Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

 

I'm a 20-year-old who has been fascinated with maritime history for over a decade. I love this game! Nevertheless, here are some suggestions to make the game more realistic.

Suggestions for Endymion:

Redesign her rigging and sails:

  1. Lead the tack of the innermost jib(Foretopmast staysail) to the Bowsprit cap (not to where the spritsail yard is).
  2. Lead the tack of the middle jib(jib) to the end of the jibboom( not to the cap of the bowsprit), and the head of the sail to the foretopmast crosstrees (not the topgallant) and make this the largest of the jibs. 
  3. Add flying-jib-boom and extend the outermost jib(flying jib) to the end of the flying-jibboom(not to the end of the jib-boom), the head of the sail should lead to the top of the topgallant masts(not the end of the poles for royals)
  4. delete the spritsail topsail and spritsail topsail yard
  5. add a single (as on Trincomalee) or double (as on USS Consitution) dolphin striker. (Different ships carried different styles, but every frigate carried one
  6. Add a middle staysail (peak leading to the main topmast crosstree, knock to the middle of the foretopmast, and tack at the foretop platform)
  7. Delete the lowest staysail between the fore and mainmast, this sail would only be carried in a hurricane, in normal conditions it would interfere with the working of the riggning in the waste rendering the ship unmaneuverable in battle.
  8. Lead the peak of the highest staysail between the masts to the main topgallant (not to the top of the pole).
  9. Add a knock to the mizzen staysail(lowest staysail between the Mizzen and Main)
  10. Recreate the sizes of the sails and spars to fit those listed of HMS Endymion.

  Here are the parts of the sails listed above:

fullsizeoutput_be7.thumb.jpeg.1e4ef0d474213ee6fe379f7c8150d3ee.jpeg

Here is Endymion in the game:

1362410099_1600px-Endymion_Side_From_Above(1).thumb.jpg.c87ce73bf6591da9cccd043d2c6eabf0.jpg

As compared to the rig of a 36-gun frigate built around 1795 (given the billet head instead of a figurehead, this was only used few ships for a short period between 1795-1797). Note the middle staysail lowered between the fore and main mast. Some sails that a ship of 1795 omitted on the model: Royals would be set on long poles above the topgallant sails(highest sails on the model) in light weather and the all the mizzen staysails and the main topgallant staysail are left out too. The lead of the martingale-stays suggest that the spritsail was rarely used and is indeed omitted on the model. Hence by 1797 Endymion would have rarely carried a spritsail.   The spritsail topsail was obsolete and no longer rigged by 1795 and is omitted on the model. Notice the long dolphin striker similar to that of HMS Trincomalee.

190790842_large(6).thumb.jpg.7f08d6b13dfc25b941f7d90ef5a99ce6.jpg

 

Here are the spar dimensions of the Endymion  from 1808.

Note all measurements of the length of the spars are in yards and inches separated by a hyphen. While the diameters are in inches

Masts:

Main: L 32-0, D 30+1/4

  • topmast: L 19-6, D 17+1/4
  • Topgallant: L 9-21, D 9+5/8
  • Pole (extension of the topgallant mast to carry royal sails): L 5 D 9+5/8 
  • (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Fore: L 29-13, D 27+1/4

  • topmast: L 17-0, D 17+1/4
  • Topgallant: L 8-18, D 8+1/4
  • Pole: L 4-24, D 8+1/8 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Mizzen: L 23-2, D 20

  • topmast: L 14-3, D 11+3/4
  • Topgallant: L 7-6, D 7+1/4
  • Pole: L 4-24, D  9+5/8 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Bowsprit: L 19-19 D28.

  • Jibboom: L 14-0, D 12
  • Flying jibboom: dimensions not listed, despite not being an official fitting, every frigate from about 1795 carried one.

Yards:

Main: L 28-26,  D 19+7/8

  • topsail: L  20-24, D 12+7/4
  • Topgallant: L 13-8, D 8
  • royal: L 9, D  5 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Fore: L 28-26  D 19+7/8

  • topsail: L  18-20, D 11+5/8
  • Topgallant: L 11-11, D 7+1/8
  • royal: L 8, D  4+1/2 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Mizzen (Crossjack): L 28-26,  D 19+7/8

  • topsail: L  18-20, D 11+5/8
  • Topgallant: L 11-11, D 7+1/8
  • royal: L 7, D  4 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Spritsail: L 18-20, D 11+5/8 (same as foretop)

  • Spritsail topsail: L 11-11, D 7+1/8 (This yard was obsolete never put up and should be omitted as it but instead carried as a spare for the topgallant yard, In fact, it was used so rarely that is was abolished issuing it by 1815)
  • Dolphin striker: (Although not part of the official listings on spar dimensions, by 1795 Frigates had extended the flying jib with a flying jib boom that required a long dolphin striker with martingale-stays provide the downward force to prevent flying jibboom from braking, the very same martingale stays prevented ships from using the spritsail topsail as it was obsolete). Endymion might have had a double Dolphin striker like the USS Constitution and HMS Acasta (A British frigate of similar size to Endymion also built in 1797)

Boom(spanker): L 20-24, D 11+5/8

Gaff(spanker): L 13-6 D 11+1/2

Note: Measurements of lower masts are from the mast-step not the deck. Also the masts would overlap at the tops and topgallant crosstrees. These can be seen in the spars of the modified Endymion class frigates (They had spars of reduced dimensions and greater diameter beacuse the ships were made of softwood):725161726_9s0P7CpmTtKH2vN5KTLGw.thumb.jpg.f7cc28beace428c47b9a068d2f70a572.jpg

External Appearance:

Add a large full body all white painted figurehead and delete the two rails running down the side of the waist not shown in the sheer plan.

Paint scheme as of 1797 (The only one that doesn't require also redesigning the forecastle barricade,)

The inside of the barricades were not red as they are in the game. This fell out of fashion in the 1780s. By 1797 they were blackyellow ochre.

It is extremely unlikely that the Endymion was ever painted as she is in the game! The broad yellow band that extends between the wales and the rail above the gunports should be narrowed and lowered to the rail that is the height of the middle of the gunports to follow what was most common in 1797 (it is what is shown in most paintings and on most models). Compare the Endymion in the game to the model and note which rail the yellow band reaches on the profile draught:1362410099_1600px-Endymion_Side_From_Above(1).thumb.jpg.c87ce73bf6591da9cccd043d2c6eabf0.jpg

1679932360_large(7).thumb.jpg.769a3a2ecbc10e98f947f817b27f2fe1.jpgendymion.thumb.jpg.de0c159fe7ede31d1c21576cf548ede8.jpg

The unlikely alternative to this paint scheme for HMS Endymion 1797 would be a thin yellow band below the gunports similar to how HMS Shannon (and USS Chesapeake though not British)was painted as of 1813 and HMS Terpsichore was as of 1796. Here are the Shannon vs Chesapeake and Terpsichore vs Mahonesa:

Chesapeake-Shannon-3.thumb.jpg.686d1743f2cb08e548123253b0773638.jpgCapture_of_the_Mahonesa.jpg.871d1a93240238fe9cbea24abc605581.jpg

Stern:

Her current stern in the game has a single curve over the transom which was a French and Spanish feature during the 1700s and early 1800s. British frigates by 1797 distinctly had separate curves over the galleries that protruded outside the ships hull and round stern gunports on the quarterdeck.  They even went to the extent of redesigning the sterns of the ships they captured such as HMS Amelia ex-Proserpine. Here are examples of the Narcissus class 1801 and the Pallas class 1793: 1663288167_large(1).thumb.jpg.0c5c9eeef449d8ae9c4d73444dc92dbc.jpglarge.thumb.jpg.8f373f64032bee8020f3ef6407c03138.jpg

 

Furthermore, all British frigates of the 1790s had 9 panes of glass in their stern windows unlike in the game where Endymion has six: Here is the example on a model of the Ex-french Pomone modified to resemble HMS Endymion circa 1815 (although the paint scheme of the model is similar to that of 1797): 966458380_large(2).thumb.jpg.e814942f414a073913af4ab14ffe16de.jpg

 

Endymion's stern in the game wrongly resembles a French design such as that of the Volontaire shown below with a single curve around the whole stern galleries.1600px-Endymion_Stern_Close.thumb.jpg.a1405c58333c3c753f5bb3a4c48aaead.jpg737925989_large(3).thumb.jpg.ff6f2d8dc3ace3d1e06901be365ba242.jpg

Ships Boats

As launched, Endymion was fitted with an 18 ft clinker built cutter(a small clinker-built multipurpose workboat dubbed the jollyboat),  a 32 ft barge  (a long narrow carvel built fast rowing boat), a 28 ft Launch (a wide heavy-duty carvel-built boat that could be armed with a 12 pounder carronade), and two 24 ft cutters (medium sized clinker-built workboats).

The jollyboat was stowed on stern davits and the rest of the boats stowed in the waist.

Post-1797 modification options

By 1800:

Solid barricades were built around the forecastle deck as shown in the earlier picture of the model. These are clearly shown on the inboard profile of the ship and on the model(note the model doesn't have the same position of the gunports on the forecastle because the model was originally of Pomone which Endymion was based on but had slightly different arrangements: The plan is accurate) and it is possible that Endymion was actually launched with them1679932360_large(7).thumb.jpg.769a3a2ecbc10e98f947f817b27f2fe1.jpgycbIxCY.thumb.jpg.0b5f0db0cb1b30e092946167fba5ddc1.jpg

 

Modifications as of 1805(at this time Endymion was armed with 18-pounders not 24s):

By 1805, Quarter davits were added and the two 24ft cutters were carried abreast the mizzen mast as can be seen on HMS Victory.

Additional paint scheme option. The Nelson chequer was the most likely paint scheme as of 1805. Note the yellow band is narrower and follows the gunports, not the external planking. Here is the Nelson chequer as painted on HMS Euryalus in 1805 which was under Nelson's command at Trafalgar (note the solid forecastle barricades):

1944582166_large(8).thumb.jpg.6aed04fe942d3889991f23df37854fb9.jpg

Modifications as of 1811(also as armed with 18-pounders):

Paint scheme: An order from the Admiralty of 1811 replaced yellow paint with white paint, nevertheless some captains continued to paint their ships yellow. Here is a possibility of how Endymion was painted, note the inside of the bulwarks are green.

826818401_large(9).thumb.jpg.5a21c4fbda75070c5cc450f364cc656d.jpg

 

As of 1815 after her great repair and as she appeared during her battle with USS President:

Ships Boats: Many captain's include captain Hope of Endymion replaced the 18 ft jollyboat with a 24 ft fast rowing gig. In preparation for foreign service (as opposed to channel service) a 24 ft cutter was replaced by a 25 ft yawl (carvel-built equivalent). The 12-pounder carronade was carried by the Yawl instead of the Launch.

Hull Modifications: The full-length figurehead was replaced by a bust and the quarterdeck barricade extended forward to accommodate an extra gunport, meanwhile an extra beam was added to the quarterdeck extending the deck forward as well. The breastworks were deleted, top-riders (large diagonal timbers on the side of the ship to give the hull strength, but actually proved to weaken the hull) deleted, and gangways significantly widened.  The result was what is shown on this model mean to depict HMS Endymion:941184884_large(10).thumb.jpg.b0f823d357aa1c60232a3866cb0e02ba.jpg

The extension of the quarterdeck by one beam and the bulwark can be faintly seen drawn in pencil on the inboard profile (note the prominent diagonal fastenings in this plan: top riders were removed in the great repair):

ycbIxCY.thumb.jpg.0b5f0db0cb1b30e092946167fba5ddc1.jpg

Furthermore, the opening between the forecastle and quarterdeck was further reduced by adding light gratings over the beams in the waist to create a makeshift spar deck as shown(ignoring the rounded off edges of the opening) on this model of HMS Lacedaemonian 1812 (model shows the ship post 1815 )Lacedaemonian.thumb.jpg.6d8a05cc0593b19bd1279ce8861d3130.jpg

Pa)int Scheme:

It had been documented in writing (the naval chronical) and in paintings that by 1815, HMS Endymion was painted all black as shown in these paintings:HMS_Endymion_and_USS_President_exchange_broadsides.jpg.231072c8d5a6436c34474f8c54a2690a.jpgHMS_Endymion_yaws_to_rake_USS_President.thumb.jpg.83dcafd8b7cc182350b97c6f3268eb72.jpg

Rigging, spars and sails:

Skysails, skysail yards and skysail poles were extended above the Royals, otherwise, the rigging remained the same. Thomas Buttersworth paints Endymion with a single dolphin striker, but all paintings of British frigates with skysails show double dolphin strikers. It is difficult to tell whether she had one or two. Thomas Whitcombe painting of HMS Acasta  (1797), one of the other three 40-gun frigates built in 1797 like Endymion, as she appeared in 1806 rigged with skysail poles and a double dolphin strike(note the other frigate in the background only has royal poles and has a single dolphin striker):

65554216_hmsacasta.jpg.f30437abfdbb155440c1d72a34538891.jpg

A minor detail is that after 1811, the sails would no longer be bent to the yards themselves(attached below) but rather to a jackstay allowing the sails to cover up the front each yard they were fastened to.

Armament :

Note: This section is displayed copied from Wikipedia, although I am the one that wrote the Wikipedia section. I listed this armament by cross-checking records in  Robert Gardiner's Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars, Theodore Roosevelt's The Naval War of 1812, Andrew Lambert's The Challenge, and William James' Naval Occurrences with the plans of Endymion and the listed modifications to her hull. 

It is noteworthy that the exact innovations that Captain Philip Broke of HMS Shannon used regarding artillery were adopted and used to great effect by HMS Endymion during her battle with USS President. Prof. Lambert describes the structural damage that USS President suffered which resulted from Endymion's gunfire: 5/15 starboard (where Endymion engaged) main-deck damaged to the point of being disabled and 10/15 main-deck gun crews hit despite the battle being fought with both ships in motion with a swell from the gales the night before. Multiple holes between wind and water (24-pounders could pierce through the American 44s sides unlike the 18-pounder shot that bounced off USS Constitution giving her the name "Old Ironsides"). Shot from Endymion was even found inside President's magazine (aft power room). 6ft of water was in President's hold by the time she was captured (although some could have been from the night before). Many historians fail to mention in detain the effect of Endymion's firepower or the extraordinary accuracy allowed by Broke's system. Perhaps it would be worth increasing Endymion's reload speed and accuracy to represent Broke's innovations that captain Hope adopted? (By 1815 these methods were also used on the frigates HMS Spartan, HMS Euryalus, HMS Tenedos, HMS Shannon and perhaps more)

1797:

Upper deck: 26 × 24-pounder guns (11 kg);

QD: 6 × 32-pounder (15kg) carronades + 8 × 9-pounder (4kg) long guns

Fc: 2 × 32-pounder (15kg) carronades, + 4 × 9-pounder (4kg) guns

From Nov 1803 to 17 May 1813:

Upper deck: 26 × 18-pounders (8 kg);

QD:14 × 32-pounder (15 kg) carronades

Fc: 4 × 32-pounder (15kg) carronades, + 2 × 9-pounder (4kg) guns

From 17 May 1813:

Upper deck: 26 × 24-pounder guns

QD:16 × 32-pounder (15 kg) carronades

Fc: 1 × 18-pounder (8 kg) brass long gun + 4 × 32-pounder carronades

Additional unofficial armament:

Ships boat: 1 × 12-pounder (5kg) gunnade

Fighting Tops: Swivel mounted smaller guns

 

Edited by Olikigotho
Minor mistake
  • Like 23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not often a long and well constructed post like this one now, its been a long time since I have seen something like this, thank you for the fantastic post, I look forwards to see what you might write next. Keep at it we need more people like you!

Edited by Fluffy Fishy
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not related to endy but to the coni

" It is not known exactly what the ship looked like when it launched in 1797 [..] The designer’s original draught still exists but there is a lot of evidence that indicates the builders didn’t follow the plans exactly.

Corne’s painting indicates the USS Constitution’s hull originally bore a broad yellow ocher band along the gun ports from the hawse pipes to the quarter galleries. The band extended from the level of the channels down to the top of the main wales.

Below the yellow ochre band, in the “bends,” the ship was tarred and above that, including the quarterdeck bulwarks, the ship was painted black. Corne’s painting also shows a yellow ochre “pin stripe” on the moldings at the spar deck sill level.

The painting also indicates the stern had three windows, although a painting by George Ropes, Jr., in 1813 depict it as having five windows and the Hull model has six windows. Historians generally believe at the time of the War of 1812 the ship had six windows on the stern. The name of the ship appeared below the windows.

[...]

These decorations were probably painted in yellow ochre, as they appear in the paintings and on the Hull model, but they could have also been white. 

 

[source: http://historyofmassachusetts.org/uss-constitution-construction/]

 

Lets look at the side windows of the coni. The windows there were fake windows only the middle one could be opened. Ingame all windows have glass. (by the way same applies to the Trincomalee and many other ships)

f265t4397p78646n2_EyrsJCpz.jpgf265t4397p71455n2_iXInzOsp.jpg

Z9Qe45G.jpg

Back to the endy:

HMS_Endymion_and_USS_President_exchange_

I would say this stern looks almost similar to the ingame one. Not like the ones you show above.

In my opinion drawings and draughts have to be taken with a grain of salt. Nobody really knows how the ship really looked like. Painters may exaggerate or alter (because they want to sell their paintings). Draughts can be altered as well. Ships could even be rebuild liek you said.

image.thumb.png.9f81ce68869020447960fd89e2973e2a.png

(coni at tripolis)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stern with three arcs was the standard design since John Williams became sole surveyor in the early 1770s. Very few british-built frigates/sloops deviated from that design (just Myrmidon and the Tisiphone-class, IIRC), so theres very little reason to believe Endymion's stern would have looked different.

Edit:

@Olikigotho

I have given up making suggestions like yours a long time (2016?), the all-glass quarter-galleries/ windows and sticking guns in every available port being my particular pet-peeves (e.g. the stern chasers on La Renommée - muhahahha).

But I applaud your effort and you get a digital pat on the back for it :)

 

 

Edited by Malachi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love it precisely and constructively you argument and suggest changes. 

I just fear that those are visual details which are spotted by a few, while game has some serious gameplay issues which are influencing everyone. Since game has limited resources, I think that addressing other topics first is more efficient. 

 

Your post is like a good beer. Before you drink one, you can drink mass produced ones. Once you try a good one, there's no way back. Now sailing Endymion I'll always remember your remarks ;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, z4ys said:

In my opinion drawings and draughts have to be taken with a grain of salt. Nobody really knows how the ship really looked like. Painters may exaggerate or alter (because they want to sell their paintings). Draughts can be altered as well. Ships could even be rebuild liek you said.

2

 

Drawings British building draughts were not altered. Modifications proposed for the ship in the draught were drawn in with red or green ink, on in pencil and a note written in the corresponding medium describing the alteration, which ship it applied to (if the plan was for a class), and when the modification was made. The plans we have of Endymion are the original building plans as they are titled "Draught for building a frigate..." This suggests that they were even drawn before Endymion was named as her name does not appear on the sheer draught. Looking at the inboard profile, we can see that there are pencil modifications that show the alteration of the position of the gunports and the slope of the bowsprit for the fir built variants of 1813/14: the Severn, Liffey, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Forth. For Endymion herself, it is notable that the forecastle has a built-up suggesting she was probably completed with a barricade as launched in 1797. Also, an extension of the quarterdeck and quarterdeck bulwark by one beam during her great repair is shown etc:

23 hours ago, Olikigotho said:

 

ycbIxCY.thumb.jpg.0b5f0db0cb1b30e092946167fba5ddc1.jpg

 

 

 

Also, It important to define what "rebuilt" entails. USS Hornet 1805and USS Wasp 1807 were built to the same design to test whether a brig or ship rig was more effective. When USS Hornet was rebuilt in 1811, the most noticeable change was that she was re-rigged from a brig to ship-sloop. In fact, the rebuild lengthened USS Hornet this meant the hull form was changed. Hence, the result was Hornet and Wasp in 1812 were of different designs but of the same rig. The process of rebuilding Hornet (in 1811), and Adams (in 1812) was more similar to how USS Constellation was "rebuilt" in 1854: The result was a ship to an entirely new design.

Endymion was not rebuilt but rather underwent a "great repair" (As did HMS Victory in 1803). This meant that the hull form, dimensions remained the same, but damaged or old materials were replaced. In HMS Endymion this entailed deleting the top-riders that weakened the hull(even though they had been designed to strengthen it, the proved to redirect the stress and strain on the hull to weaker locations), deleting the breastworks, widening the gangways and covering the waist opening with grating (This kept the rigging off the gundeck allowing the ship to be maneuvered and engaged in battle at the same time, these innovations proved to be very effective according to accounts from HMS Spartan), and an additional gunport built into the quarterdeck which required extending the deck (and barricade) by one beam. There is a model of HMS Dryad circa 1820 is listed as HMS Phoebe circa 1815 in the national maritime museum collections. The paint scheme (similar to Trincomalee and Unicorn), iron anchor cables, rig (martingale stays and foremast), and boarded hammock nettings are all postwar. Phoebe was taken of service in 1814,  the model most likely represents another ship of her class, a likely candidate being Dryad that underwent the repair in 1815 and was used in the postwar period. Notice that gaff rigged trysails are rigged on all three masts. Trysails on the mainmast were adopted on some ships around 1813( notably HMS Shannon had one, and probably Endymion too). By an order at the end of 1815 trysails became standard on all masts, hence HMS Trincomalee was most probably rigged with them, even though she currently isn't(in real life).

Dryad circa 1820:

1023087749_large(6).thumb.jpg.c3cd6fbd6c17839504a7992b5bc54e77.jpg

 

As regards the USS Constitution, part of the reason it is so difficult to tell how it was painted was that it was the first major warship of the US Navy. Being the first meant, the United States hadn't developed a distinct style in naval decoration unlike the other navies in the world. Between 1797 and 1820 the styles of decoration American ships varied greatly. By 1812, though most American ships had long round rail over the transom similar to the French and Spanish ships but had a different style of arranging the stern windows. The in-game Constitution shows exactly what this looked like. Plans of the Captured USS President show a six window configuration, and the USS Chesapeake another five-window variant all similar to the in-game Constitution. Nevertheless, the US had such few ships that it was only by 1820 the US had a distinct identifiable style (see plans in the (History of the American Sailing Navy -H.I.Chapelle). As it is mentioned in the anatomy of the ship, modifications, such as boarding up stern galleries, could be taken down with haste or boarded up equally as quickly. On another note, the drawings of the USS Constitution's triangular skysails the book, contradict a note early in the book that mentions Humphreys had listed dimensions for skysail yards for the 44-gun frigates in 1807. (Almost every historical sailmaker's plan of a US Navy vessel from between 1812 and 1815 had skysails nevertheless these might have been omitted in spar dimensions). If you ask me, I would think this evidence suggests that Constitution was fitted with fiddled royal masts and square skysails during the war of 1812 and not the triangular skysails she had in painting from 1803.

Historical sources should always be "taken with a grain of salt" as you said. Nevertheless, that means a single piece of evidence cannot disprove a greater historical pattern from multiple sources. This is the development of the distinct pattern in British paint schemes:

The British had been developing their unique style of decoration and paint scheme since the time of Sir Francis Drake. (This is not often seen in the plans because most of the plans are building plans that show the ship's structure, occasionally there are as-built plans that include some decorations) In regards to the paint scheme, during the time of, and leading up to, the American Revolution, this included ornate decorations on a blue background starting from the first rain above the wales (or gunwales in a ship of the line) and to the highest rail. This paint scheme can be seen be seen on the models of the HMS Winchelsea (1764), and HMS Bellona (built 1760, the model depicts ship as of 1780 as mentioned in the anatomy of the ship). Note how the decorative band goes through the upper deck gunports on both ships (note a two-decker and a frigate had the same number of total decks. The lower deck in a two-decker was armed, while the lower deck in a frigate was not. At the time the main deck of frigates was still referred to as the upper deck and the berth deck was the lower deck.)

 winchelsea.thumb.jpg.ecad8a3c5ecfd1fa2f9d47b2d70ce27b.jpg669654316_large(5).thumb.jpg.ca5ebe6d8f6168acede19cd6b67eedc6.jpg

 

When the French Wars began in the early 1790s, The British began a process of increasing the austerity of naval decorations to reduce the costs of having the Grand Fleet (It was not just called the Grand Fleet in WWI, but also called  in the French Wars and can be seen in the Sea Chanty Spanish Ladies and a painting titled George III inspecting the Grand Fleet from 1774). The ornate decorations were abolished, but the main colors remained in the same place as can be seen HMS Diana (Artois class 1795) (note the blue band still cuts through the gunports and is above the lowest rail):

170703366_large(1).thumb.jpg.9d3d0774b79f6a290c2248c2d9042490.jpg

 

Soon the demands of war required solid barricades over the quarterdeck, and even if ships were built with rails as seen on Diana, their captains soon boarded them up. (During wartime in the 1780s this was done too, but never adopted into the design officially). By 1795 An order was made to "explode all carved works completely". This lead to figureheads being replaced with billet heads on some ships as seen on the model. HMS Endymion and HMS Naiad had figureheads (as their headrails distinctly have a space for a full figure sculpture) because despite being launched in 1797, were designed before the order was made in 1795. Note the paint scheme follows the same pattern but is increasing less colorful:

 190790842_large(6).thumb.jpg.7f08d6b13dfc25b941f7d90ef5a99ce6.jpg.59bdc9574a708177aa9880c5f3baaed6.jpg

 

By 1797: Red and Blue paint was no longer issued to ships. The solid barricades began often being built up around the forecastle. Nevertheless, the rails and pain scheme followed the same pattern. This model dates from the early 1800s and is one of the Perseverance class 36-gun frigates from the 1780s as she appeared circa 1800 (not one of the same class from 1800s because the cheek rails allow for a full figure and there is no bridle port). Something not shown here (because it is a ship from the 1780s), is that every British warship launched after 1800 had a bust figurehead not a billet head nor a full figure. It is likely that  was fitted with one during her great repair:

1463205035_large(3).thumb.jpg.37b1c75d0ff0c9db4010dc7a801c5b3a.jpg

 

Here is a model of Pomone meant to represent Endymion after her great repair. The hull form closely follows that of the Pomone, Endymion, Severn, Liffey, Glasgow, Forth and Liverpool. The number of main deck gunports means that is it either Endymion or Pomone. The built-up forecastle barricades mean that it is Endymion as Pomone was never fitted this way. The eighth gunport on the quarterdeck, the wide gangways and lack of breastwork, and large carronade ports on the quarterdeck and forecastle suggest Endymion after her great repair. Nevertheless, the name "Pomona" and the shape of the head suggest Pomone. It is possible to infer that the model was built as that of Pomone circa 1800 and rebuilt to resemble Endymion circa 1815 after her triumph over the USS President. Nevertheless, the paint scheme maintains the pattern shown above and is not all black like that of Endymion as of 1815 suggesting the paint scheme is of that closer to 1800. Note the band still ends midheight through the gunports: 

304643216_large(2).thumb.jpg.75edc68407711c6412b770b14c17c188.jpg

 

This can also be seen in the numerous paintings by Nicholas Pocock who was renown for his accuracy (he was a sailor himself, used to interview people who were at the events in his paintings, would paint from observation, and was even present a the Glorious First of June 1794). Here is his portrait of HMS Triton drawn most probably from observation for the ship's designer, Admiral James Gambier aka Dismal Jimmy (Note the billet head as Triton was designed between 1795 and 1797):1992744327_large(4).thumb.jpg.0d3659132669f8016a5c062d12d7074a.jpg

 

Despite this not being a historical source, these developments are best summed up in this image. Note the yellow band did not shift location:

plans-hmsenterprize.jpg.2155e4005fa4400a957a13054d44d29c.jpg

 

Though exceedingly unlikely, the only other option for a British paint scheme circa 1797 was that of a narrow yellow band below the gunports. In the hundreds of paintings of ships by Pocock, Whitcombe, and Buttersworth that I have seen, only three Britsh ships have had this pattern, namely: Terpsichore circa 1796, Imperieuse circa 1809 and Shannon circa 1813. It has been written that USS Chesapeake was also painted this way in 1813. Since the only paintings that show Chesapeake as described in writing also show Shannon painted the same way, it possible to conclude that Shannon was indeed painted with a narrow yellow band below the gunports and not the white Nelson-chequer (Nelson-chequer, with the yellow or white band following the gunports, not the planking, only came about after 1803 when Nelson became commander of the Mediterranean fleet). If Shannon's unusual pattern was painted accurately by Whitcombe, then the similar pattern shown in Whitcombe's paintings of Imperiuse in 1809 and Terpsichore in 1796 were also likely to be accurate. Especially because the predated the Shannon paintings, so Shannon could not have been the influence for Whitcombe painting them that way. Here is Whitcombe's Terpsichore(left) and Mahonesa:

 Capture_of_the_Mahonesa.jpg.871d1a93240238fe9cbea24abc605581.jpg.acc70fac8581f102a0d71f102db32c17.jpg

For a long as the design of Endymion's forecastle in the game remains unbarricaded, it depicts the ship as of 1797. I can assert that Endymion was not painted as she is in the game with the yellow band extending to the second rail that situated above the gun ports as I have found no evidence to suggest any British ship was ever painted this way. Rather, given the nature of the trends in the evidence, I can confidently state that the yellow band only extended to the rail that cut through the gunports.

PS: Endymion's underwater was not white as it is in the game, it was coppered. In fact, the entire Grand Fleet was coppered from 1780 onwards. It should either be red like the in-game Constitution or pale green like the patina that develops on old copper.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, z4ys said:

Back to the endy:

HMS_Endymion_and_USS_President_exchange_

I would say this stern looks almost similar to the ingame one. Not like the ones you show above.

2

I believe the 1815 Thomas Buttersworth painting of Endymion has her stern nearly exactly resemble that of the Pallas class 1793, albeit with a six window configuration:

On 8/21/2018 at 11:37 PM, Olikigotho said:

large.thumb.jpg.8f373f64032bee8020f3ef6407c03138.jpg

It might seem pedantic for me to insist that the windows had nine panes each not six, and the columns between the windows were not parallel but rather wider at the bottom than at the top and that the curve of the top of the transom had some change between when it was above the widest windows and the inner ones. The problem simply put is that the shape of the stern of Endymion in the game is French, not British. The in-game stern clearly resembles that of HMS Surprise the ex-French l'Unite which's decorative features were not altered very much. Nevertheless, there are plenty of examples of ex-French ships decorative features being completely redesigned. Most notably is the difference between the as-captured plans of Proserpine and that of HMS Amelia, ex-Proserpine both from 1796. This is shown and explained in detail by historian Robert Gardiner in The Heavy Frigate. Unforunatley, I don;t have the book with me right now, but I suggest taking a look at it: Amelia and Proserpine don't even look like the same ship. The strens of numerous other captured ships were altered in this fashion. Pomone captured 1811,  Armide Captured 1806, Rhin captured 1804, Imperieuse ex-Medea captured 1806 are just a few of these. The are many more including famous ships of the line like Canops, Tonnant and Implacable. In the Gardiner books The Heavy Frigate and Frigate's of the Napoleonic Wars which include plans of every British frigate class between 1780 and 1817 still in existance, there is not a single example of a British built frigate (as some captured frigates were hastiliy put into service and many alterations were not made) stern that does not follow these rules:

  1. each window had nine panes
  2. columns between the windows were not parallel but rather wider at the bottom than at the top
  3. curve of the top of the transom had some change between when it was above the widest windows and the inner ones (be it blended or jagged)

Similarly, there was not a single example of a French, Spanish, Danish or American frigate that followed the shape of the rails in the plans.

It is also not possible that Endymion followed the decorative scheme of the Ex-French Pomone to which her lines were drawn from. Every ship fo the French programme (British imitation of french design) of the 1790s used British notions of elegance. These included the Boadicea based on Impérieuse, Hydra based on MelpomèneSirius based Minerve, Leda based on Hébé, and Endymion based on Pomone. These all were built between 1797 and 1800 and shared the same notion of British Elegance. Given that the Leda class was so successful, there are plenty of examples of the stern design including paintings of the Shannon and Trincomalee and the model of Lacedaemonian. The Stern of HMS Endymion definitey had every characteristic in the list above and most probably wasn't similar to the 1793, Pallas class or the Buttersworth painting, but resembled the other ships of the French Programme(British copies of French Hullforms). Most probably the stern of the Endymion had five windows (because of how much her hull narrowed in the stern) and followed the pattern of the French programme as the sheer plans of Pomone and Endymion show a distinct contranst it style following the patter of the other ships of the Programme.

Somewhat unsuprisingly, the most similar stern shape and rails to that of the other ships of the Programme (including Trincomalee) is the stern on the model of Endymion, albeit it's missing the circular stern ports:

On 8/21/2018 at 11:37 PM, Olikigotho said:

966458380_large(2).thumb.jpg.e814942f414a073913af4ab14ffe16de.jpg

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paint schemes. We use historically possible and plausible paint schemes for all ships. Captains of that time often decided on the paints themselves and most paid for paint out of their own pocket. All paint schemes though are only picked if we can find a similar paint scheme on paintings (like Brest harbor from famous Roux paintings) or reality (like Pink Royale for victory)

Regarding the model itself. Endymion stern is proper.

One of the paintings in this topic shows the ship with 7 windows 

Thus - we have decided to show windows in those side panels. And there are paintings of endymion showing 7 windows.


Regarding French lines and french influence you mention. Endymion was a borrowed design based on the french captured ship. They could have added little details too as it was very fashionable to copy french frigate designs then. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2018 at 6:37 AM, Olikigotho said:

Note: Measurements of lower masts are from the mast-step not the deck. Also the masts would overlap at the tops and topgallant crosstrees. These can be seen in the spars of the modified Endymion class frigates (They had spars of reduced dimensions and greater diameter beacuse the ships were made of softwood):725161726_9s0P7CpmTtKH2vN5KTLGw.thumb.jpg.f7cc28beace428c47b9a068d2f70a572.jpg

 

 

 

These dimensions are for Liffey NOT endymion. I have this book in front of me now (Frigates of the Napoleonic wars)
These are not Endymion masts and spars but advanced plans based on the prototype, which could also be shown after the changes by the captain (or before)

It was a common practice in the navy for the captain himself to decide on the length of masts and spars. He could have shortened them or ordered longer ones. He chose how to relay ballast and trim the ship. So one of the few surviving spar plans in the admiralty collection - could have been changed by the captain anyway.

We base our mast plans on blueprints. It's a company policy so artists don't receive flak for their work and remove all potential for mistakes in artists work. Its easier to blame the blueprints and paintings :) as authors are not on this earth anymore.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall great detailed feedback - some areas are questionable (not because you are not right, but because there are alternatives views that are also right and can provide factual proof just like you) - for other suggestions i need more time to read in detail and check the references to reply. 

9 section windows could be an easy fix - but due to low priority it wont get done fast (new ships would be more important).

what do you think of agamemnon?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

5 hours ago, admin said:

 

These dimensions are for Liffey NOT endymion. I have this book in front of me now (Frigates of the Napoleonic wars)
These are not Endymion masts and spars but advanced plans based on the prototype, which could also be shown after the changes by the captain (or before)

It was a common practice in the navy for the captain himself to decide on the length of masts and spars. He could have shortened them or ordered longer ones. He chose how to relay ballast and trim the ship. So one of the few surviving spar plans in the admiralty collection - could have been changed by the captain anyway.

We base our mast plans on blueprints. It's a company policy so artists don't receive flak for their work and remove all potential for mistakes in artists work. Its easier to blame the blueprints and paintings :) as authors are not on this earth anymore.  

Liffey is a modified version of Endymion: And we know exactly how it was modified: From the inboard profiles of the two ships Liffey and her sisters and Endymion we can tell the masts remained in the same place but the rake of the bowsprit was altered. The spar plan of the modified group (which I posted earlier) from page 131 of Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars can be compared to those of the listed dimensions of Endymion on page 133, Table 11/2 "Mast and spar dimensions for large frigates". The result is that the spar lengths of the modified group were 96% the lengths of Endymion's and 103% of the diameter.  Gardiner writes "somewhat reduced in length (although often a greater diameter)". This pattern is also seen in the Modified Apollo/Euryalus class (Scamander class) when compared to the original hardwood variants. 

Making a spar plan of Endymion is simple: Use the inboard profile of Endymion to see how deep the masts were stepped in the hull. Use the spar dimensions in Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars on page 133, Table 11/2 "Mast and spar dimensions for large frigates".  Use the ratio between Liffey and  Endymion's spar dimensions to reconstruct the royals and poles. 

All that's missing is the dolphin striker and flyingjibboom (every frigate had both while the spritsail topsail yard was never rigged post 1795. see Gardiner The Sailing Frigate), those of which the captain could indeed decide on himself.

The result is this:

On 8/21/2018 at 11:37 PM, Olikigotho said:

 

Here are the spar dimensions of the Endymion  from 1808.

Note all measurements of the length of the spars are in yards and inches separated by a hyphen. While the diameters are in inches

Masts:

Main: L 32-0, D 30+1/4

  • topmast: L 19-6, D 17+1/4
  • Topgallant: L 9-21, D 9+5/8
  • Pole (extension of the topgallant mast to carry royal sails): L 5 D 9+5/8 
  • (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Fore: L 29-13, D 27+1/4

  • topmast: L 17-0, D 17+1/4
  • Topgallant: L 8-18, D 8+1/4
  • Pole: L 4-24, D 8+1/8 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Mizzen: L 23-2, D 20

  • topmast: L 14-3, D 11+3/4
  • Topgallant: L 7-6, D 7+1/4
  • Pole: L 4-24, D  9+5/8 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Bowsprit: L 19-19 D28.

  • Jibboom: L 14-0, D 12
  • Flying jibboom: dimensions not listed, despite not being an official fitting, every frigate from about 1795 carried one.

Yards:

Main: L 28-26,  D 19+7/8

  • topsail: L  20-24, D 12+7/4
  • Topgallant: L 13-8, D 8
  • royal: L 9, D  5 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Fore: L 28-26  D 19+7/8

  • topsail: L  18-20, D 11+5/8
  • Topgallant: L 11-11, D 7+1/8
  • royal: L 8, D  4+1/2 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Mizzen (Crossjack): L 28-26,  D 19+7/8

  • topsail: L  18-20, D 11+5/8
  • Topgallant: L 11-11, D 7+1/8
  • royal: L 7, D  4 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates)

Spritsail: L 18-20, D 11+5/8 (same as foretop)

  • Spritsail topsail: L 11-11, D 7+1/8 (This yard was obsolete never put up and should be omitted as it but instead carried as a spare for the topgallant yard, In fact, it was used so rarely that is was abolished issuing it by 1815)
  • Dolphin striker: (Although not part of the official listings on spar dimensions, by 1795 Frigates had extended the flying jib with a flying jib boom that required a long dolphin striker with martingale-stays provide the downward force to prevent flying jibboom from braking, the very same martingale stays prevented ships from using the spritsail topsail as it was obsolete). Endymion might have had a double Dolphin striker like the USS Constitution and HMS Acasta (A British frigate of similar size to Endymion also built in 1797)

Boom(spanker): L 20-24, D 11+5/8

Gaff(spanker): L 13-6 D 11+1/2

 

 

As you mentioned, the spar dimensions might be changed by the captain to change a ship's sailing performance on in the event that a spar was damaged or straining the ship. But this would be highly unlikely in the case of Endymion because she was always regarded for having such good performance.  Gardiner writes " it was widely regarded as the benchmark frigate performance for half a century" (page 145. Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars). Indeed her spar dimensions were retained even after undergoing the great repair as the spar dimensions listed above from 1808 have an identical copy from 1813 (Endymion's great repair was 1811-1812)(page 133 Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars).

Also, frigate spar dimensions were standardized in the Royal Navy. If you compare the spar dimensions for 38 and 36 gun ships in Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars and in The Heavy Frigate you will notice that they remained the same from the 1780s to 1815. When a captain would ask for any of the major spars to be altered in dimensions, a record would be often be kept of this. There is no evidence that any major changes were made to Endymion's spar plan. Examples of this can be seen in the chapter on performance in Gardiner's the heavy frigate where changes to spar dimensions during some of the ships carreers are described. It is also noteworthy that captured ships were given the standard spar dimensons of Royal Navy frigates upon being fitted for British service. All this suggests that the dimensions of the spars listed above were indeed those of HMS Endymion.

Incase it is ever decided to build an Endymion 1815 variant, the poles were extended slightly further to accommodate skysails and most probably a gaff rigged trysail was fitted on the mainmast but not the fore (The modified Endymion class all had them as wells as other ships in the war of 1815 such as Phoebe and Shannon. Pellew's entire Mediterranean fleet had them too although not shown in Luny's famous painting of the Action of 5th November 1813 ). Trysails are described on pages 135 and 136 of Frigates of the Napoleonic wars including the plan for it. 

As regards trim, Endymion sailed best no more than 16-in to the stern(page 145. Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars). Gardiner also mentions here that Endymion was considered long in wearing. This probably is why she turns so poorly in the game. Nevertheless, this should not be taken out of context, turn radius is a function of the length of the ship hence Endymion, 159 ft,  would wear longer that that a regular British frigate which lengths ranged  between 137ft (Perseverance class) to 154ft(Lively Class). Indeed Endymion did out maneuver President (Decatur would claim that the grounding reduced President's ability to maneuver, but given that he was being court-matialled for the the loss of the navies best frigate, no longer had the ship as evidence, and feared the same fate as he had inflicted on James Barron, his rival, for the surrender of Chesapeake to Leopard in 1807, he had every reason to lie. After all, wearing depended on the sails more than the rudder), as did Java outmaneuver Constitution (although this advantage just prolonged the battle). The nature of its performance in battle suggest Endymion (159ft) maneuvered worse than Trincomalee (150ft), but better than Constitution(175ft).

In regards to Constitution and Essex, it is noteworthy that the American frigates were much deeper than British frigates of the same size. Despite having the similar measurements for the depth of the hold, In American ships this measurement was take from the bottom of the hold to the orlop deck, not the bottom of the hold to berth deck. In fact, they were effectively one whole deck deeper than British equivalents and even more so when compared to French and Spanish ships (page 56. Frigates of the Napoeonic Wars). Consider increasing their cargo capacity.

Comparing the records of their performace in Gadiners books and the Chapter on the "Theoretical Princlibles Underlying Ship Handling" in Harlands, Seamanship. The dimensions of the American ships when compared to  HMS Endymion and Trincomalee, the order of the most weatherly (ability to sail to windward) from least to greatest should be Trincomalee, Endymion, Constitution, Essex. Nevertheless, this is not to say that Essex was faster than Trincomalee which isn't true, but rather, it would take longer for Trincomalee to catch Essex when sailing by the wind as opposed to on a reach.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, admin said:

Paint schemes. We use historically possible and plausible paint schemes for all ships. Captains of that time often decided on the paints themselves and most paid for paint out of their own pocket. All paint schemes though are only picked if we can find a similar paint scheme on paintings (like Brest harbor from famous Roux paintings) or reality (like Pink Royale for victory)
 

 

Most definitely the paint scheme of Endymion, though possible, is not plausible. Where is the evidence that any British frigate was ever painted this way? In the hundreds of paintings by Thomas Whitcombe, Nicholas Pocock, and Thomas Buttersworth (note I didn't mention Thomas Luny because many of his paintings of events of the French Wars were done in the 1820s and misleadingly show 1820s see Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars page 163 for Gardiner's explanation of this). Antoine Roux was not a first-hand witness to British ships the same way he was to French and the US 44s.  I haven't found (in the five years I have been researching maritime paint schemes of the era as I am a maritime artist) a single example of the paint scheme with the yellow band to the second rail (above the gun-ports), not the rail through the gun ports. It is impossible to claim that the paint scheme with the band above the gunports, was equally plausible to the paint scheme with to band through the gunports. In fact, the evidence uniformly supports the latter. There is even a model of Endymion (built in 1815) to prove it:

17 hours ago, Olikigotho said:

 

 

304643216_large(2).thumb.jpg.75edc68407711c6412b770b14c17c188.jpg

 

 

 

 

The only version where the band covers the gunports is the post-1803 the nelson-chequer (currently on HMS Victory in real life) where the yellow band follows the gunports, not the planking. This can be seen on Euryalus. Note the yellow band doesn't follow the curve of the rail nor the wale:

On 8/21/2018 at 11:37 PM, Olikigotho said:

 

1944582166_large(8).thumb.jpg.6aed04fe942d3889991f23df37854fb9.jpg

 

 
12 hours ago, admin said:

Regarding the model itself. Endymion stern is proper.

One of the paintings in this topic shows the ship with 7 windows 

Thus - we have decided to show windows in those side panels. And there are paintings of endymion showing 7 windows.

 

1

 

I'm sorry to inform you, but your decisions about the stern design have been entirely and critically misguided:

IzR84R6.jpg.a6dc8a4722b63de2f56a6581fc531bac.jpg

This is not HMS Endymion and President, but rather HMS Shannon and Chesapeake (I am currently writing a book on this engagement). HMS Endymion engaged President at night not in daylight and from the Starboard no the port side (This is all in the ship's logbooks). HMS Endymion and President had every stretch of canvas up during the battle (it is written in the ships logs). While Shannon and Chesapeake only had topsails and the jib. It is noteworthy that in Shannon's logbook it is written that Captian Broke  (mistakenly sometimes called Commodore because he was acting commodore of the squadron that chased USS Consitution) left the royal yards crossed while Chesapeake took them down as shown in the painting. Furthermore, the flags suggest Shannon and Chesapeake too. The 3 US ensigns, one at the mizzen peak, the mizzen masthead and the main lower rigging were what Chesapeake carried according to the logbooks. Captain Henry Hope of Endymion flew a red ensign because he was under the overall command of Admiral Alexander Cochrane, vice-admiral of the red, while Shannon famously flew a blue ensign(like in the picture) because she was under the command of Admiral John Borlase Warren (Vice Admiral of the Blue). 

 

Nevertheless, even as depicting Shannon and Chesapeake, it is poor source as the paint scheme of the ships suggests it was painted well after the actual event and the artist never consulted a witness. The is much more similar to that of the 1820s/1830s, Compare it to the model of Dryad:

17 hours ago, Olikigotho said:

 

1023087749_large(6).thumb.jpg.c3cd6fbd6c17839504a7992b5bc54e77.jpg

 

 

 

 

J.C. Schekty did this painting in 1830 of the Shannon and Chesapeake using an account of R. H. King who had done sketches of Shannon from observation during the French Wars time (One is in Broke of the Shannon and the War of 1812 by Voelcker pg. 103). In fact,  it this copy is written "To Captain Sir Philip Bowes Vere Broke and KCB(Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath)" and it is likely that Broke himself had an input to the painting. It is Notice Chesapeake has skysail poles but Shannon only has royals. Shannon also has no mizzen pole. There is a trysail on the Shannon's main, but not on Chesapeakes. Shannon has crosstrees rather than a fighting top on the mizzen (which would explain why it wasn't armed). Most importantly, the paint scheme is that which was recorded in US documents regarding the Chesapeake. Whitcombe's paintings show the same paint scheme. Here you can see Shannon's transom is of the British style and differs from the Chesapeake's:

1780517456_schetky-1_1(1).thumb.jpg.c144e7ee14f972ee3beb69dbf27c4830.jpg

 

Back to Endymion:

Geoff Hunt's paintings, beautiful as they may be, aren't historical sources. In fact, in his painting of Shannon and Chesapeake, he omitted Shannon's crossed royal yards which contradicts the ships logs and the rest of the historical paintings of the engagement. Furthermore, he didn't even paint any of the details I listed in the Schekty painting.

376653074_TDRPklp(1).jpg.d4cab351f55796956c59e841952cd3df.jpg

The three Butterworth paintings are the only paintings that show Endymion as the"black ship" that Decatur is quoted to have surrendered his sword in the Naval Chronicle. Only these two show the stern. Here, the shape closely resembles the Pallas class of 1793:

HMS_Endymion_and_USS_President_exchange_broadsides.jpg.231072c8d5a6436c34474f8c54a2690a.jpg.a211820bc972524300781abc6fe48758.jpg

StAC1EX.thumb.jpg.5ff94e575d3975e64c31ef1ba56e68f6.jpg

On 8/21/2018 at 11:37 PM, Olikigotho said:

large.thumb.jpg.8f373f64032bee8020f3ef6407c03138.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, admin said:


Regarding French lines and french influence you mention. Endymion was a borrowed design based on the french captured ship. They could have added little details too as it was very fashionable to copy french frigate designs then. 

 

3

It is false that there was any other French influence besides the underwater lines (underwater hull form) during the French Programme.  There is a whole Chapter on the "French Programme" of 1797 in The Heavy Frigate by Gardiner that thoroughly explains that strictly only the underwater lines were used, while the decorative features and internal arrangements were all British. There is another chapter titled Details where three pages are dedicated to draughts highlighting exactly what the difference in British and French elegance and fitting was. These plans compare the HMS Amelia, Ex-Proserpine and Proserpine as captured.

Pag 44 of Frigate's of the Napoleonic Wars puts the Endymion and Pomone side by side. Gardiner writes: "The hull form follows Pomone closely, ... As can be seen, all aspects of external elegance, including head, quarter galleries, and solid barricades conform to British notions of elegance". It is absurd to suggest that Endymion's stern galleries would retain a French influence when the quarter galleries would be British. If you consider what lengths and expenses the British (who were short on timber and finances at the time) went to make captured French ships look British seen in the difference between Amelia and when she was Proserpine, then there is no reason to believe that the French even had the slightest influence on British notions of elegance. In fact, this evidence proves the British strongly opposed French decorative design.

Here are the plans for Pomone vs those of Endymion (Note the rearrangement of the rails so that there is a rail through the gunports on Endymion,)960552274_IMG_39874.thumb.jpg.d704109716ab702840c22c27fe77ff9c.jpgIMG_1349.thumb.jpg.e7fef1ee519b918956d7d54e53fc995a.jpg

IMG_3987.jpg.3d1a1bf39fcae06205dda0962b5cbf27.jpg1885215064_IMG_13492.jpg.2acccd1f4ff7748c118d7ffbbdf9e937.jpg

1002289566_IMG_39872.jpg.b9b88ae6206e325884a024127830b3f8.jpg602480996_IMG_13493.jpg.65f0b0123a945015ffdc1feed8535733.jpg

Given this evidence, It's pretty much impossible that Endymion didn't have a British style stern with five (perhaps 7, but the Buttersworth paintings show otherwise) stern windows each with 9 panes of glass per window. Also, notice that the windows in the French Pomone are vertical, but the framing of British sterns has the windows follow the structure of the external hull. Compare the British versions to the Pomone:

On 8/21/2018 at 11:37 PM, Olikigotho said:

1663288167_large(1).thumb.jpg.0c5c9eeef449d8ae9c4d73444dc92dbc.jpglarge.thumb.jpg.8f373f64032bee8020f3ef6407c03138.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

We know that Endymion had British features, not French. Of the British designs, the Butterworths painting suggest nearly exactly this version:

large.thumb.jpg.8f373f64032bee8020f3ef6407c03138.jpg.a823af788d2ab2615c9609cc3d9523da.jpgHMS_Endymion_and_USS_President_exchange_broadsides.jpg.231072c8d5a6436c34474f8c54a2690a.jpg.a211820bc972524300781abc6fe48758.jpgStAC1EX.thumb.jpg.5ff94e575d3975e64c31ef1ba56e68f6.jpg

Notably, this is indeed the pattern on the Lacedaemonian model and Trincomalee as built albeit, a six window variation. As Lacedaemonian and Trincomalee which were part of the Leda class which in turn was part of the French Program of 1797. Note, current Trincomalee in real life and in-game has a resigned elliptical stern which was from when she was converted to a corvette in 1845. Here is the model of Lacedaemonian and a painting of Trincomalee before her stern was converted:1929948078_large(10).thumb.jpg.4c9ff8d5d51fd497cb1113b6e7d8162c.jpg700731782_HMSTrincomaleepainting.jpg.6f3253379efecf44653c3325a9491777.jpg

The only reason not to think this was Endymion's stern would be the model. Nevertheless, the model was probably converted from a model of Pomone into the Endymion, hence the shape of the stern might represent the Pomone in British service.

On 8/21/2018 at 11:37 PM, Olikigotho said:

966458380_large(2).thumb.jpg.e814942f414a073913af4ab14ffe16de.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, admin said:

Overall great detailed feedback - some areas are questionable (not because you are not right, but because there are alternatives views that are also right and can provide factual proof just like you) - for other suggestions i need more time to read in detail and check the references to reply. 

9 section windows could be an easy fix - but due to low priority it wont get done fast (new ships would be more important).

what do you think of agamemnon?

As regards Agamemnon, the in-game version closely resembles (spars, sails, features etc) what the evidence suggests it would look like. The only difference would be the generic paint scheme has the same problem on the upper yellow band as Endymion.

I just want to put this information out there, I don't mean to say that this is a priority. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_3987 3.jpg

IMG_1349.jpg

Edited by Olikigotho
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lynx in the game is almost exactly the 2001 Lynx, just with deck fittings to resemble a ship of 1812. There are plans of the 1812 Lynx (later HMS Mosquidobit) in Howard I Chapelle's books The Baltimore Clipper and The Search for Speed under Sail. Is this intentional?

It is also noteworthy that the Baltimore clippers were not faster than British Frigates in terms of speed but instead were considerably more Weatherly. This meant that they could beat to windward faster than Frigates but never outsail them downwind. In fact, (because the drag coefficient of in fluids, which is multiplied by the crossectional area of the body, is a function of the length of the object) Lynx, being a small privateer would easily be outpaced by British frigates on most points of sail (that's how she was captured). Only the longest and largest purpose-built privateers ever caught a prize during the war of 1812. Famous examples being, General Armstrong, Prince de Neufchatel, and Chasseur. The statics show that most(slightly more than half) privateers in the war of 1812 were captured and of those that weren't captured, most never took a prize. Nevertheless, the few that were successful probably about 10% of all privateers (around 50 in total), captured over 1000 ships (some were recaptured). 

The British were well aware of the Baltimore clipper design as they conducted experiments with ships like the HMS Flying Fish ex-Baltimore clipper Revenge. They proved unstable and poor gun platforms, hence they were never adopted, the British preferring their local equivalent, the cutter (French equivalent was the lugger). In fact, they were so unstable that many capsized, some even while docked with the sails taken down. The most recent example is the sinking of the Pride of Baltimore in 1986. 

Baltimore clippers were the fastest ships of their size, but not overall, nor were they effective as men-o-war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMS Surprise, ex-l'Unite. Delete the Crossjack sail (course on the mizzen mast), ships were never rigged with them. This is because they would interfere with the Spanker,  Mizzen staysail, and Main Course and increate weather-helm. Even the few Clipper ships and packets that had them in the 1840s are painted with them furled. They proved to cause more harm than good and were rarely used: They decreased speed and maneuverability. (ref. Harland Seamanship)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMS Trincomalee.  The in-game version shows her as she appears today with an elliptical stern. This was only added to the ship in 1845 when she was converted to a corvette. As built, she would have looked exactly like the Lacedaemonian (ship of the same Leda class) model. Her sail plan circa 1817 would have had royal sails and gaff rigged trysails, and probably(although not certainly) not include a spritsail exactly like the Dryad model. We are fortunate to have such detailed models built around 1820 in the Greenwich National Maritime Museum, as making Trincomalee look like what she was in 1817 is much easier. More information about this is available in Gardiner's The Sailing Frigate:

Lacedaemonian:

213602358_large(10).jpg.34e414a5c7147e87511977e3a816077a.thumb.jpg.bae15125503251686acd4703a86f09ac.jpg

Painting of Trincomalee as of 1817:

700731782_HMSTrincomaleepainting.jpg.6f3253379efecf44653c3325a9491777.jpg.508aa0ba92c1b06980ed328a24aa74fc.jpg

Dryad showing the rigging with standing royal yards and gaff rigged trysails:

431666433_1023087749_large(6).thumb.jpg.c3cd6fbd6c17839504a7992b5bc54e77(1).jpg.92b6a2c49332f6dc62b9dce5d0b2517b.jpg

Make the staysail between the main and fore mast be in the same place as the in-game HMS Surprise. The way they are on the Trincomalee in-game right now would cause the lower staysail rigging to foul in the waist and the one above that to foul with the Maintopmast preventer-stay. 

If you include the trysails, then leave they staysails as they are but delete the lowermost one.

Edited by Olikigotho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMS Indefatigable

  1. Add a full body figurehead painted white.
  2. Rearrange the foresails sails to delete the innermost jib (the one from the fore fighting top to the middle of the bowsprit)and have the head of the outermost jib lead to the main topmast crosstrees, not the top of the topgallant.
  3. Make the staysail between the main and foremost be in the same place as the in-game HMS Surprise. The way they are on the Indefatigable in-game right now would cause the lower staysail rigging to foul in the waist and the one above that to foul with the main topmast preventer-stay in real life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Delete the spritsail and a spanker topsail and add skysails. (The Anatomy of the Ship 44-gun Frigate Consitution, has a note that square skysail yards on fiddled royal masts were ordered for the big 44-gun ships in 1807 by Joshua Humphreys. The rig with triangular skysails is based on a painting from 1803, either way, it had skysails, and they were probably square)

This is the sailmakers' plan from 1815:

uss-constitution-sail-plan-l.jpg.755c853eeec1646b78d158a85759d724.jpg

 

Also delete the upper half of the gunport lids, pictures from 1812 of all American ships, including the one above, only show the lower half of the gunport lids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Olikigotho said:

HMS Indefatigable

  1. Add a full body figurehead painted white.
  2. Rearrange the foresails sails to delete the innermost jib (the one from the fore fighting top to the middle of the bowsprit)and have the head of the outermost jib lead to the main topmast crosstrees, not the top of the topgallant.
  3. Make the staysail between the main and foremost be in the same place as the in-game HMS Surprise. The way they are on the Indefatigable in-game right now would cause the lower staysail rigging to foul in the waist and the one above that to foul with the main topmast preventer-stay in real life. 

Ingermaland has the same problem with the staysails between the masts

Edited by Olikigotho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, Olikigotho said:

HMS Indefatigable

  1. Add a full body figurehead painted white.
  2. Rearrange the foresails sails to delete the innermost jib (the one from the fore fighting top to the middle of the bowsprit)and have the head of the outermost jib lead to the main topmast crosstrees, not the top of the topgallant.
  3. Make the staysail between the main and foremost be in the same place as the in-game HMS Surprise. The way they are on the Indefatigable in-game right now would cause the lower staysail rigging to foul in the waist and the one above that to foul with the main topmast preventer-stay in real life. 

Agamemnon has the same problems with the staysails between the masts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Wasa, delete the lowest staysail between the masts, It would only be used in extreme weather with the rest of the sails down, in ordinary conditions, it would foul in the waist (where the majority of the ship's rigging was handled)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Olikigotho said:

HMS Indefatigable

  1. Add a full body figurehead painted white.
  2. Rearrange the foresails sails to delete the innermost jib (the one from the fore fighting top to the middle of the bowsprit)and have the head of the outermost jib lead to the main topmast crosstrees, not the top of the topgallant.
  3. Make the staysail between the main and foremost be in the same place as the in-game HMS Surprise. The way they are on the Indefatigable in-game right now would cause the lower staysail rigging to foul in the waist and the one above that to foul with the main topmast preventer-stay in real life. 

3rd Rate: Same problem with staysails between masts:

It closely resembles British notions of elegance, but the stripes are unlikely to have been painted that way. The only change needed is to paint the gunwale( which is the lower half of the upper yellow band) black. The black band between the yellow then becoming the lower yellow band and the rest below that black.

That is if indeed this is meant to represent a generic British 3rd rate.

Edited by Olikigotho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Olikigotho said:

HMS Indefatigable

  1. Add a full body figurehead painted white.
  2. Rearrange the foresails sails to delete the innermost jib (the one from the fore fighting top to the middle of the bowsprit)and have the head of the outermost jib lead to the main topmast crosstrees, not the top of the topgallant.
  3. Make the staysail between the main and foremost be in the same place as the in-game HMS Surprise. The way they are on the Indefatigable in-game right now would cause the lower staysail rigging to foul in the waist and the one above that to foul with the main topmast preventer-stay in real life. 

St. Pavel same problems of the staysails between the masts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, Olikigotho said:

HMS Indefatigable

  1. Add a full body figurehead painted white.
  2. Rearrange the foresails sails to delete the innermost jib (the one from the fore fighting top to the middle of the bowsprit)and have the head of the outermost jib lead to the main topmast crosstrees, not the top of the topgallant.
  3. Make the staysail between the main and foremost be in the same place as the in-game HMS Surprise. The way they are on the Indefatigable in-game right now would cause the lower staysail rigging to foul in the waist and the one above that to foul with the main topmast preventer-stay in real life. 

Bellona: Same problems with the staysails between the masts.

The cut of the foot outermost jib followed the rake of the jibboom and was not parallel to the water like the other two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, Olikigotho said:

HMS Indefatigable

  1. Add a full body figurehead painted white.
  2. Rearrange the foresails sails to delete the innermost jib (the one from the fore fighting top to the middle of the bowsprit)and have the head of the outermost jib lead to the main topmast crosstrees, not the top of the topgallant.
  3. Make the staysail between the main and foremost be in the same place as the in-game HMS Surprise. The way they are on the Indefatigable in-game right now would cause the lower staysail rigging to foul in the waist and the one above that to foul with the main topmast preventer-stay in real life. 

St. Pavel. Same problem with the staysails between the mast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bucentaure: 

25 minutes ago, Olikigotho said:

HMS Indefatigable

  1. Add a full body figurehead painted white.
  2. Rearrange the foresails sails to delete the innermost jib (the one from the fore fighting top to the middle of the bowsprit)and have the head of the outermost jib lead to the main topmast crosstrees, not the top of the topgallant.
  3. Make the staysail between the main and foremost be in the same place as the in-game HMS Surprise. The way they are on the Indefatigable in-game right now would cause the lower staysail rigging to foul in the waist and the one above that to foul with the main topmast preventer-stay in real life. 

Same problem with the staysails between the mast.

The cut of the two outer jibs should follow the rake of the jib-boom

Share this post


Link to post
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

×