Talk:HMS Warrior (1860)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Warrior (1860) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Armstrong guns?

This page claims that Warrior was armed with breechloading armstrong guns, yet the armstrong gun page says that the armstrong wae muzzle-loading, and the ironclad page says that the RN didn't start using breechloaders until the 1890s. Something seems off. Was Warrior armed with breechloaders, where they some kind of Armstrong, or is this wrong all together? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Armstrong Breech-loading mechanism was introduced in 1855. The weapons were also rifled. Whilst the principle worked well on smaller weapons, with the 100pdr, later re-classed as the 110pdr, the breech mechanism was not sufficient for the task, and problems were found with the polygroove rifling system. After a less than impressive performance during the Bombardment of Kagoshima in 1863, the weapons were eventually withdrawn from service, and a large number were sold to Confederate forces during the American Civil War. .

As I understand it during the build some 68 pdr muzzle loaders were replaced by 10 off 110 pdr's which were breech loaders with a low MV. These were a rather unsatisfactory design as it turned out. Greg Locock (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sail and steam?

In other articles, like SS_Great_Western, it says that "ships could not use steam engines and sails at the same time, because hot cinders from its smokestacks would set the sails on fire."--Cancun771 09:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst this could be a problem, Warrior and other ships got round it by not using the main course sail, that is the lowest sail on the main mast, whilst steaming with sails. In any eventuality the funnels tended to prevent the wind from filling the sails of the ship. Without the main course deployed, any sparks or embers would have little chance of coming into contact with canvas.

[edit] Service career

The article originally said she was built at 'Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Company at Blackwall', which seems to follow other articles on the Web. This appears to be mixing up two important London shipyards, the Thames Ironworks at the mouth of Bow Creek (Grid Ref TQ 394809), and the Blackwall Yard further up the Thames at Grid Ref TQ 387806. All reliable sources I've found state that Warrior was built at Thames Ironworks. The main Thames Iron Works site was on the east bank of Bow Creek in what would probably now be called Canning Town, not Blackwall. I have therefore removed the reference to Blackwall. Pterre 16:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst Warrior was built on the Canning Town side of the River Bow, Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co. had their main office on the Blackwall side of the river, and all correspondence, was addressed to 'The Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co., Blackwall' As the Company's registered address was Blackwall, this is why the article stated the ship was built there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniab (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Infobox Ship Example template, convert templates

I have just updated the Infobox to Infobox Ship Example. There seem to be quite a lot of fields that could be added by someone with more information about the ship than I. I've also added convert templates in the body text and Infobox. Question: I've used the measure long tons in the Infobox for displacement and in the section Salvation about the removal of rubbish, replacing the generic "tons" in the previous edit. I think this (as opposed to short tons) is the correct measure, as the long ton article mentions it was used for shipping, but perhaps someone could verify. papageno (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sparking off the building competition

surely Gloire's construction started the race, not Warrior's?

Greg Locock (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Land (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

I was surprised to see Warrior listed as 'mid' importance. As arguably the most important ship of the 19th century, she deserves a 'top' or at least a 'high' importance rating. Here are some of her claims to fame:

  • First British ironclad
  • Second ironclad in the world
  • First successful iron-hulled warship
  • Broke the record for largest warship when completed
  • Revolutionary design and construction
  • Revolutionary armament scheme
  • Oldest surviving ironclad
  • Only surviving major fleet unit from the ironclad period

The 19th century might be a neglected period of maritime history, but Warrrior is one of the most important ships of the century... The Land (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Revolutionary design and construction - no, not according to Brown
  • Oldest surviving ironclad - irrelevant - is Dreadnought less important cos she's been broken up?
Yep. An old ship which survives is more interesting for an encyclopedia than one which doesn't. It doesn't affect their historical impact but it does affect their impact on the present day ;) The Land (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So you are claiming that a dead person is inherently less notable than a live one? I've got Winston Churchill in my hand. What have you got? Greg Locock (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm claiming that a preserved historic ship is inherently more notable than one which met the normal kind of end. Mary Rose or Vasa (ship) are more notable than the other English or Swedish ships of their generation, because they were raised and put in museums; they attract a lot of publicity, people go to see them on school trips, and hence people are more likely to want to look them up. Preservation doesn't necessarily affect a ship's importance to naval history but it does affect their importance for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia. The Land (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Only surviving major fleet unit from the ironclad period - irrelevant as above
I agree with high importance, possibly top. Gloire needs to be treated to some of the same attention. Greg Locock (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)