Convoy escorts - SPOILER for SNIPPET 8 of HFQ

Undercover Fat Kid wrote:I know it's your story,rfc, and imma let you finish, but you're wrong about your universe and the terminology used there in. Sorry, had to be said

Lol

In what way? I've used "galleons" the same way, consistently, throughout, both in internal POV from characters and in narrative. I've also described them again and again. I've used the terms "schooner" and "brig" throughout consistently, as well, just as I've been consistent in describing their armaments. If you mean that I'm using existing terms from our historical experience and applying them to ships they were not originally applied to (which is fair enough for "galleon") why, pray tell, should the folks living on Safehold have reinvented the same words that we've used for specific ship types? They've gone from galleys as their primary warship type to broadside-armed sailing ships in just five or six years; you think their terminology would adjust to all the bells and whistles in that much time?

If I'm misusing my own terminology, please be kind enough to instruct me as to the way in which I've done so.

I'm sorry, the sarcasm didn't carry as well as I'd hoped.I just can't get over people who argue with the author about HIS universe, and not even about something that strains credulity even in a work of fiction, but about what the characters in that work may say, our how they may choose to label a thing. I suppose next someone will take umbrage with "angle-guns" instead of calling them howitzers

I can understand why some people might find themselves confused about why pretty much all sail powered ships on safehold are generically referred to as "galleons" when obviously there were many different names for the many different classes here on earth, but I tend to look at it like cars; it may be a prius or a Malibu; it's still a "car"

runsforcelery wrote:

Undercover Fat Kid wrote:I know it's your story,rfc, and imma let you finish, but you're wrong about your universe and the terminology used there in. Sorry, had to be said

Lol

In what way? I've used "galleons" the same way, consistently, throughout, both in internal POV from characters and in narrative. I've also described them again and again. I've used the terms "schooner" and "brig" throughout consistently, as well, just as I've been consistent in describing their armaments. If you mean that I'm using existing terms from our historical experience and applying them to ships they were not originally applied to (which is fair enough for "galleon") why, pray tell, should the folks living on Safehold have reinvented the same words that we've used for specific ship types? They've gone from galleys as their primary warship type to broadside-armed sailing ships in just five or six years; you think their terminology would adjust to all the bells and whistles in that much time?

If I'm misusing my own terminology, please be kind enough to instruct me as to the way in which I've done so.

Nautical terminology changes, the left side of the ship facing the bow was once called larboard, the right side starboard. These terms from the old days of the right mounted steering oar. Steer-board became starboard and the left was larboard the side without the steer-board. About the end of the seventeenth century the British navy dropped larboard for port, you tie up on the side without the steer-board. As to ship types it's a mishmash inconsistent between nations IE there is no 'correct' nomenclature. As I understand it on Safehold a Galleon is a three masted ship rigged for square sails, a brig is a two masted ship square rigged ship, a schooner is a two or three masted ship with fore and aft sails. Note square rigged ships may have fore and aft sails spankers and jibs.

IIRC square sail names go bottom to top, mast sail (ie fore sail, main sail, and if it has one aft sail usually there is a spanker rather than a square sail; then the royals, also with the mast name proceeding them, fore, main, and aft; then the gallants also with the mast name proceeding them fore, main, aft; and finally the top gallants fore main and aft.

Square sails are attached to yards, spankers and schooner sails to gaffs, and the jibs rigged to ropes called fore stays.

Poker

Undercover Fat Kid wrote:I'm sorry, the sarcasm didn't carry as well as I'd hoped.I just can't get over people who argue with the author about HIS universe, and not even about something that strains credulity even in a work of fiction, but about what the characters in that work may say, our how they may choose to label a thing. I suppose next someone will take umbrage with "angle-guns" instead of calling them howitzers

I can understand why some people might find themselves confused about why pretty much all sail powered ships on safehold are generically referred to as "galleons" when obviously there were many different names for the many different classes here on earth, but I tend to look at it like cars; it may be a prius or a Malibu; it's still a "car"

Undercover Fat Kid wrote:I know it's your story,rfc, and imma let you finish, but you're wrong about your universe and the terminology used there in. Sorry, had to be said

Lol

runsforcelery wrote:In what way? I've used "galleons" the same way, consistently, throughout, both in internal POV from characters and in narrative. I've also described them again and again. I've used the terms "schooner" and "brig" throughout consistently, as well, just as I've been consistent in describing their armaments. If you mean that I'm using existing terms from our historical experience and applying them to ships they were not originally applied to (which is fair enough for "galleon") why, pray tell, should the folks living on Safehold have reinvented the same words that we've used for specific ship types? They've gone from galleys as their primary warship type to broadside-armed sailing ships in just five or six years; you think their terminology would adjust to all the bells and whistles in that much time?

If I'm misusing my own terminology, please be kind enough to instruct me as to the way in which I've done so.

Umpf. Sorry I missed the intent. Been up all night, severe back pain (which makes me cranky), due for a visit to the pain management specialist Friday to do something (hopefully!) about it, and just found out Megan will be having oral surgery next week, the day before my birthday. All of it, I can legitimately claim, not exactly designed to make me a little ray of sunshine or properly observant of posters' intent.

Thanks for the explanation. Use a big enough clue stick, and even I catch on sooner or later.

I had thought it was a little odd that you were up this early in the morning; judging by when you usually post I'd figured you for a night owl.I certainly hope you get to feeling better soon. I'm sure that Megan's surgery will go well, but I definitely understand the apprehension. If being a little cranky on the boards is the only way that fatigue, pain, and worry manifests itself for you, then you're a better man than I am, and I promise I won't hold it against you

Umpf. Sorry I missed the intent. Been up all night, severe back pain (which makes me cranky), due for a visit to the pain management specialist Friday to do something (hopefully!) about it, and just found out Megan will be having oral surgery next week, the day before my birthday. All of it, I can legitimately claim, not exactly designed to make me a little ray of sunshine or properly observant of posters' intent.

Thanks for the explanation. Use a big enough clue stick, and even I catch on sooner or later.

Question: Why can't Church raiders carrying shell firing weapons? I mean TECHNICALLY. I realize that politically, Church leaders (aka Clyntahn) may not want to "waste" limited shell production on raiders, but what TECHNICAL reasons are there that would stop raiders from carrying shells?

I mean, we've seen that even the Church can produce shells for some pretty small artillery pieces. And you don't need many shell firing guns to total a wooden ship.

So if the Church is more interested in destroying Charisian ships rather than capturing them, shell firing guns would be absolutely ideal for that purpose.

There may be a lower limit to how small of a projectile they can fill and fuse and still get a useful boom out of. Bear in mind that the walls of the shell need to be thick enough to withstand the impact of slamming into a wooden hull.

There's no text ev I'm aware of that points to them making rounds the way modern explosive rounds are made, ie a cross section of an APIE round for a .50 BMG looks like a maze, and when the bullet hits something the binary components mix to make the boom we all know and love.

evilauthor wrote:Question: Why can't Church raiders carrying shell firing weapons? I mean TECHNICALLY. I realize that politically, Church leaders (aka Clyntahn) may not want to "waste" limited shell production on raiders, but what TECHNICAL reasons are there that would stop raiders from carrying shells?

I mean, we've seen that even the Church can produce shells for some pretty small artillery pieces. And you don't need many shell firing guns to total a wooden ship.

So if the Church is more interested in destroying Charisian ships rather than capturing them, shell firing guns would be absolutely ideal for that purpose.

evilauthor wrote:Question: Why can't Church raiders carrying shell firing weapons? I mean TECHNICALLY. I realize that politically, Church leaders (aka Clyntahn) may not want to "waste" limited shell production on raiders, but what TECHNICAL reasons are there that would stop raiders from carrying shells?

I mean, we've seen that even the Church can produce shells for some pretty small artillery pieces. And you don't need many shell firing guns to total a wooden ship.

So if the Church is more interested in destroying Charisian ships rather than capturing them, shell firing guns would be absolutely ideal for that purpose.

It due to the small size of the shot being fired off the raiders. I do not have perfect recall but if I am not mistaken the AoG 30 pounders only have 2 pounds of gunpowder in their shells. Scalling this down to a 12 pounder would mean the shell having less that one pound of gunpowder which would be almost worthless.

Seawolf509 wrote:

evilauthor wrote:Question: Why can't Church raiders carrying shell firing weapons? I mean TECHNICALLY. I realize that politically, Church leaders (aka Clyntahn) may not want to "waste" limited shell production on raiders, but what TECHNICAL reasons are there that would stop raiders from carrying shells?

I mean, we've seen that even the Church can produce shells for some pretty small artillery pieces. And you don't need many shell firing guns to total a wooden ship.

So if the Church is more interested in destroying Charisian ships rather than capturing them, shell firing guns would be absolutely ideal for that purpose.

It due to the small size of the shot being fired off the raiders. I do not have perfect recall but if I am not mistaken the AoG 30 pounders only have 2 pounds of gunpowder in their shells. Scalling this down to a 12 pounder would mean the shell having less that one pound of gunpowder which would be almost worthless.

Maybe no impact/percussion fuzes available?

Seawolf509 wrote:

evilauthor wrote:Question: Why can't Church raiders carrying shell firing weapons? I mean TECHNICALLY. I realize that politically, Church leaders (aka Clyntahn) may not want to "waste" limited shell production on raiders, but what TECHNICAL reasons are there that would stop raiders from carrying shells?

I mean, we've seen that even the Church can produce shells for some pretty small artillery pieces. And you don't need many shell firing guns to total a wooden ship.

So if the Church is more interested in destroying Charisian ships rather than capturing them, shell firing guns would be absolutely ideal for that purpose.

It due to the small size of the shot being fired off the raiders. I do not have perfect recall but if I am not mistaken the AoG 30 pounders only have 2 pounds of gunpowder in their shells. Scalling this down to a 12 pounder would mean the shell having less that one pound of gunpowder which would be almost worthless.

runsforcelery wrote:The Desnairian raiders are light craft. That means schooners and brigs, not galleons, and that means that they are not going to be armed with long guns capable of firing explosive shells. They don't have the displacement to carry them. So that means that they are going to be firing either carronades (which means they have to come into range of other carronades) or else they're going to be firing solid shot from long range, probably from 12-pounders or lighter, and not even the Charisians have produced explosive shells for smoothbore muzzleloaders that like. They might — might — have one or two heavier long guns, but they aren't going to be any heavier than, say, 24-pounders, nor do they have to be any heavier than that to deal with most merchantmen.

BTW best wishes/prayers for RFC and his family. Back pain is no fun at all and oral surgery doesn't sound very pleasant!