Talk:Flat-iron gunboat

Medina class

I've removed the Medina class from the list of RN flat-iron gunboats. They were masted and considerably larger than the normal flat-iron. For a photo, go here (although the site lists them as "Medina class flatiron gunboats"!) and contrast them with the Ant-class flat-iron File:HMS Mastiff (1871).jpg. If the intro is to state (quite rightly) that they were "characterised by small size, low freeboard and the absence of masts" and that "they acquired their name from the physical similarity with the flat iron used for ironing clothes during the 19th century", then it seems perverse to include a class that plainly doesn't meet this definition. Winfield in The Sail and Steam Navy List, 1815-1889 describes them as "very different craft" and included in the same section of his book as the flat-irons only for convenience. Shem (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm clearly going to have to reaquire Send a Gunboat The Victorian Navy and Supremacy at Sea, 1854-1904 but from what I recall they were basicaly an attempt to produce a flat-iron gunboat that could be used overseas with the mast performing much the same role as the temporary ones on HMS Magdala (1870). Conway's All the world's fighting ships, 1860-1905 also describes the design as flatiron©Geni 17:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've ordered a copy for myself, because it looked like a good read on Google Books. Notwithstanding whatever Send a Gunboat says, it's worth remembering that The Sail and Steam Navy List is described by the Journal for Maritime Research as "most comprehensive and accurate work on all the ships built and projected for the Royal Navy between 1815 and 1889". I'm not saying "my reference trumps your reference", but it is worth bearing in mind the fact that this is a fundamental work of maritime reference, and that Rif's opinion can be sought very easily. Shem (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Coastal defence?

I had always understood these vessels to be designed and operated as coastal bombardment units, that is, for offensive action. This article describes them as being for coastal defence, with a reference. Winfield is quite clear that they were designed for offensive action, and were the successors to the "Great Armament" of the Crimean War. There is a discussion going on at my talkpage on the issue. Please contribute. Shem (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is now complete and incorporated into the article. Shem (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Paper on HMS Handy

Page 19

https://www.hias.org.uk/Journal%20scans/HIAS%20Journal%202008.pdf

©Geni (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)