fishing boat.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 4, 2015 15:02:23 GMT
A midshipman who'd spent 20 years at sea without taking the lieutenants exam or being promoted was probably going to remain a midshipman.
More typically the progression would be (technically) be ten or eleven years at sea before being entered for the lieutenants exam at 19 (the minimum age). That said individuals who had clearly proven their abilities and skills or had good sponsors probably wouldn't be questioned to closely as to how much time they had really spent at sea or their specific age.
So if your brothers friend had been in the Napoleonic-era Royal Navy, had the skills and a decent sponsor he could have reasonably expected to be a midshipman at 12-14 years old and a lieutenant at 19. With good fortune he might be commanding a brig, cutter, transport or gunboat within 2 years and be a Master and Commander before he was in his mid twenties and a Post Captain by his late twenties or even younger. Promotion past that was based purely on seniority, so all you had to do be become an Admiral was live longer than everyone else above you on the Captains list.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 4, 2015 15:35:56 GMT
A midshipman who'd spent 20 years at sea without taking the lieutenants exam or being promoted was probably going to remain a midshipman. More typically the progression would be (technically) be ten or eleven years at sea before being entered for the lieutenants exam at 19 (the minimum age). That said individuals who had clearly proven their abilities and skills or had good sponsors probably wouldn't be questioned to closely as to how much time they had really spent at sea or their specific age. So if your brothers friend had been in the Napoleonic-era Royal Navy, had the skills and a decent sponsor he could have reasonably expected to be a midshipman at 12-14 years old and a lieutenant at 19. With good fortune he might be commanding a brig, cutter, transport or gunboat within 2 years and be a Master and Commander before he was in his mid twenties and a Post Captain by his late twenties or even younger. Promotion past that was based purely on seniority, so all you had to do be become an Admiral was live longer than everyone else above you on the Captains list. you are still missing my point. in Hornblower's age you could not be a midshipman without ever having set foot on a boat. - and the perception was that a midshipman would be qualified to command a small vessel. in the modern perspective, 75% of midshipmen become midshipmen before stepping foot on any naval vessel; and are considered incapable of commanding any vessel larger than a rowing skiff (and that only if they are on the academy rowing team) - if they prove to be competent, they are promoted to warrant officer. - which is why modern people question why Hornblower was placed in command of the prize vessel, if he was "just" a midshipman.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 4, 2015 15:37:58 GMT
In the specific case of the Character Horatio Hornblower, he joined the Navy relatively late as a Midshipman at the age of 17, and the cargo of rice was the second incident of note in his career, according to Wiki. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Midshipman_Hornblower
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 4, 2015 15:47:21 GMT
In the specific case of the Character Horatio Hornblower, he joined the Navy relatively late as a Midshipman at the age of 17, and the cargo of rice was the second incident of note in his career, according to Wiki. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Midshipman_Hornblowerso the plot of the story used his inexperience as a plot point, but the naval ranking system of the time makes it plausible the captain would expect a certain degree of competence.
|
|