12 ms·

>Not to be defeated, Harris turned to statistics, compiling a list of 235 British naval vessels damaged by lightning, from the Abercromby (26 October 1811, topm

>Not to be defeated, Harris turned to statistics, compiling a list of 235 British naval vessels damaged by lightning, from the Abercromby (26 October 1811, topmast shivered into splinters 14 feet down) to the Zebra (27 March 1838, main-topgallant and topmast shivered; fell on the deck; main-cap split; the jib and sails on mainmast scorched). Additionally, he cataloged the deaths of nearly 100 seamen and serious injury of about 250 others. During one particularly bad period of five or six years, Harris learned, lightning destroyed 40 ships of the line, 20 frigates, and 10 sloops, disabling about one-eighth of the British navy. This is wild.

relistan 2y ago
That was what stood out to me, too. 1/8 of the entire navy destroyed by lightning in a five year period.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  The "destroyed" framing isn't appropriate. Rigging and steering gear was routinely damaged in inclement weather. Rigging including masts is consumable on wooden ships. Ships carried spares and drilled replacing them. The top half of a mast being turned into confetti was something that would have had a ship down for hours, not days. These ships were routinely completely de-masted and swiss cheesed above the water line in combat and the slightly less swiss cheesed and de-masted winner would wind up towing (until rigging could be refitted and it could sail itself) the loser away as a captured prize to be refitted and recommissioned in one's own navy.
mmooss 2y ago
> During one particularly bad period of five or six years, Harris learned, lightning destroyed 40 ships of the line, 20 frigates, and 10 sloops, disabling about one-eighth of the British navy. I wonder if Harris reported literally those numbers, or if the OP is exaggerating them. If Harris reported them then I'm not too surprised Barrow thought Harris was a charlatan. True or not, they sound like an obvious, absurd exaggeration.
- maxglute 2y ago
  Napkin math works out to a ship being struck by lightening every 40 days, while British fleet was 200-300 ships. Maybe it's a maintenance/attrition level British ship building during her maritime power period can keep up with.

relistan 2y ago

That was what stood out to me, too. 1/8 of the entire navy destroyed by lightning in a five year period.

potato3732842 2y ago
The "destroyed" framing isn't appropriate. Rigging and steering gear was routinely damaged in inclement weather. Rigging including masts is consumable on wooden ships. Ships carried spares and drilled replacing them. The top half of a mast being turned into confetti was something that would have had a ship down for hours, not days. These ships were routinely completely de-masted and swiss cheesed above the water line in combat and the slightly less swiss cheesed and de-masted winner would wind up towing (until rigging could be refitted and it could sail itself) the loser away as a captured prize to be refitted and recommissioned in one's own navy.

mmooss 2y ago

> During one particularly bad period of five or six years, Harris learned, lightning destroyed 40 ships of the line, 20 frigates, and 10 sloops, disabling about one-eighth of the British navy. I wonder if Harris reported literally those numbers, or if the OP is exaggerating them. If Harris reported them then I'm not too surprised Barrow thought Harris was a charlatan. True or not, they sound like an obvious, absurd exaggeration.

maxglute 2y ago
Napkin math works out to a ship being struck by lightening every 40 days, while British fleet was 200-300 ships. Maybe it's a maintenance/attrition level British ship building during her maritime power period can keep up with.