Talk:HMS Warrior (1860)

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 After a less than impressive performance during the Bombardment of Kagoshima in 1863, the weapons were eventually withdrawn from service, and a large number were sold to Confederate forces during the American Civil War.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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Size of armoured plates

Warrior Restoring the World’s First Ironclad says 12 foot by 3 foot. The immortal Warrior Britain’s first and last battleship says 15 foot by 3 foot.©Geni 00:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Forging the fleet says 16 feet by 3 foot just to add to the list.©Geni (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

White Ensign?

Why does the infobox have the white ensign at the top of it? HMS Warrior never sailed showing the white ensign. She always sailed with the red ensign which she displays to this day.

Fot those that don't know: in The 19th century, the Royal Navy was divided into three fleets, the white fleet; the red fleet and the blue fleet. Ships of those fleets showed the white, red and blue ensign respectively (HMS Warrior was the flagship of the red fleet for a time). Today there is only one fleet which all display the white ensign. The red and blue ensigns now have different usages. 86.180.87.215 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're incorrect in this point. The 3-ensign system was discontinued in August of 1864, and so from that point onwards Warrior flew the White Ensign, as did all RN ships. She also flew the White Ensign very briefly at the start of her career when first commissioned but prior to joining the Channel Squadron. Warrior was never the flagship of the red squadron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.174.199 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Audio tour which accompanies the visit to HMS Warrior claims that she was the flagship of the Red squadron. 86.178.9.171 (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just got back from Portsmouth, and having listened to the Audio Tour (which they said is being discontinued at the end of the year) and speaking to one of their guides, I was assured that Warrior was never flagship of the Red Squadron, the role being fulfilled by HMS Edgar during Warrior's first commission. After the first commission, the Red Squadron did not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.76.131 (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible replacement for the engine pic

Mostly a note to self:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinrobson/6155646413/

©Geni 02:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"First" iron-hulled warship?

USS Michigan (1843) cites a different vessel, albeit one confined to the North American Great Lakes, that predates the Warrior by 17 years. Is she still the first ocean-going iron-hulled warship, or are there other earlier vessels out there? Susan Davis (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "first iron-hulled warship" is just wrong when referring to Warrior. There were iron-hulled frigates in the 1840s. Warrior was the first ship to have both an iron hull and iron armour, though other ships had previous had each of those things. The Land (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox: renamed

"HMS Warrior (1860), 1979?" looks scrappy to me. --John (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't pin down when she was renamed. '79 seemed a likely guess.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A friend highlighted the question mark when I mentioned I had been working on the article. I admit I did not notice it before then. It's a relatively important point, when the ship was renamed; don't any of the sources discuss it? --John (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody says when she was renamed; just that it happened. Very aggravating.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

'rectangular' boilers

I'm not sure what a 'rectangular' boiler is, it isn't listed on the boilers page either, it seems likely to me that they would be box boilers but that is just a guess, am not sure what the word rectangular adds, notice that it is also used to describe the boilers of warriors, sister ship 'black prince' so suspect the term has been lifted from some common source, anyone shed some light on this ? Iroberts696 (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsure about any relationship to box boilers, but rectangular is how multiple sources refer to them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

aye - understand preserving the reference - but what are/is special about 'rectangular' boilers ? if no one connected with the article knows/can explain , what exactly is being passing on ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iroberts696 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

An expert on the history of marine boilers would likely appreciate the difference.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

They are box-boilers. Mid-19th century ships typically had boilers which were rectangular, rather than cylindrical, in design. These were easier to make with plate metal, but couldn't take as much pressure - their flat sides would bulge out beyond a certain point. By the 1890s, cylindrical designs had pretty much taken over. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Armour photo capyion

Is the caption on the photo in the Armour section correct? It says "Iron on the right" but to me it looks like the iron is on the left of the photo, with the wood on the right. If I am interpreting that photo correctly, the caption is wrong (or the photo is upside down). T-bonham (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It is correct. The armour is white-painted at the extreme right and dark brown immediately to the left.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fisher quote

Jacky's quote is a bit of an overstatement, or at least the bit about gun-armed sailing ships having been in vogue for a thousand years. Ships that approached the 74 really only came about after the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century, so they were really only two centuries old by the time Gloire and Warrior came about. And if you want to be generous, large gun-armed ships don't go much other back than the 16th century, but even many of those were intended to fight via boarding rather than via gunfire. It would be worthwhile to add a note to this effect after his quotation. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Enlisted men?

I was taken aback (good naval term) by this sentence: "The ship's crew comprised 50 officers and 656 enlisted men in 1863". Is "enlisted men" correct for the Royal Navy in the 1860s? Would not "ratings" have been used? Or even "other ranks"? "Enlisted men" sounds American to me.

Herbgold (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Readers, especially non-British ones, are unlikely to know those specialized terms. So more generic words were used instead.

Simply not true. "Enlisted men" is not a more general term, it is an American term, and inaccurate anyway as the ratings or "other ranks" were volunteers, not conscripts. Herbgold (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Enlisted does not mean conscripted or drafted as you appear to think. I agree that ratings is indeed the British term, but it is very jargony. That said, either link "ratings" so a general reader will understand it or I'll revert your change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added the link as you suggested. My not knowing the meaning of "enlisted men" just goes to show that, for me as a British person, it is as much "jargon" as "ratings" was for you. Your "general reader" is clearly an American reader. Herbgold (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Could be, although I suspect that enlisted man is easier to figure out for a general reader than rating. While you were unclear as to some of the details, you knew that it referred to ordinary sailors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains that HMS Warrior was a Royal Navy ship and therefore the terminology used to describe her crew should be British. What else could "ratings" mean anyway? White mice? Herbgold (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Put down the stick. You won; I'm not going to revert your change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK! Thanks for that, appreciated. Herbgold (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Further repairs

see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-32046868

©Geni (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Julian Corbett?

The linked Julian Corbett would have been 13 when he supposedly commanded Warrior (he also never served in the RN). Parsecboy (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, delinked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Snake among the rabbits" quote?

In his history, "The First World War" (1998), John Keegan states that Lord Palmerston, seeing HMS Warrior at anchorage among the Royal Navy's wooden sailing ships, described her as "a snake among the rabbits." However, in his later work The American Civil War: A Military History (2009), he attributes the quote to Benjamin Disraeli. Other online sources attribute the quote to Napoleon III. All three men were contemporaries, and alive at the same time, so all three are possibilities. Can anyone cite a firm source?--Crouchbk (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Propulsion

The mention under the propulsion that the lifting propeller required 600 men to lift seems rather large for any military ship with a complement of 650 men. One engagement could provide a casualty count that would render them unable to perform a critical ship task seems unlikely. I don't have a better source but I question that number as unreasonably large for the complement.RowanHawkins (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It really wasn't a critical task; it just reduced drag when the ship was solely under sail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Parkes says "needing 600 men on the falls to the old-fashioned sheers over the stern by which it was raised." But there's another discrepancy. We say it was a 26 ton propeller but Parkes says it's a "two-bladed, 10-ton Griffiths". (Another interesting fact, it took 40 men 1+1⁄2 minutes to put the helm over.) GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)