The Worth of the 74s: Why Navys found them so useful, Patreon Premier 5
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лип 2024
- Ship-Shape www.ship-shape.org.uk/
Book
Tribals, Battles & Darings; The Genesis of the Modern Destroyer amzn.to/2H2yVvb
Support This Channel
Patreon: / acnavalhistory
Paypal paypal.me/ACHistory?country.x...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @dralexclarke
Ko-Fi (If you just want to buy me a bottle of Irn Bru) ko-fi.com/acnavalhistory
Spreadshirt Store: acnavalhistorystore.myspreads...
Amazon Affiliate Store www.amazon.co.uk/shop/dralexa...
Bilgepumps / Social Media Links
Bilgepumps: the-bilgepumps.simplecast.com...
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / ac_navalhistory
Other Places to Find Dr Alex Clarke
Global Maritime History: globalmaritimehistory.com/tag/...
Academia.edu: alexanderclarke.academia.edu/
TV Agent: pastpreservers.com/portfolio/...
00:00 The Worth of the 74s: Why Navys found them so useful, Patreon Premier 5
12:00 Part 2
24:00 Part 3
36:00 Finale
48:00 Preservation of History
I recently got clean off drugs and decided to fill my time with reading. Your book was one of my first choices and it will be dilevered this afternoon. Can't wait
That's wonderful and I hope you enjoy the book as much as I enjoyed pulling it all together.
3:30 "Stop poking holes in my ship!" -Drachinifel
I'm on the board of the Fort Devens Museam and I love your pasonate call for people to viset a local museam Love it. if you are in Massachusets drop by.
Ah the 74 the most classic ship of the line and one that certainly was the most produced ship of the line
The “biking empire!” Editing on the road is fun - that’ll double your luggage, lol. Thoroughly enjoying this video!
I thought about end question - what’s the modern equivalent of a 74 gunner? My initial thoughts were okay a cruiser. But, no, this doesn’t sit with me. A cruiser does sit sit well with the 74 gunner’s requirement to be somewhat economical. I’d actually put cruisers as “Third Rate 86 gunners.” Modern First Rates would be Fast Battleships like Missouri or Bismarck. The best of the best. Limited production runs and fully funded. Second Rates would be the somewhat slow, pugnacious fully armored battleships such as the US Standard 16” or Rodney. These are the heavy weight sluggers that will offer the coup de grace. Although, you’d be surprised when their time does come they can be remarkably fast when they really pour on the coal.
Therefore, modern 74 gunners I’d classify as something the all around well designed and versatile Fletcher class Destroyers. The Fletchers fit the mass production economies of scale, are big enough to sail across oceans, versatile to be adopted to number or roles and weapons systems, and powerful enough to face off against modern 1st and 2nd rates. With regards to facing off against larger capital ships, yes, a destroyer will be creamed if it receives one or two larger caliber shells, however, with their speed, smaller profiles and usually superior numbers often they can deliver painful stings before being sunk.
I think it’s appropriate to include this video’s subject, 74 gun in particular, in addition to your other planed video regarding Third Rates in general.
I often try to fit the third rate Ship of the Line into a modern framework. Do they compare say to a Battle Cruiser? Are they more like a Pocket Battleship, or maybe a Heavy Cruiser? Anyhow, it was a good lecture on the highly successful workhorse of the battle line-the 74 Gunner; a very economical vessel with a decent broadside weight of metal in a relatively fast hull. They could often out-sail a 5th or 6th rate ship in heavy seas, although often couldn't use their lower gundecks in those conditions.
If on distant station in flagship role, probably battlecruiser is closest... but in fleets they were just another battleship... the point is like 4th & 5th rates they were incredibly flexible assets.
@@DrAlexClarke Thank you Sir for the answer. You reminded me of the novel "ship of the Line" by C.S. Forester. I cut my teeth on the Hornblower series.
Do you want to cut down into a frigate: yes it works......
I thought ship building techniques in the 18th Century rather restricted the length of two-deckers to a maximum of about 80 guns and as soon as a new form of cross bracing was introduced after the Napoleonic wars longer two-deckers with more than 74 guns became the norm?
It's more about weight and cost, basically to build a ship long enough to carry the 80 or more guns on two decks, you are pretty much building the lower two decks of first rate anyway... so it's possible to do it, it's just expensive and third rates are for volume of fleet.
@@DrAlexClarke I am operating from distant memory of "The Wooden Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy" by E. H. H. Archibald.
I thought the smaller three-deckers were shorter than the larger two-deckers because they were built up to carry more guns, not lengthened?
I feel your pain about the loss of the HMS Implacable. Still, I understand that her loss triggered ship preservation elsewhere in the UK.
So first rates stay in service quite a long time, as I said in my video about them some of the early ones start out as having 60 guns... basically by about the same time as the 74 comes in to service as a standard, the First rates are pushing up to 120 guns, although that is also the time the Two Deck Second Rate of 84 guns starts to be built in a reasonable quantity. This ua-cam.com/video/r_X8mImi-DA/v-deo.html touches on the first rates, there is another video in that serios on second rates and there will be more videos on 74s, 64s, fourth rates, fifth rates, sixth rates and some of the unrated ships.
Archibald's work is good, especially for the understanding we had of ships in the late 1960s, I'd also recommend Building the Wooden Fighting Ship by Dodds & Moore: what has been interesting in the last twenty years we have discovered a lot of diaries of people who worked in the royal dockyards and combined with the work of methodological archeologists has give us a slightly different understanding of some things - or rather has helped us ennuciate more what probably the historians in the 1960s who were not viewing the world through a post cold war lense, took for granted especially with long service ships. That though is me getting into the joys of academic debate, which whilst I might have spent a large chunk of yesterday doing, but is far off the route of march for a response to your comment. so I appologise.
yours sincerely
Alex
@@DrAlexClarke Many thanks for two rapid replies.
One thing - On my small laptop screen I couldn't read the screen behind you and it was more of a talking head, or even radio, experience for me. Is it possible to make it larger? Could you not make it more akin to a TV weather map in size?
I normally do make it larger, but this was filmed in a hotel room, becuase the video as I'd prepared had developed sound issues on upload - and rather than miss it I re-recorded it in a hotel room, using my mobile phone and the TV...
Why not including the Spansih ? They built an interesting vaiant with a 24 pdr lower battery.
Because it was more using examples of why nations built them, the Spanish fit into the French/Russian reasoning and discussing of specific classes/types is more a Key Ships thing than this video which was a context of why they were built as I said in the video
C'MON show some footage. Dash you aint
Footage is coming... if you mean footage of the #ScandiShip24 trip