Talk:Hulk (ship type)

Spanish Armada?

Didn't the Spanish Armada of 1588 contain several ships known as hulks, for transporting supplies? They were purpose built as far as I know. They can't have been coastal vessels only, at least, not in the Spanish navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.134.143 (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Hulk (medieval ship type). This is a completely different use of the term "hulk." -Arch dude (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible pic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/portsmouth-harbour-the-hulks-32373

Probably for commons Artist died 1880.

©Geni 22:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different Flying Cloud

The quote about the Flying cloud cannot be about the Flying Cloud (Clipper), so I removed the link. I added the link long ago without checking the references. The Flying Cloud (Clipper) article is well-referenced and the references have a different fate for the ship than that in the quote, so either the quote is wrong, or the quote is about a different ship. In either case we should not link. -Arch dude (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HMP Weare

I have removed reference to HMP Weare as not a hulk. She was a purpose built accommodation barge, adapted as a prison. She is already more correctly referenced on Prison ship. Davidships (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relocated content

The following content on a version of sheer hulk combining lower masts as sheers and careening (sans added booms as sheers) has been located here pending a corroborating cite:

"The masts of the hulk (known as sheers) would be at an angle, and the ends could be effectively raised or lowered by rotating the hulk's hull, either by pulling on ropes attached to the hull, or by shifting the ballast within the hull."

All images returned in a Google search indicated a combination of existing ship masts and added booms (as sheers) forming the lifting rig (and depicted in the article image). No web text search returned an depiction squaring with the excised passage relocated above. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation on sailors not being able to swim

There is no way to corroborate such a generalization. No navy would consign a majority of non-swimmers to sea duty, where they might be required to engage in many tasks such as cleaning, repairing, and so forth. Perhaps this refers to Roman galleon slaves?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.22.139 (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the majority could not swim, but certainly true of some, as late as the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Have added a reference to this point. By definition the receiving ships held those with the least experience at sea, having just been pressed. During the Seven Years' War at least, the majority of sailors were pressed men and many of these were landsmen with no experience of the sea at all. These men almost certainly couldn't swim so the use of a waterborne receiving point was a strong disincentive for escape. These weren't ideal crew members, but before about 1760 the Navy was desperate for anyone it could get.

All that said, I agree that the original claim (that most seamen couldn't swim, not just most people aboard receiving ships) doesn't seem to be supported - have modified the words to those the reference confirms. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that "seamen must have been able to swim" (around the C18th-C19th) is contradicted by most sources of the day (and no, I don't have chapter and verse to hand, nor am I inclined to go and get it). Also by the widely held medical opinion up to the mid-19th that too much external water (i.e. bathing, indoors or out) was itself harmful. This assertion makes no more sense than the claim for "Roman galleons". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both Patrick O'Brian and C. S. Forester asserted that most sailors in the Napoleonic war era could not swim, including many or most of the long-service seamen. While both are writers of fiction, both also are noted for trying reasonably hard to be authentic and factual. In the Aubrey/Maturin series, Aubrey, (a strong swimmer) is noted for rescuing many non-swimmer sailors and spends some time on the unusual task of teaching Maturin to swim. -Arch dude (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "sailors could not swim", I get testimony before congress in 1914 about a Seamen's bill: The Seamen's Bill Where a sea captain testifies that most seamen cannot swim. -Arch dude (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen somewhere an RS statement that mid-18th century sailors generally couldn't swim, but can't immediately find it again so can't add to the article. However FWIW from Collingridge's biography of Captain James Cook, "Being underwater was an experience few of Cook's men would have had; like him, most never learned how to swim." (Collingridge, V. Captain Cook; Ebury Press 2002, isbn 0091879132, p.186). -- Euryalus (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Brian Lavery's Nelson's Navy: The Ships, Men and Organisation (full ref in article): "There was no attempt to train seamen to swim, perhaps because this would have aided desertion." Lavery is curator emeritus of the National Maritime Museum and a reliable source on eighteenth and nineteenth century shipping. Have added the statement back to the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]