Indian Naval History Thread

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3482
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby Aditya G » 13 Mar 2015 22:47

Excellent photo essay on the Leander class in the Navy.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercia ... putra.html

I finally knew the difference between the various classes including our derivative designs (Project-16)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby Philip » 20 Mar 2015 13:22

Unfortunately.almost all the naval officers who joined the IN first in the RN as midshipmen are no more. These senior officers of the IN developed the ethos of the IN and raised its std. beyond expectation.The excellent indigenous warship shipbuilding commencing with the Nilgiri/Leander deisgns,further modified/upgraded into the G class and B class and then even with the Rajput/Kashins into the Delhi class is exceptional. As a former senior officer of that era told me,"we combined the finest traditions of the RN with the firepower of Russian warships and evolved our own strategies and tactics...",best put to use in '71 in the raids on Karachi. Adm. Gorshkov,legendary chief of the Soviet Navy,danced a jig when he heard of our exploits at Karachi and embraced our officers when he later visited India.He told my friend,"you boys have taught us new tricks".This chappie was mainly responsible for planning the raids. I remember one New Year's eve when he had consumed a huge amount and was in a v.jolly mood.I thought that it was now that I could glean some info about our exploits and current capabilities.He looked at me like a wise old owl who had spotted a Paki spy and said "you'll get nothing out of my mouth that is classified!" Even after consuming a bottle of rum,he refused to reveal any details of his exploits in '65 and '71.

That generation were great innovators.Fortunately the tradition still lives on as we can see with our warship designs,but has experienced recent well-known problems thanks to MOD neglect of the navy,the "Cinderella " of the services.But how the IN's founding officer corps managed to do so much in the past with so little is simply amazing.'71 was a revelation.

Another chief explained to me in detail the creation of shipbuilding capability,Leanders,G class,etc., and was immensely proud of the "corps of naval constructors" as they were then called. What distinguished that generation was their ethos, esprit-de-corps and high level of training,something that appears to have gone down in recent times,esp. with regard to shiphandling ,surprising,as warships have got more sophisticated and with miniaturisation in the digital age,many tasks are easier to operate/handle with greater automation. To give you a taste of the character of that gen.,here is a gem of a story.

There was a feisty Cdr. who served as chief engr. on both Mysore and Delhi,whose daughter was a famous ,gorgeous model.He took no sh*t from anyone,admirals included. INS Mysore had just sailed into the docks for a v.quick turnaround,and there was a huge logistic chain of eqpt.,etc. waiting dockside to be loaded. This officer was then in charge of the docks. A snooty admiral chose to visit the dockyard at this time without warning and parked his staff car adjacent to Mysore and disappeared,his car a major hindrance to the urgent operations taking place. Our worthy Cdr. fuming at this act affecting the ops,acted swiftly.He new his rulebook to a "T". He took charge personally of a dockyard crane (he knew how to operate almost any type of machinery),lifted the admiral's car and placed it on the roof of one of the buildings!

When the admiral returned and saw what had happened,he exploded with anger,blew his top and charged off to the admiral in command of the Western Fleet demanding that the officer responsible be charged and put in irons.When the admiral heard who the officer was,he is supposed to have blurted out.." That bl**dy bugger? Forget it,even I won't touch him with a bargepole!" He was a great friend of mine whom I used to meet regularly until his death a few years ago.Mad as a hatter was he,but respected like few others in the navy. A few years ago there was a reunion at Cochin,where the founders of the base/ASW school were feted.He and another senior officer/friend said that they enjoyed putting through its paces a Talwar FFG,very impressed with the ship.

There is also this famous story about Adm.Ronnie Pereira,the IN's most loved chief,who was about to retire.Mrs.G who was very fond of him wanted to reward him with a post-retirement job,governor,ambassador,etc. When she asked him what he wanted,he apologetically asked for an out of turn allotment for a Bajaj scooter! Mrs. G almost fell off her chair with disbelief.When she told him that he as chief could even requisition a car if he wanted,he said "Prime Minister,how can I do anything to benefit myself?" He got his Bajaj scooter,almost died from a major accident when riding on it in BLR ,lost his hearing in one ear and then moved to the Nilgiris where he built a small house.He sold his BLR house for a song as he refused to take a paisa in black.That half-acre property is now worth crores.

Another fine chief was Adm.Stan Dawson,the architect of "Project Seabird" the Karwar naval base. remembering the details of an exercise in those parts when he was a young officer,he inspirationally drew up plans for it to be the new naval base on the west coast to relieve Bombay which was getting increasingly congested and vulnerable to Paki attack. He graced a BRF get-together at the BLR Club as chief guest during one of the previous air shows. He also served as our HC to New Zealand after retirement.

The IN has produced some v.fine officers and gentlemen,truly giants.The tribute to V.Adm.Rusi Gandhi recently said it all.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3482
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby Aditya G » 03 Apr 2015 13:26

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 01898.html

June 1981 issue

Image
A Bangladesh gunboat approaches INS Sandhyak

Image

Baitul Mukarram Square, at the centre of the new Dacca city, is a sprawling oriental chowk in the shadow of one of Asia's largest mosques. It is also the city's traditional venue for political demagogy, which again is about the only item not in short supply in the anxiety-ridden, semi-neurotic environment of Bangladesh.

Last fortnight, buntings, festoons and streamers - all spewing venom at India - overhung the square as leaders of a string of political parties, big and small, ranted against the republic's (population: 87 million) western neighbour. The rallies were held each evening for ten days in succession.

The call of the holy muezzin from the giant steps of the mosque, rising and falling like a snake-charmer's tune, provided an eerie backdrop to the tirades. The latest upturning of public bile was caused by India's sending her men and ships to New Moore Island - known here as "South Talpatly" island - a tiny (2 sq miles at high tide), crescent-shaped patch of sand and slush in the Bay of Bengal just off the Indo-Bangladesh land boundary. The island sprang up as late as 1971, presumably as a result of the great tidal bore of 1970.

Dispute: The Dacca authorities came to know about the island in 1978, four years after India had detected it, and a year after the British Admiralty charts had shown it as Indian territory. Bangladesh claimed it to be her own from the day its existence was known to her, though the Indian ownership had become a fait accompli by then.


The diplomatic tug-of-war over the island continued between the two countries for over two years, during which India agreed to exchange scientific data but never promised - as Bangladesh has later claimed - to carry out a joint survey. However, the Hash-point came last fortnight when an Indian survey ship, INS Sandhayak, painted white and carrying a lot of surveying equipment but only nominal arms, was challenged by three Bangladeshi gunboats, Baishakhali, Patuakhali and Noakhali, charging in full-tilt with guns manned. Prior to that, Sandhayak had anchored off the island as early as April 17.

While volleys of diplomatic fire were exchanged between Dacca and New Delhi over the incident, and India was forced to land troops on the island, the Dacca authorities whipped up a systematic campaign against India through either the directly-owned or the controlled media.

Indian sailors relaxing on the islandRave headlines, composed in three inch high wooden types, showered curses on India for its "naked aggression". The three government-owned newspapers ran inspired editorials and news items castigating India, and made it a point to front-page any statement issued against it.

In Dacca, which is otherwise a relaxed city where unlike in Calcutta, crowds do not gather at the drop of a hat, anti-Indian processions were brought out almost everyday. Blustering against the "Delhi dacoits", a young speaker at a rally organised by the far-rightist Democratic League said last fortnight: "That city (Delhi) we ransacked 17 times in the past. We came in through the Khyber Pass then. Now we can go from the east."

At least two political parties, including the youth wing of the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), burnt effigies of Prime Minister Mrs Gandhi last week on the streets of Dacca. The Indian High Commission complex at Dhanmandi wore the look of a fortress under siege. City policemen in khaki-and-blue uniforms milled outside the building, while its high iron gates were perpetually closed. During daytime, waves of demonstrators shouted slogans outside the chancery and, on occasions, pelted it with brickbats.

The ruling party chief in the National Assembly, Shah Azizur Rahman, tabled a government motion which called upon the Indian Government to remove its men and material from New Moore Island and to go in for a joint survey. However, the Speaker allowed a full day's discussion on a stronger Muslim League motion on June 27, when Khan lashed out at India with the choicest invectives, alleging that a destroyer was anchored at Raimangal (a Bangladesh river), and that the Indian Navy had installed "radars" in his country's territory, Khan reminded an appreciative House that "the entire Muslim world is behind Bangladesh". Amid incessant clapping, Khan said that till the resolution of the New Moore Island dispute, Bangladesh should boycott all Indian goods and cancel all mutual exchange treaties.

Doubtful Claim: However, the Bangladesh argument in defence of its claim to New Moore Island wears thin in the face of facts. In short, Dacca claims it to be Bangladesh territory by an odd twist of logic which tends to extend the internal boundary between the two countries along a conveniently angled straight line that stretches right into the bay. The island is clearly in the bay and not within the internal waters of either of the countries.

The lndo-Pakistan border in the estuarine swamp jungles of the Sunderbans, the home of the celebrated Royal Bengal tiger, was part of the Radcliffe Award in 1947 between the two districts of 24 Parganas and Khulna, the former falling under West Bengal while the latter went to the erstwhile East Pakistan.

In delimiting the boundary, Radcliffe was clearly guided by a British-Indian gazette notification (Calcutta Gazette: no. 964 JUR of January 25, 1925), which identified the southernmost boundary between 24 Parganas and Khulna as the midstream of the river Haribhanga "till it meets the Bay".

However, the bay, for all practical purposes, begins at the line joining the tips of the main landmasses of the two countries. New Moore is nearly two kilometres on the south of this "Radcliffe line". As the Indian External Affairs Ministry rightly pointed out, it could thus not be guided by the Radcliffe Award.

The basis of the Indian claim is the median line principle which is a popular tool used in maritime delimitations. The median (or equidistant) line is drawn along points plotted on the sea which would be equidistant from outermost tips of the land territories of the contending countries. Thus, if the median line is drawn southwards from the "Radcliffe line", New Moore will fall to its west, thus making it an Indian island.

The Catch-22 strikes here, because Dacca does not accept the median line concept between adjacent countries. Talking to India Today, a Bangladesh foreign office source cited the famous World Court judgement in 1959 on the North Sea case concerning the Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands and Denmark, in which it was said that the equidistant line was "not a principle in international law but merely a method".

However, by applying the median line principle, India has already delimited her territorial waters with those of Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Such delimitations are pending only with Bangladesh, Burma and Pakistan. Said a spokesman of the External Affairs Ministry: "The median line principle has led to delimitation of territorial waters between different countries in 95 per cent of the cases and between adjacent countries in 65 per cent of the cases. Why then should it not be regarded at least as an international convention?" Dacca officials do not dispute these figures but insist on the fact that the law of the sea is still in a nebulous slate and no convention has clearly emerged.

Protest demonstration at Dacca's Baitul Square: Spewing venom"Out of 180 river basins in the world, bilateral agreements have come off only in the case of 77," said one. The Bangladesh hostility to the median line principle dates back to the maritime talks in 1974, when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the former leader, was alive. Even during the 1974 talks, Dacca argued that it would not accept the mechanical application of a principle. "We want equity, not equidistance." it said.

Real Worry: What is upsetting the Bangladeshi mind? It is clearly not the issue of ownership of the island alone, which during high tides, occupies only 0.66 square miles. Buried under heaps of legalistic polemics is the fear in Dacca that, after gaining control over New Moore. India might begin to draw the median line with the outermost tip of the island as its next point of reference.

In that case, though the line will deflect just by a few degrees (its distance from the Indian coast is only 5.2 kilometres as against 7.5 kilometres from the nearest Bangladesh coast), spread over a continental shelf of 200 miles. New Delhi's actual gain of the seabed will be in the region of 16,000 square miles. "Frankly, we don't know how much of hydrocarbons and protein food are trapped there," said an anxious Bangladesh foreign office spokesman.

The first person to bring the existence of "South Talpatty" island to the notice of Dacca was Rear-Admiral (retd) M. H. Khan, the mercurial former chief of the Bangladesh Navy who, along with the President Ziaur Rahman, formed the trinity of martial law-administrators after the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975. A virulent critic of President Zia for his "failure to defend the sovereignty of Bangladesh", the admiral now harbours political ambitions.

Said Khan: "By gaining control of South Talpatty, the actual seabed that India will grab may be as large as 40,000 square miles. It will make the Bangladeshi port of Chalna inoperational, and throw a cordon around our maritime freedom besides robbing us of our due share of the submarine resources." He slammed hard at President Zia for his failure to "arrest" the three Indian ships (Sandhayak, INS Andamans and a small landing craft), which, he said, "was well within our means".
d
The Bangladesh foreign office, however, does not share Khan's assessment of the country's naval might. Said a source: "I wish Delhi told its people that the so-called gunboats had their frail bodies built in the small yard at Naraingunj whereas ins Andamans is a Petya class frigate with helicopter landing facilities and even the landing craft has 18 tubes which can fire 144 mm missiles."

Demonstrators shouting outsied the Indian High Commission at DaccaThe foreign office is also worked up over the fact that "a few hundred" people have already landed at the island. "The men are in uniform and are heavily armed. They have planted an antenna, from which the tri-colour Indian flag flutters," said the spokesman.

In Dacca, officials often misconstrue a statement made by the former prime minister, Morarji Desai, during his visit in April 1979, to suggest that he had agreed on a joint survey of the island. What Desai had actually promised was to exchange data, period. "To agree on a joint survey would have compromised our claim to the island, which was indubitable," said an official in New Delhi, putting a final seal on the issue with his officials. In August 1980, however, P.V. Narasimha Rao, the Union external affairs minister visited Dacca and ratified the previous understanding.

The joint communique regarding New Moore Island stated: "After study of additional information exchanged between the two governments further discussion would take place with a view to settling it (the dispute) at an early date." Thus, Rao loo left room for "exchange of information," but not for a joint survey.

However, Dacca clearly states that it does not trust "unilateral" information supplied by the Indian authorities. "We don't trust your figures just as much as you don't trust our figures," said a source in Dacca. It huffily rejected a set of figures regarding draft and seabed morphology of the areas adjoining New Moore, as dug up by INS Sandhayak.

Further Complication: Meanwhile, a new complication was added to the scenario when in March last year the West Bengal Government began putting out reports that a new island had been found. The state Government named it Purbasha, a poetic name though, rather confusingly, it meant "the hope of the east" (Calcutta wags commented that it should have been named the hope of the west).

Dacca immediately thought that it was a second island that had been found, and began referring to the "new island(s)" in its subsequent notes. In October last year, Bangladesh produced a set of satellite pictures which showed a white glowing spot in the vicinity of New Moore. The pictures were obtained by commissioning the US-controlled Earth Resources Tracking Satellite (ERTS).

Wajed leaving Calcutta for Dacca: Gaining political momentliumIndia produced a different set of satellite pictures which did not show the white spot, and thus concluded that it was a cloud shadow which the Bangladeshis had mistaken for a new island. "New Moore Island is the one and only island in that region," said an External Affairs Ministry spokesman in New Delhi.

The fact that Bangladesh does not accept this simple explanation provides a measure of the distrust of India prevalent there. Said a foreign office source: "Our navy is convinced that there is another island. We don't want to be taken for a ride." According to Bangladesh sources, INS Sandhayak was first spotted "in our territorial waters" on May 9. The two Bangladeshi boats, which spotted the survey ship, sent radio messages to the naval headquarters at Chittagong, 300 miles away. The information was relayed to Dacca on May 10. The next day, Bangladesh sent a protest note to India which was delivered in New Delhi through diplomatic channels.

Slow Reply: The Bangladesh foreign office complains that this note of May 11 was replied to by New Delhi as late as May 15, "though the letter bore the date of May 13". Meanwhile, the Deputy High Commissioner for Bangladesh in New Delhi had been summoned by the External Affairs Ministry where a note verbale had been delivered cautioning Dacca against the "menacing and provocative postures" struck by its ships. On May 13, India issued an aide memoire repeating the same charges. "But our charges, as contained in the note of May 11, had still not been replied to," complain Bangladesh officials.

As the Indian reply finally came in on May 15, delivered by hand to the Bangladesh High Commission in the Indian capital, Dacca claims it was peeved by this "inordinate delay". The next day, it sent two reply notes, both delivered in New Delhi (bypassing, surprisingly, the Indian High Commissioner in Dacca, Muchkund Dubey), which said:

"South Talpatty" (there is a Bangladesh island north of New Moore by the name of Talpatty: hence the patriotic nomenclature) and the adjoining territorial waters belong to Bangladesh. So, the Indian action amounted to violation of Bangladesh's territorial rights.
If it was really India's intention to collect information on hydrography around "South Talpatty", it would have been logical for her to at least let Bangladesh know about it in advance.
That it is India which landed troops at "South Talpatty", and not Bangladesh. Therefore, it is India which carried out a provocative act.
India, in its reply, rejected the charges by reiterating its claim to the island and stressing that "at no point of time" did the Indian vessels cross into Bangladeshi waters. But, obviously, the core of the problem lies in Bangladesh's refusal to accept the median line principle. On the contrary, Dacca is trying to sell the idea that the trench of the Haribhanga into the bay should be the boundary between the two countries.

This is decidedly to its advantage, because the Haribhanga trench, as distinctly visible from colour pictures taken from satellites (muddy river waters draw a long saffron pencil across the blue sea waters), is pushed as far west as possible by the thrust of the swirling waters of the mighty Bangladesh river, Raimangal.

It is interesting to note that the tangled river system of the two Bengals forms a knot at the mouth of the bay and injects water and silt down a 3,000-mile-long submarine trench known - lyrically - as the "swatch of no ground". In future months, the "swatch" may turn out to be the hotbed of international intrigue, with super power satellites arming the contending countries with newer and newer information.

Suspicious Timing: However, the New Moore controversy marks a new phase in the abrupt, unpredictable, and melodramatic political developments in Bangladesh. As the Indian side has rightly pointed out, the Dacca authorities went to town on the island issue on a date which - by a happenstance - coincides with the return of Sheikh Hasina Wajed, the daughter of Sheikh Mujib and the newly-elected president of the Bangladesh Awami League after six years in exile.

Wajed returned to Dacca on May 17, the day the news of "South Talpatty" was all over the Bangladesh press. Even earlier, the Dacca Government had been building up an anti-India campaign in anticipation of Wajed's return. This is apparent from a sampling of headlines in the government-owned Bangladesh Times:

"Delhi wants to install a stooge in Bangladesh" (May 14)
"A bird sheltered under the wings of Indira Gandhi" (May 15)
"Bitter campaign launched against Bangladesh" (May 16)
"Weak neighbours being forced to accept Indian diktat" (May 17)
"Indian actions designed to hurt Bangladesh" (May 18)
As early as March, Dainik Desh, the daily organ of the ruling BNP, put out a story which linked an Indian diplomat in Dacca with covert operations involving a leading light of the Awami League. The report aimed at an Awami League leader, hinting that he was present at a party hosted by the Indian diplomat where an action plan of the League was drawn up. In reality, no political leader was present at the party, which was attended only by a couple of American diplomats.

However, this trumped-up charge, even though the Indian High Commission had objected to it, became the subject of a call-attention motion in the parliament. The Foreign Ministry transferred it to the Home Ministry, and the home minister said he would submit a "full report", thus hoping to draw the maximum propaganda mileage out of it.

The target of the propaganda blitz is Wajed. Six years ago, her father and architect of the republic. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, along with his wife and other members of the family, were gunned down at their Dhanmandi residence following a barrack-room uprising. Riding its crest. President Zia eventually came to power.

Wajed, who was given political asylum in India, got elected chief in absentia of the 12-member presidium of the Awami League. She flew back to Dacca on May 17 to be received by a record crowd. The same evening, she addressed the largest gathering in Dacca ever since the days of the liberation from a dais lit with petromax lamps, as the power supply had broken down following the season's first nor'wester, which lashed the crowd at 65 m.p.h. Since then, Wajed made rapid advances and undertook a whirlwind tour of her home district, Faridpur, including a sentimental journey to Tungipara, where her father had been buried. Wherever she went, she drew large crowds who wept with her.

President Zia, obviously unnerved, is looking for allies in a political milieu which is vitiated by the outgrowth of poisonous weeds. He is confronted with a Hobson's choice between the populist but irresponsible Jatiyo Samjatantrik Dal (JSD), the pan-Islamic Muslim League of Khan A. Sabur, the fundamentalist Jamat-e-Islami, and the Democratic League of Khandakar Mushtaque Ahmed, which is rabidly anti-Indian - the only few parties to have the semblance of a mass-base - beside the ultra-right elements in his own BNP.

It is a vain search, because all of these men want to tear President Zia into pieces. As the shadow of Wajed's Awami League lengthens, a new dividing fence cuts across Bangladesh. Only the President does not know which is its right side.


We secured New Moore island in Op Starling. Navy landed BSF troops there.

This maritime issue between India and Bangladesh today stands dissolved along with the island.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby ramana » 15 Sep 2015 02:29

http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99nov2 ... /head7.htm



When Britain tried to keep the Andamans
A slice of history
By K.R.N. Swamy

ONE of the onerous tasks the Indian Navy has to perform is to guard the trade routes and strategic ports of the peninsular India. The way China and the USA have bracketed our country with Chinese electronic, surveillance stations in the Cocos islands in the Bay of Bengal and the US atomic weapon outpost in the Da Garcia island in the Indian Ocean has made it doubly necessary for us to be alert. In the context, it is interesting to note that the British had planned to separate the Lakshadweep Islands and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands from Independent India! And what’s more, Pakistan had claimed the islands!

In 1947, as the final days of the British Raj in India approached, the imperialists were keen to sabotage the emergence of a strong India. From the confidential records of the British Government released a few years ago, we are able to piece together the drama behind those crucial days. The chiefs of staff of the British army examined the question of keeping their hold over parts of India, which were not in the mainland. The report dated June 13, 1947, by the Joint Planning Staff of the British Army stated: "The Lakshadweep Islands, which are sparsely inhabited coral strips, assume strategic importance from the airport of view if we cannot retain all the facilities we require in India. In such circumstances they would be essential for our air reinforcement and the support route to Australia, New Zealand and the Far East. British Navy cannot use the islands as they are only open anchorages. If we cannot assume that the successor states in India will give us these facilities then we will have to rely on Ceylon, provided we can exclude the Andaman and Nicobar Islands from the transfer of power". The same day, the Indian and Burma Committee of the British cabinet considered the report of the chiefs of staff. In their minutes they stated, "The claim by Pandit Nehru is that Hindustan will automatically succeed to the position of India as an international entity... and Pakistan is merely a seceding minority".

They added, "This claim, is naturally enough, contested by Mr Jinnah!" Sure enough on July 5, 1947, Jinnah wrote to the secretary of state for India. "Clause 2 of the India Independence Bill allots Andaman and Nicobar Islands to the Dominion of India. These islands have never formed subject of discussion or agreement between parties any time. Their sudden inclusion in India raises a very grave issue. They are not part of India, historically or geographically. They were British possessions administered by Government of India and are not in the same category as other chief commissioner’s provinces, being reserved to Governor General under Constitution Act of 1935. Majority of population consists of tribes who are not connected with peoples of India by ethnical, religious or cultural ties. Pakistan’s claim to these islands is very strong since the only channel of communication between eastern and western Pakistan is by sea and, these islands occupy important strategic position on sea routes and provide refuelling bases. Dominion of India has no such claim. They should form part of Pakistan."

By August 4, 1947, the Government of Australia also wanted to know if the Andamans and Nicobar Islands would be retained by the British as "full consideration could be given to the vital concerns of Australia". Keeping back Andamans and Nicobars would be particularly useful against an aggressor which was "strong in land but weak in sea and airpower." Australia felt that the minimum Britain could do, if they could not retain the islands, was to secure long term leases for naval and air facilities. But Lord Mountbatten, the Viceroy and Governor General of India, felt that "there could be no question of raising this controversial subject at the present delicate stage of our political negotiations. It was a matter on which Indians felt deeply. Any attempt by His Majesty’s Government to separate the islands from India would probably provoke violent opposition from all parts of India". Faced with his opposition, the chiefs of staff requested the British cabinet to see if Britain could secure its defence requirements by negotiation by pointing out that Burmese interests in the strategic area of the Indian Ocean might be recognised by a tripartite agreement for the strategic use of the islands. They wanted to ensure that on the day of India‘s Independence, the islands should not become part of free India, but should be governed by a commissioner under the Governor General of India till agreement was reached about their future disposal. It was opined that the Governor General should tell the Indian leaders that the islands would belong to the two new dominions jointly pending agreement.

In due course, Lord Mountbatten sounded Pandit Nehru informally on the subject — namely lease by India to Britain of these islands for communication purposes. He reported on July 19 that he had spoken to Nehru, who was quite friendly, and had said that there was no objection to an official approach being made, though he could not commit himself until all implications had been considered. Following this talks, an official request to make the proposed arrangements was sent to Government of India, who agreed to it "without prejudice". But soon it became apparent to the British government that they would lose not only the Andaman and Nicobar Islands but also the goodwill of the renascent India if they persisted in the matter and the proposals were quietly dropped.


As far as the Lakshadweep Islands were concerned, it was found that as they formed part of the Madras Presidency, and they would become part of India on August 15, 1947. But still the islands were not safe. It is said that during the last days of the British in India, Sardar Patel, the Indian Home Minister, made arrangements for a frigate of the Indian Navy to be anchored at the capital island of the Lakshadweeps on Independence Day. Soon after the Indian Naval ship reached there, another frigate —a Pakistani one — appeared on the horizon.... Jinnah was not slow to plan to take over this 100 per cent Muslim populated district of Madras Presidency from India! But seeing that India had already taken over the island, the Pakistani naval vessel left the place quickly. — MFback

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby ramana » 30 Dec 2015 21:51

Philip,

Indian merchant seamen in UK during WWII

http://swarajyamag.com/culture/book-exc ... rs-at-sea/

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 25 Jan 2016 15:17

nileshjr wrote:
tsarkar wrote:I wish ADA/HAL takes the aircraft, especially two seaters, to stations across India and give fighter pilots a feel of its capabilities. Today, a handful of pilot know its actual capabilities, and most opinion is formed by the negative media reports.
+1000. Great idea. As the oft-repeated old quote (can't remember whose) on this forum goes - Those who fly LCA, swear by it and those who deride it have never actually flown it.

Those who're familiar with the services would know that information is given on a need to know basis. So how Tejas actually performs is not very well know to the pilot community. Their source of information is the mass media, that we know is biased & agenda driven.

In addition, indigenous equipment developed and manufactured in the last century, was not very robust & reliable, because of which a negative mindset prevails, and such roadshows would dispel the mindset.

Here is a real life story on mindset.

Among the initial responders to the Taj attack on 26-11 was Marine Commando then-Lt. Commander X & his sailor buddy, a diver. In order to hunt the terrorists, their two man pair took up the painstaking job of clearing hotel rooms. Normally they train to clear oil rigs and ships of terrorists & pirates, that have few large compartments, with the surrounding seas secured by own ships/boats. A hotel is like a beehive with thousands of rooms with terrorists running between rooms. No layout was available in initial hours. The terrorists had prepared positions, due to Headley's recce, and detected the pair first. The terrorists fired first, hitting X in his thigh.

Regardless of the injury, X instinctively took cover and lobbed a grenade. On seeing them take cover, the well trained terrorists simultaneously lobbed a grenade. X's grenade landed among the terrorists. Terrorist's grenade landed next to X. Neither grenade exploded. One manufactured by IOF & other by POF.

X vehemently curses IOF whenever narrating his story, saying more lives could've been saved, and terrorists could've been killed earlier if the grenade worked. Now, there are many reasons for grenades not working other than poor design or manufacturing, like improper storage.

However, X's mindset is set that indigenous products don't work. And those who hear his story get the same impression.

Hence the imperative to take Tejas to the pilots to form their mindset and opinion.

manjgu wrote:tsarkar..by structure frame u mean the skeleton of the ship on which plates are welded??

Yes
Image

Primary (1), Secondary (2), and Tertiary (3) structural analysis of a ship hull. Depicted internal components include a watertight bulkhead (4) at the primary and secondary level, the ship's hull bottom structure including keel, keelsons, and transverse frames between two bulkheads (5) at the secondary level, and transverse frames (6), longitudinal stiffeners (7), and the hull plating (8) at the tertiary level.


As you can see, the hull plating contributes to the strength at a tertiary level.

Infact, the side of the ship is called a shell, and making it thicker does not contribute to the strength of a ship.

manjgu wrote:any link on this subject ??
This is widely available on the internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_of_ships

manjgu wrote:what is the importance/advantage of a pilot knowing his planes AoA of his plane in flight? does this not come instinctively to a pilot as to the limits of what a plane can do...

No, flying by the seat of pants or sailing by instinct is very poor judgment. It leads to spatial disorientation. Very elaborate description of Spatial Disorientation by FAA http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilots ... atiald.pdf

Statistics show that between 5 to 10% of all general aviation accidents can be attributed to spatial disorientation, 90% of which are fatal.


Seat of pants flying can be fatal in combat. There is a type of kill called maneuver kill, wherein you either force your opponent to lose control, or he inadvertently loses control, like here

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ce/307291/

The Iraqi pilot, no doubt hearing an alarm telling him that an F‑15 had locked him in its radar, attempted a classic split‑S maneuver, which is the quickest way to reverse direction in the air. Flying parallel to the ground, he flipped his aircraft upside down and then attempted to fly a half circle, diving down, pulling up, and leveling off to head in the opposite direction. It was the right escape maneuver for an altitude of at least 5,000 feet, but the pilot, in his alarm and haste, neglected to compute one vital bit of data: he was only 600 feet up. He flew his jet straight into the desert floor.

“He had lost his situational awareness,” Rodriguez explained. “He was trying to perform a maneuver that he can do comfortably at 5,000 or 10,000 feet, and doesn’t realize that the fight, which started at 8,000 feet, had degraded and degraded closer to the desert floor.


SaiK wrote:tsarkar ji, thanks.. but one small pooch, what is that 'no-go zone'? does it mean one can't do all 360* direction but say only 270 or you can't do a reverse thrust?

When the angle of attack is zero, the aircraft wing does not generate lift.

Similarly sails do not generate lift when heading directly into the wind.

As explained in that diagram, one goes close hauled at a slight angle to the wind, then tacks or turns in the opposite heading.

Something as shown below


\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/

Cain Marko wrote:Amazing post tsarkar sahab, great anecdotes too. So would it be possible to figure out aoa if there was a Windsock in the picture?

CMji, Nilesh has explained it. To add, if there was a windsock on the ground, with roads and poles for horizontal & vertical Cartesian reference and to create an orthographic projection, and if the relative wind was horizontal, and there was no use of elevons for pitch, then possibly we could’ve calculated geometrically.

Looking at the AoA sensor vane is a better idea, provided one knows where to draw the x-axis.

sanjaykumar wrote:Absolutely fabulous post tsarkar. However, using vectors in sailing would be intuitive with experience and not a monopoly of Europeans.

Sanjay, agree that he knowledge would’ve been intuitive. However, the knowledge if not documented or passed on or continuously honed is quickly lost.

On Documentation, None of our scripts have significant sailing matter, nor are concepts of Points of Sail, like close haul, close reach, beam reach, broad reach & run are documented anywhere in any Hindu or Arab writings.

I’ve frequent interactions with the Koli community in Maharashtra. Points of sail are not part of their historical knowledge. They do not know it unless taught.

Admittedly I consider my sample size miniscule, but this knowledge is not documented anywhere in our scripts or in communal knowledge.

Secondly, does the ship rigging reflect this using this knowledge?

Most old Indian ships as shown below use a lateen sail. A triangular sail hung from the mast.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... r_ship.JPG

The Borobudur Ship is the best representation of a historial Indian ship that I’ve found.

Newer Indian ships as documented by the Europeans are the Dinghy & Batella. These ships carried War Elephants from Sri Lanka.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oBqFdVZgFmU/S ... nghie.jpeg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oBqFdVZgFmU/S ... tella.jpeg

Kanhoji Angre used similar ships called Ghurab & Gallivat

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... scroll.jpg

The yardarm (the boom on the mast) used to hang the sail is very difficult to move or align.

The lower boom, that ties the bottom part of the sail, allows the ability to align and move the sails much more quickly. The lower boom came with European square rigging. The European rigs have the ability to quickly align to the wind using ropes on the deck.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ckling.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sail-plan

Compare the sail plan of European ships with Indian ships. So even of the knowledge was there, no one tried to leverage horsepower out of the wind like the Europeans did, nor did they make the rigging easier to handle or quicker to align.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9877
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 25 Jan 2016 15:38

Out of topic. But did not Cholas has huge naval fleets? Even Vijayanagara seems to have them. No details are available of their knowledge and expertise.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 25 Jan 2016 15:47

so it seems neither the arabs or the indians got to making the huge several hundred tons euro galleons and warships that could cross the oceans. they featured a high deck and large numbers of gun ports. later on these were surpassed in speed and size by the "clippers"

these were built for speed and carried a lot of sail...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper
The last China clippers were acknowledged as the fastest sail vessels. When fully rigged and riding a tradewind, they had peak average speeds over 16 knots (30 km/h). The Great Tea Race of 1866 showcased their speed. China clippers are also the fastest commercial sailing vessels ever made. Their speeds have been exceeded many times by modern yachts, but never by a commercial sail vessel. Only the fastest windjammers could attain similar speeds.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windjammer

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 25 Jan 2016 16:01

Continuing off topic
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/manda ... _ships.htm
Harappans not only built a unique dock but also provided facilities for handling cargo. There were other smaller ports such as Bhagatrav, Sutkagendor and Sutkakah, and perhaps a large one at Dholavira, all in Gujarat. An engraving on a seal from Mohenjodaro represents a sailing ship with a high prow; the stern was made of reeds. In the center, it had a square cabin. Out of five miniature clay models of boats one is complete and represents a ship with sail. The latter has a sharp keel, a pointed prow and a high flat stern. Two blind holes are also visible. One of them seen near the stern was meant for the mast, and the other on the edge of the ship may be for steering. In the second model, which is rather damaged, the stern and the prow were both curved high up as in the Egyptian boats of the Garzean period. The keel is pointed and the margins are raised. A hole made a little away from the center was meant for the mast. In this case, the prow was broken. Three other damaged models found at Lothal have a flat base and a pointed prow, but the keel is not pointed nor is there any hole for fixing the mast. Apparently these flat-based craft were used on rivers and creeks without sail, while the other two types with sail and sharp keels plied on the high seas and were berthed in the deep waters of the Gulf. Probably the canoe types of flat-based boats were the only ones, which could be sluiced at high tide. Another type of boat can be reconstructed from the paintings on two potsherds. It represents a boat with multiple oars. The Harappan ship must have been as big as the modern country crafts, which bring timber from Malabar to Gogha. On this analogy it can be assumed that a load up to 60 tons could be carried by these ships. The sizes of the anchor stones found in the Lothal dock also support this view (Rao, 1979, 1985).

Image

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 25 Jan 2016 23:47

geeth wrote:
When the angle of attack is zero, the aircraft wing does not generate lift.
That is true only for a symetric aerofoil

Yes, indeed, the sail does not have an in-built camber. Which is why at zero degree AoA, it does not generate any lift. Only when it is aligned at an angle to the wind does it become an aerofoil.

The discovery of camber helped in the invention of manned flight.

Lets take the discussions on sailing to the Indian Naval History Thread

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby tsarkar » 28 Jan 2016 11:54

manjgu wrote:tsarkar..thanks for ur posts on sailing etc. i was in bhopal and saw small boats sailing in the lake there and performing various maneuvers and u came to mind. The little sail boats then sailed in a circle, to excercise all angles of wind wrt boat. I re read ur post on " Europeans being able to bring fire on Zamorins who could only said UNI DIRECTIONALLY ..." . A question came to mind.. if Zamorins could said UNI DIRECTIONALLY, how did they hope to come back to the land? or they waited indefinetly at sea to catch wind going towards the land?


We had two types of ships, as depicted in the following Maratha ships of Kanhoji Angre. The Zamorin's fleet was similar.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... scroll.jpg

The smaller Maratha ships had oars.

The larger ships (in the center with saffron/red flags) are fully sail powered. However, their lateen triangular sails were difficult to align or re-align quickly unlike the smaller but multiple sails of the square rigged Europeans. A lower boom/arm like the Europeans would've helped.

So in battle, they sailed unidirectionally because they were unable to manoeuver quickly. When turning towards the shore, they could do so leisurely.

The large European ships (two in the center with blue flags and Union Jack) are square rigged but they never copied it.

The closest Indians came was when Tulaji Angre, the illegitimate son of Kanhoji and successor was building square rigged ships with 46 guns, when the British allied with Balaji Baji Rao and defeated him. Tulaji had antagonized Balaji Baji Rao by saying both were equal servants to Chatrapati Shahu, when Balaji Baji Rao demaned Tulaji's subservience. The British made full use of divide & rule.

Earlier, when Kanhoji Angre was alive, the Portuguese & British had allied to defeat him, but Kanhoji Angre called Baji Rao I for help, who promptly responded. Pilaji Jadhav defeated a Portuguese Army from Goa, Chimaji Apte took Vasai (Bassein) from Portuguese, and the smart British made peace before the Marathas could sack Bombay. (These details are from memory, might be missing some parts).

Earlier the Zamorin fought two naval battles, the Battle of Calicut in 1502 and the Battle of Cochin in 1504. These were much more important than the First Battle of Panipat in 1526 but unfortunately people do not realize their history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Portu ... Gama,_1502)#Naval_Battle_of_Calicut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cochin_(1504)

The Zamorin had modern guns built by Venetians who were upset with Portuguese taking over their Arab Trade.

Two Venetian agents that had secretly come to India with the 4th Armada had been busy helping Calicut forge better artillery. At least five European large cannons were ready, as well as a couple hundred smaller boat guns.

Unfortunately his crew was untrained and panicked under fire.

The Portuguese, led by Duarte Pacheco Pereira succeeded by a combination of clever positioning, individual heroics and a lot of luck. The Zamorin had demonstrated a bit of resourcefulness and innovation of his own – no two attacks were the same – but failed nonetheless....

...Ultimately it was probably the role of intelligence networks that proved the critical difference. The Portuguese were fully informed of everything that was going on in the enemy camp, all the way to strategies and plots hatched secretly inside the Zamorin's tent. The Portuguese, by contrast, tended to keep their own counsel, the Zamorin's spies could only see, but not hear, what the Portuguese were up to.


The Portuguese were building square rigged ships in India since 1512 at Cochin, but no one bothered to copy them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cat ... onte_Sinai
Santa Catarina do Monte Sinai was a higher-castled Portuguese carrack with 140 cannons, launched down in 1520 (800t, length 38 m, width 13 m, draft 4-4,5 м). Built in Kochi, India around 1512 it had two square rig masts


The Japanese built their first galleon in 1614 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_Bautista_(ship)

The Portuguese word for carrack is "Nau." The Indian word for boat/ship across states borrows the Portuguese word. Bharatiya Nau Sena means Indian Carrack Force, and borrows the Portuguese word. The only solace is that the English word Navy also derives from the Portuguese "Nau".

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3636
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby Kashi » 28 Jan 2016 12:08

tsarkar wrote:The Portuguese word for carrack is "Nau." The Indian word for boat/ship across states borrows the Portuguese word. Bharatiya Nau Sena means Indian Carrack Force, and borrows the Portuguese word. The only solace is that the English word Navy also derives from the Portuguese "Nau".


Well you learn something new everyday. I used to think that Nau in Nausena came from Hindi word Naanv (नाँव), which means boat. I didn't realise that Naanv (नाँव) itself was derived from Portuguese "Nau"

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3940
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby arshyam » 28 Jan 2016 21:03

Yeah me too. I thought 'nau' came from Sanskrit. In Tamil, we use the word 'kappal' meaning ship. So the Navy is referred to as 'Kappal Padai' (literally Ship Force).

tsarkar saar, fascinating. Any idea what the earlier Cholas or the Kalinga forces did w.r.t. sails? According to Wiki, there are references to sail based ships in the Puranaanuru, which was written between 700 and 500 BC. It refers to a type of ship called 'Kalam' with 3 masts and could travel in any direction. Do you know of any books/links that talk about their methods?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby ramana » 28 Jan 2016 23:24

I'll transfer the sail related posts here from the LCA thread.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby Hobbes » 29 Jan 2016 08:06

tsarkar wrote:<snip>
The Portuguese word for carrack is "Nau." The Indian word for boat/ship across states borrows the Portuguese word. Bharatiya Nau Sena means Indian Carrack Force, and borrows the Portuguese word. The only solace is that the English word Navy also derives from the Portuguese "Nau".

Not sure of that - Ships and boats are also inter alia called 'nau' in Sanskrit. Please refer to http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?beginning=0+&tinput=ship&trans=Translate&direction=ES.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby ArmenT » 29 Jan 2016 08:43

Sailing against the wind (tacking) was always possible, but it is slower than travelling with the wind blowing behind your sail.

Before the 15th century, most sailing ships would sail fairly close to the coast and navigate by using coastal landmarks (mountains, rivers, forests etc.) This is why the classical civilizations (Egyptians, Persians, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians etc.) knew about each other because they had trading ports along the coast extending all the way from the Red Sea to the coast of Japan. Because of the lack of good ports south of Sumatra into New Guinea, none of these empires went that way and there isn't mention of Australia.

As to trade with the Arabs and Indonesians, ancient Indians were familiar with the monsoon winds, which change directions during summer and winter and they used this knowledge to their advantage. That's why they had trading seasons. They would sail out from India during winter season and sail back during the summer. It wasn't just the Indians that knew this, Arabs and Chinese also knew about the trade winds. Vasco da Gama employed one such local guide from Malindi, Kenya, to guide him to India. As the record shows, he sailed towards India during the summer, when the wind was blowing northwards and made it from Kenya to India within 23 days. Then he made the mistake of trying to head back to Africa before the summer season ended. Even though they had knowledge of sailing against the wind, they made very slow progress sailing against it and made the return trip in about 125 days or so.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby tsarkar » 29 Jan 2016 13:34

Hobbes wrote:Not sure of that - Ships and boats are also inter alia called 'nau' in Sanskrit. Please refer to http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?beginning=0+&tinput=ship&trans=Translate&direction=ES.

Show me one Sanskrit text before 1498 that uses the word "nau". Sanskrit is also an evolving language, and modern Sanskrit borrows words from other cultures.

partha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4006
Joined: 02 Jul 2010 15:25

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby partha » 29 Jan 2016 13:52

tsarkar wrote:
Hobbes wrote:Not sure of that - Ships and boats are also inter alia called 'nau' in Sanskrit. Please refer to http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?beginning=0+&tinput=ship&trans=Translate&direction=ES.

Show me one Sanskrit text before 1498 that uses the word "nau". Sanskrit is also an evolving language, and modern Sanskrit borrows words from other cultures.

Sample:
http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/cha.htm
In the seventh century A.D. king Harsa of Kanauj
must have possessed a certain number of war-boats
which accompanied him in his distant expeditions. His
inscriptions always refer to his victorious camp as
"furnished with ships, elephants and horses":
'mahanau- hastya-sva-jaya-skandhavarat'. At about the
same time, the Calukya princes
of the South appear to
have maintained a considerable naval force. In the
Nilgunda Plates of Vikramaditya VI, it is stated that
king Mangalisa of the western Calukya dynasty fitted
out a grand fleet, which captured the island of
Revati. The epigraph runs as follows:

sarva-dvipakramana-mahaso yasya nau-setu-bandhair ullamghy
abdhim vyadhita prtana Revati-dvipa-lopam.(2)


In Mahabharata, Krishna takes a ship from Dwarka to Goa. I have to look up the text to see what is that ship referred to as. Thousands of years before Portugese language took birth, Sanskrit speaking Indians were operating ships and boats so it's unlikely Sanskrit word 'nau' is derived from Portugese. It should be the other way round - Sanskrit ->Latin -> Portugese.

Edit: the same link has references from Ramayana and Mahabharata too.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby tsarkar » 29 Jan 2016 14:34

ArmenT wrote:Sailing against the wind (tacking) was always possible

Armen, its not about knowledge, but 1. Documenting the knowledge 2. Disseminating the knowledge 3. Using the knowledge in developing rigging

1. Documenting the knowledge

None of our historical texts in any languahe have any description of Points of Sail.

2. Disseminating the knowledge

The Kolis (a fishing/sailing community in Maharashtra) does not have formal knowledge of this, nor do they teach their youngsters. I've not seen any knowledge either present or being shared in Bengalis & Oriyas. Admittedly my interaction is with only three communities, and would be happy to learn if the knowledge of points of sail exists in any community.

Having knowledge is small pockets and not disseminating it is meaningless.

3. Using the knowledge in developing rigging

The large yard of a lateen sail is difficult to quickly realign, than smaller yards of square rigged ships. So maneuverability in battle is less.

The horsepower generated by a lateen masted ship is less than the horsepower generated by a square rigged ship.

Lateen rigged ship carries a large single sail that requires a large yard. A square rigged ship can carry multiple smaller sails. This brings us to wing area. As a rule of thumb, more wing area means more lift. So more sail area means more horsepower. The quadrilateral has more area than a triangle for a given length, so square rigging is more efficient than lateen rigging.

More horsepower means more tonnage. More tonnage means larger guns with longer range, more number of guns, more quantity of powder & shot can be carried, giving advantage in battle.

PS - I'm losing a lot of typed matter when the system times out. Is there any mechanism to save posts while typing?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Jan 2016 14:57

our sinic brothers seem to have developed the folding square or squareish sail on their own in the east, albeit their hulls were not build for trans oceanic speed unlike the clipper and windjammer designs of europe. these deep hulls could carry plenty of cargo though....the temple of dawn (wat arun) in bangkok has some chinese tiles and statues that were used as ballast and tradable items for the voyages south from cheen shores.
Image

even when maratha, vijaynagar, siddi, calicut empires were strong, we hear of the arabs plying their trade in the sea to trans-ship to europe via red sea ports. we seldom hear of a large indian merchant marine fleet going west to red sea and africa and east to indonesia, siam and melaka. the last time we did that was during the chola empire - an exception in that they invested in ships and sea control.
portugese in goa made a fortune importing arabian and persian horses for vijaynagar and adil shahi bijapur.

are there chola palm leaf, copper or stone records that document the quantum of trade, the type of ships and technology used, the records of voyages, which seaports they went to, any armed marines embarked ? what caused us to sleep at the wheel and let everyone have the run of the place, before setting up trading posts and starting the divide and rule business ? was it lack of technology or lack of intent in that "we have all that we need in our rich forests and river valleys"

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby tsarkar » 29 Jan 2016 15:07

@ Partha

From the link, the references given are

Ramacarita by Sandhyakara Nandi, Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol.III, no.I, p.15.

5. Ep. Ind., vol. I, pp.305 ff; Inscriptions of Bengal, vol.III, by Nanigopal Mazumdar, p.48, v.22,

Ramacarita is a old text dating 1100's, but has been re-written extensively. Let me check the memoirs of the Asiatic Society and revert.

I can definitely shed more light on this
Pratapaditya is also credited with a fleet of seven hundred fighting vessels, equipped with all the instruments of war(2).
Source
2. Sir Jadunath Sarkar's article in the Prabasi, Asvin, 1326 B.S., P.552


As per my grandfather & great grandfather, our direct lineage goes back to Birat Guha of Kannauj. So as a child, I've had numerous retelling of Pratapaditya's history, including the finer details of strategy & equipment.

seven hundred fighting vessels

Pratapaditya's boats were called chipi. They were long, narrow & oared with shallow draught. The larger ones had a single sail. He used these fast boats to deploy soldiers to flank the large armies sent by Akbar and destroy their supplies. They were riverine in nature and not suited for open sea naval warfare.

equipped with all the instruments of war

They carried archers and musketeers. The muskets came from the Portuguese in Arakan. Pratapaditya initially had good relationship with the Portuguese, however, later part of his reign, the relationship soured, as did his supply of arms & ammunition.

The closest modern analogy I have are the BSF patrol boats used in the same riverine waters as was Pratapaditya's boats http://im.rediff.com/news/2015/may/26bsf16.jpg
http://im.rediff.com/news/2015/may/26bsf14.jpg

The number of boats in BSF water wing is significant.

Pratapaditya is also credited with a fleet of seven hundred fighting vessels, equipped with all the instruments of war(2).

The bold words are misleading.

Just like we cant rely on BSF water wing to take on even Bangladesh or Myanmar Navy, similarly considering Pratapaditya's fleet as a Navy, is pretty far fetched.

Similarly, comparing the small chipis to ocean going ships is like comparing the BSF boats to Shivalik class frigates.
Last edited by tsarkar on 29 Jan 2016 15:16, edited 3 times in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Jan 2016 15:11

>>They were long, narrow & oared with shallow draught. The larger ones had a single sail. He used these fast boats to deploy soldiers to flank the large armies sent by Akbar and destroy their supplies

@ battle of saraighat too perhaps

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby tsarkar » 29 Jan 2016 20:31

^^ Yes indeed.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3940
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby arshyam » 29 Jan 2016 20:47

Singha wrote:even when maratha, vijaynagar, siddi, calicut empires were strong, we hear of the arabs plying their trade in the sea to trans-ship to europe via red sea ports. we seldom hear of a large indian merchant marine fleet going west to red sea and africa and east to indonesia, siam and melaka.
Apparently, Vasco da Gama followed a Gujarati merchant from Zanzibar to Calicut, not merely sailed around and found India by himself.
Suresh Soni, author of 'India's Scientific Heritage', quoting archaeologist Dr Vishnu Shridhar Wakankar, said ''He no doubt came to India but not as a discoverer sea-farer but following an Gujarati trader from Zanzibar.'' According to Dr Wakankar, Vasco da Gama had recorded in his diary that upon his arrival at Zanzibar in Africa he saw a docked ship three times bigger than his own. He took an African interpreter to meet the owner of that ship Chandan, a Gujarati trader who used to bring pine wood and teak from India along with spices and take back diamonds to Cochin.

Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/2007/07/14/vasc ... 11295.html

Singha wrote:the last time we did that was during the chola empire - an exception in that they invested in ships and sea control.
I would argue that it was the norm than the exception. The Cholas are relatively well known in their exploits (though not as much as I'd like them to be), but still not much is known about the early Cholas, Pandyas, Vanga and Kalinga rulers, all of whom had established sea trade and commerce . If one thinks about it, during Rajendra Chola's time, the south east Asian kingdoms were well established as Hindu/Buddhist/Sanskritic kingdoms. For example: Sri Viajaya (Sumatra), Tambralinga (Malay peninsula), Khambudesa (Khmer empire), Champa (Vietnam) were all well established by 700-800 CE. The Champa capital was called Indrapura in 875 CE. These places didn't suddenly sprout out of nowhere :). My point is, there definitely was an older connection between us and this area, so the Cholas under Raja Raja and Rajendra were not an exception in Naval investments.

Singha wrote:are there chola palm leaf, copper or stone records that document the quantum of trade, the type of ships and technology used, the records of voyages, which seaports they went to, any armed marines embarked ?
The Wiki page on the Chola Navy is very detailed and with good references. For example:
Professor R. C. Majumdar says that there existed a comprehensive book of naval-architecture in India dating back to the 2nd century BCE, if not earlier.

During the reign of Raja Raja and his son, there were a complex classification of class of vessels and its utility. Some of the survived classes' name and utility are below.[39][volume needed]

Dharani - The equivalent of modern-day destroyers designed to take combat to high-seas.
Loola - The equivalent of modern-day corvettes; designed to perform light combat and escort duties.
Vajra - The equivalent of a frigate maybe, a fast attack craft lightly armored.
Thirisadai - Probably the battle cruisers or battleships of the day, they are reported to be armored heavily and could engage more than 2 targets in combat, and relied on its built rather than speed to survive and attack

Also:
Apart from class definitions, there are names of Royal Yachts and their architecture. Some of which are,

Akramandham - A royal Yacht with the Royal quarters in the stern.
Neelamandham - A royal Yacht with extensive facilities for conducting courts and accommodation for hi-officials/ministers.
Sarpammugam - these were smaller yachts used in the Rivers (with ornamental snake heads)

In addition to these, we find many names of Ship classes in Purananuru and its application in both inland waters and open oceans. Some of them are,
Yanthiram - Hybrid ship employing bot sails and oars or probably Paddle wheels of some type (as Yanthiram is literally translated to mechanical wheel)
Kalam - Large vessels with 3 masts which can travel in any direction irrespective of winds.
Punai - medium-sized vessels that can be used to coastal shipping as well as inland.
Patri - Large barge type vessel used to ferrying trade goods.
Oodam - Small boat with large oars.
Ambi - Medium-sized boat with a single mast and oars.
Toni - small boat used in rocky terrain.
The bolded part was what I'd posted earlier, asking if that counted as a '3 masted' ship, since tsarkar-ji was saying we were mostly using single masted ships. Am I correct in thinking # of masts corresponds to # of sails?

Also that page says that the Chola Navy was an independent formation (of the land Army) with its own ranks, and had its own marine corps, pearl divers (sabotuers/Marcos?) and Coast Guard :mrgreen:. But of course, I would prefer to have such info first hand, so looks like RC Majumdar's series is a good starting point. Hopefully there are more books out there that talk about their Naval formations and exploits.

Singha wrote:what caused us to sleep at the wheel and let everyone have the run of the place, before setting up trading posts and starting the divide and rule business ? was it lack of technology or lack of intent in that "we have all that we need in our rich forests and river valleys"
I think it was a bit of everything. We didn't need anything from outside, and the outsiders show up at our ports for trade, why bother going out? Another factor must have been the lack of strong kingdoms and navies to protect our ships. Most surviving entities were small principalities like Calicut, Cochin, Travancore, etc. whose writ would not run to far, and were insecure enough for outsiders to play divide and rule. Not much is known about piracy after the larger kingdoms decline. Perhaps that could have been a factor.

Having said that, the art of building ships continued to reside in India, going by the demand for Indian made ships through the colonial era. In fact, the British Navy started sourcing their warships (HMS Trincomalee, for example) from Indian yards due to their sturdiness and sea-keeping. The policy was reversed only after the workers at English yards like Glasgow went on strike against such practices, and as an additional favour, the Brits also actively discouraged Indian shipbuilding, which resulted in its decline through the 20th century.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3940
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby arshyam » 29 Jan 2016 20:53

tsarkar wrote:
Hobbes wrote:Not sure of that - Ships and boats are also inter alia called 'nau' in Sanskrit. Please refer to http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?beginning=0+&tinput=ship&trans=Translate&direction=ES.

Show me one Sanskrit text before 1498 that uses the word "nau". Sanskrit is also an evolving language, and modern Sanskrit borrows words from other cultures.

Does this count?

OM jAtavedase sunavAma somamarAtIyato nidahAti vedaH sa naH parshhadatidurgANi vishvA nAveva si.ndhuM duritAtyagniH

(Meaning: Our oblations of Soma to the fire god,
May he, the all knowing one destroy all those who do not like us,
May that divine fire lead us out of all perils,
Like a captain takes his boat across the sea,
And also save us from all wrongs.)

The above quote is from the Rig Veda (I.15.6) and is sung by Kashyapa Rishi. The word Naava means boat / ship and Sindhu means the sea.

Admittedly, it is from a Quora post, so if there is a way to look up/validate the actual sloka from the Rig Veda, we can set this matter to rest.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby tsarkar » 29 Jan 2016 21:17

^^ That is from Taittiriya Aranyaka in Yajurveda and recited during Durga Puja prayers. But thanks for sharing, let me dwell more on that data you folks have shared.

BTW the Sanskrit word for ship is Pota. Which is why IN calls its ships Yudh-Pota.

The bolded part was what I'd posted earlier, asking if that counted as a '3 masted' ship, since tsarkar-ji was saying we were mostly using single masted ships. Am I correct in thinking # of masts corresponds to # of sails?


The Borobudur ship image posted by me, which is the best image I know of an historical Indian ship, has multiple masts.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... r_ship.JPG

However, the Europeans has more sails per mast as shown here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tackling.png

As you can see, the Borobudur ship carries one sail per mast while the Square Rigged ship has 3-4 sails per mast.
More sails = more horsepower.

The more later Batella & Dinghy had more sails per mast. But they lacked horizontal spars to quickly align the sail to the wind.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oBqFdVZgFmU/S ... tella.jpeg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oBqFdVZgFmU/S ... nghie.jpeg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tackling.png
The wooden horizontal spars are called yard, and could be moved by ropes to quickly align the sail to the wind

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2487
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby manjgu » 30 Jan 2016 08:06

tsarkar... "No, flying by the seat of pants or sailing by instinct is very poor judgment. It leads to spatial disorientation"... i was wondering Kapil Bhargava was a very experienced pilot and yet he found Wilsons jugadd very interesting. So I conclude that this jugaad was not in common use or part of the institutional knowledge... and yet for many years pilots were going into combat without this jugaad ie by seat of pants..instinct.. so i am questioning ur assertion abt instincts etc..

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby tsarkar » 30 Jan 2016 12:01

Hello Manjgu,

Jugaad, IMO, is solving problems using science & techniques proven elsewhere.

Jugaad is not being reckless or unscientific. Seat of pants is reckless and unscientific.

Using a tell tale is quite scientific, and follows principles of physics. It is also used during testing phase as indicated by Indranil. So its not seat of the pants flying.

Seat of pants flying is what shiv was trying to do, try to guage AoA from contrail, or use instinct. That is dicey, and leads to spatial disorientation, as indicated in the FAA document in my older post.

It would indeed be unfair to say using contrails is unscientific and using wool is scientific, unless one explains the science behind the airflow in both cases, and how the airflow incase of contrails is disturbed or dirty air.

The challenge comes while developing & proving techniques. There one must step into the unknown.

However, these breed of men, our test pilots & ground staff, take calculated risks. The calculated part tries to minimize risk as much as possible.

However, one cannot calculate for every contingency, and one may get into situations requiring seat of the pants flying. However, that is the exception & not the norm.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2487
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby manjgu » 30 Jan 2016 21:02

@tsarkar.. u misunderstood my use of word jugad. what i meant was for so many years, many in IAF were flying and also participated in combat without the innovation ( instead of jugad) proposed by Wilson. So i was wondering if knowing AOA during flight was so important and useful..why were others not making a innovation. Also was not knowing AoA was constraining the pilots not to exploit their planes full potential /envelope. and yes u r correct..i also argued that trying to find AoA based on the pic was unscientific..and illogical.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby vishvak » 30 Jan 2016 21:59

OT here, about word for ships in Portuguese language. A few things:
* About Portuguese vocabulary link
Most of the Portuguese vocabulary comes from Latin, since Portuguese is a Romance language. However, other languages that came into contact with it have also left their mark. In the thirteenth century, the lexicon of Portuguese had about 80% words of Latin origin and 20% of pre-Roman Gallaecian, Celtic, Germanic and Arabic origin.

About Romance Languages link:
Romance languages are the continuation of Vulgar Latin, the popular and colloquial sociolect of Latin spoken by soldiers, settlers, and merchants of the Roman Empire, as distinguished from the classical form of the language spoken by the Roman upper classes, the form in which the language was generally written.
..

Then came the old Portuguese: link
the language of Portugal as spoken and written from the 14th to the middle of the 16th centuries.
..
balsa "ferry"
barco [m] 'boat, ship' from Proto-Celtic *barga-, loanward into Latin bargo, 'boat'.
..
braga [f] '[Old] Hoop iron that held the fetter, male type of trouser, wall that served as a fortification junk, type of naval crane to lift and move weights (ships), small four-string type of guitar'. From [Proto-Celtic] *braco-,[11] cognate of Galician, Spanish, Occitan braga, French braie, Italian brache.

From link, page 153 and 154 words for ships seem to be 'puke' or 'bnque'.

The NEW Portuguese language was written during and after Renaissance.
link
During the Renaissance, appreciation for classical culture led many authors to imitate Latin and (Romanized) Ancient Greek

Not to mention, actual standards were set as late as 1911 link. There is no mention of word naval in Portuguese before Renaissance.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby ramana » 31 Jan 2016 01:23

tsarkar, wow a true naval lineage!!!

Long ago in Illustrated Weekly a book review was on an ancient book on ship building from Kalinga modern day Odissa and translated into English.
Have you heard of such a book?

partha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4006
Joined: 02 Jul 2010 15:25

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby partha » 31 Jan 2016 01:24

tsarkar wrote:^^ That is from Taittiriya Aranyaka in Yajurveda and recited during Durga Puja prayers. But thanks for sharing, let me dwell more on that data you folks have shared.

BTW the Sanskrit word for ship is Pota. Which is why IN calls its ships Yudh-Pota.

'pota' and also 'nau'. Sanskrit being etymological language, there are multiple words to 'describe' the same thing and one word could describe multiple things. 'pota' also means elephant for example! From VS Apte's dictionary:-

http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:4801.apte
पोतः pōtḥ
पोतः [पू-तन्; Uṇ.3.86] 1 The young of any ani- mal, cub, colt, foal &c.; पिब स्तन्यं पोत Bv.1.6; मृगपोतः; शार्दूल˚ Mu.2.8; करिपोतः &c; वीरपोतः a young warrior; कोप्ययं वीरपोतः U.5.3. -2 An elephant ten years old.

-- 149 --
-3 A ship, raft, boat; पोतो दुस्तरवारिराशितरणे H.2.124; नभस्वता प्रतीपेन भग्नपोता इवार्णवे Śiva B.22.11; हा विपद्- वारिनिधिपतितजनोद्धरणपोत Nāg.5. -4 A garment, cloth. -5 The young shoot of a plant. -6 The site or founda- tion of a house. -7 A foetus having no enveloping membrane. -Comp. -आच्छादनम् a tent. -आधानम् a shoal of small fish. -धारिन् m. the master of a vessel. -प्लवः a mariner, seaman. -भङ्गः a ship-wreck. -रक्षः the rudder of a boat or ship. -वणिज् m. a sea-faring merchant; धत्ते पोतवणिग्जनैर्धनदतां यस्यान्तिके सागरः Śiva B. 29.89. -वाहः a rower, steersman.


'nau' - http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/p ... :2562.apte
नौ nau
नौ f. 1 A ship, boat, vessel; महता पुण्यपण्येन क्रीतेयं कायनौस्त्वया Śānti.3.1. -2 N. of a constellation. -3 Time; नौः काले तरणावपि Nm. -Comp. -आरोहः (नावारोहः) 1 a passenger on board a ship. -2 a sailor. -कर्णधारः a helmsman, pilot. -कर्मन् n. the occupation of a sailor; निषादो मार्गवं सूते दासं नौकर्मजीविनम् Ms.1.34. -क्रमः a bridge of boats. -चरः, -उपजीवकः, -जीविकः a sailor, boatman; यादोनाथः शिवजलपथः कर्मणे नौचराणाम् R.17.81. -तार्य a. navigable, to be traversed in a ship. -दण्डः an oar. -यानम् navigation. -यायिन् a. going in a boat, a passenger; एष नौयायिनामुक्तो व्यवहारस्य निर्णयः Ms.8.49. -वाहः a steersman, pilot, captain. -व्यसनम् shipwreck, naufrage; नौव्यसने विपन्नः Ś.6. -साधनम् fleet, navy; वङ्गानुत्खाय तरसा नेता नौसाधनोद्यतान् R.4.36


"वङ्गानुत्खाय तरसा नेता नौसाधनोद्यतान् R.4.36" is from Raghuvamsha by Kalidasa before 500 CE. "nau sadhanam" means naval fleet.

I was thinking how 'nau' came to mean a ship. Looked up 'au' - http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/p ... :5411.apte . One meaning is "anantha" or "infinite" or "no end". So 'au' could describe the ocean which appears endless to human eye. 'nau' could have been derived from 'nadah' (river) and 'au' (endless). So the thing that helps traversing the 'endless river' could be 'nauka' which may have been shortened to 'nau'.

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby jayasimha » 24 Feb 2016 07:56

ifr1 - Parade
Image

i am nostalgic after seeing the recent IFR photos...

Let me share my stuff.. I was in Mumbai when the IFR was held in Mumbai in 2001. Just few days before there was a earthquake in Gujarat so Singapore Navy had come with a ship whose captain was of India Origin Sardarji with some relief material as an goodwill gesture.. My office was in Express Towers and we were a selected few who had fortunately access to the roof top of express towers. On the eve of the parade we went to the roof top and had a golden opportunity to view the parade and the fly past. These are some of the photos i took in my small camera. Some comments I have typed in the photo itself.. Enjoy and comments please.....

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby jayasimha » 24 Feb 2016 07:57


jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby jayasimha » 24 Feb 2016 08:01

I dont know why image is not showing up... some pl help...

IFR2 - Fly Past - https://goo.gl/photos/U4kcmeegPbR5k2Fq5


My friend Yezdi Rabbadi was sitting on the absolute top of the express towers... we could see all the flypast in front of us without raising our head... what a beauty it was...

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby jayasimha » 24 Feb 2016 08:09

Now comes the real stuff which most of the BRF people have been seeing..

After the parade,,, after the VIPs have left,, We came running down to see the "reverse" parade... From the top we had seen many tablues of ships and aircraft. when i came down we were surprised to see tejas... This is some thing i am cherishing all along. Imagine the navy guys Parading a model of aircraft which had barely made its first flight ( or my be 2). You can see their confidence and pride they have associated with this Aircraft/project as if it is their prodigy/achievement / reason for joy and glory right when it was, may be, in drawing board...


IFR3- TEJAS - https://goo.gl/photos/wNuvGLTxNVQQ8pADA

I have some more photos... I will upload later if deem fit.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5215
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby jamwal » 11 Mar 2016 12:31

From Twitter:
Okha port
Image

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1290
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby jaysimha » 12 Jun 2018 17:34


jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1290
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby jaysimha » 15 Jun 2018 17:21

http://www.navyfoundationmumbaicharter.in/doc/Quarterdeck-2017.pdf
Indian navy's Submarine arm
50 glorious years

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5400
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indian Naval History Thread

Postby SBajwa » 15 Jun 2018 20:23

Hobbes wrote:
tsarkar wrote:<snip>
The Portuguese word for carrack is "Nau." The Indian word for boat/ship across states borrows the Portuguese word. Bharatiya Nau Sena means Indian Carrack Force, and borrows the Portuguese word. The only solace is that the English word Navy also derives from the Portuguese "Nau".

Not sure of that - Ships and boats are also inter alia called 'nau' in Sanskrit. Please refer to http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?beginning=0+&tinput=ship&trans=Translate&direction=ES.


Also Nauv has been used in ancient indian texts long before Portugal was civilized.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 74 guests