Naval Battle

Top 2. Sep 8, 2003 5:33 AM

» John_Barr - Re: Tagonrog attack

In response to message posted by pepster:

I've had a good look through my books but sadly can only come up with negative information on the Lady Nancy - she was definitely not involved in the troop transport operation from Varna to the Crimea in 1854 nor in the Kinburn expedition in October 1855. As for the Sea of Azov, I expect you have access to the same main official reports from Lyons on the naval operations there as I have, and although the same names of gunboats keep cropping up, and one feels that he is as painstaking as a local newspaper journalist recording the names of everyone attending the function he's covering, again there's no mention of the Lady Nancy. The fact that your research is directed at the development of the turret makes me wonder if she was not a floating 'ironclad' battery? If so all the accepted evidence is that only the French had these in the Crimea - three being employed late on with great success at Kinburn for the first time. But the more I study the War, the more I have learnt to look at the 'accepted evidence' with an open mind!

Sorry not to be of any further help at this stage - are any other subscribers able to shed any light on the Lady Nancy?

-- posted by John_Barr

Top 3. Sep 13, 2003 10:31 AM

» pepster - Re: Re: Tagonrog attack

In response to message posted by John_Barr:

Thanks John

The only info I have to date is that Lady Nancy was a raft consisting of apoundernder gun on the center-line of the raft and was able to fire in many directions.

It was developed in 1855 by CommCowperCPhippsPColes Coles (nephew of Admiral Lyons) to aTagonroggonrog.

He then proposed another raft wipounder pounder supported by a 4 inch armor plating (described as an apparatus for defending guns and gunners in ships of war). In 1859 his experimental turret was constructed, and in 1861, was employed in the "ironclad floating battery Trusty for experimental tests.

This information that I have is from a third source and is unsubstantiated. For my paper, I would like to verify this information and build on it.

Thanks again for your assistance

Pep

-- posted by pepster

Top 4. Oct 28, 2004 11:01 AM

» lollies100 - Re: Re: Re: Tagonrog attack

John,
after more than a year I see that I have something about the English floating batteries. In his book 'La guerre de Criméee -Le tsar de toutes les Russies face à l'Europee',René GUILLEMIN states that the English floating batteries, constructed in the same time as the french ones, arrived before Kinburn three days after the fort had surrendered (always late these English). In his above mentioned book Guillemin stresses the naval operations of the Crimean war (Baltic, White Sea and Pacific Ocean). He was at the time this book was published (1981) a Capitaine de Vaisseau in the french marine, the equivalent of a colonel in the land forces.

I have a somewhat curious question : what happened to general von Möller, the commander of the Sevastopol garrison, after he was removed from that command after Inkerman?

-- posted by lollies100

Top 5. Nov 1, 2004 12:21 PM

» John_Barr - Re: Floating Batteries

Thanks for that Herman - I have not read Guillemin's book, but I am surprised that he places British floating batteries in the Crimea, only in that I have never seen this mooted in any British source - does he quote a reference? The main British target was definitely Kronstadt and Helsingfors in their proposed 1856 Baltic we'll-never-know campaign, and I have a feeling, presumably based on something I have read, though goodness knows where, that no Brit floating batteries had been completed before the end of 1855.

As for Moller, any powerful support he might have received from the acrimonious accusations flying around after the Inkerman defeat had vanished with the death of Kornilov, and he seems to have faded away from the Crimean scene, but I will have a good look to see if I can find any further mentions.

-- posted by John_Barr