Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Archdouche

Swedish Ships of the Line by af Chapman

Recommended Posts

Swedish Ships of the Line by af Chapman

 

About a year and a half ago I ordered high res scans of Chapman plans from the Swedish war archives. But because of costs for every single scan and very limited information of what every scan actually was I did not order more than a few on Chapman´s 94 gunner "Spiran". As it happens, as of now the archives has scanned most of the plans for the whole array of Chapman Projects regarding ships of the line. And although many midsections and deck-plans are still not scanned, I hope the ones that are available will get you attention for these wonderful ships.

Some of these ships have been seen before on the forums, but many of the plans are completely new. Many of these ships are in my opinion the most beautiful vessels of their respective class with their sleek lines as evidence of Chapman´s genius and they deserve to be seen by more ship enthusiasts than me. Most of these ships are never built projects by Chapman,

Only "Prince Adolph Fredrick", "Gustav III and Adolph Fredrick"  and the modified "Dristigheten" are  actually completed ships. (Confusing naming with two "Adolph Fredrick" I know...)

All pounds listed for guns are in Swedish pounds which is roughly 0.94 British pound and the measurements are in Swedish feet, which where one Swedish feet is roughly 0.97 British feet. All lengths is between perpendiculars. Enjoy!

 

Kronan/Cronan 110 Guns 1792

Length: 212 feet 8 inches

Beam:  56 feet

Draught: 23 feet 8 iches

30* 48pndr!!!

32* 36pndr

30* 24pndr

18* 12pndr

 https://imageshack.com/a/jJ0e/1

 

Spiran 94 Guns 1792

Length 202 feet

Beam: 53 feet 4 inches

Draught: 23 feet 8 inches

30* 42pndr

32* 30pndr

32* 18pndr

https://imageshack.com/a/UIte/1

 

Äpplet 80 Guns 1792

Length: 194 feet

Beam: 51 feet 5 inches

Draught: 23 feet

30* 42pndr

32* 24pndr

18* 12pndr

https://imageshack.com/a/2Qte/1

 

Unnamed 74 Gunner 1792

Length: 184 feet

Beam: 49 feet 8 inches

Draught:  22 feet

28* 36pndr

30* 24pndr

16* 12pndr

https://imageshack.com/a/uzte/1

 

Gustav III and Adolph Fredrick 74 Guns 1764

Length: 174 feet

Beam: 46 feet 8 inches

Draught: 21 feet 3 inches

26* 24pndr

28* 18pndr

20* 8pndr

https://imageshack.com/a/CE6e/1

 

Dristigheten 1805 Refit 74 Guns

Length: 167 feet

Beam: 46 feet

Draught: 21 and 11/12 feet

Wartime armament like ingame Wasa but extended top deck

https://imageshack.com/a/on6e/1

 

Unnamed 66 Gunner 1792

Length:  176 feet

Beam: 47 feet

Draught: 21 feet

26* 36pndr

28* 24pndr

12* 8pndr

https://imageshack.com/a/NY6e/1

 

Prins Adolph Fredrick 62 Guns 1762

Length: 169 feet

Beam: 45 feet 8 inches

Draught: 21 feet

24* 24pndr

26* 18pndr

12* 6pndr

https://imageshack.com/a/o56e/1

 

Unnamed 54 Gunner 1792

Length: ?

Beam: 44 feet

Draught: ?

Armament: ?

https://imageshack.com/a/Vc6e/1 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, erelkivtuadrater said:

dear god, that kronan ship would be a beast :S and how could that possibly sail

Indeed it would. Chapman was a damn capable naval designer and the designs that were completed were up to expectations. If he could pull off a ship of that size we will never know, but I believe that he made the adoptions and design details needed for it to be possible. After all, he relied on mathematics for all his designs, and math does not usually fail in giving a pretty good result. It would truly be an awesome ship. And hopefully and likely have better sailing qualities than the brick with sails that is called Santisima Trinidad😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice collection ! 🙂

On 11/13/2019 at 10:08 PM, Archdouche said:

Some of these ships have been seen before on the forums,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Archdouche said:

Indeed it would. Chapman was a damn capable naval designer and the designs that were completed were up to expectations. If he could pull off a ship of that size we will never know, but I believe that he made the adoptions and design details needed for it to be possible. After all, he relied on mathematics for all his designs, and math does not usually fail in giving a pretty good result. It would truly be an awesome ship. And hopefully and likely have better sailing qualities than the brick with sails that is called Santisima Trinidad😉

Sorry, maybe I'm a bit stupid, but wasn't it for topographical reasons that Sweden never built three-deckers? I mean, the Dutch never did it because Dutch waters were just too shallow, as far as I know ...

Edited by Wagram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Archdouche said:

Indeed it would. Chapman was a damn capable naval designer and the designs that were completed were up to expectations. If he could pull off a ship of that size we will never know, but I believe that he made the adoptions and design details needed for it to be possible. After all, he relied on mathematics for all his designs, and math does not usually fail in giving a pretty good result.

Now I know why there's no Nobel Prize for mathematics 😉 :

77V7BOV5RKZN6H3T4CVH4X5W3I.jpg

Edited by LeBoiteux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Archdouche said:

And hopefully and likely have better sailing qualities than the brick with sails that is called Santisima Trinidad😉

Are you talking about the original Santísima Trinidad - which was a 120-gun three-decker ...

Santissima_Trinidad_mg_0582.jpg

The plan is dated to 1777, according to Acerra and Meyer, BTW, not to 1836, as the Wiki "source" claims ...

... or about the converted ill-fated four-decker which participated in the battle of Trafalgar?

Anyway, Santísima Trinidad was a real "brick", as you call her, while "Kronan" remained just a chimaera ... 😉

Edited by Wagram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wagram said:

Sorry, maybe I'm a bit stupid, but wasn't it for topographical reasons that Sweden never built three-deckers? I mean, the Dutch never did it because Dutch waters were just too shallow, as far as I know ...

You are right in a way about that. Sweden built three-deckers, although the last of these were built in the early 18th century. The main disadvantage with the bigger ships being from a Swedish point of view high draught, something that is not ideal in the Swedish (and at the time Finnish) abundance of archipelagos. This is the reason that Wasa and the following nine ships (Including the "Wasa" ingame, actually "Kronprins Gustav Adolph" to be built to almost the same lines having a low draught. Some of the excellent features of this class was that it could navigate in shallows far better than any Russian SoL's. another not really related quality of the Wasas was their highly placed lower gundeck, giving it excelling combat capabilities in rough seas. After the Swedish-Russian war of 1788-1790 there was however calls from the Swedish navy for larger lineships to be able to take a more rigid place in the line of battle. Not that the navy was disappointed in the Wasas, but they recognized the need for larger SoL's to go into the line of battle against newer designs by traditional enemies like the russians and the danish since most of the combat in archipelagos was done with smaller ships like gunboats and Chapmans newly built archipelago frigates. And so came the design studies by Chapman and propositions on several new standard designs for new classes of Sol's. (Three-deckers are also freaking expensive compared to the more all round 74-80 3rd rates)

1 hour ago, LeBoiteux said:

Now I know why there's no Nobel Prize for mathematics 😉 :

77V7BOV5RKZN6H3T4CVH4X5W3I.jpg

Well, that big failure of naval engineering was based on people's at the time basic understanding of physics. Vasa (Or correct old swedish spelling "Wasa") was just built a bit to narrow by the original designer (who happened to be dutch, not pointing fingers..). The sister ship of Wasa (1628) was made a bit wider and actually were working ships, even if the heeling tendencies were never appreciated by their commanding officers, they served. As a fact, Wasa's sister the "Äpplet" was identified sunk as a block ship some week ago in the archipelagos around Stockholm.  But even though "Äpplet" was probably never a noteworthy sailor she survived for thirty years before being discarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wagram said:

Are you talking about the original Santísima Trinidad - which was a 120-gun three decker ...

Santissima_Trinidad_mg_0582.jpg

The plan is dated to 1777, according to Acerra and Mayer, BTW, not to 1836, as the Wiki "source" claims ...

... or about the converted ill-fated four-decker which participated in the battle of Trafalgar?

Anyway, Santísima Trinidad was a real "brick", as you call her, while "Kronan" remained just a chimaera ... 😉

I'm talking about the brick with four decks that some more wise Spanish naval officer's wanted to reclassify as an floating battery because of her outright horrendous sailing ...... "qualities".....

But you are absolutely right, we will never know what the Cronan would have been. Most likely the propositions for her would never have been considered because of cost reasons. More likely would be the Spiran or the Äpplet (1792). As an interesting note I have seen plans by chapman on the 48pndr guns. I do not at the time know if any were made for test, but they would have been powerful naval guns to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeBoiteux said:

@Archdouche That was just a joke.

af Chapman's plans are great. That's what matters about this thread.

🙂

 

I know, guess I'm butt hurt for our great failure almost 400 years on😉  (That is probably one of the best failures we have achieved considering what an awesome museum it all became)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Archdouche said:

That is probably one of the best failures we have achieved considering what an awesome museum it all became

Absolutely agree. Surely, the French very much regret that the "Implacable", ex-Duguay-Trouin, was destroyed. She would have been another great museum. The alleged reason for the destruction is known - no money left to preserve her. However, I wonder why they had to blow her up. No prudence here, in my opinion, and no goodwill. Would it not have been possible to just ballast her and leave her under water at some secure spot in order to have the option to recover her at a later time? Water may preserve wooden hulls quite well, as the example of Wasa demonstrates...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wagram said:

Absolutely agree. Surely, the French very much regret that the "Implacable", ex-Duguay-Trouin, was destroyed. She would have been another great museum. The alleged reason for the destruction is known - no money left to preserve her. However, I wonder why they had to blow her up. No prudence here, in my opinion, and no goodwill. Would it not have been possible to just ballast her and leave her under water at some secure spot in order to have the option to recover her at a later time? Water may preserve wooden hulls quite well, as the example of Wasa demonstrates...

Bonne idée.

De toute façon, le Duguay-Trouin a eu une belle fin le 4 novembre 1805 et c'est celle-là qui compte :

Quote

"(...) Le combat n’est pas terminé et les deux autres vaisseaux français, Le Duguay-Trouin et Le Mont-blanc tentent alors de fuir mais les Anglais essaient encore de les intercepter. Le Duguay-Trouin endommage gravement le HMS Hero, un des deux vaisseaux qui l’assaillent. Son gréement est fortement endommagé et le capitaine Touffet est tué au début du combat tandis que son second est grièvement blessé et que les lieutenants qui prendront successivement le commandement seront blessés les uns après les autres. Les hommes des gaillards sont décimés par la mitraille anglaise, le deuxième pont armé de canons de 18 livres ne compte plus que la moitié de ses servants et seul le premier pont et ses canons de 36 livres sont en état de tirer. À 16 h 0 Le Mont-Blanc ne pouvant résister au feu anglais amène son pavillon laissant Le Duguay-Trouin seul face aux vaisseaux anglais.

Le lieutenant de vaisseau Guillet décide alors d’évacuer les gaillards et la batterie de 18 pour armer les canons de 36 livres afin d’infliger le plus de dégâts possible aux vaisseaux anglais qui l’encerclent alors et qui le canonnent à outrance. Les Anglais « irrités par cette résistance leur criaient d’amener leur pavillon ». Les tirs anglais font s’écrouler la mâture et les éléments de mâture, voiles et gréement masquent la batterie de 36, rendant dès lors tout nouveau tir impossible.

À 16 h 30, le pavillon étant tombé avec la mâture, Le Duguay-Trouin se rend sans amener son pavillon."

Sinon, l'étude et des relevés du bâtiment avant destruction par des historiens, des architectes navals, etc. auraient peut- être été plus judicieux qu'une pure conservation.

Edited by LeBoiteux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 11:44 PM, Wagram said:

Absolutely agree. Surely, the French very much regret that the "Implacable", ex-Duguay-Trouin, was destroyed. She would have been another great museum. The alleged reason for the destruction is known - no money left to preserve her. However, I wonder why they had to blow her up. No prudence here, in my opinion, and no goodwill. Would it not have been possible to just ballast her and leave her under water at some secure spot in order to have the option to recover her at a later time? Water may preserve wooden hulls quite well, as the example of Wasa demonstrates...

Indeed. It is painful to see the video of her undeserved fate. I will never understand the logic behind the way that she was discarded. We can all understand that post ww2 economies were indeed sluggish for the wartorn countries, but wouldn't she at least have survived to more favourable economic times by being placed in dry-dock and having regular paint oversights? Something i doubt would have taken extrordinary economic funding. I do wonder if HMS Wellesley would have shared the same fate had she not been bombed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the British didn't care because "Implacable" was not really a British ship, and the French may have not wanted her back as she was no longer a truly French ship. The preservation and restoration of "Implacable" (maybe, I'd rather say "former and future Duguay-Trouin" 😉) surely would have been a huge task for the French - in terms of expenses, in the first place - but, in my opinion, in the end it would have been a more than satisfying enterprise. As mentioned, if the ship had been submerged in order to preserve her it should have been possible to salvage her at a more convenient time. But preservation would only have made sense, in my opinion, if she had been restored as the French Duguay-Trouin. At any rate, all British modifications would have had to be stripped off (so, the British could have kept the stern and figurehead of "Implacable" for exhibition at the NMM 🙂).

In my opinion, there would have been two options.

The less expensive option probably would have been to just preserve what was left of the original ship, basically the hull, etc. in a museum, with an abundant documentation on the original ship, etc. Essentially, the same solution as found for "Wasa" or "Mary Rose".

The costlier (in financial terms), more demanding (in terms of research and craftsmanship), more spectacular but also riskier (in terms of meeting requirements regarding historical accuracy /authenticity) option would have been to choose the way of restauration. Basically, what was done with "Victory" or "Constitution", which - of course - presupposes the availability of reliable sources.

Well, she was a Sané designed Téméraire class ship of which there are enough extant plans. A drawing of the stern and quarter gallery ornaments has also survived. Boudriot was wrong when he attributed these ornaments to the "Duguay-Trouin" built at Brest in 1787/88 and burnt at Toulon in 1793. The drawing is not signed "Lubet", as Boudriot claimed. It is clearly signed "Rolland" (Pierre), ship builder at Rochefort, and "Delizy", maître-sculpteur at Rochefort from 1797. So these ornaments are clearly those of our "Duguay-Trouin", built at Rochefort from 1794-1800, and captured in 1805. Unfortunately, no drawing of the figurehead survives but as remarked elsewhere, there is a contemporary document describing the figurehead in some detail. From this and surviving contemporary models of figureheads in French naval museums it should have been possible to reconstruct the ornaments of the ship reasonably well. But then ... the cannons, the masts, the rigging, etc., everything would have had to be reconstructed anew ...

Edited by Wagram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...