Эд написал:

#753196
да еще 74-пуш. с единым 24ф калибром.

У него оба дека несли одинаковые пушки?

Олег написал:

#1639681
А французы раз и по проектам нашли лучший.

Главным авторитетом по кораблестроению тогда считался Груаньяр. Но построенный по его проекту Pegase был захвачен в 1782 г. Разбор полетов показал, что у него были дефекты, ставшие причиной захвата. По итогам было решено провести конкурс проектов. Сказались личные пристрастия Борда и Флёрьё, которым очень понравились предыдущие проекты Санэ -Annibal и Northumberland. Конкретно же сторонники же проектов Санэ обратили внимание на хорошую остойчивость и большие запасы грузов (еда и вода) проектов Санэ. В общем, Санэ в бОльшей степени, чем другие, использовал математику и научный подход + изначальное благоприятное отношение начальства к его проектам.

Понятно. В общем считали остойчивость, высоту портов и прочие измеримые вещи.

Эд написал:

#1639730
они не поспевали за 74-пуш. и управлялись посредственно; поэтому Борда предложил 118п проект, хотя принципиально он был почти такой же. Борда не доверял тем кораблестроителям, которые строили 110-пушечники.

Если не секрет, в чем была его логика? Большие корабли управляются плохо, поэтому сделаем еще больший корабль... Или это была проблема именно конкретного проекта  110 пушечных кораблей?

Выходит у французов проектирование кораблей в 1780е было на более высоком уровне, чем у англичан через полвека.

Олег написал:

#1639750
Выходит у французов проектирование кораблей в 1780е было на более высоком уровне, чем у англичан через полвека.

Пожалуй, еще раньше, с 1730-х.

Elektrik написал:

#1639756
Мне так, для общего развития....

Да, примерно так. Для общего развития достаточно. Хотя 120-пуш. строился и раньше. 110п строились раньше 74п Санэ.
Французские корабли того периода вообще были лучшими в мире.

Эти утверждения Сергея Махова мне неизвестны, и мы уже давно не коллеги.
Французские захваченные корабли неоднократно служили образцом для постройки британских аналогов. британские таковыми для французов никогда не были.
Стоимость захваченных призов определяло морское ведомство, обычно занижая его.
Со времен Кольбера корабли строились "по науке", с привлечением математических расчетов, в Англии же в зависимости от взглядов (вкусов, навыков, наследия и т.п.) сарваеров ВМС. Очень удачный проект "Виктори" повторен не был, ибо сменился сарваер, у которого были свои взгляды.
Превосходство в способности устранять повреждения зависят скорее от лучшей боевой подготовки экипажа.

Эд написал:

#1639792
В 17 в. англичане ставили на корабли столько пушек, что гон-дек был у самой воды. В 1666 г. они захватили 60-пуш. Rubis, имевший на борту 54 орудия. Они его превратили в 80-пуш. трехдечник.

Да и свои они не жалели, например "Мери Роз"

В 1536 году был построен «Мери Роз» – один из самых больших и мощных военных кораблей английского короля Генриха VIII. После восьми лет безупречной службы судно было поставлено на коренную реконструкцию. В результате перестройки, пусть очень большая, но в принципе вполне заурядная каракка, была превращена в могучий корабль совершенно нового типа: при водоизмещении в 700 т он имел три сплошные палубы, на которых была установлена исключительно мощная по тому времени артиллерия – 39 больших бомбард и 53 малых. По некоторым источникам это был первый боевой корабль с тремя рядами пушек (если не так ув. Эд поправит). 11 июля 1545 года король Генрих VIII прибыл из Лондона в Портсмут для проведения смотра своего флота, который готовился дать сражение французской эскадре, приближавшейся к берегам Британии. Осмотрев корабли, король остался особенно доволен мощью «Мери Роз», который только-только вошел в строй после переделки, и его капитаном Джорджем Кэйрви, сумевшим очень умело «показать товар лицом». Генрих присвоил ему чин вице-адмирала и, сняв с себя золотую боцманскую дудку на золотой цепи – знак отличия Лорда Адмиралтейства, - повесил ее на шею Кэйрви. Во время торжественного обеда на борту флагманского корабля «Грет Гарри» королю доложили, что флот французов приближается к Соленту. Генрих VIII приказал своим адмиралам немедленно выходить в море, а сам съехал на берег. Как только по команде вновь испеченного вице-адмирала на «Мери Роз» поставили паруса, корабль неожиданно стал крениться на борт, потом лег плашмя на воду и через две минуты затонул. Известно, что море при этом было совершенно спокойным и дул легкий зюйд-вест. Из 700 находившихся на борту моряков и солдат морской пехоты спаслось всего 40 человек. Расследование показало, что в погоне за артиллерийской мощью строители явно забыли о высоте борта. Известно, что на этом корабле кромки пушечных портов нижней палубы находились всего в 46 сантиметрах от поверхности воды. Кроме того, пушки после проведения артиллерийских учений не были закреплены. Когда корабль немного накренился, орудия съехали одновременно на один борт, крен еще больше возрос, потоки воды хлынула в открытые порты, что и привело к опрокидыванию судна. Очевидно, что 92 пушки для 700-тонного корабля оказалось явно многовато.

Насколько я понимаю речь идёт о распространенном в англоязычной историографии мнении, что английские корабли (после Энсона) предназначены для ближней блокады в любое время года и за счёт меньшей длины и более прочного набора им требовались реже ремонты, чем французским аналогам. В то же время французы могли спокойно отремонтировать все свои корабли перед очередной операцией. Есть даже аргументы в пользу этой версии на примере сроков и цены ремонта фрегатов английской постройки и захваченных у французов трофеев.
Возможно это было естественным следствием бОльшей длины французских кораблей и в среднем несколько лучшего дерева у англичан (там где англичане использовали большой и дорогой гнутый элемент набора французы могли собрать тот же узел из нескольких кусков дерева).
Встречалось мнение, что и толщина обшивки у англичан была толще, чем у французов.

Олег написал:

#1639832
Встречалось мнение, что и толщина обшивки у англичан была толще, чем у французов.

По поводу того, чьи корабли были крепче, у нас когда-то на американском форуме шла целая дискуссия. Выяснилось, что французские ЛК были не менее прочные, чем английские.
During the 18th and early 19th centuries, British
>ships of the line and frigates seem to have had
>"heavier scantlings" than French ships. Mostly, this
>seems to mean that the British placed the ribs of the
>hull closer together than the French did. One result
>was that French ships flexed more in a sea. This was
>deliberate because the French thought that it made a
>ship faster. Another effect was that a cannonball
>striking the hull of a British ship was more likely to
>hit a rib, where, with the inner and outer planking,
>there would three feet of solid oak. A ball that
>struck between the ribs would encounter only
>about 6 inches of outer planking, then 2 feet of air,
>then about 6 inches of inneer planking. It was much
>easier for a shot to break through, throw out
>splinters, and wreak havoc on one of the gun decks if
>it only had to pass through one foot instead of 3 feet
>of oak. British ribs might sometimes be closer
>together than a French 36-pounder shot.
>
>In the 1740's, the British had a great deal of
>difficulty with new Spanish 70-gun two-deckers. Three
>British 70's, with 24-pounders as their heaviest guns,
>took an entire afternoon to subdue one Spanish 70,
>HCMS Princesa. The ship surrendered only when
>she had lost substantial rigging and had no hope of
>escape, but the hull was not badly damaged. In 1747,
>HCMS Glorioso beat off British ships in four
>different encounters. In the first, with HBMS
>Warwick, 60, and Lark, 44, Lark
>fired only one broadside and Warwick's rigging
>was cut to pieces. It appears that her 24-pounders
>were also inadequate to penetrate the hull of
>Glorioso. Glorioso's next encounter was with a
>British privateer, so it is not surprising that she
>was largely invulnerable and escaped after wrecking
>her attacker's rigging. The next day she was engaged
>by HBMS Dartmouth, 50, which blew up, perhaps
>just great good fortune for Glorioso.
>Unfortunately for the Spanish ship, even as she was
>putting Dartmouth away, yet another British
>ship of the line, Russell, a three-decker 80
>whose crew had been stripped for the voyage home from
>the Mediterranean, came into view. She engaged
>Glorioso and since the wind was light was
>probably able to use the 32-pounders on her (lowest)
>gun deck. However, Glorioso did not strike
>until she had used up her ammunition.
>
>In addition to the cases of Princesa and
>Glorioso, there is the engagement of HCMS
>Real Felipe, 110/114, at the Battle of Toulon.
>She stood up against several British ships including
>two 90-gun three-deckers.
>
>These encounters suggest that Spanish construction
>practices, at least for ships of 70 guns or more, were
>more like the British than the French. Spanish 70's
>only had 24-pounders as their heaviest battery, so
>they were not powerful offensive weapons, but they
>seem to have been well "armored." This suggests that
>the Spanish spaced their ribs close together like the
>British, used thicker ribs and planking, or perhaps
>benefitted from the use of tropical woods that were
>more resistant to shot than British oak.
>Glorioso had been built in Havana, where
>tropical woods were available, but Princesa had
>been built in Spain at Guarnizo.
>
>Does anyone here know anything specific about Spanish
>construction practices, especially for the 70's built
>from 1729 (HCMS Santa Ana and Reina)
>onwards? Were Princesa and Glorioso
>built to the same design? I would appreciate any
>details that any of our correspondents might have.

The most useful, and almost the only, discussion of Spanish architectural practices in the 18th century that I have found is an article that was either written by one Cruz Apestegui as prologue to Modellos de Arsenal del Museo Naval ©2004 Lunwerg Editores and reissued as a separate paper or written as a treatise and later incorporated into the book, which Apestegui helped edit.

The simplest and most straightforward answer to Al's question may be found in the breakup of what Apestegui calls the Second Phase of Spanish architectural history from 1712-1807 into six periods (The First Phase runs from 1660-1712). The Third Period from 1729-1748 would incorporate the construction of the big 70s like the Glorioso and the Princessa is called "Construction in the French Style". The Fourth Period from 1748-1764 was marked by the deliberate importation of British shipwrights as a result of the lessons learnt in the WAS of the 1740s and is called "Jorge Juan and the New English-Style System". Particularly relevant to Al's question is the introduction to this section: "The war with England, which was fought between 1739 and 1748, led to a total reassessment of the Spanish naval industry. The favourable results obtained by the English, (this should be "the British", the Act of Union having been passed, I believe, in 1703 or 1707 -prejudical nitpicker John Tredrea of British and not English extraction)thanks more to the power of their artillery than to the quality of their ships, was the envy of all other European powers, including Spain."

It would appear, at least on the basis of the Apestegui article, that the Spanish built "in the French style", but that they simply built more solidly than their French mentors. Whether or not the spacing of their frames was closer to British standards is open to question. At a later point in the article when a return to French standards had been made in the Fifth Period (1765-1782), the point is made that "In the 1760s the English shipbuilding system (please note that this had not been adopted until after 1748-John Tredrea) advocated by Jorge Juan, began to be questioned. The strong futtocks of the traditional (Please note!-John Tredrea) Spanish system had been replaced by much lighter structures that reduced the weight of the vessels and made them more manoeuvrable. On the other hand, however, the wooden futtocks and frames rotted, the planks fell out of line and the ships' structure became substantially weaker.""

Between 1729 and 1746, fourteen 70 gun ships were built by Spain, 7 in Havana, 5 at Guarnizo, and 2 at Ferrol. Ciprian de Autran had a part in three of the early ships including Princesa, all built at Guarnizo, and Saloman takes credit for one of the last, San Felipe/Real Felipe, also built at Guarnizo. Princesa and Reina were measured by the British after capture and there is 10' difference in length between the earlier and later ships (Princesa: 165' 1" x 49' 8" x 22' 3" and Reina: 175' x 48' 7" x22') Constructors and dimensions are not available for the others (at least not to me), but there does not seem to be any indication that they were developments of a single design or draught, although this is certainly possible, particularly as regards the Havana ships.

I would recommend Apestegui's article to anyone interested in Spanish warship design. Unfortunately, the English translation is only available in Modelos de Arsenal Del Museo Naval, a book that is hard to obtain, expensive, and very mucy outsized since it is primarily a collection of color prints. The pages are too large to copy, even on an outsized library copier. Too bad

I just received a copy of a newly published book, Ships and Science The Birth of Naval Architecture in the Scientific Revolution 1600-1800 by Larrie D. Ferreiro ©2006 The MIT Press. I have not had a chance to read it in detail, but there is the following relevant quote having to do, once again, with the British influence after 1748: "Jorge Juan's experience in Britain, along with the collective knowledge of expatriate constructors such as Edward Bryand and Richard, Rooth, had enable the Construction Council to establish a set of rules called construccion a la inglesa (English-style construction), marked by wider hulls, lighter framing, and stronger connections (e.g. heavier beam knees) compared with previous Spanish construction." This would seem, at least to some degree, to confound Al's assumption that British ships were more stoutly built than Spanish ships of the earlier period.

The most useful, and almost the only, discussion of
>Spanish architectural practices in the 18th century
>that I have found is an article that was either
>written by one Cruz Apestegui as prologue to Modellos
>de Arsenal del Museo Naval ©2004 Lunwerg Editores and
>reissued as a separate paper or written as a treatise
>and later incorporated into the book, which Apestegui
>helped edit.
Well, there's Artinaño's Arquitectura Naval Española, but I don't read Spanish well enough to be able to benefit from the text; only the tables are useful to me.
>
> The simplest and most straightforward answer to Al's
>question may be found in the breakup of what Apestegui
>calls the Second Phase of Spanish architectural
>history from 1712-1807 into six periods (The First
>Phase runs from 1660-1712). The Third Period from
>1729-1748 would incorporate the construction of the
>big 70s like the Glorioso and the Princessa is called
>"Construction in the French Style". The Fourth Period
>from 1748-1764 was marked by the deliberate
>importation of British shipwrights as a result of the
>lessons learnt in the WAS of the 1740s and is called
>"Jorge Juan and the New English-Style System".
>Particularly relevant to Al's question is the
>introduction to this section: "The war with England,
>which was fought between 1739 and 1748, led to a total
>reassessment of the Spanish naval industry. The
>favourable results obtained by the English, thanks more to the power of their artillery
>than to the quality of their ships, was the envy of
>all other European powers, including Spain."
>
This is interesting because the British do not seem to think that their navy performed very well during the War of the Austrian Succession. Princesa and Glorioso were hard to handle, the Battle of Toulon was a messy fiasco, regular British naval forces were ineffective in the Indian Ocean against the French Compagnie des Indes and Madras was lost and not recovered as a result, and the French got their convoys across the Atlantic for several years until the poverty of the French navy enabled the British western squadron to overwhelm the escorts for the two big convoys in May and October, 1747. British two-deckers clearly did not outgun their French and Spanish opponents. The British did increase the lower-deck batteries of their 70's from 24-pounders to 32-pounders, but few ships of this type joined the navy during the war.

>It would appear, at least on the basis of the
>Apestegui article, that the Spanish built "in the
>French style", but that they simply built more solidly
>than their French mentors. Whether or not the spacing
>of their frames was closer to British standards is
>open to question. At a later point in the article when
>a return to French standards had been made in the
>Fifth Period (1765-1782), the point is made that "In
>the 1760s the English shipbuilding system (please note
>that this had not been adopted until after 1748-John
>Tredrea) advocated by Jorge Juan, began to be
>questioned. The strong futtocks of the traditional
>(Please note!-John Tredrea) Spanish system had been
>replaced by much lighter structures that reduced the
>weight of the vessels and made them more manoeuvrable.

This implies a stronger Spanish construction in the "traditional Spanish system."

>On the other hand, however, the wooden futtocks and
>frames rotted, the planks fell out of line and the
>ships' structure became substantially weaker.""

>I just received a copy of a newly published book,
>Ships and Science The Birth of Naval Architecture in
>the Scientific Revolution 1600-1800 by Larrie D.
>Ferreiro ©2006 The MIT Press. I have not had a chance
>to read it in detail, but there is the following
>relevant quote having to do, once again, with the
>British influence after 1748: "Jorge Juan's experience
>in Britain, along with the collective knowledge of
>expatriate constructors such as Edward Bryand and
>Richard, Rooth, had enable the Construction Council to
>establish a set of rules called construccion a la
>inglesa (English-style construction), marked by wider
>hulls, lighter framing, and stronger connections (e.g.
>heavier beam knees) compared with previous Spanish
>construction." This would seem, at least to some
>degree, to confound Al's assumption that British ships
>were more stoutly built than Spanish ships of the
>earlier period.

No, it implies that Spanish construction had been even heavier than British construction, if by moving to British practices they were adopting lighter framing. It would appear that during the "earlier period" the "strength of construction" ranking was:
Spain
Great Britain
France

I'm a little confused about who was doing what, when, however. The Spanish seem to have been all over the place.

I didnt dig deep into this topic, but from what I recall of reading some things, the spanish ships used to be heavier in structure than the rest.

I remember a comment about this, that was saying something that spanish ships should be heavier structured because of the long voyages they had to do, cross the atlantic and some times go even across the pacif thru cape horn.

This heavy structure made the spanish ships slower than the rest, so seems that using less heavy guns was a short of reducing the ship's weight and made this speed difference lower, as I read.

About the tropical woods, I had read in many places about their benefits. The first one was that the were better for ships since they were less afected by the salty water and bugs, so didnt need as much careen as the ones with european woods (im talking before copper!)

Also, they were not chiped?! as european woods by shots!!
This is, IMO a very good advantage that it really makes a difference in a close combat, all of you know that chips caused the most injuries and killed men aboard!

And one final thing, the spanish Santisima Trinidad 4-decker were built at la Havanna had 60 cm. of side wall thickness!!! (this is almost 2 feet?)

Regards,
Manu


I open some old books, take on alengh measurment devive and some pocket calcultor...


1st reference is "traitй de construction navale" 1752, from Vicomte Bigot de Morogues (Director of Navy Academy from creation in 1752 to 1754; post captain of the Magnifique for the seven years war; Chef d'escadre in 1762; Lieutenant General 1771, preceptor of the royal children (futur Louis XVI)
His book decribe in totality the calculations and building of a "60". I have the various plans of building at 1/48 scale.

for this ship, at this date, the scantling (couples) give
57.6 cm of wood, spaced by 14.4 cm



For the 74 "sanй Plan-type", i measure 70.7cm of wood, spaced by 11.9 cm



Had the equivalent ships in british and spanish navy "more wood" ??????

didier
The most detailed plan that I have of a British warship is HBMS Bellona, an early British 74 launched in 1760. This is mostly at a scale of 1:192, but there is a midships section at 1:96, which I enlarged on my copier to 1:48. Not counting the "knees" (L-shaped pieces of wood under the deck beams) or the "standards" (L-shaped pieces above the deck beams), it looks like the maximum thickness of wood, just above the level of the upper gun deck, was about 29 inches or about 73 cm. Of this, about 12 inches or 30.5 cm was the rib. I will have to measure the midships rib plan later to try to determine what percentage of the length was ribs and what percentage was spacing between the ribs.
That's hat i write : the French system of building is organized as :

- a rib wich lay over the keel, expanding in both sides of the ship (Couple de levйe)
- a second rib, in contact and attached to the first, but with his base in contact with the keel, like human rib in contact with the vertebra (Couple de remplissage)
- a space sparing this "pair of rib" of the next pair

The cross section of this pair of rib is of 57.6cm for the 60 (1750), the space is of 14.4cm

the cross section for the "74 Sanй" pair of rib is 70.7cm and the space between this pair and the next is 11.9cm

The same outer and inner planking exist, of course. There are in addition inside of the inner planking some "inner rib", below the lower deck


I saw in the “Histoire des Progres de la Puissance navale de l’Angleterre”, par le Baron de Sainte-Croix, Yverdon, 1782, II, 313, that at the battle of Toulon, 1744, British fire at Real Felipe 114 turned to be ineffective, as her sides were of 37 inches (>3 feet) of solid wood, while the largest French ships had it only of 24 inches; therefore, the British fired to the sails, spars and rigging instead. I remember the same assertion in some pamphlets published by the British eye-witnesses of the battle of Toulon, 1744, that they shifted the fire to Spanish rigging instead of hull.

Ted     

From the same period there is a wonderful formula in Douglas' Treatise on Naval Gunnery (1855 edition)

Penetration of oak in feet =

4.612 x r x d x log[1 + v squared/1076696]

r = radius of shot
d = specific gravity (density) of shot, water being 1
v = velocity of shot at impact in feet per second

Mark Barker

Вот это ширина шпангоутов и расстояние между ними)у франц. 64-пуш. ЛК середины 18 в.
57.6 cm of wood, spaced by 14.4 cm. Ядра 36- и 24-фунт. калибра не пройдут между ними.