Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Historical armaments and hull weights - community research project.

Recommended Posts

I need to go back to the sources, as I have several of the print books Northernwolves cited on the Constitution, but I thought the removal of the 42s was for performance reasons? The United States was known to be a sluggish sailor and she had the 42s. Just wondering if gun weight will factor in when choosing 42 vs 32, etc. Looking at Jodgi's charts it would appear there is a difference in speed between a ship with no guns and one loaded, but is it nuanced with different loadouts?

 

it depends on the weight of the gun/carronade.  If the weights are correct, i would assume it would be like that.

 

However, the President also had 42s, and I think it was the fastest of all 3, prior to running aground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Seems like the 'armour' is still evaporating rather fast.

From chapman's rules the gun port sizes are somewhere in the region of 50x the size of a shot hole from the same gun type.
This accounts for 1-1.5% of the hull side area, by quick calculation (using values given for side area earlier in the discussion here).

The cumulative area of 1% by shot holes (which can reasonably be assumed to not cause a generalised structural collapse (IMO) would thus take some 175 shots (18lb vs Leda as an example))... still more than 90% of the hull is at 'normal' condition, even if an assumption that there is an edge effect to each hole of equal diameter.

With increased numbers of impacts there will be considerable overhitting, and to eliminate significant proportion of material would require increasing (rather than reducing) volumes of fire - given the unlikeliness of not sinking by flooding or striking well before being reduced to kindling, it doesn't seem necessary to really deal with this minor aspect though... the increased vulnerability of fittings to weakened structure could counter the decreased proportion of shots that will hit remaining 'relevant' materials.

I'd suggest that 'hull' not be reduced by damage, but rather that there be a slight probabilistic reduction or bypass of planking (in the same manner that gunports bypass planking when open (and reduce it when closed)). There should be some increase in leaking with fatigue life (age of vessel, weight of guns, combat or storm damage, grounding etc) ~ with damage greatly accelerating the EOL of the hull, but most leaks should be from direct damage to the lower hull or the area between wind and water. (i.e. below the gun deck), where relatively few, small holes can admit large quantities of water (1ft (plus half diameter) below the waterline, a 9lb ball will admit some 80 tons per hour, 32lb 190 tons per hour - 3ft below the waterline these increase to 128 tons and 345 tons respectively).

Even a ship of the line will sink around 1" per ton and a chain pump can handle only around 60 tons per hour each, thus the longer the flooding continues the worse it tends to get, even if no new holes are created (or submerged) and even if some progress is made in stopping up existing shot holes.

Eventually, if the depth of water on board is higher than the shot hole, then the rate of flooding will reduce but this may be too late to matter, as reaching the holed area to repair it then becomes more difficult.

 

Edited by Lieste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generic 74 needs her 32pdr back on the lower gun deck - the 32pound/36livre gun was the entire reason for it's existence. There were a few Spanish (and at least one Brit) 74 that went with 24s on the LD but they had 24s on the MD too.

 

 

I did put 24s on the lower deck in the spreadsheet, otherwise armament would be same as Bellona. Of course identical armament is logical since they are really the same model, but it seemed clear to me that Game-labs wants the fictional "3rd Rate" to fit in as something less than Bellona "to fill the gap" in the current line-up as you say. Armament was different before also, but was achieved by giving Bellona ahistorical, too-heavy guns.

Many (not a few) Spanish 74s (including a majority of the 70-74s at 2nd Battle of Cape St. Vincent and at Trafalgar), as well as quite a few 74s in other nations' service carried 24s on the lower deck, so it is a perfectly valid historical option for a 74, making it something better than a 4th rate, but still less than Bellona, which is already an early-mid 74 with the typical armament of the type, especially as a temporary measure until we get a later 64-gun ship in the line-up. (Agamemnon maybe?)

I'm sure we can come up with other options, assuming that is in fact the devs' goal. E.g. she could have the guns of an earlier 70-gun third rate, leaving a few ports empty, or the upper deck and QD/FC guns could be reduced.

But if am wrong about devs' intentions, then she should have the exact same armament as Bellona.

 

[edit: realized context for below was in another thread, so posted the discussion above]

 

If the goal is not to have the generic "Third Rate" temporarily bridge the gap below Bellona in the current line-up, but just to have different armaments for both ships, I think I've found a simple solution:  in 1778 Bellona was refit to add 6x carronades to her poopdeck, as can be seen below:

 

post-3517-0-81567700-1449947818_thumb.jpg

post-3517-0-54308700-1449947839_thumb.jpg

 

These positions seem to be present on our model, so we would just need to add guns.  She would then have a slight firepower edge over "Third Rate," while still giving both historical armaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi erm... just a thought but hms surprise carried 12lb guns when in British service... just thought i would point this out.

 

thank you

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source?

The wonderful (but not always accurate or perfectly consistent) mind of Patrick O'Brian. Real Unite / Surprise never carried 12s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

page 58

the first frigates by Robert Gardiner

 

isbn 0-85177-601-9

 

The wonderful (but not always accurate or perfectly consistent) mind of Patrick O'Brian. Real Unite / Surprise never carried 12s.

Edited by ragnar hairy trousers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were HMS Unite frigates and HMS Suprise frigates, other than the L'Unite/HMS Suprise.

The ex French Corvette "HMS Surprise (1796)" ex L'Unite launched 1794 was only ever an 8livre vessel (with 4livre QD) in French service, and was proposed as a 9lb frigate in RN service. Before commissioning she was instead authorised with all carronade armaments (32lb main, 18lb FC/QD, plus 4lb chase guns) - her new captain also requested an increased main mast, which proved unmanageable and was quickly reverted to her standard size with foremast reduced in proportion (so now shorter than her normal fit). After a relatively short service she was decommissioned and sold off and saw no service after the Peace of Amiens in 1802.

HMS Surprise of 1812 was a 38 gun 18lb Leda class frigate.

HMS Unite of 1796 (ex L'Unite ex Gracieuse, launched 1787) was a 12livre/ 12lb charmante class frigate with 6livre/6lb guns & 24lb carronades on QD/FC

HMS Unite of 1803 (ex HMS Imperieuse, ex Imperieuse, launched 1787) was a 40 gun 18livre/18lb minerve class frigate with 8livre/9lb QD/FC.

Edited by Lieste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Annnnnnndddd...the 1741 Establishmet 20-gun Surprise of 1746 and the Enterprise-class Surprise of 1774. Both armed with 9-pounders, though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but given that L'Unite was taken from the French, by the RN twice in 1796 (one a (1794) 9lb and one a (1787) 12lb vessel...) it is easy to see how the conufddlement comes about.
The Aubrey/Maturin one is the L'Unite/Surprise @ 9lb/4lb, and is the one modelled in game.

(Of course there are also a slew of other sloops of war with both names, but they are not easily confused with frigates of any colour).

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...