Talk:Pre-industrial armoured ships

i highly doubt the existence of an ironclad atake bune.....Odst 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to expand? Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

cataphracts

I read the references about the cataphracts,but it doesnt said of any metal armours.It only states an amoured warship.--Ksyrie 19:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In the article about turtla ships you wrote: "Turtle ships were put to use once again against the Russian fleet thirty years after the Seven-Year War". Thirty years after the Seven-Year War (1598 + 30 = 1628)Russia had no fleet at all.

Song dynasty armoured paddle-boats

After some discussion with Gun Powder Ma on Song dynasty armored paddle-boats, he asked me if I could post my information on the talk page. The following comes from "Needham, Volume 4, Part 3, 688".

It was however far from new in +1370. For at the time of most rapid development of the Southern Sung navy, in +1203, a remarkable shipwright, Chhin Shih-Fu, built at the Chhihchow yards two prototype ‘Sea-hawk’ (Hai-hu) paddle-wheel warships the sides of which (and perhaps the flat roofs also) were armoured with iron plates. The decks were given complete protection by the overhead cover, and besides the usual arrangements for crossbows, arcuballistae, fire-lances, bomb-throwing tebuchets, etc., each ship was provided with a spade-shaped ram.

The primary source of the above quote came from, also on page 688:

Cf. p. 300 above, and Underwood (I), pp. 80 ff. The essential words of description of the two cruisers are: Hsin yang thieh pi hua tsui phing mien Hai-hu chan chuan. They come from the Sun Hui Yao Kao, tse 146 (Shih huo, ch. 50), pp. 32b ff., where very full specifications are given. See Lo Jung-Pang (3), p. 199, who discovered the passage

I must say it's unfair to say that Needham didn't give a primary source, because we can see here that he actually did. Needham may be overly optimistic about his findings, but he does give his sources and he does not make them up. How he interprets them in accordance to its importance is another matter, but that is easily discernible from the factual evidence from his writings. In terms of pure facts, he gives credit where credit is due, including to western nations, so there is no need for such hostility against him. Nor is he derogatory towards other cultures as some might assume. Gnip 10:35, March 07 2010 (UTC)

While I won't object to the inclusion of this possible case, I still have to point out that Needham's references are largely useless and, thus, his conclusion rests on thin ice:

1. "p. 300 above" is a dead end, leading to an irrelevant discussion of some pre-Sung canalwork.
2. "Underwood (I), pp. 80 ff." is about the discussion of Korean turtle boats, not at all Song ships.
3. This leaves the brief line "Hsin yang thieh pi hua tsui phing mien Hai-hu chan chuan", interpreted by "Lo Jung-Pang (3), p. 199", to whose work I do not have access, as the sole evidence for Song iron-plating. Since you seem to be versed in reading ancient Chinese, would you be so kind to provide a working translation from p. 688, fn. 13? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the book with me currently, so I cannot say. I only wrote down the necessary quotes. However, I can do a rough translation, though I must warn you ancient Chinese is not my strong point, especially when Needham chooses to use an alternate "pinyin". When converting Chinese into alphabet, it is hard to understand as one word could be multiple meanings, and Needham used an alternative form of Chinese alphabet. However, when put into a sentence the guesswork is much easier. "Hsin" should mean "new". "yang thieh pi hua" should be a type of iron plate, in which "thieh pi" literally means "iron plate/skin/covering etc...". "Tsui" means "Mouth". "Phing mien" means flat sides/out layer. "Hai-hu chan chuan" means "Sea-hawk warship". Again, I don't have the book so the Chinese words is not there. Until I get the book, I will leave the rest for you to decide.

Gnip 12:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be even more worthwhile to check out Needhams's ultimate source, apparently a Taiwan publication: Lo JUNG-PANG (3). 'China's Paddle-Wheel Boats; the Mechanised Craft used in the Opium War and their Historical Background.' Chhing-Hua (T'sing Hua) Journal of Chinese Studies (New Series, publ. Thaiwan), 1960 (n.s.), 2 (no. I), 189 Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, why would you say that's the ultimate source? Also, I went to check out Needham's book for the translation. It's pretty much what I said. However, the "hua tsui" actually means spade-snout, which was commonly described as the front of the ship used to divide water to the two sides of the ship. I thought hua was used to describe the iron plate, but it's used to describe the "snout" of the ship. Basically, this should mean that iron plates were used at the "snout(front)" and flat sides of the ship. Again, it was hard to translate with only pinyin at your disposal. Page 300 gives the translation for "hua tsui". Also, in regard to your edits, in which you said

"paddle wheel ships not invented by Song (see De Rebus Bellicis); sheets of metal to ship undersides have nothing to do with ship armour (see fn. 4+5 above); establish chronological order", although you changed a little more than that.

First, I used source 18 for both the "ship preservation" passage as well as the Red Cliff example. Please don't delete that from "ship preservation", as I've seen you've replaced it with "citation needed". I never said that the Song invented paddle-ships, I said "with the invention of paddle-ships", the Song put iron-plating on their paddle-ships. Although sheets of metal to ship undersides do indeed have little to do with ship armour, they did help in how ship armour evolved, which was why I put it there. This was exactly how the passage was organized in regard to European ship armour, whose ship armour evolved evolved in much the same way. If you don't have a problem with that, why have a problem with this? Also, I would prefer you don't put "these ships were described by Joseph Needham to have its sides protected with iron plates", and replace it with "these ships were described to have its front and sides covered with iron plates". Unless if the current issue is under direct dispute with other authors, things such as "he says this" or "she says that" should be avoided. Also, it may be your opinion that the Turtle Ships lacked iron plates. No matter, when people do say it has iron plates, they are talking about a time period that preceded the iron Atakebune ships. Turtle ships should thus come first, before the Atakebune, that's just how most passages are organized. Gnip 1:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a "flat side" of the ship? The hull? Anyway, metal naval rams (your spade-snout) were a most common occurrence in mediterranean warfare since the days of Salamis, so no reason to get excited there. PS: You find on p. 688, footnote 13 the complete sentence written in the original ancient Chinese characters, not just Pinyin.

I cannot quite follow your reasoning on why the Korean ships should precede the Japanese ones in the chronology, even though (slender) evidence for metal-plating unquestionably occurs first in the later. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I translated everything crystal clear, Gun Powder Ma. Why do I sense you are pushing something? And why do I get a feeling that I predicted this happening before? Do you have misgivings about that deal we made in your talk page? I have read the Chinese characters. That's how I was able to get a better translation. I don't pull things out of thin air. I don't know where you're going with this. In fact, if you remember, I told YOU where the source is at, considering you weren't able to find it in the first place and assumed Needham didn't give a source. Did you even read my posts? And please, don't think too hard on my translations. I've made it clear that "flat sides" could also mean "outer coverings"? You don't even know Chinese and you are already second guessing and using selective translations. Also, I've said nothing about the Hai-Hu having the first "iron ram", I just translated that it had one. You're the one who asked me to translate, and now you're going on a tangent about the existence of iron rams in another continent, and saying how I "shouldn't get so excited". What are you getting at? Gnip 6:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please. I long agreed to keep the Needham line. But the investigation into his argument has strengthened my personal opinion that there is actually no much substance to the claim of it being an ironclad ship, since metal rams were offensive weapons and have nothing to do with the defensive armament. That leaves from a cloud of claims a single drop, that is two words about the supposedly armoured "flat side". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I predicted you would think that in your talk page, even before you saw my information. Gnip 12:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Turtle Ship

Gun Powder Ma, I thought I went over this. Why habitually delete Turnbull and Bak Hae Ill's sources? You've used them quite often when you were using them as a source "against" iron-plating on Turtle Ships. Why am I not surprised that when I exposed you as misrepresenting their claims, Turnbull and Bak's evidence for pro iron-plating gets deleted? Now you only allow Samuel and a little of Roh's books to be used as sources, who just happens to agree with your opinion. How convenient for you. Gnip 1:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not clinging to that particular version, but any change should make crystal-clear that all contemporary Korean sources are silent on iron-armour, including the supposed inventor himself, and that the hints in Japanese sources are few and ambiguous. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, we stick with your opinion and authors who agree with you. Nice way for staying neutral. Whether the evidence is there or not completely depends on how you interpret the source. You have obviously already made up your mind. Even with that attitude, how does that justify your deletion of Hideyoshi's requests for iron plates, used so that Japanese can counter Turtle ships "on its on terms"? Is such "ambiguous hints" already too much against your opinion? Why don't you let the reader decide? And, furthermore, you STILL use Turnbull's source to justify that there are "no evidence" for iron plating in Turtle ships. This is obviously a misrepresentation of Turnbull's views, and not in line with wikipedia rules regarding Verifiability. If Samuel Hawley's argument is so much better than other authors, then I'm sure that's what the reader will conclude even if you don't delete non-Hawley sources from the article. I know this is a novel idea, but think about it. Gnip 7:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right that Turnbull's brief mentioning of "iron plates" would comply to verifiabilty. But here again, I have yet to see a real linguistic analysis which gives the original Japanese words with a professional translation and interpretation. Turnbull's Osprey book certainly is not the place to look for that. For my taste, Turnbull is too careless about words and you certainly err that he advocates the view that the turtle ships were ironclad. Rather, his discussion moves in a zigzag course which betrays his unwillingness to come to any conclusion and, to no lesser extent, his lack of real insight into the topic. Hawley is much more precise and presents his views logically and unbiased. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly not the tune you were playing about Turnbull when you were misrepresenting his information as "against iron-plating" on Turtle Ships. If Samuel and Turnbull opinions were fliflopped, I doubt you'll pay Samuel so much attention. No matter, this is wikipedia. If you want to build the article in accordance with how YOU want it to be, according to YOUR opinion on which author is more reliable, then you should go make your own websight. Wikipedia is very clear that a source's prominence in the article depends on the prominence and popularity of the author. In this case, Turnbull and Samuel are equally prestigious. I've already went over this. I have my doubts about Turnbull, but just as equally about Samuel. There are much that I disagree on with the two of them, but I'm not bringing it into wikipedia. Can you say the same for yourself? And please, if you want to make the entire Turtle Ship passage to be sourced from Samuel only, then at least get rid of the part where you sourced Turnbull as against iron-plating. He's stance is somewhere from neutral to pro-ironcladding. Again, what we have here is against wiki rules on Verifiability. I'm not here to prove whether something existed in history. I'm here because I don't like seeing sources being watered down or outright deleted just because you don't like hearing what it says. Gnip 12:59, 11 March 2010

I think the way you try to give the turtle ships temporal precedence over the Japanese really tells a lot. What do you gain from it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad (why, this is certainly embarrassing). I thought the Atabakune were created after the iron-plated Turtle Ships, which led me to believe that the only reason you edited it before the Turtle Ships was because the existence of the Turtle Ship's iron plating was disputed. I'm going to change it more to your liking. Gnip 9:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here, the turtle ships were from the 1400s, the Atabakune were from the 1570s, at this point no one knows if they were iron plated. There are on and off mentions of iron in the 1400 ships and the Japanese ships but we don't know to what extent. Hideyoshi states he needs to counter the Korean iron-clad ship, so we know something with iron was happening in the 1590s. If in the 1570s Japanese ships already had iron plates why would Hideyoshi state this in the 1590s. And no one is sure how much iron was in the Korean ships of the 1400s. Everything is cloudy, but the turtle ships were from the 1400s. We need to put this in chronological order and let the readers decide on when/how much iron plates were used. --199.91.34.33 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the topic is ship armour, the chronology is established by the first possible appearance of the iron plates which is 1578 for the Atakebune and 1592 for the turtle ship. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a quote from the article I put in which show that Koreans really loved admiral Yi, but the ship was truely designed in the 1400s. No evidence that Admiral Yi actually came up with new design, other than Koreans wanting to give him credit because of his achievements in the war with Japan. So as it stands the iron were from the 1400s. When you edit, because you disagree with me that is fine but please don't delete the quotes or references, thanks --199.91.34.33 (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a note about the early history of the turtle ship. In fact, we do not know how it looked like then and a priori arguments about the nature of its decking can apply or not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ship armour as distinct from metal hull sheathing for conservational purposes

I think we have to draw a definite line here. These two techniques are totally unrelated. Ship armour serves for protection against missiles and shelling, whereas sheathing is to protect the hull from shipworms. The former is typically above the waterline (before the ironclad), the latter commonly below. Please note that there is plenty of archaelogical evidence for lead sheathing among Greek ships since the 3rd century BC (see Pre-industrial armoured ships#Evidence in Europe). The excavated Roman Nemi ships also featured a lead sheathed hull. But no author would dream of qualifying on these grounds the ships as armoured, and this also extends to similar Far Eastern techniques. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said the Chinese ship sheathing was considered armoured. I only said that's how they might have evolved into ship armour, as according to Turnbull's speculations. Did you read my posts? I went over this. Let me quote myself: "Although sheets of metal to ship undersides do indeed have little to do with ship armour, they did help in how ship armour evolved, which was why I put it there. This was exactly how the passage was organized in regard to European ship armour, whose ship armour evolved evolved in much the same way. If you don't have a problem with that, why have a problem with this?" I've bolded the important part for you this time, so you wouldn't miss it. Gnip 12:53, 11 March 2010

Why don't you keep the 1790s painting? It is the best evidence you have and would be in touch with the other paintings in the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the modern reconstruction looks better with the article. With the picture we have now, we would have both a 'photograph' of a turtle ship, and a 'contemporary painting' of an Atakebune. But if you would rather have two contemporary paintings I won't stop you. If you do happen to add the Turtle Ship painting, I might add a quote about Turnbull and Samuel's interpretations about the picture. Gnip 12:57, 16 March 2010

This whole article is turtle ship-related OR

I'm calling this article out as original research. The topic is based entirely on the unproven claim that the Korean turtle ship was a form of "early ironclad". It's a fringe theory that has been seriously addressed by scholars like Samuel Hawley (The Imjin War 2005, pages 193-199) and described as unsupported in contemporary evidence or any kind of physical remains. The idea of 16th century "ironclads" was a product of misinterpretation by Western scholars and Korean's who wanted to portray themselves as innovative at a time when they were viewed as backwards and inferior by the West.

I've written substantial amounts of content on pre-modern ships of war here on Wikipedia and I have never come across any modern scholarly sources that describe any form of "armor" in ships before the 19th century. The idea that ships before the 1800s would even benefit from metal plating is misconstrued and ignores how naval warfare actually worked.

I've also read Needham (1970) and my view is that he has based his conclusions on minimal historical evidence and outdated sources on European equivalents. His work actually contains outright errors, particularly when he compares Chinese and East Asian technology to its European equivalents. Much of his work is based on the notion that Chinese nautical engineering was somehow inherently superior, probably as a kind of counterpoint to how dismissive Europeans had been of Asians historically.

This article has little or no use since whatever minor theories about the prehistory of ironclads can just as well be covered in ironclad, ship armor or whatever. Peter ^Isotalo 20:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of this content got here due to turtle ship POV pushing. I routed some of it here and not ironclad because it was obscuring the focal point of that article with arguments about turtle ships. I still think this is a better place to have this content than ironclad, and ship armor is not an article. As long as we have references questioning the turtle ship theory, this content is reasonably covered in an encyclopedia entry. I am not clear on why you removed the western examples. Do you question the reliability of all of the refs used in that section? Armor does not have to be iron (or metal), and does not have to cover the ship completely to be of historical interest.Dialectric (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking again, i see we have Naval armour which could be a reasonable target to merge this content into.Dialectric (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The turtle ship theory is shaky at best. Claims about them being early ironclads goes back to outdated sources which have been addressed by modern historians. If you want to help out figuring that one out, you're welcome to help out over at talk:turtle ship. I am working on a rehaul of that article and I would very much appreciate not having to do it alone if POV-pushers start gathering.

Regarding the European examples in this article, everything goes back to just one single source in this article that tries to claim that there was pre-industrial armor: Meyer's Konversationslexikon. None of the article's other sources seem to describe "ship armor", especially not regarding sheathing which is super-obviously protection from wear and tear, not damage in battle. Peter ^Isotalo 08:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I managed to actually get access to Rudloff (1910), the only remotely reliable source here. The title of the article is "The introduction of armor in warship construction and the development of the first armored fleets". Rudolf starts off under the heading "The first attempts" and is very clear that by "armored fleets" (Panzerflotten), he's referring to late 19th and early 20th century fleets equipped with ships like the Gloire and Dreadnought. He used the term "Armoring" (Panzerung) and "unarmored" (ungepanzert) specifically when comparing ships like the Gloire vs contemporary wooden opponents.

What follows then are examples of attempts at "protection" (schütze) for a bunch of historical examples. At no point does he refer to these as "armored ships" or "ironclads" or anything like it. The only exception is the Finis Belli which he calls "the first armored ship" (erstes Panzershiff) and refers to Thurston who appears to have written about this in "The first iron-clad" in Cassier's Magazine in 1894. The article is about ironclads and after the sentence "This is the authentic history of the iron-clad of our day" follows what is essentially just "some people say" and references to Norse sagas.

So what we've got here is a situation where authors well over a century ago giving examples of various forms of ship protection, which they never called armor, and never directly equated with ironclads. Only a single vessel is called "the first ironclad", and that claim is clearly said to be vague and rather speculative.

I would insist that precursors to genuine ship armor are only interesting to note briefly as introductions to ironclad and ship armor. This article has been allowed to fester like a POV fork instead of simply dealing with the matter in serious articles. Peter ^Isotalo 17:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Redirect

While working on the article, I discovered that virtually all content here was already duplicated over at ship armour. Regardless of the factual discussion, I don't see any virtue in separating this article from ship armour. It's very clear to me that people are trying to pile on content based on their own interpretation of what is or isn't seen as "armor". Peter ^Isotalo 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)