Search the Community

To start things off, how is the result of a battle decided when you end the battle in the middle of the action (i.e. before the "end battle" button pops up) or when you hit auto-resolve? What factors does it take into account? Gun/torpedo size? Displacement? Speed? Armor Values? Modules/components on your ships? The alignment of the stars and the phase of the moon? Purely RNG? I had to end a battle a few days ago in the middle of the action (life happens, I had an unexpected event come up) and I would argue I was winning: enemy CLs were either sunk, heavily damaged or out of ammo, one BC sunk and two DDs sunk compared to one of my CLs sunk and a CA moderately damaged. I end the battle and the screen that pops up immediately afterwards says it's a draw/undecided...but then once it gets to the world map and pops up the list of ships for each side, it says that I lost and I suddenly have more ships sunk than I did when the battle ended, but so does the enemy. So...what exactly is the deal here? One screen says it was a stalemate, one screen says I lost and I've got more ships sunk than should be, according to where the battle left off. I'd appreciate some answers. Next, peace treaties and the end of wars. Playing as the Brits, I force a war with the Germans to end in 6 months. I get the pop up during a loading screen (after a battle) that Germany wants peace, so I happily accept. Well, when it gets back to the world map, it throws me right into the next "unskippable" encounter, and then when I end the turn...war continues between British Empire and German Empire. Did I miss something? They were asking for peace, but since it asked for peace before an "unskippable" encounter...now that offer no longer stands or it fell through and the war drags on for another four months? I feel like the option for peace should either come at the end of your turn, or after all "unskippable" encounters have been resolved. Now, lets talk about gun and torpedo launcher rotation speed. I check the stats of the various weapons and such in the designer: gun rotation speed--8.95 degrees/sec, ship turning rate--4.3 degrees/sec. Ok, so my guns rotate twice as fast as my ship turns, which means even if I have my DD go hard over, my guns should still stay on target. Go to war, and my DDs or CLs go hard over to avoid torpedoes...Tokyo Drift Music starts playing. My guns and torpedoes, literally, LOCK UP and don't move at all as my ship kinda drifts around it's turn (it's still a smooth turn, but the stern of the ship is kicked out to the side) and they don't start rotating again until my ship is on a straight ahead course or the turn goes from hard over to a more gentle, wide and sweeping curve. Why on Earth does this happen? It's frustrating to be in a close-range DD brawl only to lose it because the enemy DD hit that "magical radius" where their weapons can rotate first, and I end up eating 12 torpedoes from a torpedo sled or take a full broadside of 4" and 5" shells that leave my DD dead in the water just waiting for the inevitable torpedoes that didn't turn around in time. If my guns can rotate faster than my ship turns, why aren't they? Or perhaps the better question: why are only DDs and CLs plagued by locking turrets and launchers because they have a tight turn radius? Finally, whenever you gain an enemy ship as reparations, why is their tech not transferred to your navy, if their tech is better? For example, if my navy only has 15" Mk 1 guns but an enemy ship I gain as a war prize has 15" Mk 2 guns, why is the better technology not immediately unlocked and available to use? As it stands right now, unless that enemy AI design is just phenomenal, the only thing I do with a captured ship is scrap it for the cash because even if it has better tech, it does nothing to benefit me because it only works on that specific ship...so I'd rather just take the money to funnel into my own research. IDK if anyone else has experienced similar things or has had any similar thoughts, but I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed some of these things. I hope to get some answers...so I guess, here's hoping somebody who knows the answers responds.

Hello Captains If you come across a beautiful painting of a vessel and you do want it to be replicated in game let us know here. Example 1 Brest harbor - painting for the French King Was successfully applied to multiple vessels. And looks gorgeous. Example 2 Brig by the french age of sail artist Roux Was used on several ships including snow If you are a master and can photoshop yourself . post your own works Format Clear and good resolution painting or drawing or part of a drawing (showing the ship itself). Proposed ships that it can fit on. Flood and off topic will be removed

Looks like French 3rd rate from 1777.

The ships that pirates used to practice their deadly craft were unique in their own right when compared to standard navy and merchant vessels. Very rarely did pirates actually build their own ships from scratch. Often, they captured ships and refitted them to serve the sole purpose of piracy. They were "souped up" and made increasingly deadly. There were a number of goals that every pirate captain wanted their ship to achieve. Often, standard merchant vessels (and very rarely naval vessels) did not fancy a pirates' designs. So Pirates would go about refitting a ship, almost always looking to improve upon three crucial aspects : speed, firepower, and cargo capacity. No matter what vessel was to be used, the captain made sure that it would be refitted to utilize, if not over-utilize, these three aspects. Speed: in order to acquire the most speed possible (needed for outrunning the navy) pirates would tack on as much extra sail as possible to catch any and all stray wind that could be caught. Stunsails (studding sails) of all kinds were used, anything that could get you that extra knot. Firepower: One of the first priorities for a pirate captain would be to add guns to a newly acquired ship. any space on the decks that could provide for a cannon was utilized. Extra gun-ports would be cut out of the hull and more guns added. However, pirates would not rely on heavy cannon when fighting. Often, they would swap out heavier cannons for lighter variants. The idea was to not sink the ship, as a pirate wanted the ship in tact in order to plunder whatever was on board. Thus lighter guns would be used as well as demasting shot. Cargo Capacity: As a pirate, you wanted to take as much from an enemy vessel as possible and also wanted to be able to carry as much crew as possible for boarding. This meant carving out their own vessel in order to carry as much cargo and/or crew as possible. This meant removing any frames and bulkheads that separated the hold (also lightening the ship, increasing speed). Anything deemed "unnecessary" for piracy was removed, increasing space and sometimes speed. Now pirates also fancied a specific type of ship to suit their needs. Pirates were masters of hit-and-run tactics, and thus relied on smaller, faster and more maneuverable ships for piracy, such as sloops, schooners and brigs (there are a few large exceptions, such as Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge, which was originally a frigate, or Sir Francis Drake's Golden Hind, which was a Race-built Galleon). The pirates especially favored ships with low draft hulls. These ships would allow them to maneuver shallow waters where larger, deep draft ships would be unable to follow. Pirate ships were meant to get in quick, strike fast, and leave even faster. They did not want to stick around for reinforcements to arrive. Pirates were usually former sailors, and knew how to sail. Often, pirate crews would be able to pilot a ship with the bear minimum of sailors needed, should the situation call for it. However, pirates needed more crew in order to attack and board enemy ships. Edited: To clarify that the tripping out of the lower decks for extra space not just for cargo but also for more crew. Main Source: Modern Marvels: Pirate Tech Other Sources: The Great Ships: Pirate Ships, The Pirate Ship, A brief History of Piracy

Looking for more info and plans by Francis Sheldon Tre Løver, 1689, 68-74 Guns (24х24pd, 20х12pd12х6pd), Crew 529. ??? http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=18324 Elefant, 1687, 24 Guns (18х6pd, 6х4pd), Crew up to 90. ??? http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=17905 Let's keep going Dannebrog(1850) Unknown 5th rate? Bellona 1830 Rota 1822 gyldenløve 1669 hukkert 1760 12x4pd HVIDE ØRN 1798 30 Guns 24x8lb 6x8lb carronades Crew 180 brig ØRNEN 1842 28 Guns 16x18lb 12x1lb Crew 70 brig SEALARK 1843 12 Guns 4x32lb 8x32lb carronades

Hi everyone, I stumbled on this forum thread by chance and im amazed by all the work & plans everyone is posting here. Im a game design student and we are creating a small gaming environment for the current module. Thats why I am looking for plans for the captains quarter/cabin. Were plans like these ever made or was the cabin derived from the general ship plans? What Im looking for would be cross sections and floorplan of just the captains quarters but so far ive only found build plans for whole ships Thanks in advance!

Since we have an incredible amount of plans in this subforum, but no tutorial on how to read them (at least I haven´t found one), I figured I have to make one myself. And it´s a nice starting point for my modelling tutorial For this tutorial, I chose the plan of the Gefion, a danish 24-pounder frigate launched in 1843. Why choose a plan for a ship that´s out of the NA timeframe? Because it´s easy to read, contains a lot of information and I can explain a lot of things which woudn´t be possible with a contemporary british of french plan (some of the lines you won´t see on those, but on 'modern' reconstructions) Let´s get started, here´s the original draught of the Gefion: First, we´ll have a look at the dimensions given in the lower right corner and how they´re measured. The information here seems to be pretty straightforward, length between perpendiculars ( p/p) 160', breadth moulded 41', depth in hold 21' 1', draught aft 18' 9'' draught amidships 18' 2'', draught forward 17' 7'' with a difference between the draught fore and aft of 1' 2''. The middle gunport is 6' 9'' above the waterline, the distance between the gunports is 7' 2''. The rest are the results of the displacement calculations and not really important. What´s below the title is a bit more interesting as it tells us that the frigate should be armed with 28 long 24-pounders à 15 skp (~ 47,2 cwt with a length of 9' 6'') and 20 short-pattern 24-pounders à 8 1/2 skp (27,75 cwt). The total broadside weight - one side - is 576 danish pounds, converted to british pounds that´s 634,5. We have to keep in mind that the danish fod, as the french pied de roi, is a bit longer than the imperial feet, so if we want to compare these dimensions to a similiar british frigate like the Endymion or want to import and scale the plan in a modelling app, which probably only knows meter or feet, we have to convert them. The conversion factor is ~ 1.0305 (1.06575 for the pied de roi, by the way), so the dimensions in imperial feet are: length p/p 164' 10 1/2'' breadth 42' 3'' depth in hold 21' 9 3/4'' draught aft 19' 4'' draught foreward 18' 1 1/2'' middle gunport above the WL 6' 11 1/3'' distance between gunports 7' 4 5/8' Okay, let´s see how these dimensions are defined on the plan: First, the perpendiculars on the outboard profile (green lines) .As the name implies, these are either perpendicular to the keel or the load waterline (WL, red line). On british plans, they´re always perpendicular to the keel. On most french ones, also perpendicular to the keel. Swedish and danish, it depends on the timeframe, but most probably perpendicular to the WL. But they´re always parallels to the station lines (the thin red lines with numbers and/or letters). There were several ways to define the position of the perpendiculars, here it´s the intersection of the rabbet line (bright blue, shows where the inner edge of the planking is attached to the keel, stem and stern post) and the WL. I added the purple lines to show where the perps would have been on a british plan (at the stem and stern post, that´s the 'length of the gundeck'), these would give a length of 168' 7 1/3''. Next stop, the breadth. Here we have the breadth moulded, that means the breadth inside of planking, as opposed to breadth extreme, i.e. outside of planking. Here´s the body plan: It shows the station lines (the thin red lines on the outboard profile, remember? ^^) and the breadth moulded is the distance between the two yellow lines along the red WL. The station lines aren´t necessarily in the same positions as the actual frames, but they nethertheless define the shape of the hull. What they don´t show, however, is what the hull looks like with planking. This a very important thing to know if you want to make a 3D ship model and sadly a beginner´s mistake that happens quite often. If you don´t have a cross section that shows the thickness of the planking, you can measure the distance of the rabbet line (bright blue) to the keel, these are the two short orange lines, roughly 4''. This gives you the thickness of the planking from the keel up to the wales. The wales are just 3 or 4 rows of thicker planks which run along the whole length of the ship; as a rule of thump, they have 1,33 times the thickness of the planking of the underwater hull. The outboard profile shows the upper and lower edge of the wales (white line, 1. and 2.), the body plan only the upper edge (1.). Depth in hold. The danes used the french method of measuring the depth in hold, so this is the distance (dark blue line) from the upper edge of the keel to the lower surface of the upper gun deck beams at the midship bent (where the breadth moulded is taken). The british would measure the distance from upper edge of the keel to the lower surface of the gun deck. Draught fore and aft Easy. This is the distance from the WL to the keel along the perpendiculars fore and aft. Now let´s let get to the interesting bits: Here you can see which lines correspond with each other on the profile, half-breadth and body plan. Gefion´s tumblehome is pretty modest (2' 6''), especially compared to earlier ships like La Belle Poule and La Renommée. A large tumblehome can have positive effect on stabilty, but it also reduced the space available to operate the guns and may have made the ship a jerky roller. X, X1 and X2, called buttock lines on modern plans, are lines to check the plan (and a 3D model) for errors. Here´s what these lines look like in 3D: And in combination with the (unfinished) basic hull model: The station lines and the buttock lines (red) should describe the same exact surface. The clipping effect is pretty nocticeable as both are low-res, but it´s a nice start. The line called L'Estain (I only know the french term and you will find it only on french and danish plans) is especially interesting as it´s a simple diagonal on the half-breadth, but quite a complex curve on the outboard profile. It more or less defines the shape of the forward fashion piece, which can be seen here: The line called 1 B on the original plan is the part of the wing transom where the planking ends. So, now that we know what line means what, it´s time to check the plan for inaccuracies and distortions. The first step is to measure the scale given on the top of the draught. There are four equal parts à 10 fod with 384 pixels per part. The largest horizontal dimension given is that of the length p/p, so we measure the distance between the perpendiculars along the WL. That´s 6152 pixels, multiplied with the result of 10 fod/384 pixels gives us 160' 2''. Two inches off the mark, but very good for a plan that has been drawn 168 years ago. The largest vertical dimension is the depth in hold. That´s 810 pixels, multiplied with the result of 10 fod/384 pixels gives us 21' 1 1/8'' instead of 21' 1''. 1/8 of an inch. Not bad, not bad Another good check for distortions is to compare the distance between the yellow line and the middle of the body plan and the yellow line and the middle of the half breadth at the midship bend. In this case, it´s 791 vs. 790 pixels, so pretty much perfect. Pro tip: if you want to model a ship from the Architectura Navalis and use a plan from Chapman.net, this last check is absolutely necessary as those plans are heavily distorted along the x-axis. Different types of measurements Let´s have closer look at how perpendiculars can be defined (which in turn define the length of a ship). Here´s the draught of a danish ship, dated 1807. Perpendiculars Danish shipwrights at the time dropped the perpendiculars (green lines) at the intersection of the LWL (load waterline, blue) and the rabbet line at the stem and stern post (without planking thickness). This gives a length of 138' 6''. This method was also used by some shipwrights in France, by the way. British shipwrights dropped the perpendiculars at the intersection of the lower surface of the gun deck and rabbet line at the stem and stern post (without planking thickness). Unfortunately, the gun deck isn´t shown on the plan, so I used the upper deck for the perpendiculars (yellow line). This gives a length of the upper deck of 143'. French shipwrights......well, they used a lot of different methods to define the perpendiculars One of the most common was the intersection of the outside of the stern post with the projection of the upper face of the wing transom aft and the outside of the stem fore (brown line). Another method was using the intersection of the LWL and the outside of stem and stern post (purple line). This gives a length of 144' 3'' for the former and 141' 3'' for the latter. Breadth Danish and french shipwrights used outside of frame to outside of frame at the midship bent (red line), which is the same as the british breadth moulded, 36' 8'' in this case. The british breadth extreme adds the thickness of the second strake above or below the wales to the breadth moulded. The thickness of this strake isn´t given on the plan, but in an additional document (5,5 ''). So breadth extreme would be 36' 8'' + 2* 5,5'' = 37' 7''. Depth in hold Danish and french shipwrights defined the depth in hold as the distance (black line) between the upper surface of the keel - including rabbet line - and the lower surface of the deck beams of the closest armed deck (the upper deck, in this case). This ship has a depth in hold of 18' 2''. British depth in hold was distance (green line) between the upper surface of the keel - including rabbet line - and the lower surface of the deck beams of the closest continuous deck (the gun or lower deck in this case). Depth in hold measured this way is 12' 3''. Easy, isn´t it? To complicate things a bit, let´s convert the danish fod used so far into french pied de roi and british feet and apply the corresponding measurement methods. Danish Length 138' 6'' Breadth 36' 8'' Depth in Hold 18' 2'' French Length 139' 6'' Breadth 35' 4'' Depth in Hold 17' 7'' British Length 147' 5'' Breadth extreme 38' 9'' Depth in Hold 12' 7,5'' Links: http://www.marinewiki.org/index.php?title=Lines_plan http://modelshipworldforum.com/resources/plans_and_research/InterpretingLineDrawings.pdf

Instead of trying to re-invent the wheel I might as well ask around here. I am looking for writers (articles preferred) that discuss one or more of the following subjects in the 18th century (both early and late): - Royal Navy as act of nationalism - View on the RN by the common folk - Popularity of service in RN (pressgangs etc) - Popularity of RN in Houses of Parliament I think you can get the general gest of things. Context: For my studies I am taking a critical look at Dan Snow and the statement in Empire of the Seas: The Royal Navy was a national effort. I am looking into how national it really was and if it could/should be seen as an act of nationalism or if the BBC has reverted to the sin of teleology.

A few weeks ago a forum user threw me into confusion by referring to our in-game Surprise as a 38-gun frigate, more powerful than a 32-gun ship. Certainly a strange description for Patrick O'Brian's 'jackass frigate'! To be clear, Surprise isn't a 38-gun Fifth Rate, despite carrying precisely 38 broadside guns. Gun ratings are nominal, and often don't include the uselessly-light forecastle or quarterdeck guns. There is plenty of cause for confusion, however, given the myriad different vessels (historical, fictional and modern) one has to keep straight when searching for the 'real' Surprise. I've finally managed to track them all down and compare them, with an emphasis on armament, length and beam. L'Unite (1794)-->HMS Surprise: The historical inspiration for O'Brian's frigate was built by the French navy in 1794, captured by HMS Inconstant in 1796 (a strangely negative name, you'll agree) and brought into service in the Royal Navy as HMS Surprise. HMS Surprise was rated as a 28-gun Sixth Rate, although she briefly bore the designation of a Fifth Rate. Specifications: Length of Gundeck: 126' 0" Length of Keel: 108' 6 ¼" Beam: 31' 8'' Tons burthen: 578 73⁄94 Armament in French Service: 24x 8-pounder long guns 8x 4-pounder long guns (quarterdeck and forecastle) Armament in English Service: 24x 9-pounder long guns 8x 4-pounder long guns (quarterdeck) 4x 12-pounder carronades (quarterdeck) 2x 12-pounder carronades (forecastle) 2x 4-pounder long guns (probably bow chasers) Even these light guns were found to be too heavy and unwieldy for the ship's narrow hull, and were replaced with carronades. Later Carronade-only Armament: 24x 32-pounder carronades 10x 18-pounder carronades (quarterdeck and forecastle) 2x 4-pounder guns (bow chasers) Here is the draught the British made of her. As she is a rather modern frigate, she is cut for many ports on the quarterdeck and forecastle, where light frigates of earlier decades would carry few to none (ie, HMS Cerberus). These light upper deck guns are why she might be mistaken for a 32, 36, or even 38-gun ship. These larger frigates, however, would be expected to mount 26 guns on the gundeck, with their longer hulls. *** Jack Aubrey's HMS Surprise: O'Brian describes her as a 28-gun Sixth Rate, a 'jackass frigate,' formerly the French corvette L'Unite (1794). This background is entirely historical. However, O'Brian's Surprise carries 12-pounders instead of the historical French 8-pound and English 9-pound long guns. She also retains the '36-gun ship mainmast' which was briefly installed in the historical frigate by an English dockyard. The experiment was unsuccessful, and Surprise ended up with at least one mast sized for an even smaller (24-gun) ship. *** Fifth Rate HMS Surprise (1812): Some of O'Brian's readers speculate that the author confused Aubrey's ship with a heavier frigate that also bore the name Surprise. Presumably this would be the 38-gun Leda-class 18-pounder frigate built in 1812, a sister-ship to Naval Action's Trincomalee. I very much doubt that anyone could confuse these two ships, as the difference in size and firepower is so great. Specifications: Length of Gundeck: 150' 4'' Length of Keel: 125' 8 ⅞'' Beam: 40' ½'' Tons Burthen: 1,072 33⁄94 Armament: 28x 18-pounder long guns 8x 9-pounder long guns (quarterdeck) 6x 32-pounder carronades (quarterdeck) 2x 32-pounder carronades (forecastle) 2x 9-pounder long guns (probably bow chasers) *** Fifth Rate Gracieuse (1787)-->Unite-->HMS Unite: If O'Brian did get his ships mixed up, it was likely with the 32-gun 12-pounder frigate Gracieuse, built by the French in 1787 but renamed Unite in 1793. She retained the latter name when taken by the British. Specifications: Length of Gundeck: 142' 5 ½" Length of Keel: 118' 5 ⅛" Beam: 37' 8" Tons Burthen: 873 71⁄94 Armament in British Service: 26x 12-pounder long guns 6x 6-pounder long guns (quarterdeck and forecastle) 4x 24-pounder carronades (forecastle) With her armament, this ship may well be the reason that O'Brian's (and Naval Action's) HMS Surprise carries 12-pounders. *** HMS Rose (1970)-->HMS Surprise: This is the ship that portrayed 'the dear old Surprise' in the film Master and Commander. HMS Rose was built in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia in 1970, "using original construction drawings" from the 1757 Sixth Rate frigate HMS Rose, which served in the American War of Independence. In 2001, HMS Rose was officially renamed HMS Surprise, and underwent changes to her rig, upper works and outward appearance. In turn, the movie ship seems to have provided the rig and paint scheme for Naval Action's rendition of L'Unite's hull and armament. Specifications (note the different measurement systems): Length Overall: 179' Length on Deck: 135' 6'' Beam: 32' Appearance as HMS Rose Appearance as HMS Surprise As you can see, besides the superficial changes to paint scheme and decorations, HMS Rose was refitted with a mizzen topgallant and had her quarterdeck rails replaced with bulwarks pierced for guns. If you look closely, you will see that the ship's lines, especially those of the upper works, do not resemble the more heavily-armed L'Unite. *** 24-gun frigate HMS Rose (1757): The historical ship represented by the 1970 replica had an extensive career on the North American seaboard, which you can read about here. Specifications: Length of Gundeck: 108' 11 ½" Length of Keel: 90' 10 ¼" Beam: 30' 1" Tons Burthen: 430 37⁄94 Armament: 20x 9-pounder long guns You will notice that Rose is noticeably smaller than L'Unite. Because I cannot find measurements for the replica ship in the same historical units, I cannot tell whether the modern ship was built to be larger, or is faithful to the original. In conclusion, the in-game Surprise seems to be a replica of L'Unite's hull, combined with the rigging and outward appearance of the replica ship featured in Master and Commander. In addition, she carries the 12-pounders of an entirely different French frigate named Unite. Such an armament would have been seriously detrimental to her sailing qualities and safety, if history is any guide. Furthermore, she is capable of carrying 12-pounder guns even on the quarterdeck and forecastle, which never mounted any long gun heavier than a 4-pounder historically. This does turn her into a sort of pocket Fifth Rate, with firepower exceeding many 32 and 36-gun ships. With some real 12-pounder and 9-pounder frigates on the horizon (Belle Poule and Renommee), Surprise will upset the balance and progression of the game's ships unless her armament is cut down to historical size. In compensation, she should be allowed to carry 32-pounder carronades. Lastly, if anyone can find some more useful length and beam numbers for the replica ship HMS Rose/Surprise, I am very keen to see them. You are also welcome to post more pictures and especially draughts of any of the ships, and I will add them to the OP. I am especially curious to see a screenshot of the game's Surprise and Trincomalee lined up side-by-side, to compare their respective lengths (I can't access the game for a while myself).

What 6th/5th rate ship do people want in the game that's currently not being worked on by the developers or another Player. I'm going to dust off my Maya and start a new project for fun ( looking to do a ship with plenty of references)

I know I know, wikipedia isn't the best source when it comes down to it...but is there any data to back up the claim on wikipedia that the pickle actually had 8 12 pounder cannonades? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Pickle_(1800) also, where is my figurehead!!!!!!! (kidding)

The first time Ive seen this ship I fell in love to her. Its a little ship of the line - maybe the smallest SoL the dutch ever bothered to launch. (her class at least). But there appears to be no plans whatsoever. There are several plans of 50 gun SoLs but most of them just dont have the flavor of this particular vessel. https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/NG-MC-656 If the real plans dont exist Id really love to see a 44 gun twodecker without any ewatherdeck guns. Means there is no prominent forecastle or quarterdeck. The image above has those two parts very suttle. Nothing "in your face" about it imo. Her sides look very clean. Maybe someone has plans to her or maybe knows some more about this class of ships. I am eager to learning more about her!

found a unnamed 74 gun in a book about ships in diffrent time periods sadly the twats didnt include any sources so i have no idea about the nation or name. any ideas?

Paint schemes on ships throughout history.

Well the title says it all.. Why dont we have plans for the téméraire class 74 gunners? After all she was the 74 gunner of the time. No other 3rd rates were ever build in such numbers off one construction plan.. I did a bit of research the days but could not find satisfying plans. nowhere in the webz I was around. armament?: (and remember that a french 36pd is 38.8 british pd) 28 x 36pd 30* 18pd 12 x 8pd + 4 x 36pd Carros (or 4x8pd as well as on the quarterdeck) __ total: 74 guns (as of 1783, launchdate of temeraire) 700 men compliment. I know its not the greatest of all sources but Wikipedial actually has a good page about the Temeraire class ships with good general information. Also threedecks.org has a good list of ships here Lead ship: Téméraire If there is "one" french ship missing. Its this class.

Hey guys i posted this in a discussion about carronades but thought it deserved its own thread. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NF_NYwhMjD81wQkU9Ce-k0tOngRN4PxXot2nH5FfxGQ/edit?usp=sharing This is a chapter in one of my books 'The Frigates' which cover the essex in her prime. If there is much interest i may post another slideshow with pictures and diagrams of interest concerning her. Cheers Dazed Edit. Sorry about the flash

question i have, how common were colored, or partly colored sails in the 7 seas? is there any Historical info for that? Edit after a hour of research: as far as i know sails were sealed with tar so they wont soak up water in rain. oh and i found some instances how and why ships had colored sails, Red and Brown were fairly common btw the Practical effect was, colored sails protect the eyes of the sungrare then you need to look in the sails, its basicly a sunglass. White sails were killing your eyes secondary, red and brown sails could have been a byproduct by sealing the linen with tar, so it might have been not to expennsive, while darker colors like Black were expensive and gray out fast. Also yellow sails were common too these are also a byproduct by sealing the linen with tar. "yellow ochre through various brick reds to dark" was the common results by sealing the sails this is a 1750's era description: The sails of fishing-vessels are generally tanned: lightermen, &c. use the following composition to colour and preserve their sails, viz. horse grease and tar, mixed to a proper consistance, and coloured with red or yellow ochre, with which, when heated, the sails are payed over. The following method is also much approved, viz. the sail, being spread on the grass, is made thoroughly wet with sea-water, and then payed over, on both sides, with brown or red ochre mixed with sea-water to the consistence of cream, it is then well rubbed over, on both sides, with linseed oil. The sail may be used within 24 hours after being oiled. The tanning of sails in the royal navy has been tried, but is not approved of. like this. but for other colors like purple and othe blues and greens you need to have a alot of pocket money, the romans used purply dyed silk sails for some period of time. But i think a trader with enought pocketmoney would be able to aply blue or greens aswell while these colors must be aplied before the tanning process and will get into a darker tone after it. Conclusion, Red, Yellow and White tones were the most common colors in the 7 seas due the fact that most ships had tanned sails, these colors have nothing todo with the pocketmoney of a captain. Fisherboats were more common in Red tones sails due the small sails and its their investment, they were everyday on the seas to catch fish. Military vessels were using more White to yellow colors, aswell as long range traders. While there were also other big squarerigged ships with Red, Blue and Green sails. I personaly dont understand why artist of that period only draws these engagement pictures So Painting/Tanning your sails should be possible, maybe make Tar a primary resource for that Captain kidd was once forced to patch his sails with Red tanned sails, it basicly resulted in a red grey white to yellow pattern and would probelly looked like a camoflage pattern XD

Looking for names, specs and history. Koopvaardijfregat 'Javaan' Pluto

I have been looking around for various bits of data on the Rattlesnake and learned that the bowsprit gets in the way of the bow ports making the Rattlesnake an 18 gun ship rather than a 20 gun ship like many sites claim. Not only that but the ship can only carry 4 pounder guns. I measured a few 6 pounders from different plans and they did seem too tall for the ports. Some ship models showed them being too tall for the ports too, the guns aiming down sometimes. Anyway looking at the options, I was wondering if you guys know if chase guns positioned like this could be possible. Its similar to the chase guns on the gun deck of the Trincomalee ingame. The arc of fire would be somewhat limited but the elevation is very good. Maybe there's something I don't know? It would seem logical to me that the gundeck sides would be clear of any obstructions and 4 different Rattlesnake plans showed me nothing else but the bowsprit at the front. But you never know when something might be left out of the plan.

I am sure many of you would like this curious french visual guide of sail vessels http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9613477d Its the full book, An example...

Unknown Need help reading the text! Possibly her sailing report: Need help!

*Note - all links provided are found online, so use it at your own risk. Hello Shipwrights. links might lead to some interesting information about French ships, but not guaranteed. So, open them at your own risk. http://www.rwmilitarybooks.com/shop_image/product/4f468474d3e1db80c6f24c7efd5855a5.jpg Feel free to go through these links and and learn history. Spend some time on plans and provide info about interesting ships that you like. Let's have some fun and happy reading. Dropbox link:

'Charles Grant' Many of the East Indiaman that traded between London and the East were built in Indian dockyards. The 'Charles Grant', for example, was built at Bombay in 1810. Ships built in India were constructed using superior tropical hard-woods such as teak. They were more resistant than vessels built from English oak to the sea-worms which ate through the bottoms of many ships. Wherever they were built, each East Indiaman had a limited life expectancy - 4 voyages to Asia over 8 to 10 years. Between 1600 and 1833 the East India Company's ships made about 4600 voyages from London.

Hello guys, Just found this ship whilst on holiday in St Petersburg, Russia. I think it's actually a restaurant now but I wondered whether it was a replica of a real ship. I struggled to count the ports but it looks to be of a similar size to the hms victory.