Enough with Trafalgar already

[Stix]

[rant] why does every discussion on realism or naval combat have to have a Trafalgar reference!?!

At Trafalgar....

40 mins of taking fire in to bows

500 crew killed with 1 rake

Double shot, triple shot

Spreading fire

More 3rd rates than anything

Sorry people but naval action is a representation of over a century of naval warfare not 1 battle. [\rant]

Thank you ????

[kumisz]

Historical sources will always be the basis to all arguments. It does not matter if it is Trafalgar, Aboukir, Texel or Lissa.

[maturin]

+1

 

 

[Fluffy Fishy]

I can cope with more 3rd rates, they are my favourite of the heavy ships.

[jodgi]

You know what's up, Stix.

[Ligatorswe]

lets have Jutland 1916 as reference instead and demand dreadnoughts for our Port Battles.

[Ghroznak]

Might be talking out of my ass here, but isn't Trafalgar primarily used because it is so well documented compared to other historic battles?

Common sense to use the best documentation for reference, then use other battles for cross-reference?

[Fluffy Fishy]

Might be talking out of my ass here, but isn't Trafalgar primarily used because it is so well documented compared to other historic battles?

Common sense to use the best documentation for reference, then use other battles for cross-reference?

 

I have a feeling its also used because its a deep water battle far enough out to sea so that there are no pesky complaints about a missing coastline, and as you know its also one of the most famous and in the time period so its just a good requirement box ticker if you ask me.

[Stix]

But it was 1 battle out of 1000s

[ObiQuiet]

The amateur will tend to go to shallow, familiar references.

If you want professional antidotes to Trafalgar, two recommendations are:

Sam Willis' "Glorious First of June"

Theodore Roseveldt's "Naval War of 1812", wherein he shoots embarrassing holes in the accounts reported in James' "Naval History of Great Britain"

OOTH, for the most professional and detailed take on Trafalgar, there's Corbett's "The Campaign of Trafalgar".

I posted some excerpts here:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/4698-the-campaign-of-trafalgar-chapter-1-summary/?fromsearch=1

All are excellent preparation for "Did not!" "Did too!" arguments in these forums, as they all put you at only two degrees of separation from the original logs, letters and reports.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ObiQuiet

[Nathaniel]

Well, we might just stop referencing Trafalgar and start referencing actual big fleet engagements in the Caribbean with the actual aim at island conquest. Like or the Battle of the Saintes (1782) or the Battle of Martinique two years before - but i just have to point out as an aside (and i know the TS didn't reference this explicitely) that it won't help the "less SoLs in port battles" advocates. It still were all what we would consider 25vs25 3rd rates+ battles.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Nathaniel

[James Cornelius]

A fine alternative to the difficulties in battle at the time was the precursor to Trafalgar, the Battle of Cape Finisterre.