Talk:HMS Yarmouth (1745)

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 / Early Modern C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not 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
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Yarmouth establishment

Yarmouth was ordered 25.5.1741 as a 70 gun ship. Ref: British warships in the age of sail 1714-1792 (P90) She was re-ordered to an enlarged design in June 1742 with a extra 6 feet of length added but was classified as a 64 gun ship under the 1743 establishment while under construction with no change in design.

As pure speculation; this might have "creative" bookkeeping on the part of the Admiralty to get more heavier ships than had been authorised by Parliament based on the fact that "The Line of Battle: the sailing warship 1650-1840" mentions that the King in Council became responsible for enforcing the size of draughts and dimensions in 1745. In 1745 the "64's" were restored to 70 guns.

When was Yarmouth completed? Funnily enough, 1745.

I'm going to see if I can find any supporting evidence that Yarmouth ever actually carried 64 guns, because all of my reference material points towards the 1741 70 gun ships being, well. 70 gun ships.

Freyr829 (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lavery p 172 says 26-32p, 26-18p, 10-9p & 2-9p for 64 guns (says reduced to 60 guns in 1781)

Also gives her launch date as 28-12-1748, not 1745.??

SpookyMulder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.106.130 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Yarmouth (1745). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309230051/http://www.jfjcccmuseum.com/tjoschultz/randolph.html to http://www.jfjcccmuseum.com/tjoschultz/randolph.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]