Talk:HMS Captain (1869)

I saw it on NGC TV that the Captain wreck has been visited and filmes so one could possibly dig up some images for the article?

Those images are likely copyrighted and so not desirable, but there are a couple well-known images of the ship afloat, which would be PD. Google turns up a poor-quality scan of an etching at [1], and a photo at [2]. Stan 12:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Impossible Statement

I have deleted the following:

and when Coles proposed a masted, ten turret vessel in 1859, the Chief Constructor of the Navy, Sir Edward Reed, objected. Both men lobbied fiercely both politicians and the press, Coles to get his ship constructed, and Reed to stop Coles.

The reasons for deleting it are:

• The statement about Coles proposing a masted, ten turret vessel in 1859 may be correct, but is in the wrong part of the story. Blackwood's magazine had an article on ironclads in 1859 or 1860 which discussed something similar.

• Reed did not get the job as chief constructor until 1863.

• The stuff about lobbying seems unfair to Reed. It was the turret ship enthusiasts who lobbied hard for Captain. If both parties were lobbying equally, let us see some contemporary citations.

--Toddy1 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. Now in the article there suddenly pops up a certain Reed who says this and that. That's unfair to the reader. --84.161.189.197 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of 2nd Impossible Statement

I have deleted the following:

Following the sinking, both Reed and Robinson resigned from their positions.

• Edward James Reed resigned in July 1870. (Source: http://www.hmscaptain.co.uk/Characters/edwardreed.htm)
• HMS Captain sank on the night of 6/7 September 1870 (i.e. two months later). (Source: http://www.hmscaptain.co.uk/The%20Story/final%20trial.htm)
• Robinson was "Controller of the navy (until Gladstone decided, in the light of the loss of the Captain, for which he was quite unfairly blamed by Childers - that the appointment would not be extended at the end of his second five-year term)" (Source: http://www.pdavis.nl/ShowBiog.php?id=112)

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The first link does not work for me

Please have a look

Thank you

Grijalvo (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right - it used to work, now it does not. That is the internet for you.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

From art to science

None of the standard reference books seem to imply that Reed lobbied to prevent the building of the "Captain". He seems to have maintained a dignified silence and more or less distanced himself from anything to do with the ship. He was to prove tragically right in the professional objections that he did make to the design of this ship though.

Ship design had moved from being an inspired art onto a solid scientific basis as this tragedy was to prove.

Laird Brothers who built the ship were amongst the first generation of scientific ship builders and had considerable experience with building similar ships and it seems puzzling that the basic "Captain" design emerged so grossly overweight. Even at the launching one of Reeds staff informed Reed that the ship was already grossly overweight and more equipment had still to be installed.

Just exactly where did Lairds go wrong?AT Kunene (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Lobbying

Reed was Chief Constructor. That means he was head of the design staff, and reported to the Controller (Robinson) - the naval officer responsible for the construction programme. Reed and Robinson had a very good working relationship.

Lobbying was something that people on the outside did to influence the Controller's department. Reed was on the inside.

The Controller's department opposed the building of the ship - but once the decision was made to build it, had to go along with the decision.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

2. The first generation of scientific ship builders

The first generation of scientific ship builders was in the 1680s, and was an innovation by Jean-Baptiste Colbert.

Laird Brothers started building boats in the 1820s nearly 150 years later.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironclads built by Lairds up to and including the Captain

...Laird Brothers who built the ship... had considerable experience with building similar ships...AT Kunene (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at their record with building sea-going ironclads in the 1860s, the Agincourt and Vanguard were OK (but were not Laird designs), and the Prins Hendrik der Nederlanden was probably OK. The rest had the limited sea-going capabilities associated with coast defence ships.

• HMS Scorpion (1863) - masted turret ship - Laird design - similar to the Captain - awful vessel unsafe to use a sea-going warship, so used as coastal service ship once this became clear. (See reports on the Channel Fleet from the 1860s in the UK National Archives.)
• HMS Wivern (1863) - masted turret ship - Laird design (Scorpion class ironclad) - see remarks on the Scorpion.
• HMS Agincourt (1865) - broadside ironclad - Controller's department design - successful seagoing warship
• Peruvian Huáscar (Ironclad) (1865) - masted turret ship - Laird design - hull was built up for the voyage out to Peru; i.e. she was only safe to make the trip with temporary additions to her freeboard.
• Brazilian ironclad Bahia (1865) - masted turret ship - Laird design - Conways describes her as a coast defence battleship.
• Brazilian ironclad Lima Barros (1865) - masted turret ship (similar to the Bahia) - Laird design - Conways describes her as a coast defence battleship.
• HNLMS Prins Hendrik der Nederlanden (1866) - masted turret ship - Laird design (improved Scorpion) - US Navy Chief Engineer JW King regarded this as a seagoing ship.
• HNLMS Stier (1868) - masted turret ship - don't know whether this was a Laird design - sister to HNLMS Schorpioen - US Navy Chief Engineer JW King regarded this as a coast defence vessel.
• HNLMS Heiligerlee (1868) - small masted turret ship - don't know whether this was a Laird design - US Navy Chief Engineer JW King regarded this as a coast defence vessel.
• HMS Captain (1869) - masted turret ship - Laird design - awful vessel unsafe to use a sea-going warship, lost at sea when someone tried.
• HMS Vanguard (1870) - central battery ship - Controller's department design - seagoing warship, like all her class, had to have ballast added to improve stability (design flaw not builder's error), ship lost after being rammed

--Toddy1 (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Scientific ship design.

I'll conceed the point that scientific shipbuilding did begin with Colbert but what I meant was iron warship building.

In its published Transactions, The Royal Institute of Naval Architects describes Laird Brothers as both the "Elder Generation" and scientifically trained.

Perhaps it could be agreed that the science of ship design began with Colbert and was firmly established by the time of Lairds and Edward Reed.AT Kunene (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A sentence in the article that was originally supported by the source, but as altered no longer does

Today's version of the article has the following statement:

Furthermore, the Captain floated upside down for between three and ten minutes, a most unusual occurrence which indicated that her center of buoyancy, when upright, was much too low.

Most of this was added on 18 July 2013, which said:

Furthermore, the Captain floated upside down for between three and ten minutes, a most unusual occurrence.

What the source says about this on page 477 is as follows:

"The time during which the vessel floated on the surface upside down is estimated by the survivors at three minutes, five minutes, and even ten minutes. It is quite plain, then, that the ship had not fitted with water or gone down in the ordinary way of a ship which founders, fills, and goes down through excessive weight. The Captain simply turned over and continued to float for from 180 to 600 seconds of time."

Scott Russell's article then goes on to speculate that the ship sank when its engine room filled with water, and suggested a mechanism that might have caused the engine room to fill.

I have substituted the following:

Survivors testified that the Captain floated upside down for between three and ten minutes, which proved that the ship had capsized.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

freeboard reducion

8 ft - 22 in should be 6 ft 2 in (and 2.4-0.56 is not 1.98).

pietro2001:760:2C00:8001:4992:A4A:FDEE:7573 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)