Re: Battleships and Merchants was Re: Mercs, yet again

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Fulton" <derekfulton@bigpond.com>
>
> G'Day
>
> Just a bit of trivia :) Actually the battleship of Nelson's day had a
lot
> in common with their merchant counterparts, that's because John
basically
> got it right in saying ".........only expense in converting a
merchantman
> to a warship was cutting holes in the side and mounting
cannon.........".
> That's because the only difference between a man of war and a
merchantmen
> was the gunports cut into the hull, the H.M. Bark Endeavor (Captain
James
> Cook's ship) started life as a collier (the 'Earl of Pembroke').

Err.. I beg to differ. A late 18th century Ship of the Line like HMS
"Victory" was quite a specialized vessel and differed considerably from
a
merchant ship, in hull size, hull thickness, deck layout, rigging etc.
not
to mention size of crew, artillery etc. The difference may have been
rather
smaller than between a modern carrier and a container ship, but it was
there.

"Endeavour" is not really a counterexample. It was not a real warship,
but
an exploration vessel. And even nowadays navies have a lot of auxiliary
vessels (tenders, tugs, tankers etc.) that differ from their civilian
counterparts only in the colour of the paint job (OK, slight
exaggeration)

You would have to go back several centuries earlier to have
near-identical
ships in civilian and military use. And that was only in late-medieval /
Reanissance Europe. Roman and Greek warships and merchant ships differed
as
much as recent ships do.

Greetings
Karl Heinz