A bit more in-depth is Tom Pocock's "The Terror Before Trafalgar". I just finished it - it's not bad at all and fills in a lot of background on what was happening in the British fleet in the pre-Trafagar days.
It's at Amazon at The Terror Before Trafalgar
Full Version: I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"!
That no offense was intended. 
Was about one half that of the typical frigate of the day. (18 or 30 inches, memory fuzzy)The frames thus provided considerable "thickness" to the sides of the ship, making the freeboard exposed to cannon fire essentially its own thickness plus the thickness of the framing for the length of the ship. It was small wonder the shot tended to bounce off.
As to the design limits, at the speeds involved in sailing, the ship's length and bow wave can be significant factors in speed, or at least the potential top speed available.
The debate between speed and armament tradeoffs never ended.
"Give me a fast ship, for I intend to sail in harm's way." --attributed to John Paul Jones--
The problems for the Dreadnaught era ships, and for that matter the Iowa class battleships, was a design decision that had to adress speed, above water line armor, below waterline armor, and firepower/displacement tradeoffs. Even higher power density steam turbines, however, still ran into the "length to bow wave" relationships (influenced by beam as well, IIRC) as they achieved higher speed. Fastest ship of the line that I have ever heard of? The USS Enterprise, CV -65. Rumor has it that Soviet Alpha class, all titanium SSN's, could run faster. I wonder at the truth of the matter.
As recently as the Cold War, the US tended to go for speed, the Soviets a bit more for armor and armament, though the Gorshkov era cruisers and destroyers were plenty fast. Some of the heavier armed Soviet Cruisers were a bit more sea worthy in heavy seas, though I must caveat that comment by noting that class by class comparisons always suffer somewhat due to a variety of design decisions that influence ship's displacement.
It is instructive that the US went away from aluminum and back to steel in the recent Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers. I'd say the US Navy adopted an idea or two from the folks who worked for Gorshkov all those years, or were perhaps given pause at HMS Sheffield's aluminum superstructure having caught fire after the exocet attack.
As to the design limits, at the speeds involved in sailing, the ship's length and bow wave can be significant factors in speed, or at least the potential top speed available.
The debate between speed and armament tradeoffs never ended.
"Give me a fast ship, for I intend to sail in harm's way." --attributed to John Paul Jones--
The problems for the Dreadnaught era ships, and for that matter the Iowa class battleships, was a design decision that had to adress speed, above water line armor, below waterline armor, and firepower/displacement tradeoffs. Even higher power density steam turbines, however, still ran into the "length to bow wave" relationships (influenced by beam as well, IIRC) as they achieved higher speed. Fastest ship of the line that I have ever heard of? The USS Enterprise, CV -65. Rumor has it that Soviet Alpha class, all titanium SSN's, could run faster. I wonder at the truth of the matter.
As recently as the Cold War, the US tended to go for speed, the Soviets a bit more for armor and armament, though the Gorshkov era cruisers and destroyers were plenty fast. Some of the heavier armed Soviet Cruisers were a bit more sea worthy in heavy seas, though I must caveat that comment by noting that class by class comparisons always suffer somewhat due to a variety of design decisions that influence ship's displacement.
It is instructive that the US went away from aluminum and back to steel in the recent Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers. I'd say the US Navy adopted an idea or two from the folks who worked for Gorshkov all those years, or were perhaps given pause at HMS Sheffield's aluminum superstructure having caught fire after the exocet attack.
Hi,
A fairly accurate value for the hull speed of a vessel in terms of waterline length is
hull speed (knots) = square root (2 X length of the waterline) (feet)
This works pretty well over an amazing range of lengths.
For USS Constitution, we have 175 ft on waterline giving about 18 knots hull speed. Her actual top speed was more like 13 knots, about 72% of max. HMS Victory gives 186 ft (lower gundeck) which gives a potential 19 knots hull speed. She was actually capable of 11 knots which was only 57% of max. Both ships were copper clad below the waterline and both ships were capable of flying more sail than conditions usually merited, so their inability to achieve hull speed was a result of compromises to speed made for stability as a gun platform.
To compare this to a similarly sized ship where speed was the prime consideration, consider the Cutty Sark. With 213 ft on waterline she had a hull speed of 20 knots. Her recorded top speed was 17 knots, or 85% of max.
Of course, some modern racing yachts with displacement hulls achieve speeds in excess of 100% of hull speed calculated by the above formula, but not much. And, again of course, hull speed is meaningless when speaking of anything not using a displacement hull (i.e., hydrofoils, planing, etc.)
--Pete
A fairly accurate value for the hull speed of a vessel in terms of waterline length is
hull speed (knots) = square root (2 X length of the waterline) (feet)
This works pretty well over an amazing range of lengths.
For USS Constitution, we have 175 ft on waterline giving about 18 knots hull speed. Her actual top speed was more like 13 knots, about 72% of max. HMS Victory gives 186 ft (lower gundeck) which gives a potential 19 knots hull speed. She was actually capable of 11 knots which was only 57% of max. Both ships were copper clad below the waterline and both ships were capable of flying more sail than conditions usually merited, so their inability to achieve hull speed was a result of compromises to speed made for stability as a gun platform.
To compare this to a similarly sized ship where speed was the prime consideration, consider the Cutty Sark. With 213 ft on waterline she had a hull speed of 20 knots. Her recorded top speed was 17 knots, or 85% of max.
Of course, some modern racing yachts with displacement hulls achieve speeds in excess of 100% of hull speed calculated by the above formula, but not much. And, again of course, hull speed is meaningless when speaking of anything not using a displacement hull (i.e., hydrofoils, planing, etc.)
--Pete
In a wooden sailing ship, the length also created another factor of consideration: hogging on the keel. A metal ship, be it of steel or aluminum, isn't going to have a bow in her keel due to the buoyancy pressing up from above. The elastic nature of wooden ships presented that problem, of course.
It gets worse with a wooden warship, since the heaviest loads borne upon the vessel (the gun decks) are as far away from the keel (the fulcrum of this hogging movement) as one can get: high above the waterline and on the periphery of the ship's hull, which only makes the buoyant force pressing up on the keel all the worse. The reason the European frigates were not built along the lines of the Americans was because the Americans (Humphreys and Fox) had the idea of building transverse ribs into the hull. These ribs, like the buttresses of a cathedral, conspired to transmit the greatest weight of the ship, the gun decks, directly onto the keel— thus eliminating keel hogging and the risk of springing the ship's back. Seemingly simple to figure out today, but it was revolutionary at the turn of the 19th century.
It gets worse with a wooden warship, since the heaviest loads borne upon the vessel (the gun decks) are as far away from the keel (the fulcrum of this hogging movement) as one can get: high above the waterline and on the periphery of the ship's hull, which only makes the buoyant force pressing up on the keel all the worse. The reason the European frigates were not built along the lines of the Americans was because the Americans (Humphreys and Fox) had the idea of building transverse ribs into the hull. These ribs, like the buttresses of a cathedral, conspired to transmit the greatest weight of the ship, the gun decks, directly onto the keel— thus eliminating keel hogging and the risk of springing the ship's back. Seemingly simple to figure out today, but it was revolutionary at the turn of the 19th century.
...the arrogance of the British Empire -- press ganging the crews of American merchant vessels
That made good PR from the War Hawks to get support for the invasion of Canada, but it was hardly the reason for the war.
Probably the most significant single factor that led to the events that brought about the war was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. What American history views as simply a real estate deal, was in fact a major contribution to Bonaparte's ability to wage war in Europe. Bonaparte was rather sly, knowing that it was easier to acquire new world territories by conquering the empires that controlled them. Between Spain and Portugal, he could have gotten far more DEVELOPED territory than he sold off.
Much of the $15 million paid to France was in the form of notes of credit, which were turned in to pay for materials used to wage war. The American merchant vessels were supplying France with the means to wage war on the British. That alone would make them a fair target, I would think. Nobody argues the right today of stopping the North Korean shipments of missiles to Saddam's Iraq.
Furthermore, there really WERE British deserters serving aboard American merchant vessels. The British may not have been very particular about verifying the details of those that they picked off of the American vessels, but it was pretty hard to verify such things at a time when many people weren't even sure when they were born, or carried documentation. they couldn't very well check the Social Security cards or driver's license.
The point is, the Americans were supposedly neutral in the European conflict, but were supplying the enemies of the Allies. The British had every right to intercept American shipping going to France.
The invasion of Canada was mostly just an opportunistic land grab, done at a time when the British lion was occupied in Europe. It wasn't the first time that the Americans picked their time that way, the war of American independence also coincided with a hot period in Britain's seemingly interminable wars with France. I doubt that the Americans would have been crazy enough to confront the British empire during those brief periods when their full resources were unoccupied.
Even distracted as they were, the British were formidable in British North America. They knew the value of rapid lines of communication, which enabled them to take the American fort at Michilimackinac bloodlessly, simply because the Americans there had no idea that their government had declared war.
Britain had some superb commanders, Brock was a strategic genius, Tecumseh the same tactically. If Brock had not foolishly sought fame in a glorious, suicidal charge at Queenston Heights the war would have ended much earlier. As it was, his replacements were incompetent fools and cowards. The British had some of those, too.
In all, it was an interesting stage of history. It is also interesting how history gets rewritten to suit whoever happens to write about it. An example is the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which states:
"With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere."
They seemed to have a rather short memory. :)
-rcv-
That made good PR from the War Hawks to get support for the invasion of Canada, but it was hardly the reason for the war.
Probably the most significant single factor that led to the events that brought about the war was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. What American history views as simply a real estate deal, was in fact a major contribution to Bonaparte's ability to wage war in Europe. Bonaparte was rather sly, knowing that it was easier to acquire new world territories by conquering the empires that controlled them. Between Spain and Portugal, he could have gotten far more DEVELOPED territory than he sold off.
Much of the $15 million paid to France was in the form of notes of credit, which were turned in to pay for materials used to wage war. The American merchant vessels were supplying France with the means to wage war on the British. That alone would make them a fair target, I would think. Nobody argues the right today of stopping the North Korean shipments of missiles to Saddam's Iraq.
Furthermore, there really WERE British deserters serving aboard American merchant vessels. The British may not have been very particular about verifying the details of those that they picked off of the American vessels, but it was pretty hard to verify such things at a time when many people weren't even sure when they were born, or carried documentation. they couldn't very well check the Social Security cards or driver's license.
The point is, the Americans were supposedly neutral in the European conflict, but were supplying the enemies of the Allies. The British had every right to intercept American shipping going to France.
The invasion of Canada was mostly just an opportunistic land grab, done at a time when the British lion was occupied in Europe. It wasn't the first time that the Americans picked their time that way, the war of American independence also coincided with a hot period in Britain's seemingly interminable wars with France. I doubt that the Americans would have been crazy enough to confront the British empire during those brief periods when their full resources were unoccupied.
Even distracted as they were, the British were formidable in British North America. They knew the value of rapid lines of communication, which enabled them to take the American fort at Michilimackinac bloodlessly, simply because the Americans there had no idea that their government had declared war.
Britain had some superb commanders, Brock was a strategic genius, Tecumseh the same tactically. If Brock had not foolishly sought fame in a glorious, suicidal charge at Queenston Heights the war would have ended much earlier. As it was, his replacements were incompetent fools and cowards. The British had some of those, too.
In all, it was an interesting stage of history. It is also interesting how history gets rewritten to suit whoever happens to write about it. An example is the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which states:
"With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere."
They seemed to have a rather short memory. :)
-rcv-
The point is, the Americans were supposedly neutral in the European conflict, but were supplying the enemies of the Allies. The British had every right to intercept American shipping going to France
Neutral countries, under the agreements of the time, were indeed allowed to trade with belligerents. That bit of international law has not remained static, however, the "freedom of the seas" folks point out that neutral ships of many nations traded with belligerents for centuries.
The key complaint a Brit would make in 1803, or in 1807, was whether or not war materiel was in the trade, versus "non war material" like cotton or wheat.
Once 1807 and the Continental system were put in place, and the significant economic mess of 1809 in England, it is very understandable that the Brits chose to test out whether or not anyone could hold them to previous agreements. The Law of the Sea is, and has always been, Might makes Right.
Their boarding of American flagged vessels was legally dubious at best, and given the American protestations being basically ignored "shut up, we are at war with Boney, and you're being a pain in the arse" the decision to act was not all that hard a decision to reach.
Had Britain not been in such a dire war, two things are probably certain:
The need for sailors would have been less, and the frequency of impressments likely would have been well below any pain threshold.
The young US would have had to look at the risk/reward of fighting a war against ALL of the Empire's might. A far different calculus indeed, both politically and materially.
Neutral countries, under the agreements of the time, were indeed allowed to trade with belligerents. That bit of international law has not remained static, however, the "freedom of the seas" folks point out that neutral ships of many nations traded with belligerents for centuries.
The key complaint a Brit would make in 1803, or in 1807, was whether or not war materiel was in the trade, versus "non war material" like cotton or wheat.
Once 1807 and the Continental system were put in place, and the significant economic mess of 1809 in England, it is very understandable that the Brits chose to test out whether or not anyone could hold them to previous agreements. The Law of the Sea is, and has always been, Might makes Right.
Their boarding of American flagged vessels was legally dubious at best, and given the American protestations being basically ignored "shut up, we are at war with Boney, and you're being a pain in the arse" the decision to act was not all that hard a decision to reach.
Had Britain not been in such a dire war, two things are probably certain:
The need for sailors would have been less, and the frequency of impressments likely would have been well below any pain threshold.
The young US would have had to look at the risk/reward of fighting a war against ALL of the Empire's might. A far different calculus indeed, both politically and materially.
QUOTE(Occhidiangela @ Jul 10 2003, 04:02 PM)
Fastest ship of the line that I have ever heard of? The USS Enterprise, CV -65. Rumor has it that Soviet Alpha class, all titanium SSN's, could run faster. I wonder at the truth of the matter.
ENTERPRISE is about as fast as they go, 33.6 knots at full power after refit. Close behind come the Iowa class battleships, though none of them are in service any more. They could usually reliably get 32.5, maybe 33.
It was rumoured that the Alfa class could hit 45 knots due to a sodium-cooled reactor design, among other things, but recent information reveals that NATO intelligence was way off on the Alfa's capabilities. Aside from being noisy (and therefore near-blind, not even counting the fogging of the instruments due to insufficient radiation shielding), they could never get 45. The most reasonable number seems to be an estimate in the 38-41 range, though some places still carry a "43-45 knot" estimate since disproven.
Exceeded 33 now and again.
Unlike the Nimitz class, its unique power plant and prop arrangement could produce a bit more speed than the Nimitz class.
However, I know what is listed in Jane's, and will accept that for practical puposes, your numbers are pretty solid.
The Alpha? I suppose fast is relative, and yes, the numbers cited by Western sources that are available for public consumption were likely clouded by the inevitable "plus or minus" limitation of estimates based on non calibrated or instrumented speed measurement. Those Soviets, they just would not make their runs on a calibrated range we had access to, imagine that.
I wonder if they ever declassified their own numbers on the Alpha?
EDIT:
Excerpts from a site covering Submarines:
ALPHA
Endurance 1,175 full power hours
50 days stores endurance
Max Speed 14 knts surfaced 43 knts submerged
Maximum Safe Depth 1,150'
Never-Exceed Depth 1,400'
Crush Depth 1,700'
Safety Factor 1.20
Unlike the Nimitz class, its unique power plant and prop arrangement could produce a bit more speed than the Nimitz class.
However, I know what is listed in Jane's, and will accept that for practical puposes, your numbers are pretty solid.
The Alpha? I suppose fast is relative, and yes, the numbers cited by Western sources that are available for public consumption were likely clouded by the inevitable "plus or minus" limitation of estimates based on non calibrated or instrumented speed measurement. Those Soviets, they just would not make their runs on a calibrated range we had access to, imagine that.
I wonder if they ever declassified their own numbers on the Alpha?
EDIT:
Excerpts from a site covering Submarines:
ALPHA
Endurance 1,175 full power hours
50 days stores endurance
Max Speed 14 knts surfaced 43 knts submerged
Maximum Safe Depth 1,150'
Never-Exceed Depth 1,400'
Crush Depth 1,700'
Safety Factor 1.20
QUOTE(Occhidiangela @ Jul 9 2003, 05:36 AM)
... See also USS Enterprise, the first nuclear powered carrier. It is no mistake that Star Trek's creators resurrected that name in their future as Star Fleet's most advanced ship . . . the theme of giving famous ships new hulls is a consistent one in American Naval Heritage. ...
And the Enterprise of Star Trek lore is a Constitution-class starship. Which implies that there is also a Federation starship named the USS Constitution. Which is a bit troubling, implying that Old Ironsides would not survive to the 23rd century. Then again, that's a given, if Earth was to be devastated by the Eugenics Wars, WWIII, and the Romulan Wars.
Nothing funny about the name Constitution. Even sans the obvious allusion to the founding of the union, it could also be a reference to the endurance of the ship. Quite apt when you consider how stout the original Constitution is.
Of course, no one should go on any displayed info without delving into the matter of interest themselves, and I've made more than one mistake here...
Recolloecting further, I now remember that Congress isn't one of the first three, but rather Constellation takes her place in that triad of ships. United States, launched from New York; Constellation, from Baltimore; and Constitution from Boston.
Furthermore, the Constitution's website details her history and states that "Old Ironsides" stick twice on her slipways during launch, so technically it wasn't a flawless launch. But I am certain that United States definitely hit the water too hard (for the damaged false keel contributed to the fact that she was the least fleet of the frigates).
Recolloecting further, I now remember that Congress isn't one of the first three, but rather Constellation takes her place in that triad of ships. United States, launched from New York; Constellation, from Baltimore; and Constitution from Boston.
Furthermore, the Constitution's website details her history and states that "Old Ironsides" stick twice on her slipways during launch, so technically it wasn't a flawless launch. But I am certain that United States definitely hit the water too hard (for the damaged false keel contributed to the fact that she was the least fleet of the frigates).
(From the USS Constellation Web Site, covering the Sloop of War still afloat at the Baltimore Inner Harbor. They link to the original)
In the first test against a foreign foe in the undeclared "Quasi War" with France, Constellation, with Captain Thomas Truxtun commanding, won the first ship vs. ship victory of the U.S. Navy. On February 5, 1799, Constellation captured the French 36-gun frigate Insurgente off the Island of Nevis in the West Indies. After failing to damage Constellation's rigging, Insurgente closed to grapple. Using superior speed to advantage, Truxton maneuvered ahead and crossed the Frenchman's bow, raking her deck with a murderous broadside. After a half-hour Insurgente struck her colors in surrender. American casualties: two dead, and two wounded. French casualties: 29 dead, 71 wounded.
Off the French base at Guadeloupe Island, Constellation engaged the Vengeance, 52-guns, on February 2, 1800. In a five-hour nighttime slugging match, Constellation suffered 14 dead and 25 wounded. Vengeance, a total wreck in danger of sinking with over twice as many casualties, escaped capture in the darkness.
The frigate Constellation then participated in the campaigns against the Barbary states and Caribbean pirates. During the War of 1812, while blockaded in the Elizabeth River, she participated in the battle of Craney Island, helping to defend Norfolk, Virginia from capture by the British in 1813. (Craney Island is now a Naval Weapons depot. Occhi Note)
After several overhauls and repairs, time took its toll. In 1853 it was deemed that further renovation was not economically effective, and the frigate Constellation was decommissioned and broken up at the Gosport Navy Yard in Portsmouth, Virginia.
In 1854, "Sloop of War" Constellation was launched.
The current USS Constellation, CV-64, will be decomissioned this December.
From a 164 foot frigate, Connie has pulled of a serious case of "My How You've Grown!"
Builder: New York Naval Shipyard (<== no longer functional)
Keel Laid: September 14, 1957 Launched: October 8,1960 Commissioned October 27, 1961
Cost 400 Million (1961) Dollars (CV's now cost some 4 or 5 billion)
Combat Load Displacement: 88,000 tons
Overall Length at Flight Deck 1,049 Feet (over 3 football fields long)
Width: at Flight Deck 270 Feet
Height Keel to Mast: 17 Stories
Area of Flight Deck: 4.5 Acres
Speed: 30+ Knots
Propulsion: System Eight Steam Boilers
Main Engines: Four Steam Turbine Engines
Shaft Horsepower: 280,000 (Yeah!)
Propellers Four, 21' Diameter, 44,000 lbs each
Freshwater Distilling Capacity: 400,000 Gallons/Day
Number of Aircraft Elevators: Four
Catapults: Four Steam Catapults (Accelerates F-18 from 0 to 120 kts in 2 seconds!)
Arresting Gear Cables: Four Steel Cables
Anchors: Two (30 Tons Each)
Compartments and Spaces: 3,000+
Accommodations: 5,500+
Telephones: 1,400+
Meals Served Each Day (At Sea): 18,000+
Size of Air Wing: Approximately 75 Aircraft
So, will there ever be another Constellation, another Ranger?
I sure hope so.
In the first test against a foreign foe in the undeclared "Quasi War" with France, Constellation, with Captain Thomas Truxtun commanding, won the first ship vs. ship victory of the U.S. Navy. On February 5, 1799, Constellation captured the French 36-gun frigate Insurgente off the Island of Nevis in the West Indies. After failing to damage Constellation's rigging, Insurgente closed to grapple. Using superior speed to advantage, Truxton maneuvered ahead and crossed the Frenchman's bow, raking her deck with a murderous broadside. After a half-hour Insurgente struck her colors in surrender. American casualties: two dead, and two wounded. French casualties: 29 dead, 71 wounded.
Off the French base at Guadeloupe Island, Constellation engaged the Vengeance, 52-guns, on February 2, 1800. In a five-hour nighttime slugging match, Constellation suffered 14 dead and 25 wounded. Vengeance, a total wreck in danger of sinking with over twice as many casualties, escaped capture in the darkness.
The frigate Constellation then participated in the campaigns against the Barbary states and Caribbean pirates. During the War of 1812, while blockaded in the Elizabeth River, she participated in the battle of Craney Island, helping to defend Norfolk, Virginia from capture by the British in 1813. (Craney Island is now a Naval Weapons depot. Occhi Note)
After several overhauls and repairs, time took its toll. In 1853 it was deemed that further renovation was not economically effective, and the frigate Constellation was decommissioned and broken up at the Gosport Navy Yard in Portsmouth, Virginia.
In 1854, "Sloop of War" Constellation was launched.
The current USS Constellation, CV-64, will be decomissioned this December.
From a 164 foot frigate, Connie has pulled of a serious case of "My How You've Grown!"
Builder: New York Naval Shipyard (<== no longer functional)
Keel Laid: September 14, 1957 Launched: October 8,1960 Commissioned October 27, 1961
Cost 400 Million (1961) Dollars (CV's now cost some 4 or 5 billion)
Combat Load Displacement: 88,000 tons
Overall Length at Flight Deck 1,049 Feet (over 3 football fields long)
Width: at Flight Deck 270 Feet
Height Keel to Mast: 17 Stories
Area of Flight Deck: 4.5 Acres
Speed: 30+ Knots
Propulsion: System Eight Steam Boilers
Main Engines: Four Steam Turbine Engines
Shaft Horsepower: 280,000 (Yeah!)
Propellers Four, 21' Diameter, 44,000 lbs each
Freshwater Distilling Capacity: 400,000 Gallons/Day
Number of Aircraft Elevators: Four
Catapults: Four Steam Catapults (Accelerates F-18 from 0 to 120 kts in 2 seconds!)
Arresting Gear Cables: Four Steel Cables
Anchors: Two (30 Tons Each)
Compartments and Spaces: 3,000+
Accommodations: 5,500+
Telephones: 1,400+
Meals Served Each Day (At Sea): 18,000+
Size of Air Wing: Approximately 75 Aircraft
So, will there ever be another Constellation, another Ranger?
I sure hope so.
Hi,
Accommodations: 5,500+
Meals Served Each Day (At Sea): 18,000+
So who's eating the extra 1,500 meals? Second breakfast? Elevenses? Tea?
--Pete
Accommodations: 5,500+
Meals Served Each Day (At Sea): 18,000+
So who's eating the extra 1,500 meals? Second breakfast? Elevenses? Tea?
--Pete
No, I dont refer to medium sized rodents, I refer to "Midnight Rations." 1500 might be an overstatement, but a few hundred folks per night on watch, and those on the late maintenance shift in the hangar bay, typically have that chow requirement.
The sailors on duty for the late watch 2000-2400 and the Mid Watch 2400 - 0400, as well as those on the graveyard maintenance shift, are eligible to wander down to the galley or the Dirty Shirt Wardroom under the bow catapaults (for the officers) to wolf down some grub.
For a man with a high metabolism, Mid Rats is a good thing for refuelling after the typical 16-18 hour work day. For normal mortals, Mid Rats is just a way to put on weight while at sea.
The sailors on duty for the late watch 2000-2400 and the Mid Watch 2400 - 0400, as well as those on the graveyard maintenance shift, are eligible to wander down to the galley or the Dirty Shirt Wardroom under the bow catapaults (for the officers) to wolf down some grub.
For a man with a high metabolism, Mid Rats is a good thing for refuelling after the typical 16-18 hour work day. For normal mortals, Mid Rats is just a way to put on weight while at sea.
Ronald Reagan still alive, i thought he died 2 years ago
Given the stage of Alzheimer's Disease he has apparently advanced to, he may not even be aware that they are referring to him while he is at the ceremony. I hope for his sake, and Nancy's, that he had a lucid day when the ship was christened.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.