Comandante Gómez Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 no problem most people that start on the topic of the age of fighting sail have only basic idea of understanding myself inluded. and i see this history subforum as perfect tool of education. +1 This kind of threads are very useful to learn about whatever is the topic. I love them. A beautiful ship, the USS Chippewa. I love when US Navy uses indian origin names which evoke the bravery of ancient indian civilizations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward Vernon Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I dont know about the Spanish but the French Admiral Villanueve was not the best and an American admiral with one of these super 1st rates in the battle could have turned the tide. Which particular American Admiral are you thinking of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawke Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I dont know about the Spanish but the French Admiral Villanueve was not the best and an American admiral with one of these super 1st rates in the battle could have turned the tide. An American Admiral couldn't have stopped the French from firing too high or the Spanish firing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir. Cunningham Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I dont know about the Spanish but the French Admiral Villanueve was not the best and an American admiral with one of these super 1st rates in the battle could have turned the tide. Quite unlikely, if not to say completely so, considering the poor experience of the Allied crews and lack of important innovations such as the gunlock. Thanks to this, and despite the slight disparity in number, the British fleet quite simply was the superior force and it no doubt would've prevailed regardless of who commanded the Allied fleet that day - Villeneuve's incompetence at sea just made it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromey Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 We should simulate a battle like this some day and see who would come on top.. Perhaps all the beta testers as england and the pre order noobies as french/spanish ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comandante Gómez Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 We should simulate a battle like this some day and see who would come on top.. Perhaps all the beta testers as england and the pre order noobies as french/spanish ! I think when we have orginized the battle and set it up ready to play it, many of pre-order users won't be simply "noobies". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawke Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 We used to have "Mass Battles" organized here on the forum, but sadly they have fallen off lately. Hopefully with the influx of sea trial players we can have more large scale engagements again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debnal Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I came to this forum by accident. I have knowledge of the USS New Orleans that no one else has. Maybe it will help. I own an admiralty hull model of the New Orleans that is 200 years old. In fact, it's the only known contemporary ship model of an American sailing ship known. She was designed to carry 106 guns. I know this because that is how many gunports on the model that have fittings for the cannons, She was designed by Henry Ekford, who also designed the Ohio. I would gladly post pictures of her if someone could tell me how to do this. Currently the model is being studied at the US Naval Ship Systems Command and the details will be published shortly. It is also interesting to note that the New Orleans and Chippewa were being built to counter the St Laurance. In fact, the British were building an even more powerful ship - Canada. The Americans were going to counter this with another huge design- Lafayette. The latter two ships were to be behemoths- 130 guns or more. If the war had lasted a year longer, there would have been a monumental sea battle on the lake that would have made all the sea battles in that war look like mere skirmishes . Al 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Armstrong Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Those would certainly be some might interesting photos! I assume it has all the trademarks of Eckford's work, which can be seen in his smaller craft? I'm thinking of a sharply raked bow and the headrails as looking similar on both the Ohio and his proposal for the 1824 sloop of war that eventually went to Samuel Humphreys instead and became the USS Boston-though it has been awhile since I've seen either plan. There should be a little image icon below and between the A(for colored text) and the smiley face icon, which should allow you to put in photos once they are hosted online elsewhere. (or likely even on a public folder of dropbox) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debnal Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Here is a picture of the model. Is definitely an Ekford design and designed to be a Lakes built ship. The scale is 1"=1' or 1:48. An interesting bit of history- during the Civil War the US said they would complete New Orleans and use her against Canada, if the British were to enter the war on the side of the Confederates. This was in response to the infamous Trent Affair. Al 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debnal Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I should have said the scale was 1"=4'. The model, while depicting the New Orleans, does show characteristics that Ekford used in designing his follow on ship of the line- Ohio. The Oho was arguably the best ship of the line the US ever produced. The figurehead on the model is the same as was used on the Ohio. Al 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerrialKiller Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Once again, the Pennsylvania was 1837, while the Chippewa and New Orleans were laid down in 1815. This thread is about the Chippewa and New Orleans, not the Pennsylvania. Youre way of the time perriod as a mattet of fact the usa only came into the picture later in the 1800s the ships you are talking about where never build neither did they sail so easy. Sorry but usa didn't have a navy the age of sails was the golden age after 1820 it became more steam and clipper range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maturin Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Clippers were a very brief phenomenon that lasted around a decade. But there were big square riggers hauling cargo all over the world until the 1950s. After 1820, the schooners took over a lot faster than the steamers did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Armstrong Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 what an interesting vessel debnal! certainly looks eckford-esqe, and with some unusual features too! I can't quite tell if the bow is a beakhwad bulkhead or a round bow trying to be a beakhead, but it certainly looks different! unusual to have quarter galleries on the lowest gundeck of a ship of the line, and yet there is no poop deck either(though i suppose that was the norm in american battleships, and also the st. lawrence) probably the first example of a fully armed spardeck on a US SoL as well. looks like there is at least plenty of freeboard though. does the transom bear any resemblance to Pennsylvania's? fairly certain that is the only other to have two tiers of lights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromey Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I think England surrendered in 1814 because they knew we were making a super duper 200 gun Quintiple decker behemoth leviathon kraken ship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Connor Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I think England surrendered in 1814 because they knew we were making a super duper 200 gun Quintiple decker behemoth leviathon kraken ship! You almost make it sound like America won the War of 1812 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debnal Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 "what an interesting vessel debnal! certainly looks eckford-esqe, and with some unusual features too! I can't quite tell if the bow is a beakhwad bulkhead or a round bow trying to be a beakhead, but it certainly looks different! unusual to have quarter galleries on the lowest gundeck of a ship of the line, and yet there is no poop deck either(though i suppose that was the norm in american battleships, and also the st. lawrence) probably the first example of a fully armed spardeck on a US SoL as well. looks like there is at least plenty of freeboard though. does the transom bear any resemblance to Pennsylvania's? fairly certain that is the only other to have two tiers of lights." Although this is a builder's model, the actual ship would have been built without the stern galleries and stern decorative treatment. The ship was being built in a very big hurry so those superfluous details would have been left off. The stern treatment on the model is very well done, and, according to some of the experts, as good as it got for an American design. Ekford employed a model maker for his designs and this appears to be the model for New Orleans and, possibly, Chippewa. One can only speculate what might have happened on Lake Ontario if the war had lasted even another six months. Both sides has many smaller ships and add the St Laurance (74), Canada (100+) plus new Orleans and Cheppewa (74-110) and Lafayette (130) and there would have been some kind of sea battle on Lake Ontario. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltraVires Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Thanks for sharing those model pics Al, that's a neat and interesting little bit of history that I'm glad someone has preserved! It's also cool that your sharing it with the Navy, instead of keeping it in storage, or on a shelf where no one knows it exists. Are they taking measurements so other models can be made (for Museums and so forth)? On the subject at hand... Once the open world comes out... I do think it would be a little unfair to limit the players who want to play as the US to only Frigates. Previous posters have brought up valid points about there never being many US SOL's in real life (even later, after the Napoleonic period), and about being afraid that when the open world does come, there are going to be nothing but American ships, unless the other countries have distinct advantages over them (as in History). I can sympathize with this view, as I'm kind of afraid there will be nothing but British ships... However, if the US doesn't have anything heavier than a Frigate, I don't think many people would play them at all (I would, but I'm planning on playing as the US regardless- I like the ships paint scheme better ). They would be like the Japanese in War Thunder... They have fewer types of aircraft etc. available than the other Nations, and as a result get played less. Is it Historically Accurate? Yes. Is it fun? No. I would like playing as the US to be a viable option from the stand point of game-play, but I do agree that the other Nations should have an advantage over the US to better represent the actual balance of Naval power at the time. How about a compromise? Let's say that the heaviest ship the US has access to is a 3rd Rate 74- a two-decker. Like say the "America", built in Boston as a 74, and given to France in 1784. I don't know if blueprints are available for that particular ship, but there are others that could be used. Joshua Humphrey's made a design for a US 74, as mentioned in a earlier post. It would be a "paper" ship, but at least it would give US players the chance to compete with the other nations at higher levels, while still giving the other Nations and advantage. That's just my two cents anyway... Have a nice day all! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 since USS Chippewa and USS New Orleans were originally meant to fight in the War of 1812, and were only cancelled because Britain surrendered as they were nearing completion! You should read up on your history, Britain didn't surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debnal Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 The guys at Naval Sea Systems Command will publish their analysis of the New Orleans soon. They have studied it for almost two years. They even put it through a Cat scan and the data developed from that will enable them to build a model of the model. It will have been the most studied ship model, ever. the model has given them a rare insight into ship building on the Lakes during the War of 1812. Al 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBoiteux Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) (This ship was built outside the current NA timeframe end : 1830. For educational purposes only ) Created from documents collected by Surcouf (on his request) USS Pennsylvania USA, 1837 Four-decked 140-gun 1st-Rate History Pennsylvania was one of the "nine ships to rate not less than 74 guns each" authorized by the US Congress on 29 April 1816. Built by Samuel Humphreys in the Philadelphia Navy Yard, she wasn't a real full 4-decker but had three complete gun decks and a flush spar-deck. Her hull was pierced for 136 guns. More plans and drawing http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/2100-la-taverne-du-corsaire/?p=140990 Images http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/line/sol31.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/30/59/2b/30592b463aa2ffa26adc97338d8c1080.jpghttp://media.philly.com/images/20130717_USSpennsylvania_600.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Pennsylvania-ship-of-the-line-Currier-Ives.jpeghttp://sailsatsea.com/getattachment/Gallery/Ship-of-the-Line-USS-Pennsylvania/DSC_0096.JPG.aspxhttp://historylink101.com/bw/sailing_ships/SailingShipsP/images/IMG_5853_e2.jpghttp://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-p/penna-m.htm Sources : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pennsylvania_(1837) Thanks Surcouf for this contribution !!! Edited October 26, 2015 by LeBoiteux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry d'Esterre Darby Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I couldn't find the topic under Pennsylvania either sir. No worries. Merged it into the "correct" one and I'll update the title as well to be easier to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Valkenburg Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I dont know about the Spanish but the French Admiral Villanueve was not the best and an American admiral with one of these super 1st rates in the battle could have turned the tide. Anyone reading this feel free to counter me with your opinions and knowledge, but I personally think an American in command of the Allied fleet at Trafalgar would have been messy. Given the utter lack of ships-of-the-line in America's navy at that point, they didn't have any real experience with handling them, be it alone or in numbers. I do think it would be a little unfair to limit the players who want to play as the US to only Frigates. Previous posters have brought up valid points about there never being many US SOL's in real life (even later, after the Napoleonic period), and about being afraid that when the open world does come, there are going to be nothing but American ships, unless the other countries have distinct advantages over them (as in History). I can sympathize with this view, as I'm kind of afraid there will be nothing but British ships... However, if the US doesn't have anything heavier than a Frigate, I don't think many people would play them at all (I would, but I'm planning on playing as the US regardless- I like the ships paint scheme better ). They would be like the Japanese in War Thunder... They have fewer types of aircraft etc. available than the other Nations, and as a result get played less. Is it Historically Accurate? Yes. Is it fun? No. I would like playing as the US to be a viable option from the stand point of game-play, but I do agree that the other Nations should have an advantage over the US to better represent the actual balance of Naval power at the time. How about a compromise? Let's say that the heaviest ship the US has access to is a 3rd Rate 74- a two-decker. Like say the "America", built in Boston as a 74, and given to France in 1784. I don't know if blueprints are available for that particular ship, but there are others that could be used. Joshua Humphrey's made a design for a US 74, as mentioned in a earlier post. It would be a "paper" ship, but at least it would give US players the chance to compete with the other nations at higher levels, while still giving the other Nations and advantage. That's just my two cents anyway... Have a nice day all! I'm an American myself and will fly that flag regardless of how much of an underdog we are compared to the rest. That's just my nature and I prefer frigate duels to lines of battle anyway. I think one can make a reasonable case for the inclusion of America as a playable third rate, even if she was ultimately gifted to the French. A bigger stretch would be for allowing Ohio in the American lineup, but that's even further into the realm of "what if." Any of the American "supersized" second/first rates simply came too late to be included. At the end of the day, however, I submit that the American faction actually be limited to super-frigates and lighter. It might be a major disappointment to folks wanting to charge into battle with the Star Spangled Banner at the gaff of their battleship, but it would naturally deter folks from flooding the American faction simply because they're American players. If anything, I think it would be interesting to factor in some sort of economic or privateering perk for Americans, since that's largely what the United States had to survive on during both the War for Independence and the War of 1812. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry d'Esterre Darby Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 By 1805, the US were still having trouble subduing the Mediterranean, despite a vastly superior level of technology in the area. I'd have to agree that the Americans still lacked the knowledge, even as of 1812, to properly execute a large fleet action. Nelson had the magic, experience, skill, and luck to pull it off. I'm not sure even another British Admiral could have executed it nearly so well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maturin Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Britain surrendered as they were nearing completion! Ummmmmm By 1805, the US were still having trouble subduing the Mediterranean, despite a vastly superior level of technology in the area. 'A ship's a fool to fight a fort.' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now