(SPOILERS) From David re: a certain ship's fate

runsforcelery wrote:
I probably shouldn't say this, but in this instance you don't know what you're talking about.

SNIP

Yes, I created a situation in which Charis lost an ironclad, but I played completely fair with the reader in the way I did it. You may not accept that, but to be perfectly honest the arguments against it which you have advanced are specious, at best.

Good to hear from you again on the forums!

runsforcelery wrote:Second, this particular port is not one where blue water Charisian ships are likely to call very often, for a lot of reasons, including the fact that it makes a lot more sense for them to pick up cargoes closer to the Gulf of Dohlar. Why should they sail the extra distance when there is a lively and healthy coastal trade delivering materials transported through the canals to blue water port terminals? So, no, they didn't have a handy, up-to-date chart they could pull out for reference.

For that matter, trade with Harchong hasn't been happening above-board for years. Sailing through those narrows to reach a port to conduct smuggling is probably not the way a smuggler would care to do business, either, and it's not as though South Harchong is hurting for little discreet bays. The whole thing is coastline! So it's plausibly a channel that will not have had anything up-to-date available on it. For the RDN, by contrast, it's near home and they've been assuming a lot (a remarkably lot) of the responsibility for patrolling Harchong's waters.

Sixth, the galleon columns — all of their columns, to the extent that there were columns — were proceeded by the scouting schooners, none of whom grounded on or saw the shoal. Partly that was because of their shallower drafts, but mostly? Mostly it was because they sailed right past it. Had they done so in daylight, they probably would have noted the change in the water's color over the shoal and been aware of its presence; in the dark, no one was able to pick up that visual cue.

That does beg the question though - In a channel with no navigational buoys, local pilots, or recent, thorough charts available, why were they making the passage at night? Getting out of there before being caught by screw-galleys in constrained waters from behind, or "trapped" by numerous RDN galleons ahead does argue for some speed, but the galleys were not that close behind and (if I recall correctly) there was no information available to that squadron then about the RDN Western Squadron's exact location.

So there wasn't clearly the urgency required to make a sketchy passage during the night when it'd be much safer (and in the event, faster!) to do so the next day instead.

Maybe the risks of running aground there (or ship on ship collisions, for that matter) were low enough, or not helped enough by daylight, so that even slight reason to get through it sooner made going right on ahead by night was a better call, at least without the benefit of hindsight. But if so, I'm still missing that. Was there reason to worry that the wind would turn against them again if they didn't use it immediately maybe?

April 1983.
USS Enterprise (CVN65) runs aground in SF Bay in sight of her home pier at the end of an 8 month deployment.

Currents can and do shift safe channels - shit happens.
Especially anywhere near the mouth of a river or major outflow during spring thaw.

Took high-tide and 12 tugs to get loose.

That was the end of my first deployment.

This happens in an era of sonar, etc.

You are claiming it is handwavium in an era of lead lines?
Era of sail navagation?

To this retired squid, you are epitimising an old saying:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool that to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[My appologies if I seem harsh. I get irritated when BS is spouted and revert to my Blackshoe origins. Running aground commonly happens in this modern era with much better tech and chart than anything Safehold has. Be glad I edited the colorful metaphores out...]

Montrose Toast wrote:April 1983.
USS Enterprise (CVN65) runs aground in SF Bay in sight of her home pier at the end of an 8 month deployment.

Currents can and do shift safe channels - shit happens.
Especially anywhere near the mouth of a river or major outflow during spring thaw.

Took high-tide and 12 tugs to get loose.

That was the end of my first deployment.

This happens in an era of sonar, etc.

You are claiming it is handwavium in an era of lead lines?
Era of sail navagation?

To this retired squid, you are epitimising an old saying:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool that to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[My appologies if I seem harsh. I get irritated when BS is spouted and revert to my Blackshoe origins. Running aground commonly happens in this modern era with much better tech and chart than anything Safehold has. Be glad I edited the colorful metaphores out...]

HaHa! That was almost as good as RFC' s post. Well put.

I would like to say something on the meta-level:

I find it refreshing when the story gets shifted by the occasional curveball.

Not all the time and not too much of course. But DW is very careful not to overdo it. Some chance factor has to come into play now and then or the story would become predictable - and lose realism. Many things do not work out like planned in RL and having them do so in a story - all the time - would be pretty boring.

***

Besides: The grounding of a warship during a battle was a story device in C.S. Forester's Lieutenant Hornblower novel and it was a cool there. Same here IMO.

saber964 wrote:It's probably a lot like the Russians copying the B-29 at the end of WWII. By the time the Tu-4 entered service(1949) it was already obsolete and soon to be superseded by newer U.S. aircraft like the B-47 (1951)and B-52(1955).

Must point out, that the main reason to copy Tu-4 was to obtain experience in design and use of modern long-range bombers. The latter soviet long-range bombers wasn't B-29 based.

runsforcelery wrote:...


I probably shouldn't say this, but in this instance you don't know what you're talking about.

First, yes, Charisian merchantmen trade almost everywhere, but that's almost everywhere. Do you think that the British admiralty had detailed charts of every bay and harbor on the entire planet in 1800? If so, I have some bottomland I want to sell you: just don't ask me what it's on the bottom of. Do not be thinking that anyone on Safehold has anything remotely like the maritime charting resources that we take for granted today...

I know where you're coming from BUT...As a a sailboat owner and avid reader of old charts, I can say that the Admiralty did, in fact, have charts of every major bay like where the battle occurred by 1880, or so. They had many very good charts in the 1700s. We still use late 19th century Admiralty charts to this day in certain areas where they were then and where no one with the resources has been since. This does cause wrecks from time to time especially with people who overrely on GPS and fail to use bearing sights and depth soundings to crosscheck including a recent minesweeper, as I remember, and certainly the yacht Cork that wrecked during a recent round the world race.

So partly, I guess, it depends on where in the 19th Century we are!

As I said, I study historical charts regularly. Here is a chart of Deception Island that was published in 1829. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... nd-Map.jpg Note the difficult areas are well marked including shallow bar areas.

Cook produced wonderful charts of Newfoundland. On Page 18 of http://collections.mun.ca/PDFs/cns/Jame ... 2_1767.pdf

the upper 2 charts, made in the mid 1760s, are charts of some difficult harbors I sail to regularly. Harbour Grace (upper right) if one expands the chart a bit shows a SEVERE mud/gravel bank below Bears Cove with sighting lines included so as to find the rather small channel on the northern edge of the entire bay. I recognize some of the rocks on the SW outer parts of the bay to this day. [added: Anyone just sailing there would NOT notice the bar at all under most sailing conditions. It just does not show on the surface.]

Trinity (upper left chart) has all sorts of problems, all well marked. These charts could be used--with caution!--to this day.

As I said, I realize where you're coming from, truly do, but navigators spent a LOT of time charting and recording those observations from early times. This is a _named_ feature. That is, it was a stable, known feature in the area. This is an important point, I think. A named feature such as was the case here is going to be logged at some level and should have appeared on their charts as there was trade before the war.

Now...If you are talking Sable Island off Nova Scotia, or some such as mentioned above like river deltas, as the analogue here, where the bottom can change greatly after every storm or tide there is a very good point to be made. But this does not seem to be a Sable Island sort of area.

Basically, I would have felt better had the feature not been a named feature.

The point is that all those good charts did not prevent warships from running aground with some regularity in our history. So why then should we expect Safehold sailors to avoid what Earth's sailor failed to do? What makes Safehold so drastically different that we should EXPECT different results?

I see not issues at all in these sorts of incidents occurring in the story. The emotions aroused when reading about good men with superior ships and weapons losing due to the confluence of bad luck and abysmal timing is a mark that the story is told well.

No one would be so annoyed at these circumstances if they did not feel strongly about the characters.

jgnfld wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:...


I probably shouldn't say this, but in this instance you don't know what you're talking about.

First, yes, Charisian merchantmen trade almost everywhere, but that's almost everywhere. Do you think that the British admiralty had detailed charts of every bay and harbor on the entire planet in 1800? If so, I have some bottomland I want to sell you: just don't ask me what it's on the bottom of. Do not be thinking that anyone on Safehold has anything remotely like the maritime charting resources that we take for granted today...

I know where you're coming from BUT...As a a sailboat owner and avid reader of old charts, I can say that the Admiralty did, in fact, have charts of every major bay like where the battle occurred by 1880, or so. They had many very good charts in the 1700s. We still use late 19th century Admiralty charts to this day in certain areas where they were then and where no one with the resources has been since. This does cause wrecks from time to time with people who overrely on GPS including a recent minesweeper, as I remember.

This is a _named_ feature. That is, it was a stable, known feature in the area. This is an important point, I think.

So partly, I guess, it depends on where in the 19th Century we are!

As I said, I study historical charts regularly. Here is a chart of Deception Island that was published in 1829. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... nd-Map.jpg Note the difficult areas are well marked including shallow bar areas.

Cook produced wonderful charts of Newfoundland. On Page 18 of http://collections.mun.ca/PDFs/cns/Jame ... 2_1767.pdf

the upper 2 charts, made in the mid 1760s, are charts of some difficult harbors I sail to regularly. Harbour Grace (upper right) if one expands the chart a bit shows a SEVERE mud/gravel bank below Bears Cove with sighting lines included so as to find the rather small channel on the northern edge of the entire bay. I recognize some of the rocks on the SW outer parts of the bay to this day.

Trinity (upper left chart) has all sorts of problems, all well marked. These charts could be used--with caution!--to this day.

As I said, I realize where you're coming from, truly do, but navigators spent a LOT of time charting and recording those observations from early times. A named feature such as was the case here is going to be logged at some level and should have appeared on their charts as there was trade before the war.

Now...If you are talking Sable Island off Nova Scotia, or some such as mentioned above like river deltas, as the analogue here, where the bottom can change greatly after every storm or tide there is a very good point to be made. But this does not seem to be a Sable Island sort of area.

Basically, I would have felt better had the feature not been a named feature.

PeterZ wrote:The point is that all those good charts did not prevent warships from running aground with some regularity in our history. So why then should we expect Safehold sailors to avoid what Earth's sailor failed to do? What makes Safehold so drastically different that we should EXPECT different results?

I see not issues at all in these sorts of incidents occurring in the story. The emotions aroused when reading about good men with superior ships and weapons losing due to the confluence of bad luck and abysmal timing is a mark that the story is told well.

No one would be so annoyed at these circumstances if they did not feel strongly about the characters.
...

I suspect the ratio of professional military ships running aground on named, charted features to unnamed, uncharted features is somewhat low. I would have no problem with hitting a mudbar in an area where mudbars shift around. That's my only point.

jgnfld wrote:
I suspect the ratio of professional military ships running aground on named, charted features to unnamed, uncharted features is somewhat low. I would have no problem with hitting a mudbar in an area where mudbars shift around. That's my only point.

On that I would agree with you. The combination of not having recent charts and no way to deliver "seijin" versions without raising quite a few of questions makes what happened to Thunderer plausible. Yes, unlikely but plausible.