Privateer Rattlesnake - Chase guns possible in this position?

[Malachi]

Shifting broadside guns to bow/stern chaser ports would be a very welcome option. Very fews ship had the kind of dedicated chase guns we have in the game.

And there´s the question if we should change the ship models (addition of ports) to be more 'useful' in certain situations or if the game mechanics should change. I´d much perfer the latter.

 

Not all ships had stern/bow chase ports and most probably for good reasons. Constitution before her refit after the war of 1812 - the model we have ingame - couldn´t fire through her stern windows without damaging the transom structure:

 

At seven minutes before two, the Belvidera, than the nearest ship, began to fire with her bow-guns, and the Constitution opened with her stern chasers. On board the latter ship, however, it was soon found to be dangerous to use the main-deck guns, the transoms having so much rake, the windows being so high, and the guns so short, that every explosion lifted the upper deck, and threatened to blow out the stern frame. Perceiving, moreover, that his shot did little or no execution, Capt. Hull ordered the firing to cease at half past two.

 

 

 

Quote by James Fenimore Cooper

 

We already have two frigates with guns sticking out where absolutely no guns should be (Renommée and Surprise) and I certainly don´t want other ships added to the list.

 

And bow chase ports on some vessels would just look stupid because of the curvature of the bow. For shit and giggles, I cut two ports at the bow on an old model of mine, La Panthère (basically a smaller, 6-pounder version of La Renommée):

 

 

If the guns should be able to fire directly forward, the ports have to really huge (1,5 times the breadth of the broadside ports), no sane shipwright would have done that. As a bonus, the guns would probably recoil right into the fore riding bits.

[OTMatt]

Shifting broadside guns to bow/stern chaser ports would be a very welcome option. Very fews ship had the kind of dedicated chase guns we have in the game.

And there´s the question if we should change the ship models (addition of ports) to be more 'useful' in certain situations or if the game mechanics should change. I´d much perfer the latter.

 

Not all ships had stern/bow chase ports and most probably for good reasons. Constitution before her refit after the war of 1812 - the model we have ingame - couldn´t fire through her stern windows without damaging the transom structure:

 

 

Oh yes they should definitely improve on the ship chasing mechanic, as it is now ships without bow chase guns are kinda useless. But still even if the constitution did not have a strong stern it too used the bridle ports.

 

 

To overcome the ship’s weakness in firing straight ahead, he removed the officers’ telephone booth-like “spice boxes” (johns) from their places forward on the gun deck so that 24-pounders could be fired dead ahead through the bridle ports. Both these changes contributed to his success in simultaneously defeating HMS Cyane, a frigate, and HMS Levant, a corvette, on the above date,

 

The same was mentioned in your link too:

 

 

She was somewhat longer than was usual for vessels of her class, and it has been asserted that two guns were mounted in her bridle-ports, to bring her by the head. These two guns, it will be remembered, on the other hand, were of particular service to her, on account of the peculiar manner in which the battle was fought, the Constitution being so much on the bows of her adversary. Here, then, had Old Ironsides fairly beaten an English frigate in a yard-arm fight, leaving her opponent without an upright stick in her, except the stumps of masts, while she still carried every essential spar of her own in its place!

 

Maturin mentioned the Essex bridle ports were designed to use bow chasers as well. So really we have at least 2 ships in the game that could have bow chasers that would not damage the hull of the ship.

 

Btw that is a pretty frigate, I love miniature frigates.

[maturin]

Shifting broadside guns to bow/stern chaser ports would be a very welcome option. Very fews ship had the kind of dedicated chase guns we have in the game.

And there´s the question if we should change the ship models (addition of ports) to be more 'useful' in certain situations or if the game mechanics should change. I´d much perfer the latter.

 

Not all ships had stern/bow chase ports and most probably for good reasons. Constitution before her refit after the war of 1812 - the model we have ingame - couldn´t fire through her stern windows without damaging the transom structure:

 

 

Quote by James Fenimore Cooper

 

We already have two frigates with guns sticking out where absolutely no guns should be (Renommée and Surprise) and I certainly don´t want other ships added to the list.

 

And bow chase ports on some vessels would just look stupid because of the curvature of the bow. For shit and giggles, I cut two ports at the bow on an old model of mine, La Panthère (basically a smaller, 6-pounder version of La Renommée):

 

 

If the guns should be able to fire directly forward, the ports have to really huge (1,5 times the breadth of the broadside ports), no sane shipwright would have done that. As a bonus, the guns would probably recoil right into the fore riding bits.

 

What about chasers mounted on the forecastle? Do you think the stanchions on La Gros Vetre's beakhead bulkhead could mount gun tackle, for example?

[Malachi]

No idea, to be honest. I don´t have the monograph about the LVG, so I don´t how they were fastened to the rest of the bow structure. The forecastle might be to cramped for bow chasers (similiar to the BP) anyway:

 

http://gerard.delacroix.pagesperso-orange.fr/gv/gv1.jpg

 

Not that much space between the cat tails and the fore topsail sheet bits.

 

But still even if the constitution did not have a strong stern it too used the bridle ports.

 

 

Unlike many other frigates, Conny could certainly use her bridle ports for chasers on the upper deck level. The stern chasers were a problem, though, at least before the refit.

[OTMatt]

 

If the guns should be able to fire directly forward, the ports have to really huge (1,5 times the breadth of the broadside ports), no sane shipwright would have done that. As a bonus, the guns would probably recoil right into the fore riding bits.

 

Oh I didn't really mean to have ports cut into every ship. IMO its a crime to cut out additional ports that were not there historically. Too world of tank-ish if you ask me.

 

I'm just suggesting if a ship can make good use of bridle ports or stern windows that already exist then maybe there can be an option for crews to shift those guns if possible. Angled port chasers would be neat too.

[Cragger]

Chase guns didn't need to be able to converge dead ahead. As they were rarely fired dead ahead.  The pursuing ship would always try to maintain the weather gauge to some degree so as not to be sailing into the wind more then the pursued ship. Being dead astern meant the pursued ship could tack to being more with the wind and gain distance. Add to this that chase guns were just an extra, they could potentially shorten a pursuit by hitting a yard or other vital rigging. It's only the game that forces constant damage tagging to prevent magical vanishing acts. In real life ships weren't forced to give distance to pursued ships by turning to fire guns to keep the opponent 'engaged'. 

 

Second thing is no wooden ships armament was ever fixed. Most navies allowed the captain to outfit his ship in whatever way to best accomplish his mission that his funds or prestige allowed. Loops would be cut in railings and gunwales to add chase guns when needed. Forward ones for raiding cruises, aft ones for missions requiring delivery of important messages, persons, or cargo.

[VonVolks]

from the history it seemed the "fast" Rattlesnake lasted barely 12 days at sea, and was captured in her first encounter by a frigate. So cant run and cant fight, and isn't very comfortable for her crew.....

 

So what's the upside? (aside from super cool front snake figurehead)

[Cragger]

Another thing to consider is if the hawse pieces were solid enough to absorb the recoil, especially with the asymmetrical breachings maturin mentioned.

 

 

89 feet for 18 4-pounders and maybe enough room for 2 months of provisions may have been an interesting concept for a privateer but it looks out of place next to the 'grown-up' war ships

And with roughly 5' head clearance under the quarterdeck and probably even less under the forecastle it certainly wasn´t a comfortable experiment.

Dont get me wrong, small frigates, ship sloops and corvettes are my favourite type of ships, but this one....nah.

 

 

By the way, what´s the distance between the lower edge of the middle gunport and the waterline? Don´t have the plan, so I can´t measure it myself.

 

Just a small note. Our perceptions of comfort are distorted by the realities of today. People just 100 years ago where on average by and large much shorter then today, especially western civilizations. I wish I could remember it enough to find it again but there was an amazing collection of the earliest criminal photos with height markers and it was amazing how short they were compared to your average man today. 

 

So 5' especially if measured to the bottom of the beams and not the deck would be pretty comfortable to the average sailor of the 1700s I imagine.

[Cragger]

from the history it seemed the "fast" Rattlesnake lasted barely 12 days at sea, and was captured in her first encounter by a frigate. So cant run and cant fight, and isn't very comfortable for her crew.....

 

So what's the upside? (aside from super cool front snake figurehead)

 

Weather conditions (not present in game) was the most critical factor in Rattlesnake's capture. HMS Leander 1813 could set more press of sail in the heavy winds and seas of that day then the Rattlesnake.

[Malachi]

Rattlesnake was captured by a 44-gun two decker, the Assurance, not the Leander.

[Cragger]

Rattlesnake was captured by a 44-gun two decker, the Assurance, not the Leander.

 

Do you have a source for this I am curious?

 

Because the London gazette published an exert of Collier's dispatch which names the Leander as having captured the Rattlesnake.

 

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/16941/page/1964

 

"From Captain Sir George Collier, of His Majesty's ship Leander, dated the llth July, giving an account of his having captured, after a chase of some hours, the American sloop of war Rattlesnake, pierced for twenty guns-(thrown overboard), and having on board, one hundred and thirty-one men :"

Edited May 20, 2016 by Cragger

[Malachi]

You got the wrong ship. The one mentioned in the article is the american brig Rattlesnake, built 1813. 'Our' Rattlesnake was captured in 1781.

[Cragger]

You got the wrong ship. The one mentioned in the article is the american brig Rattlesnake, built 1813. 'Our' Rattlesnake was captured in 1781.

 

I'm pretty positive you have them reversed instead sir.

 

1813 Rattlesnake was 18 guns and three masted. In game model lines up with the archive based models. Captured by the HMS Leander 1813

 

1781 HMS Cormorant later HMS Rattlesnake 1783 and formally American Rattlesnake was a 12 gun brig sloop. Which I can find no historical documentation at all of her configuration.

[Malachi]

http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/R/Rattlesnake%20Massachusetts%20Ship%20[Clark].html

 

That's the ship ingame, right?

[Cragger]

http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/R/Rattlesnake%20Massachusetts%20Ship%20[Clark].html

 

That's the ship ingame, right?

 

Doing more research and looking at books such as Chapelle's I find the same line plans and models being used for both. So I'll concede that at this point I can't say for any certainty which is which because it seems history has quite confused the two. I wish I could find a historical line drawing or painting of the HMS Cormorant 1783 because that would make a very good case of which one was which.

[OTMatt]

http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/R/Rattlesnake%20Massachusetts%20Ship%20[Clark].html

 

That's the ship ingame, right?

 

This is the right one.  There are multiple ships named rattlesnake all carrying 12-18 guns.\

 

Here is the line drawing of the HMS Cormorant

 

[Cragger]

Definitely the same lines as the Rattlesnake in game so that would make her the 1783 Rattlesnake. Could see why they officially armed her with 16 long guns instead. To make room for ships officers and marines. 

[MikeCK]

According to the Naval Action Wiki, the Rattlesnake in question is the 1781 rattlesnake. Yes, it was captured almost right out by a 44-gun frigate. There are a lot of factors there though including the wind gauge, weather and seaman ship. The captain was a privateer and likely not as skilled as a British Frigate Captain. Heck, even the best planes lose air to air engagements against better pilots in worse planes.

You guys are being way to hard on the Rattlesnake. It was renowned at the time of launching for its speed on multiple points as well as handling. It was designed as an 20-gun sloop but built for privateering work. It was designed to chase down merchantmen and merchantmen escorted by a sloop or similar.

To say is "too small" is misunderstanding the role. It wasn't designed to stand Toe-to-toe with frigates, let alone line ships.

http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/R/Rattlesnake%20Massachusetts%20Ship%20[Clark].html

[maturin]

 

 

It was renowned at the time of launching for its speed on multiple points as well as handling. It was designed as an 20-gun sloop but built for privateering work. It was designed to chase down merchantmen and merchantmen escorted by a sloop or similar.

Are there any halfway decent sources for her renown? Or just the usual British prize captain embellishing the capabilities of the vessel so it would get bought into the service?

[MikeCK]

Don't know. All I have is secondary sources. Those sources is what the game version is based on. The link I provided seems legitimate at any rate. BUT, that is why the rattlesnake in the game is the fastest ship at its best point...those sources; right or wrong.

In the game it's a great ship for taking traders. It is a better fighter than a pickle, brig, snow or even navy brig. If you use the speed of the ship around points 100-260, you can take Mercuries and Niagaras. It's just not- in its real form or game form- intended to sail in a line or duke it out with frigates.

It was built privately as a privateer. Use it as such in the game and there is nothing better. As for storage, as a privateer it wants designs to cruise the oceans. It likely did not need substantial stores

[MikeCK]

Tried to edit above but couldn't. Here are the only 2 sources I could find. Both say she was fast and both say she was likely armed with 6 or even 9 pounders. Take it for what you will

From: http://www.streport.com/files/rsnake1.htm

"The Revolutionary War privateer RATTLESNAKE was designed in 1779-80....The original RATTLESNAKE was built in Plymouth Massachusetts. She carried up to 20 guns, ( six and nine pounders) and had a usual complement of 85 men.

The vessel was unusually fast, and her hull lines were recorded by the British Admiralty after her capture and have come down to us today."

From (as above) http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/R/Rattlesnake%20Massachusetts%20Ship%20[Clark].html

Speed: " She was very lightly built and had no wales, and was reputedly very fast."

Rattlesnake was captured and sent into New York, arriving on the evening of 8 July 1781. The British reported her as armed with twenty guns, probably 6-pounders."

[maturin]

Secondary sources are no good for this sort of thing, and 'reputed' speed is far inferior to actually documented speed.

 

She should not be the fastest ship in the game. Too tiny.

[MikeCK]

Why aren't secondary sources good? Most information you get it from a secondary source. If you ever read a book about Any historical event, that's a secondary source. Unless you want to search through government archives and maritime museums, secondary sources are all you get for this type of thing. Either way it's what they used to model the ship. They made the ship fast and that's based on those sources.

Put it this way, I have not seen any sources that would indicate the opposite. All seem to suggest it had 6 pound cannons and was very fast.sources.

Neither the developers nor I are trying to prove that the ship was fast. The developers wanted to make the ship and they made it based on the best information they had available. If that secondhand information then so be it. I mean, how do we really know how the victory handled? Are they consulting the actual written documentation from the captains? Not likely. Probably got it from secondary sources which is fine.

As it stands now the rattlesnake is fast because it probably really was fast. It carry 6 pound cans because it probably really did carry 6 pound cannons. You have to give it some kind of speed and turning...right? Whether it's 10 knots or 13. If you have to give it certain qualities and there are only secondary sources available for that what else are you going to use? If they chose to make the maximum speed 12 kn what would that be based on? They chose to limited to 4 pound cannons what would that be based on? It's all based on secondary sources and the ones I provided support the developers version of rattlesnake

[maturin]

Unless you want to search through government archives and maritime museums, secondary sources are all you get for this type of thing.

That is precisely what we need to do.

 

Secondary sources are fine for subjects that are well-known, and long the focus of serious scholarship. The performance of the Rattlesnake is a subject that is both obscure and neglected. That leaves us with the burden of acting as historians and original researchers.

 

Why aren't secondary sources good? Most information you get it from a secondary source. If you ever read a book about Any historical event, that's a secondary source.

You're missing the most crucial part here:

All reputable secondary sources cite primary sources, at least indirectly. Otherwise it's all just heresay. There has to be a trail of evidence that eventually leads back to primary sources and original research. And even if there is a citation, we need a quote from the original text, because "reputed to be very fast" is useless without any context of best-guess analysis of the wording and writer.

 

how do we really know how the victory handled? Are they consulting the actual written documentation from the captains? Not likely. Probably got it from secondary sources which is fine.

Yes!

 

Where this information does not exist, it is best to be prudent. Making such an obscure tiny vessel into the fastest ship in the game is the opposite of that.

 

 

It carry 6 pound cans because it probably really did carry 6 pound cannons.

Actually, the reputable sources we have records that she mounted shortened 4-pdrs. So I wouldn't trust any source that speculated to the contrary.

[Talos]

The fact that her lines were taken off by the Royal Navy when she was taken is a good indication that she had something interesting about her (they didn't take many lines of the smaller ships). The 4-pounders were based on the armament the Royal Navy fitted her with as HMS Cormorant, 18 x light 4-pounders ("of the shortest construction", as Winfield quotes), plus 10 x 1/2-pdr swivels. The Colonials liked to overarm their ships, so she likely could have had 6-pounders when she was taken.

 

You aren't going to find many colonial primary sources, we're not even entirely sure who built her. Chapelle doubted it was Peck for a couple reasons. The only good records we're going to have is her Royal Navy ones from her capture onwards. They put a lot of money into her, including at least three refits and a coppering, and operated her in both Irish waters and even a deployment to the Med before dropping her in 1786. They wouldn't do any of that if it wasn't a /very/ good ship with the war ending in the interim and getting rid of most of their captures.