Talk:1719 Establishment

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Similar to 1706 Establishment??

Similar title, similar theme, but unique content; removing the automated tag... Martocticvs (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were two major differences between the 1719 Establishment and its 1706 predecessor. One of them was that, while the 1706 Establishment covered Second, Third and Fourth Rates and the larger Fifth Rates (i.e. 40-gun ships but NOT ships of 32 or 36 guns), the 1719 Establishment covered all ships from 20 guns upwards (i.e. all the First to Sixth Rates). The second difference (actually of greater significance) was that, whereas the 1706 Establishment had only specified the length, breadth and depth (in hold) to be used as the standard for all new and/or rebuilt ships, the 1719 Establishment went into much greater detail for each class of ship, setting out the thickness of the scantlings, size of ports, and many interiod dimensions. The 1706 Establishment had much more in common with its 17th century predecessors. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tons Burthen cannot be given metric equivalents

I have just noticed that whoever constructed this article has given what purports to be metric tonnage equivalents for the tons burthen. Please note that tons burthen (used for all ships of the sailing era, although the calculation varied from one nation to another) are units of measurement of volume and not units of weight (so reference to "long tons" is also an error) and there are no metric equivalents. It was only with the introduction of displacement tons during the 19th Century that tons acquired the meaning of tons weight. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]