'L Ambitieux' French 2nd rate 1680 (With Plans)

[Vernon Merrill]

She is definitely a beautiful ship...  However, I wish they would keep them historical in their construction as well...  The whole Inger/Connie meta that is currently in game is grating.  The Constitution, or something like L'Egyptienne, for that matter, would have reduced her to match-sticks in battle.  This was due to improvements in hull and rigging design.  I'm not saying these ships dont have a place in the game, but I would like them to remain historically accurate.  By the way, anyone know if L'Egyptienne has ever been thought of for the game?

[Ned Loe]

She is definitely a beautiful ship...  However, I wish they would keep them historical in their construction as well...  The whole Inger/Connie meta that is currently in game is grating.  The Constitution, or something like L'Egyptienne, for that matter, would have reduced her to match-sticks in battle.  This was due to improvements in hull and rigging design.  I'm not saying these ships dont have a place in the game, but I would like them to remain historically accurate.  By the way, anyone know if L'Egyptienne has ever been thought of for the game?

I doubt L'Egyptine would do much harm with its tiny deck of:

 

28 × 24-pounder guns

12 × 8-pounder guns 

 

Constitution would put a nice fight in close combat ,but it's not a match for a 2nd rate ship. If Captained correctly, 2nd rate 80 Gun ship can cause very heavy damage to both ships that you proposed. If you read history Constitution was only fighting frigates with much smaller guns and gun count.  

---------------------------------------

 

 

L Ambiteux

[Vernon Merrill]

Its 'tiny deck' was about 15 feet longer than the L'Ambitieux...  and I'm sure, handled competently, would sail circles around her...  And her 24-lb.ers would easily penetrate.  Shipbuilding had progressed much in the ~120 year difference.  Again, not saying L'Ambitieux is a bad ship...  Just saying by the 1800's, they had been more or less made obsolete.

 

My 1971 Monte Carlo SS has a 454 cubic inch engine and ~400 horsepower, but I fully realize a NEW Subaru WRX with a small 6 cylinder will devastate me in a drag race.

[Ned Loe]

Its 'tiny deck' was about 15 feet longer than the L'Ambitieux...  and I'm sure, handled competently, would sail circles around her...  And her 24-lb.ers would easily penetrate.  Shipbuilding had progressed much in the ~120 year difference.  Again, not saying L'Ambitieux is a bad ship...  Just saying by the 1800's, they had been more or less made obsolete.

 

My 1971 Monte Carlo SS has a 454 cubic inch engine and ~400 horsepower, but I fully realize a NEW Subaru WRX with a small 6 cylinder will devastate me in a drag race.

Wood is wood. Oak is oak. Hull shape and design can increase handling, but not necessarily penetration. We need to talk artillery. I can put 18 century cannons on 16 century hull and it will stay afloat and do the same damage as 18 century ships. You know what I mean?

 

We also have to take into consideration build quality. We can assume that 18 century ship was build with with different wood quality and craftsmanship. Sometimes Older ships could last longer and were heavier, means more armor (heavy wood), but very slow.

[Vernon Merrill]

Yes, but what I'm suggesting is that cannonballs will do different amounts of structural damage to ships constructed differently...  What was the distance between ribs?  Had diagonal cross-bracings even been invented yet?  Stuff like that.

 

But yes, thos 36-lb.ers would definitely do some damage regardless...

[Malachi]

 

28 × 24-pounder guns

12 × 8-pounder guns

 

 

That´s not quite correct.

 

L'Égyptienne´s armament in 1801: 30 24-pounders, 20 8-pounders, 4 36-pound obusiers, 2 57-pound carronades and 2 bronze 12-pounders. Also keep in mind that the french pound is a bit heavier than the british.

 

And L`Égyptienne´s sister La Forte (+ three 18-pounder and two 12-pounder frigates) did quite well in a fight vs. two british 74-gun ships in 1796.

[Ned Loe]

 

 

 

That´s not quite correct.

 

L'Égyptienne´s armament in 1801: 30 24-pounders, 20 8-pounders, 4 36-pound obusiers, 2 57-pound carronades and 2 bronze 12-pounders. Also keep in mind that the french pound is a bit heavier than the british.

 

And L`Égyptienne´s sister La Forte (+ three 18-pounder and two 12-pounder frigates) did quite well in a fight vs. two british 74-gun ships in 1796.

 

wiki needs fixin

[Talos]

When she was taken into the Royal Navy, Egyptienne was fitted with:  UD 28 x 24pdrs; QD 2 x 9pdrs + 12 x 32pdr carronades; Fc 2 x 9pdrs + 4 x 32pdr carronades.

 

She was very weak structurally, built in the light French style, and though the biggest frigate in the Royal Navy, she was never duplicated. Spent a large amount of time in repair or laid up because of it. Many of these 24-pounder frigates were downgraded to 18-pounders during peacetime to preserve the ships.

[Surcouf]

G. Delacroix work on a new monograph on l'Égyptienne frigate.

In some time we will have more information on this type of French frigates.

But this post does not speak of l'Égyptienne.

[Idle Champion]

She is definitely a beautiful ship...  However, I wish they would keep them historical in their construction as well...  The whole Inger/Connie meta that is currently in game is grating.  The Constitution, or something like L'Egyptienne, for that matter, would have reduced her to match-sticks in battle.  This was due to improvements in hull and rigging design.  I'm not saying these ships dont have a place in the game, but I would like them to remain historically accurate.  By the way, anyone know if L'Egyptienne has ever been thought of for the game?

 

I mentioned the relative fragility for L'Ambitieux and also for De Zeven Provincien in the Dutch ship post. Wood is wood, oak is oak, and a lot of these ships were pretty heavy, but I agree with Vernon that these older ships shouldn't be as resilient as 19th century and late 18th century ships of the line. In part because naval authorities and designers had another hundred years of seeing how ships withstood artillery and adjusting their designs, but also because of the firepower gap between 17th century and Napoleonic ships. When L'Ambitieux was built the incoming broadsides weren't as heavy (first rates topped out at 100 guns and carried 18-pounders - well, culverins - in their middle battery) and the sort of structural reinforcement that went into later ships wouldn't be called for even if the techniques and technology permitted it.

 

I'm not saying 17th century ships should be poorer ships overall in game, but any ship should have a balance of flaws, strengths, and costs. Similarly, if a 17th century second rate simply sailed and fought like a 18th century third rate, some of the point of adding the ship is lost. Bellona is a very straightforward ship in game and actually kind of hard to mess up with - L'Ambitieux could be a more temperamental ship with an edge in crew and firepower but without Bellona's resilience or easy upwind sailing, making it a powerful ship but a bad ship to lose control of an engagement in.

[Ned Loe]

Wow.

 

That is a ship with a serious sense of occasion.

 

The current crop of ships of the line can be pretty plain but this one... magnificent. And then there's 17th-century details like the round gunports up top and the sprit topsail... who doesn't love a sprit topsail?

 

There may be some kinks concerning the armament - the threedecks page seems to suggest 96 guns, which doesn't match the nominal rating or second-rates of the period. The model seems to suggest a much more likely 82 guns with 4 stern chaser ports (there are bridle ports up front, but the bow chasers seem to be from four round gunports at forecastle height).

 

My guess: 28x 36-livre lower battery, 26x 18-livre middle battery, 24x 12-livre upper battery, 4x 6-livre quarter deck, capable of firing 4x12-livre guns in bow chaser position and 4x36-livre in stern chaser position (very doubtful it would have carried permanent stern chasers, but . Translating 36-livre to 42-pounders and the rest as is, a 978 pound broadside.

Add to that 730 crew, resilience and upwind sailing appropriate to its 17th century construction and rigging - not just a gorgeous ship, but potentially an interesting competitor to Bellona.

Lower Gun Deck 28 French 36-Pounder

Middle Gun Deck 30 French 18-Pounder

Upper Gun Deck 26 French 12-Pounder

Quarterdeck/Forecastle 12 French 6-Pounder

 

I love combination of 12/18lbs + 36 lbs. They create heavy punch with decent reload on 18/12 lbs. decks. This means DPS until 30lb guns loaded and punch! DPS and repeat...

[Idle Champion]

Wind, on 18 Jun 2016 - 03:03 AM, said:Wind, on 18 Jun 2016 - 03:03 AM, said:Wind, on 18 Jun 2016 - 03:03 AM, said:

Lower Gun Deck 28 French 36-Pounder

Middle Gun Deck 30 French 18-Pounder

Upper Gun Deck 26 French 12-Pounder

Quarterdeck/Forecastle 12 French 6-Pounder

 

Slightly curious - there's a bunch of 1691 French ships of the line listed, and most have an armament matching their rating. L'Ambitieux has an 80 rating, but 96 guns by that count - but when I go through the other second rates, L'Ambitieux is larger than higher-rated ships - bigger in every dimension and more crew than the 94-gun L'Admirable, comparable in size but bigger crew than Formidable, (96 guns on a rated 90).

 

However, it would mean the model's gundecks are off, particularly the upper works where only 4 poop deck guns are visible. It would also mean that she throws a well-rounded 1050 pound broadside. So that's cool.

 

Edit: After realising that the Threedecks entry is for a 1691 ship and not a 1680 ship I did some digging. There does not appear to have been a 1680 L'Ambitieux - the plans were commissioned by de Turville from a naval architect called Blaise Panglano. The plan, which called for an 80-gun ship was rejected for being too costly and the ship was not built. In a recent monograph by one Jean Boudriot the unbuilt ship is dubbed L'Ambitieux, and models have been built according to the 1680 plans. Given that the 1691 L'Ambitieux was given an 80-gun rating despite its 96-gun armament, it seems that it is a real ship which acknowledges the 1680 Panglano design, but it is not built to that design and has a genuinely different armament.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Idle Champion

[Malachi]

It´s Blaise (Biaggio, actually, as he was born in Neaples, Italy) Pangallo.

 

And I don´t know if L'Ambitieux of 1693 has a connection with the original draft by Pangallo, the official french navy records list Guichard as designer. The only 90+ gun-ships built by Pangallo were Le Merveilleux, Le Terrible and Le Foudroyant.

[Idle Champion]

Malachi, on 20 Jun 2016 - 07:53 AM, said:

It´s Blaise (Biaggio, actually, as he was born in Neaples, Italy) Pangallo.

 

And I don´t know if L'Ambitieux of 1693 has a connection with the original draft by Pangallo, the official french navy records list Guichard as designer. The only 90+ gun-ships built by Pangallo were Le Merveilleux, Le Terrible and Le Foudroyant.

 

Sorry - I'm repeating the error as I found it.

 

The 1691 L'Ambitieux (rated 80 gun, armed 96 gun, ship of the first rank) is by Honore Mallet - it was burned and counted destroyed at the La Hogue. The name was passed on to, as you say, a ship of a Guichard make (rated and armed 92 gun, ship of the first rank).

 

The inconsistencies between the model and the page were nagging at me - the model is quite modern, but it looks to be armed as a false three-decker in the mid 17th century style, with an armed spar deck and only a handful of guns on the poop deck. The page was referring to a true three-decker, with too many guns on the upper works not to have three enclosed decks and a normal forecastle and quarterdeck.

 

I went looking, and there's a whole batch of Pangallo-designed first-rank ships; 1688 Conquerant, 1690 Saint Esprit, te 1691 and 1692 Merveilleux, the 1691 and 1693 Foudroyant, and the 1693 Terrible.

(http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_crewman&id=23729)

.

Haven't gone looking for full plans, but the initial information is pretty comprehensive. (guns in livre)

 

Conquerant: rated 84, armed 80, 16x36+10x24, 28x18, 22x6, 4x4.

Saint Esprit: rated and armed 90, 28x36, 28x18, 28x8, 6x6, 659 men and officers.

Foudroyant (1691): rated and armed 84, 26x36, 26x18, 24x8, 8x8, 609 men and officers.

Merveilleux (1691): rated 92, armed 98, 28x36, 28x18, 28x8, 14x6, 712 men and officers.

Merveilleux (1692): rated and armed 98, 28x36, 28x18, 28x8, 14x6.

Foudroyant (1693): rated and armed 104, 28x36, 30x18, 28x12, 18x6.

Terrible: rated 100, armed 92 or 96, 28x36, 28x18, 26-28x8, 10-12x6. 864 men and officers.

 

With the armed spar deck, Conquerant is the most similar to the model/plan 1680 Ambitieux, but even a quick game of gun-port counting its clearly not built to the same plan. Plans might identify Saint Esprit and 1691's Foudroyant as spar-deckers as well. The similarity in armament between the two Merveilleux despite their different measurements (1691's is 157' (fr.) at gun deck, 1692's is 163'5") suggests information could be doubled up between them.

I like the 1691 Foudroyant the most: if it is a spar-decker, it would resemble the model which first caught my eye, and the full spar and poop deck armament of 8-livre guns definitely sounds like a more useful battery for an in-game ship of the line than a bunch of 6-pounders. The 1691 Foudre and Merveil at least went out fighting; they were burned at La Hogue - the other four were ruined at Toulon.

 

I'm on the lookout for a 17th-century ship of the line, and I'd definitely back an in-game realisation of the unbuilt 1680 Ambitieux, or one of the 1691 Ambitieux, Foudroyant, or Merveilleux if plans and images emerged.

[Malachi]

Nice research, Champion

 

I didn´t list the Le Conquerant of 1691 because that ship also seems to have been made by Guichard. And I simply forgot Le Saint Esprit

Sometimes threedecks lists a ship twice because there a two entries in the official records, one for guerre (war) and one for paix (peace), usually 10 to 16 guns difference for the vaisseaux de 1^er rang.

 

If you´re searching for plans, I do have three (sheer and body+ stern and side galleries) for Le Foudroyant of 1693.

 

 

 

 

That stern drawing is a work of art.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Malachi

[Idle Champion]

Malachi, on 20 Jun 2016 - 6:44 PM, said:

 

If you´re searching for plans, I do have three (sheer and body+ stern and side galleries) for Le Foudroyant of 1693.

 

On one hand, Le Foudroyant, 1693.

 

A real ship, if an ill-fated one. 1691's Foudre had been burned at La Hogue, 1692's was renamed as Soleil-Royal to replace the legendary flagship, lost in the same fashion. The 1693 Le Foudroyant and that same Soleil-Royal would be scuttled in shallow water at Toulon and not refloated until the ship had degraded beyond repair, and the ship was broken up in 1713. Despite this, Le Foudroyant is beautiful, powerful, and modern for her time.

 

Some knowns - main battery of 28 thirty-six livre cannon, middle battery of 30 eighteen-livre cannon, upper battery of 28 twelve-livre cannon, 18 six-livre cannon arranged on her upper works. 166 feet (fr.) at the gun deck, 46 feet beam, 21'6" her depth of hold.

 

Some assumptions: exact same rating and broadside weight as the 1692 Foudre/Soleil-Royal, so quite likely the same complement of 967 men and officers. A port placed extremely far forward at the level of her upper battery could be a bridle port, but suggests she may have had a pair of twelve-livre cannons as bow chasers. Two stern chaser ports at the level of her main battery, but it was not common practice to carry additional full-sized cannon as dedicated stern chasers.

 

In game, translating her thirty-six livre cannon to 42-pounders and leaving the rest as is, a broadside weight of 1080 pounds and a crew of 950-965. Making her slow, a poor sailor on any upwind point, and giving her a manpower-intensive sailing rig or slow yard turning/sail raising would be a fair concession to her age, though for the sake of balance her sailing vices should feel tolerable against a Victory or Santisima. She should be tough enough to hold out against a broadside as strong as her own for a while before becoming endangered or losing fighting potential, but should not feel like a 'tank' in the same manner as Bellona or Victory since she never had to withstand ships more powerful than herself. A Pavel should be able to easily outsail her, but a simple broadside duel should favour her the longer it goes given her larger crew, greater broadside weight, and the Pavel's larger battery of weak 6-pounders.

 

I'd definitely be interested in seeing full plans of Le Foudroyant and eventually seeing her in game as an alternative to the Pavel that creeps into the lower end of the Pavel-Victory gap.

 

On the other hand, L'Ambitieux, 1680.

 

An innovative but rejected plan, features of which would have made it into Pangallo's subsequent ships including Le Foudroyant. Extremely modern lines for her time, but still with the charming and visually distinctive 17th-century rig. In the model at the start of the thread we see her heavily baroque ornamentation as though in ebony, without gilt or paint, and her planking as varnished, unpainted wood. Her proportions and modest grandeur are elegant, though she would still remain striking more vividly adorned.

 

Some knowns: a tremendous amount of her construction - appearance, dimensions, her decorations, her rigging.

 

Some assumptions: 26 guns on her main battery, most likely of 36-livre given other ships of that period/role. 26 guns on her middle battery, most likely of 18-livre for same reason. 24 guns on her spar deck, most likely of 8-livre. 4 guns on her poop deck, most likely of 4-livre (4 poop deck guns on the 74-gun Saint Esprit and the 84-gun L'Intrepide, both of 4 livre). 4 forward ports at her forecastle, suggesting as many as 4 8-livre bow chasers. 4 stern chaser ports at the level of her main battery. If the same relationship between the armament and the crew complement for L'Intrepide, Saint Esprit, and the 84-gun Foudroyant held for L'Ambitieux, she would have a crew complement of around 580 men and officers.

 

Translated in-game, that projected broadside would come out as 892 pounds. I feel that any 80-gun three-decker, let alone one designed in 1680, should be a ship with compromises that specialises in firepower and has a balance of disadvantages between her sailing and resilience. While she would overwhelm weaker vessels and work well in the line of battle, a straight fight against a Bellona should be unsustainable and she should feel fragile against a heavier ship or a carronade-armed Bellona up close. She should be an excellent gun platform with little heel, both because stability was an intended benefit of her design and to favour her firepower specialist role, but out-turned and out-sailed by Bellona.

 

I definitely love to see her in game, not only for her individual aesthetics and those of 17th-century ships of the line, but also as a more interesting alternative to the Diet Bellona. I admit the idea of realising an authentic yet unbuilt design in-game has some inherent appeal as well. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd say Le Foudroyant, but that's largely because of the Pavel-Victory gap compared to the Ingermanland-Diet Bellona gap, and is very much a comparison in my head between my impressions of what these ships would be like in game.

 

Anyhoo, I think I've comprehensively said my piece on this matter and done my bit to keep the thread alive until the next poll.

[Mirones]

i dont think she will perform bad as an oldy 3rd rate. 

infact i would sail her all day

[Skippy]

I want L'Ambitieux to be in the game, she is a beauty 

[PiratFigarat]

nice ship