FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176  
177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   >>   >|  
weather beam. The other ships ahead of her were likewise too much crowded together." As the ship on the _London's_ weather beam could not fire upon the enemy unless she drew ahead, this condition probably accounts for the flagship being again hove-to, while firing, as Hood says that she was. The signal for the line was hauled down again at 4.27, by the _London's_ log, that for close action being up, and repeated at 5.20, when Hood (h) at last bore down with his division (h'), but the French ships bearing up also, he did not near them. Firing ceased shortly after sunset. The loss of the British was 90 killed, 246 wounded; that of the French is given only in round numbers, as about 200 killed and wounded. Hood's statement introduces certain important qualifications into the above account:-- "Our centre began to engage at the same time as the van, at four, but at a most _improper_ distance, and our rear, being barely within random shot, did not fire while the signal for the line was flying. The _London_ had the signal for close action flying, as well as the signal for the line ahead at _half a cable_ was under her topsails, with the main topsail to the mast,[99] though the enemy's ships were pushing on." As showing the improper distance at which the _London_ brought-to to fire, he says:-- "The second ship astern of her (of the _London_) received but trifling damage, and the third astern of her received no damage at all, which most clearly proves [at] how much too great a distance was the centre division engaged." The day after the action Hood made a memorandum of his criticisms upon it, which has been published. The gist of this is as follows. As the French stood out, their line was not regular or connected. The van was much separated from the centre and rear, and it appears also, from the French narratives, that it was to windward of the rest of the fleet. From these causes it was much exposed to be attacked unsupported. There was, by Hood's estimate, "a full hour and a half to have engaged it before any of the rear could have come up." The line of battle on the port tack, with the then wind, was east and west, and Graves had first ranged his fleet on it, as the French were doing; but afterwards, owing to his method of approach, by the van bearing down and the other ships following in its wake, the two lines, instead of being parallel, formed an angle, the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176  
177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
London
 

French

 

signal

 
action
 
centre
 
distance
 

division

 

flying

 

wounded

 

killed


improper
 
bearing
 

astern

 

received

 

damage

 

weather

 

engaged

 

narratives

 

regular

 

criticisms


separated
 

appears

 

memorandum

 
connected
 

proves

 
published
 
method
 

ranged

 

Graves

 

approach


parallel

 

formed

 
attacked
 
unsupported
 

exposed

 
estimate
 

battle

 

windward

 

Firing

 

ceased


shortly

 

sunset

 
British
 

condition

 
likewise
 
crowded
 

accounts

 

flagship

 
repeated
 

hauled