Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Privateer Rattlesnake - Chase guns possible in this position?


Recommended Posts

 

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 British commandeered sharp-built American vessels constantly, and plenty had the lines taken off. That's why The Search for Speed Under Sail exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...you say there are "reputable sources" that she carried 4pounders...so what are they? What are the sources? Why are they reputable? Because you want them to be? How do you know that for every ship in this game the devs methodically researched hand written notes from the actual shipwrights and captains to determine speed and turn rates?

Not sure why your on about the rattlesnake so much. They made it a fast but slow turning and moderately armed sloop, which is what is was. Not like they had NO sources. They just used some you don't like.

The ship is not " a joke" or "tiny". It's a privateer designed to chase down either armed merchants or merchants escorted by sloops or corvettes.

Edited by MikeCK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we're kind of spinning our wheels. Fact is there aren't a lot of sources. Based on the sources that DO exist, it's entirely reasonable to believe the Rattlesnake was fast and carried 6 pounders. The Devs chose to because people wanted that in the game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...you say there are "reputable sources" that she carried 4pounders...so what are they? What are the sources? Why are they reputable? Because you want them to be?

 

Did you graduate high school?

 

 

The ship is not " a joke" or "tiny". It's a privateer designed to chase down either armed merchants or merchants escorted by sloops or corvettes.

It is tiny. Objectively tiny.

Shorter than Mercury. Narrower than the Brig.

The waist bulwarks are so low that there is only about four feet of headroom for the crew when they work the main deck guns. The gangways needed to be removed in combat to provide enough room.

The midships gunport is less than three feet above the waterline. I hope you don't actually need those guns in anything but a flat calm...

 

 

 

Here is the citation:

The citation supports the number of guns, not their caliber. Go read the source and you'll see that it's the author guessing that the guns were 'probably' 6-pdrs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British commandeered sharp-built American vessels constantly, and plenty had the lines taken off. That's why The Search for Speed Under Sail exists.

 

I know, I'm looking at my copy of The Search for Speed Under Sail on my shelf right now. They weren't taking off ones that were slow in practice, American or not. The length of her postwar service still stands out. Compared to a lot of the other captured American ships which were gone several years before that.

 

With regards to the port height amidships, I went back to the original plans in Chapelle and checked and from the waterline it's five feet....to the top of the /waist bulwark/. Talk about low-slung!

 

@MikeCK: She certainly carried 4-pounders in Royal Navy service, specified to be the smallest and lightest versions of that there were. She could have carried 6-pounders when she was in Massachusetts service though.

Edited by Talos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They weren't taking off ones that were slow in practice, American or not.

Naturally she was fast. But she didn't go 14 knots.

 

The problem is that Rattlesnake has been given the benefit of the doubt to become the fastest ship in the game, without any of the serious drawbacks she should have. Five feet of freeboard should make it difficult to fight the guns. She has bow chasers that weren't possible in reality. Cramped deck space would slow down reload. Her low bulwarks and light construction would make her vulnerable to grapeshot, but there is a topic complaining that the reverse is true. Meanwhile, she has a heavy variant that could not possibly exist in those same dimensions.

 

 

@MikeCK: She certainly carried 4-pounders in Royal Navy service, specified to be the smallest and lightest versions of that there were. She could have carried 6-pounders when she was in Massachusetts service though.

And it's an excellent bet that most of them were struck down in the hold for rough weather and long ocean passages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naturally she was fast. But she didn't go 14 knots.

 

The problem is that Rattlesnake has been given the benefit of the doubt to become the fastest ship in the game, without any of the serious drawbacks she should have. Five feet of freeboard should make it difficult to fight the guns. She has bow chasers that weren't possible in reality. Cramped deck space would slow down reload. Her low bulwarks and light construction would make her vulnerable to grapeshot, but there is a topic complaining that the reverse is true. Meanwhile, she has a heavy variant that could not possibly exist in those same dimensions.

 

And it's an excellent bet that most of them were struck down in the hold for rough weather and long ocean passages.

 

I highly doubt 14 knots. That's the same quoted top speed of the fastes Royal Navy sailing warship, the frigate Endymion. On top of that, I seem to recall that most RN top speeds in those days are a knot/knot and a half overestimated anyway.

 

And yes, many of the six pounders would naturally be struck down in the hold when it wasn't hunting or was in rough water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on, Talos, you're saying that 5 years of service in the Royal Navy means an exceptional ship?

 

That's like, what, 2 years above average? With over 2 years apparently spent refitting in port? And of course the average is brought down by hard RN service wearing down ships that were already flimsy and aged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on, Talos, you're saying that 5 years of service in the Royal Navy means an exceptional ship?

 

That's like, what, 2 years above average? With over 2 years apparently spent refitting in port? And of course the average is brought down by hard RN service wearing down ships that were already flimsy and aged.

 

For a captured ship, especially a lightly-built privateer right at the end of the war, yes. They got rid of nearly every captured ship right at the end of the war, did it again in the War of 1812. For a ship to continue serving through the massive peace draw-down she has to have some sort of salient quality, especially with them spending the time and resources coppering her and refitting her that much. Otherwise what's the point of that waste to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...