American Naval Vessels with Englishmen's Names?
362573
USS Winston S. Churchill (Present Day Destroyer)\nUSS Alfred (18th Century Man-O-War)\nUSS Raleigh (20th Century Amphibious Transport Dock)\nUSS Effingham (18th Century Frigate)
620769
Beginning with The USS Los Angles (SSN685), Fast attack subs were named after cities.  The last of the SSBN's were named after state capitals.\nOne sub, I don't remember the hull number, was supposed to be named "Corpus Cristi".  After opposition from the religious community it was changed to "The City of Corpus Cristi"\nHope this helps ;-)
370175
Maybe this will help you get started.........good luck\nhttp://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq26-1.htm
556499
BM stands for "Boatswain's Mate" (pronounced "Bosun's Mate"), and is a job description, rather than a rank.\n\nFor more info, check here:\nhttp://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjob1/a/bm.htm\nhttp://www.npc.navy.mil/Enlisted/CommunityManagers/SurfaceCSOPS/BoatswainsMateBM.htm
178596
type in the  name  of ship body of water it saild on .look up 1800's wooden sailing vessals archives.
178592
There was an article about the Admiral Nelson in US News and World Report a few months ago.  He really did lose an arm and won several naval victories.  Great leader.
386119
mechanics, carpenter, mason, boatman\n\nhttp://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15752
664859
1919 Sir Barton \n1930 Gallant Fox \n1935 Omaha \n1937 War Admiral \n1941 Whirlaway \n1943 Count Fleet \n1946 Assault \n1948 Citation \n1973 Secretariat \n1977 Seattle Slew \n1978 Affirmed \n1979 Spectacular Bid
327927
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_armada
645788
maryland - annapolis\nmassachusettes - boston\nrhode island - providence
820225
http://www.timepage.org/spl/13colony.html\n\nAll of the colonies are listed one by one, withs tons of info, and extra links. Enjoy!
62850
New England Colonies:\n\nConnecticut\nMaine\nMassachusetts\nNew Hampshire \n\nMiddle Colonies:\n\nNew York\nPennsylvania\nNew Jersey\nDelaware\n\nSouthern Colonies:\n\nMaryland\nVirginia\nNorth Carolina\nSouth Carolina\nGeorgia\n\nTotal: 13
461396
You could try the MOD also a white star ships are listed The records should be available for public release if there not they should be able to tell you why and when they will be.\n\nYou could also try Liverpool maritime museme as they have information on white star ships.
162027
http://www.drmarine.com/\nhttp://www.shortypen.com/boats/oday19/\nhttp://home.att.net/~oday/\nOdayOwners.com\nTowerPromotions.com\n\nHope those links give you enough information.
654767
Try these out.....\n\nhttp://www.hicklingbroad.com/boats.html\n\nhttp://www.nauticexpo.com/find/sailing-dinghy.html\n\nhttp://gostanford.cstv.com/sports/c-sail/archive/120601aaa.html\n\nhttp://www.uswpca.org/Pages/History/history.html\n\nThey may help a little....I hope.\n\nDon
580370
http://www.montney.com/marine/usmcseal.htm
435401
British\n\n[modified below to provide source]\n"British forces march on Washington. At a brief battle on the road, known as the Battle of Bladensburg; the British forces defeat the American forces, who withdraw in disarray, thus opening the road to Washington. The British burn the White House and the Capitol, but the rest of Washington is saved by a strong rain storm. The British, under orders not to hold any territory, withdrew."\nhttp://www.historycentral.com/1812/Washington.html\n\n[another modification to provide some more details]\nI'm not a historian, so I will not pretend to be an expert on this subject.  However, I am learning more details as I go along in the effort to more fully answer your question.  At this point, this is more of a challenge and just plain fun, so it doesn't matter if you should choose this as a best answer or not.  The thrill is in the hunt.\n\nWhat I've determined so far is that the burning of Washington (and the White House) was performed by parts of the British Army stationed along the East Coast. Although the Canadian militia did fight on the side of the British, it seems that they were primarily in the Great Lakes regions where they comprised nearly half of the British forces.  The Great Lakes region was a separate theatre of operations during the war. \n\nThe war was conducted in four theatres of operations:\nThe Atlantic Ocean \nThe Great Lakes and the Canadian frontier \nThe coast of the United States \nThe Southern States \n\nThe commander of the British forces on the East Coast was General Robert Ross who served under Admiral Cockburn.  These two men are credited with leading the forces responsible for the burning of Washington.  From my reading, it appears that Ross probably actually led the forces, while Cockburn received credit as the commander of British Naval forces along the US coastal, providing the means for the landing of the ground forces, and as Ross' superior officer.\n\nRoss, himself, commanded a 4500-man army, comprised of the 4th (King's Own) Light, 21st Royal North British Fusiliers, 44th (East Essex) Regiment of Foot, and 85th Regiment of Foot.\n\n(The British commander of the Great Lakes forces was Major-General Sir Isaac Brock.)\n\nThere doesn't seem to be any significant work, citable references, or other resources that indicate any ties between the Canadian militia that served in the Great Lakes with Ross' East Coast forces that participated in the burning of Washington.\n\nFrom additional reading, it would seem that the attack on Washington and Baltimore was performed by components of the British as a diversion so that the British forces in the north (with Canadians) could repel the continual attacks from US forces and make an incursion into the US.\n\n\nSo, it would seem, in my opinion, that it was not Canadians that burned down the White House.  Although Canadians fought alongside the British in the Great Lakes region, they were not instrutmental in Cockburne's and Ross' forces on the East Coast that actually did the burning.  Further, just because the British Army in one region contained Canadian militia members, I don't think it would be correct to conclude, in any respect, that Canadians should get 'credit' for burning down the White House.  That would be like saying that Latvia gets the historical credit for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Hussein.  They had men in the coalition forces, after all.