Age-Of-Sail Naval Question

[CJvR]

I doubt there are many more engagments between SoLs and heavy FFs than those I have mentioned. If there had been we would have actual outcomes from those actions rather than speculation as to what the outcome might have been.

300 tons which have to account for some 26 18 pounders, their ammo, crew, supplies and the deck to house them on - AND a significantly stronger hull... You would have to stretch those tons to get them to cover all that and the US ships were much bigger than Endymion. Indeed the 64 was withdrawn because it was becoming to weak for the LoB, like the 50 and 40 before it.
Unfortunately most sources seems confused regarding actual tonnage of ships of this era.

[Thanas]

I doubt there are many more engagments between SoLs and heavy FFs than those I have mentioned. If there had been we would have actual outcomes from those actions rather than speculation as to what the outcome might have been.

Don't you think there just might be a reason for that?

Indeed the 64 was withdrawn because it was becoming to weak for the LoB, like the 50 and 40 before it.

#

Yet still stronger than frigates. In fact, one of the tactics against the US frigates by the British was to use older/smaller SotL as convoy escorts. Interestingly, not one of the convoys got attacked once by a frigate.

Unfortunately most sources seems confused regarding actual tonnage of ships of this era.

Some are using the metric, some the british ton.

[CJvR]

Don't you think there just might be a reason for that?

Yes, I just don't think it is the same reason you do.

Yet still stronger than frigates. In fact, one of the tactics against the US frigates by the British was to use older/smaller SotL as convoy escorts. Interestingly, not one of the convoys got attacked once by a frigate.

Marginally stronger perhaps, they do have a deck of 18 pounders after all, and regarding the largest frigates very questionable.

The raider always tend to err on the side of caution, one heavy frigate was far more valuable intact and loose on the seas than one old SoL destroyed and a frigate shot to bits doing it.
If there had been more heavy frigates we might well have seen such actions but it really did require a doctrinal shift in the various navies (other than Sweden).

Some are using the metric, some the british ton.

Not just that they were also shifting from burthen to displacement in that era, not to mention all the local variations on meassurments... GAH!

[Thanas]

Don't you think there just might be a reason for that?

Yes, I just don't think it is the same reason you do.

Ok then genius, what is the reason?

Marginally stronger perhaps, they do have a deck of 18 pounders after all, and regarding the largest frigates very questionable.

No, not really.

The raider always tend to err on the side of caution, one heavy frigate was far more valuable intact and loose on the seas than one old SoL destroyed and a frigate shot to bits doing it.

On the contrary, when they felt they could win raiders were more than willing to take on enemy ships even if it meant damage. Even in the war of 1812 and against enemies of equal size. Obviously this was not the case when going up against SotL.

If there had been more heavy frigates we might well have seen such actions but it really did require a doctrinal shift in the various navies (other than Sweden).

You'll note that none of the actions the Swedish engaged in were in any kind typical due to the unique baltic conditions?

[LaCroix]

300 tons which have to account for some 26 18 pounders, their ammo, crew, supplies and the deck to house them on - AND a significantly stronger hull... You would have to stretch those tons to get them to cover all that and the US ships were much bigger than Endymion. Indeed the 64 was withdrawn because it was becoming to weak for the LoB, like the 50 and 40 before it.
Unfortunately most sources seems confused regarding actual tonnage of ships of this era.

You noticed that I wrote "of which a lot was hull thickness"?
160 more men on the Agamemnon - 10-12 tons
1 inch deck planks plus supports and outer hull - about 20 tons according to rule of thumb calculation
A 18 pounders weighted 39 cwt - 45 tons for 26.
And still I'm only at only ~80 tons
If you now add another 100 tons in ammo and supplies, you still end up with the equivalent to 4 inches more hull thickness.

And the fact that US ships were much bigger than the Endymion is irrelevant because we had a direct comparison of a SOL and a frigate of the same length, and same period and the frigate was found wanting. A big US frigate would have to deal with a bigger SOL, like a 74', which was the standard in their period, and would probably come out second, as well.

I doubt there are many more engagments between SoLs and heavy FFs than those I have mentioned. If there had been we would have actual outcomes from those actions rather than speculation as to what the outcome might have been.

Gee, I wonder why. Why would the captains of these almighty heavy frigates not engage small SOLs whenever they found them? After all, they KNEW their ships and must have known that they had a good chance... Bloody cowards, all of them!
(Translation: Because there never was any speculation among the people using these ships. They knew already that it was a valiant kind of suicide.)

[CJvR]

...what is the reason?

A combination of a shortage of suitable ships combined with conservativism. FFs were considered cruisers not main combatants.

On the contrary, when they felt they could win raiders were more than willing to take on enemy ships even if it meant damage. Even in the war of 1812 and against enemies of equal size. Obviously this was not the case when going up against SotL.

No even a small SoL was marginally stronger, but there also remains the issue of identification. A Super Frigate might take out a small SoL but anything larger than that is way to dangerous. Screwing up the ID and running into an 80 rather than a 60 is the kind of "OOPS!" you only do once. Better to stay away from SoLs even if you have one of the USNs super frigates.

You'll note that none of the actions the Swedish engaged in were in any kind typical due to the unique baltic conditions?

Go have a look at Hogland for example. It was a standard line action in open sea - nothing particulary "Baltic" about it.
HMS Camilla(40) took 44 hits, 14 around the waterline in the six hour action at Hogland.

[CJvR]

1 inch deck planks plus supports and outer hull - about 20 tons according to rule of thumb calculation
A 18 pounders weighted 39 cwt - 45 tons for 26.

20 tons, for the upper battery deck of a SoL? What would you build it of? Balsa wood?
26 18 pounder guns with carriges and ammo mass somewhere between 60 & 75 tons depending on the length of the guns.
Some 20 tons at least for ballast to compensate for the heavier top.

A big US frigate would have to deal with a bigger SOL, like a 74', which was the standard in their period, and would probably come out second, as well.

No they wouldn't, that is the entire point. There were still 64s around and in service when the USN super frigates were built. I have never suggested taking on larger SoLs than 64s for the simple reason that those ships carry much more powerful guns while the 64s carry the same main armament as the super frigates themselves.

Why would the captains of these almighty heavy frigates not engage small SOLs whenever they found them?

Well perhaps you can inform us of how many such encounters there actually were? The heavy frigates were very rare, and so were small SoLs traveling alone.

[Thanas]

I've had enough of CvjR digging in his heels with his argumentations and refusing to put up evidence. Either prove that a Super Frigate took on a SotL successfully and either sunk, forced it to surrender or boarded it. Otherwise kindly concede that nobody of the era thought a super frigate had any chance against a SotL and GTFO.

[CJvR]

I did point out that heavy frigates served in the LoB, which you sneered at as "Baltic" and dismissed without any valid reason.
I have stated previsouly that the cruiser forces generally would not even consider taking on an intact SoL without special circumstances ( I concede this point even though I never have contested it ) - but that doesn't mean that the top end of the frigate classes would have been unable to do so successfully. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Particulary the USN superfrigates which were as heavily built, or even more since some claim their timbers were on the level of a 74 SoL, as a 64 and carried heavier armament (at least once the carronades got in range) on a faster hull - but why would a US captain risk one of the very rare ships to fight an obsolete and expendable SoL, even if he got a flash of insight and realized his ship might be up to the task.

Since you obviously flat out refuse to even consider the possiblity that super frigates might be able to take on the smaller types of SoLs perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this point?

[LaCroix]

Go have a look at Hogland for example. It was a standard line action in open sea - nothing particulary "Baltic" about it.
HMS Camilla(40) took 44 hits, 14 around the waterline in the six hour action at Hogland.

So what did she achieve?

The Battle of Hogland began with an attack upon the Swedish General-Admiral's fleet by Greig aboard the 100-gun Rostislav. Following Greig, Rear Admiral Timofey Kozlyaninov on the Vseslav, Captains Andrey Denisov on the Boleslav, Mikhail Borisov on the Mecheslav, John Trevenen on the Rodislav, and Grigory Mulovsky on the Mstislav joined the battle. Shrouded in smoke, Duke Carl's ship retreated. Inspired by this success, the crew of the Rostislav attacked the 70-gun Prince Gustav, commanded by Vice-Admiral Gustav Wachtmeister, and it also surrendered. The Russian seamen fought heroically, but the Swedes skilfully defended themselves. The enemy disabled the 74-gun Vladislav, which lost its steering and was then surrounded by Swedish vessels. The commander of the Vladislav, Commodore Berkh, surrendered to Colonel Chriesternin, the commander of the 62-gun Gustav Adolf. The fighting continued for six hours, and only after dark did the adversaries separate.

I don't see any mention of her in this (only account I know) of the Battle at Hogland - neither of any other frigate. It seems the Liners did keep among themselves, and the frigates had their own party. The battle ended with one ship captured by each side, and no losses, but heavy casualties amongst the seamen.

44 hits means that she managed to keep away from the main line, and only got shot at two times by other frigates.

You continue claiming that there is "absence of evidence" so we will never know, while in this case, the absence of battles is the evidence.

[Thanas]

I did point out that heavy frigates served in the LoB, which you sneered at as "Baltic" and dismissed without any valid reason.
I have stated previsouly that the cruiser forces generally would not even consider taking on an intact SoL without special circumstances ( I concede this point even though I never have contested it ) - but that doesn't mean that the top end of the frigate classes would have been unable to do so successfully. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In this case, the fact that there is not a single battle that went the way you describe, yes it is.

Particulary the USN superfrigates which were as heavily built, or even more since some claim their timbers were on the level of a 74 SoL, as a 64 and carried heavier armament (at least once the carronades got in range) on a faster hull - but why would a US captain risk one of the very rare ships to fight an obsolete and expendable SoL, even if he got a flash of insight and realized his ship might be up to the task.

That is a pretty bad argument, considering US ships took care to engage the enemy whenever possible. For example, they rarely passed up the opportunity to engage enemy frigates. By that logic, since British frigates won some of these battles, they should never have attacked enemy frigates in the first place.

Go have a look at Hogland for example. It was a standard line action in open sea - nothing particulary "Baltic" about it. HMS Camilla(40) took 44 hits, 14 around the waterline in the six hour action at Hogland.

44 hits is nothing and barely more than one broadside of a SotL. 44 hits over six hours is even less.

[LaCroix]

1 inch deck planks plus supports and outer hull - about 20 tons according to rule of thumb calculation
A 18 pounders weighted 39 cwt - 45 tons for 26.

20 tons, for the upper battery deck of a SoL? What would you build it of? Balsa wood?
26 18 pounder guns with carriges and ammo mass somewhere between 60 & 75 tons depending on the length of the guns.
Some 20 tons at least for ballast to compensate for the heavier top.

The 39cwt is a long 18 including carriage. As in 'total weight'. Please show your sources for gun weight if you disagree with mine.

I concede that I messed up the tonnage for the deck, I only calculated the deck and support structure itself, and not the walls. Still, my 100 tons for supplies and other stuff do cover your 20 tons of gun supplies, the 20 tons of ballast, and still cover for the hull.

The point stands that there is a substancial difference in weight left, which means a stronger hull.

[CJvR]

Ospreys book on Naval Armaments put the long 18 pounder at 42 cwt, as for excluding the carriage - well it sort of makes sense, you can never tell what a gun can be mounted in. I did find a nice site with a good table for all the gun weights with and without carriages while looking for something else but I didn't bookmark it and now I cant find the damn thing again. Stupid!

Here is some data on an 18 pounder:
http://www.nps.gov/fosu/planyourvisit/u ... Cannon.pdf
42 cwt/4660 pounds for the barrel alone.
A bit on a 32:
http://cannonsuperstore.com/cannoninfo.htm
It says 2750 kg for the gun ( Osprey says a long 32 is 56 cwt or 2845kg ) and 750 kg for the carriage. ( This is guys who actually build gun carriages! I wonder just how many have a 32 pounder naval gun in their garage... )

If you have any online sources on the matter I would be intrested.

Unfortunately I have not found any sources as to the dimensions of the timbers of the various ships. Plenty on the guns but hardly anything on timbers and carriages.

[CJvR]

So what did she achieve?

What did most ships achieve in a classic line engagement? Nothing except staying in line and blasting the enemy.

44 hits means that she managed to keep away from the main line, and only got shot at two times by other frigates.

I suggest you go have a look at the Swedish LoB, she and the other FFs served on the line alongside the SoLs. That also means she took heavy hits, not the normal frigate calibers.
Rättvisan took 45 hits but only 1 in the waterline.
Dygden which took the heaviest casualties and had 84 hits in the hull, 22 around the waterline.

[CJvR]

In this case, the fact that there is not a single battle that went the way you describe, yes it is.

You dont belive heavy frigates served in the LoB?

That is a pretty bad argument, considering US ships took care to engage the enemy whenever possible. For example, they rarely passed up the opportunity to engage enemy frigates. By that logic, since British frigates won some of these battles, they should never have attacked enemy frigates in the first place.

There were 5 FF vs FF engagements in the war of 1812, 3 were Superfrigates vs regular frigates and even more tilted battles than a super frigate vs a 64 would have been. One was the failed escape of the Essex and one was the stupid Chesapeake affair.

The closest pure super frigate vs super frigate engagement was the President vs Endymion and while the Prez was a larger and more capable ship and got the better of the fight the 24 pound shots of the Endymion had a nastier sting than the regular 18 pound shots from normal frigates.

[LaCroix]

Ospreys book on Naval Armaments put the long 18 pounder at 42 cwt, as for excluding the carriage - well it sort of makes sense, you can never tell what a gun can be mounted in. I did find a nice site with a good table for all the gun weights with and without carriages while looking for something else but I didn't bookmark it and now I cant find the damn thing again. Stupid!

http://www.dyerlabs.com/guns_and_ammo/artillery.html - This was my source, out of "Artillery through the ages". It claims this is the weight of the gun. I always assumed this meant the whole setup.

Unfortunately I have not found any sources as to the dimensions of the timbers of the various ships. Plenty on the guns but hardly anything on timbers and carriages.

I use old ship plans to calculate timber strength. Most of the actual strength was the rib spacing. SOL had usually a double rib construction, with two ribs of one foot thickness side-by side, with ony a foot between. 2:1 ratio. Other ships had single ribs with 1-1.5 spacing, 1:1 or 2:3 ratio.
Most timbers were in feet squared, this is quite a constant, 1"x1" was probably the most efficient size you could get your hands on. Although I have seen 1.5" or 2" of rib thickness in some bigger ships (2nd&first rate).

Strangely planking thickness didn't vary so much, as an extra inch didn't matter, anyway, I guess. Most probably it was due to construction, thicker planks were harder to wrap around the ribs.

Decks did usually only have 1 inch thickness, with supports of 1"x0.5" (flat side up) every three to four feet, with gun decks having 1sqft supports every 2 or 3 feet.

So what did she achieve?

What did most ships achieve in a classic line engagement? Nothing except staying in line and blasting the enemy.

44 hits means that she managed to keep away from the main line, and only got shot at two times by other frigates.

I suggest you go have a look at the Swedish LoB, she and the other FFs served on the line alongside the SoLs. That also means she took heavy hits, not the normal frigate calibers.
Rättvisan took 45 hits but only 1 in the waterline.
Dygden which took the heaviest casualties and had 84 hits in the hull, 22 around the waterline.

Still, the number is extremely low. If you have a report on the battle, fine, but the only report we have only talks about SOL battling. The frigates are not even mentioned. If they were in the mid of the action, they'd be mentioned.

The closest pure super frigate vs super frigate engagement was the President vs Endymion and while the Prez was a larger and more capable ship and got the better of the fight the 24 pound shots of the Endymion had a nastier sting than the regular 18 pound shots from normal frigates.

This fight doesn't really count - the President was already damaged and didn't really fight back, but only tried to slow the Endymion down by hitting the rigging. If the President weren't trying to run from the 3 other ships that were with the Endymion and fought back, the battle would have been very different.

[CJvR]

Still, the number is extremely low. If you have a report on the battle, fine, but the only report we have only talks about SOL battling. The frigates are not even mentioned. If they were in the mid of the action, they'd be mentioned.

This is the OoB for Hogland:
http://threedecks.org/index.php?display ... tle&id=139
The 40 gunners are the three heavy Swedish frigates serving in the line alongside the proper SoLs, the 44 is a razeed ship and only armed with 18 pounders.

This fight doesn't really count - the President was already damaged and didn't really fight back, but only tried to slow the Endymion down by hitting the rigging...

Yes I know, I only brought it up because it is the only engagement I know of between heavy (24 pounder) frigates. The smaller 18 pounder frigates were chew toys for the USN heavies but Endymion's 24 pounders stung a bit worse, no doubt the US ship's heavier timbers and armament would have been decisive in a standup duel.

[Thanas]

That report even mentions how the three frigates should not really count, as "they were frigates."

True to precedent, Greig, in the Rostislav, attacked the Swedish flagship Gustaf III. and her next astern, the Fadernesland. This left ten Swedes for the seven Russian ships ahead of the flagship, but as three of the Swedes were frigates the odds were pretty even. In the rear the Russians did badly. Greig's next astern, the Izyaslav, attacked the Ara and Minerva, but the six following Swedes were able to concentrate on the Boleslav, Metcheslav, and Vladislav, since the rest of the Russians kept deliberately at long range. At length the fire of the leading Russian ships overcame that of the lighter Swedish vessels, and these gradually bore away. There was an almost complete calm, and all movements were difficult; but at last, at about eight o'clock, Duke Carl wore his fleet to the starboard tack and reformed his line.

Not much supporting your point, is it? It also says the battle was conducted at long range, which pretty much shows that this was not action broadside to broadside.

And even at long range the frigates could not stand up to ships of the line.

[CJvR]

Not much supporting your point, is it? It also says the battle was conducted at long range, which pretty much shows that this was not action broadside to broadside.

Really? Then how would you describe a line action, a formation specificly designed to use broadside fire against the enemy?

[Thanas]

Not much supporting your point, is it? It also says the battle was conducted at long range, which pretty much shows that this was not action broadside to broadside.

Really? Then how would you describe a line action, a formation specificly designed to use broadside fire against the enemy?

What I meant is that the frigates obviously did not engage in broadside to broadside at close range and couldn't hack it at longer ranges either.