Datasets:
Reproducibility
/
naacl22_wikitext15M

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
0
7.06k
Both Britain and France claimed victory in the battle : Britain by virtue of capturing or sinking seven French ships without losing any of her own and remaining in control of the battle site ; France because the vital convoy had passed through the Atlantic unharmed and arrived in France without significant loss . The two fleets were showered by their respective nations with both praise and criticism – the latter particularly directed at those captains not felt to have contributed significantly to the fighting . The British fleet in Spithead was treated with a Royal visit by King George III and the entire royal household .
= = = France = = =
In France the revolutionary principles of <unk> precluded extensive awards , but Villaret was promoted to vice @-@ admiral on 27 September 1794 and other minor awards were distributed to the admirals of the fleet . In addition the fleet 's officers took part in a celebratory parade from Brest to Paris , accompanying the recently arrived food supplies . The role of Vengeur du Peuple was <unk> by Bertrand <unk> , giving birth to an exalted legend . Opinion in France concerning the battle 's outcome was divided ; while many celebrated Saint @-@ André 's exaggerated accounts of victory in Le Moniteur , senior naval officers disagreed . Among the dissenters was the highly experienced but recently dismissed Admiral Kerguelen . Kerguelen was disgusted by Villaret 's failure to renew the battle after he had reformed his squadron , and felt that the French fleet could have been successful tactically as well as strategically if only Villaret had made greater efforts to engage the remains of Howe 's fleet . The French Navy had suffered its worst losses in a single day since the Battle of La Hogue in 1692 .
Ultimately the revolutionary excesses of the period would prove disastrous for the French Navy . Poor leadership , conflicting and arbitrary orders and the decimation of the experienced seamen in the ranks promoted a negative attitude in the French officer corps . The French battlefleet did not contest British dominance in Northern European waters again , and their raiding operations repeatedly ended in failure at the hands of more confident British squadrons and the unforgiving Atlantic weather . By 1805 , when the last great French fleet to take to the sea was crushed at the Battle of Trafalgar , poor training and low investment in the Navy had reduced its efficiency to levels unthinkable 20 years earlier .
= = = Britain = = =
In Britain , numerous honours were bestowed on the fleet and its commanders . Admiral Howe , already an earl , refused any further elevation , and King George III was dissuaded from making him a Knight of the Garter by one of Howe 's political opponents . Vice @-@ Admiral Graves was elevated to the Peerage of Ireland as Baron Graves , while Vice @-@ Admiral Hood was made Viscount Bridport . Rear @-@ Admirals Bowyer , Gardner , Pasley and Curtis ( the last @-@ named was promoted from captain on 4 July 1794 ) were all made baronets , and Bowyer and Pasley also received pensions of £ 1 @,@ 000 a year to compensate them for their severe wounds . All first lieutenants were promoted to commander and numerous other officers were promoted in consequence of their actions . The thanks of parliament were unanimously passed to all who fought at the action and various other gifts and awards were distributed among the fleet . A memorial to Captains John Hutt and John Harvey , both of whom had died of their wounds on 30 June , was raised in Westminster Abbey .
There was , however , a bitter consequence of the awards , rooted in Howe 's official dispatch to the Admiralty concerning the battle , which according to some accounts was actually written by Curtis . Howe had appended a list to his report containing the names of officers whom he believed merited special reward for their part in the battle . The list included Vice @-@ Admirals Graves and Hood , Rear @-@ Admirals Bowyer , Gardner , and Pasley , and Captains Seymour , Pakenham , Cranfield @-@ Berkeley , Gambier , John Harvey , Payne , Henry Harvey , Pringle , Duckworth , Elphinstone , Nichols , and Hope . Also mentioned were Lieutenants Monkton and Donnelly . The list had omitted a number of officers who had served in the battle , and the justice of their omission was a highly controversial issue in the Navy . Rear @-@ Admiral Caldwell was the sole British flag officer present not to receive a hereditary honour , although he was promoted to Vice @-@ Admiral on 4 July ( as were Bowyer and Gardner ) . After studying the ship 's logs and reports of the battle , the Admiralty minted a medal to be awarded to the living captains on the list only ( although Captain William Parker of HMS Audacious was awarded one as well ) . The captains excluded from the list were furious , and the furor from this selective commendation lasted years : in 1795 Vice @-@ Admiral Caldwell quit the service in anger as a result , while Cuthbert Collingwood , flag captain of Barfleur , refused all awards for future service until the Glorious First of June medal was presented to him as well . He eventually received it after the Battle of Cape St Vincent in 1797 . Over five decades later the battle was among the actions recognised by a clasp attached to the Naval General Service Medal , awarded upon application to all British participants still living in 1847 .
<unk> of all was the whispering campaign directed at Anthony Molloy , captain of HMS Caesar . Molloy was accused of cowardice by fellow officers for his failure to follow Howe 's orders on both 29 May and 1 June . Molloy 's request for an official court @-@ martial to clear his name failed , and although his personal courage was not called into question , his professional ability was . Molloy was dismissed from his ship .
Of the captured ships , several were purchased and enjoyed long careers in the Royal Navy , in particular the two 80 @-@ gun ships HMS Sans Pareil which was decommissioned in 1802 but not broken up until 1842 , and HMS Juste , which was a popular command until her decommissioning in 1802 at the Peace of Amiens . Of the four 74 @-@ gun prizes , Achille and Northumberland ( both <unk> built in the late 1770s ) were broken up as unserviceable soon after arrival in Britain , while Impétueux was destroyed in a dockyard fire on 24 August 1794 while undergoing repairs . America , the final prize , was taken into the Royal Navy as HMS America but renamed HMS <unk> in July 1795 and remained in service until 1813 . The combined prize money for these ships was £ 201 @,@ 096 ( the equivalent of £ 21 @,@ 000 @,@ 000 as of 2016 ) , divided among the ships under Lord Howe 's command .
= New York State Route 368 =
New York State Route 368 ( NY 368 ) was a state highway in Onondaga County , New York , in the United States . It was one of the shortest routes in the county , extending for only 1 @.@ 69 miles ( 2 @.@ 72 km ) between NY 321 and NY 5 in the town of Elbridge . NY 368 was known as Halfway Road for the hamlet it served near its midpoint . The route was assigned in the 1930s and removed in 1980 as part of a highway maintenance swap between the state of New York and Onondaga County .
= = Route description = =
NY 368 began at an intersection with NY 321 adjacent to the Carpenter 's Brook Fish Hatchery in the town of Elbridge . The route headed north as Halfway Road , passing by farmland as it headed through a rural area of Onondaga County to the small hamlet of Halfway . Here , NY 368 served a small number of homes as it crossed a Conrail railroad line ( now part of the Finger Lakes Railway ) at the center of the community . Outside of Halfway , the route turned to the northwest toward the village of Elbridge , avoiding a marshy area directly north of Halfway . It intersected with Lynch Road and Campbell Road before turning slightly northward and following Carpenter 's Brook through another undeveloped area to an intersection with NY 5 east of the village , where NY 368 ended .
= = History = =
NY 368 was assigned in the 1930s as a connector between NY 321 and NY 5 in the town of Elbridge by way of the hamlet of Halfway . It remained unchanged until April 1 , 1980 , when ownership and maintenance of the route was transferred from the state of New York to Onondaga County as part of a highway maintenance swap between the two levels of government . The county also assumed ownership and maintenance of the Onondaga County portion of NY 31B as part of the exchange . NY 368 was redesignated as County Route 107 ( CR 107 ) following the swap .
= = Major intersections = =
The entire route was in Elbridge , Onondaga County .
= M @-@ 122 ( Michigan highway ) =
M @-@ 122 was a state trunkline highway in the US state of Michigan entirely in the city of St. Ignace . The highway connected US Highway 2 ( US 2 ) to the State Highway Ferry Dock used before the Mackinac Bridge was built . It was retired and the road returned to local control in 1957 .
= = Route description = =
Prior to the opening of the Mackinac Bridge , travelers wishing to venture from St. Ignace to Mackinaw City had to do so via ferry . M @-@ 122 began at US 2 ( now Business Loop Interstate 75 ) near Straits State Park and traveled through town along Ferry Road where it ran southeasterly from the main highway . East of <unk> Street M @-@ 122 curved around to the east near Paro Street . The highway ended at the State Ferry Docks on the southeast side of the city next to the Coast Guard station .
= = History = =
M @-@ 122 was initially assumed into the state highway system in 1929 as a connector between US 31 and Straits State Park . In 1936 , US 2 was routed into St. Ignace and US 31 was scaled back to end in the Lower Peninsula in Mackinaw City . M @-@ 122 now provided a connection between US 2 and the new docks on the southeast side of the city . It existed in this capacity until 1957 when the Mackinac Bridge opened to traffic .
= = Major intersections = =
The entire highway was in St. Ignace , Mackinac County .
= Tupolev Tu @-@ 12 =
The Tupolev Tu @-@ 12 ( development designation Tu @-@ 77 ) was an experimental Soviet jet @-@ powered medium bomber developed from the successful piston @-@ engined Tupolev Tu @-@ 2 bomber after the end of World War II . It was designed as a transitional aircraft to familiarize Tupolev and the VVS with the issues involved with jet @-@ engined bombers .
= = Development = =
The Tupolev Tu @-@ 73 jet @-@ engined bomber project was suffering delays in early 1947 and Tupolev suggested re @-@ engining the Tu @-@ 2 medium bomber with imported British Rolls @-@ Royce Nene jet engines to produce a jet bomber as quickly as possible . Design work began well before official approval was received on 31 May 1947 for one Tu @-@ 2S to be converted in the OKB 's workshop and another five to be converted at Zavod ( Factory ) Nr. 23 , but construction of the prototype had already begun in early May under the bureau designation Tu @-@ 77 .
Changes from the standard Tu @-@ 2 were minimized to speed production and they consisted of the following :
Two Nene jet engines replaced the standard Shvetsov ASh @-@ <unk> radial engines .
The wing dihedral was reduced to 3 ° from 6 ° .
The fuselage was lengthened 400 mm ( 16 in ) and the rear fuselage was heightened by 300 mm ( 12 in ) .
A new tricycle undercarriage was fitted , with the main gear units retracting into the engine nacelles .
Additional fuel tanks were fitted and the design of the tanks was changed to accommodate the change from gasoline to kerosene .
The control system was revised and trim tabs were fitted to the elevators .
The wing and tail were reinforced .
The 20 mm ( 0 @.@ 79 in ) ShVAK cannon were removed from the wing roots and a 23 mm ( 0 @.@ 91 in ) Nudelman @-@ Suranov NS @-@ 23 cannon was mounted in an external fairing on the starboard side of the nose .
= = = Testing and evaluation = = =
The prototype was completed in July and was first flown on 27 July 1947 . Two aircraft were shown at the Tushino Aviation Day Display on 3 August 1947 . It completed its manufacturer 's trials in September and underwent the State acceptance trials from 4 October 1947 to 27 February 1948 where it was redesignated as the Tu @-@ 12 . The NII VVS ( Naoochno @-@ Issledovatel 'skiy Institoot Voyenno @-@ Vozdooshnykh Seel – Air Force Scientific Test Institute ) report summarized the differences between the Tu @-@ 2 and Tu @-@ 12 as " a considerable gain in speed , an improved rate of climb , a higher service ceiling , but poorer field performance and a considerably greater fuel load required to achieve the same range as the Tu @-@ 2 . " Both the lack of a pressurized cabin that greatly reduced its effectiveness at high altitude and the lack of deicing equipment for the wing and tail leading edges and the cockpit glazing were noted as major problems . At high speeds it was virtually impossible to traverse and elevate the manually operated <unk> @-@ 68 and Lu @-@ 68 gun turrets . The vibration of the NS @-@ 23 cannon when firing rendered the equipment in the navigator 's cabin unusable and damaged the cabin glazing . Turning on the Identification friend or foe ( IFF ) system adversely affected the intercom system and the radios . New generators had to be installed as the originals did not produce enough electrical power .
The trials conducted by the NII VVS included engagements between the Tu @-@ 12 and the Soviet MiG @-@ 9 and Yak @-@ 23 jet fighters which were very useful in evaluating the offensive armament of the fighters , the defensive armament of the bomber and the proper tactics involved for both types of aircraft . The tests demonstrated the inferiority of the current 12 @.@ 7 mm ( 0 @.@ 50 in ) armament and meant that every Soviet bomber henceforth would have a defensive armament using power @-@ operated turrets that carried guns 20 mm or larger .
The five aircraft modified by the factory were given the Klimov RD @-@ 45 engine , the Soviet unlicensed copy of the Nene engine , and all six aircraft , used by the VVS for aircrew familiarization and training . The aircraft completed were later relegated to test duties . One aircraft was used for drone tests and another , redesignated as the Tu @-@ <unk> , mounted various pulse jet engines on a pylon above the fuselage .
= = Operators = =
Soviet Union
Soviet Air Force
= = Specifications ( Tu @-@ 12 ) = =
Data from Gunston , Tupolev Aircraft since 1922
General characteristics
Crew : 5
Length : 16 @.@ 45 m ( 53 ft 11 ½ in )
Wingspan : 18 @.@ 86 m ( 61 ft 10 ½ in )
Wing area : 48 @.@ 80 m2 ( 525 @.@ 30 ft2 )
Empty weight : <unk> kg ( 19 @,@ 826 lb )
Gross weight : 15 @,@ 720 kg ( 34 @,@ 657 lb )
Powerplant : 2 × Rolls @-@ Royce Nene I turbojet , 22 kN ( 5 @,@ 000 lbf ) thrust each each
Performance
Maximum speed : 783 km / h ( 487 mph )
Range : 2 @,@ 200 km ( 1 @,@ 367 miles )
Service ceiling : 11 @,@ 370 m ( 37 @,@ 305 ft )
Armament
1 × 23 mm NS @-@ 23 cannon
2 × 12 @.@ 7 mm Berezin UBT machine @-@ guns
3 @,@ 000 kg ( 6 @,@ 614 lb ) of bombs
= Civilian Public Service =