French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

From the battle of Lepanto to the mid-19th century.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by Byron Angel »

Just got the a/m book, written by Rif Winfield and Stephen Roberts. Highly recommended. Together with Boudriot's "The 74 Gun Ship" and Demerliac's 2 volume set, I now have a good grasp of the 18thC French Navy under sail.

Byron
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by marcelo_malara »

Hi Byron. There is a long standing dispute about the speed of British vs French sailing ships of the era. Do you have any info abput this in those volumes?
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by Byron Angel »

marcelo_malara wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:05 am Hi Byron. There is a long standing dispute about the speed of British vs French sailing ships of the era. Do you have any info about this in those volumes?
Hi Marcelo,
This is a topic that has come up on several occasions. The books I mentioned in my previous post here do not devote much, if any, attention to this issue. They are (except for Boudriot) principally tabulations of French warships in service during given periods of the Age of Sail.

The best discussions I have encountered on this subject have been -

> the lengthy three-part essay by Robert Gardiner, "Frigate Design in the Eighteenth Century" comparing British versus French frigates of the period. This appeared in Warship Quarterly Nos. 9, 10 and 12 back in the late 1970s. Gardiner's conclusion was that British frigates were better performed in heavier weather and were designed with that in mind, while French frigates were better performers in light weather conditions for the same sort of underlying design motives.

> readings in Lavery's "Ship of the Line" (2 volumes) where he criticized the conservative (and arguably parsimonious) British convention during most of the 18th century of building, class for class, small, less expensive, heavily over-gunned ships compared to their French and Spanish counterparts. Lavery deemed this the period of "standard dimensions" French and Spanish ships of any class/rate were habitually much larger and longer, faster overall, more stable and graced with higher freeboard. It was not really until toward the end of the 18th century that British designers really embraced continental naval design practices and began to copy them. Winfield's books on British warships of the Age of Sail quite often remark on British designs being based upon captured French warships.

Byron
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by marcelo_malara »

Byron Angel wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:42 am
> the lengthy three-part essay by Robert Gardiner, "Frigate Design in the Eighteenth Century" comparing British versus French frigates of the period. This appeared in Warship Quarterly Nos. 9, 10 and 12 back in the late 1970s. Gardiner's conclusion was that British frigates were better performed in heavier weather and were designed with that in mind, while French frigates were better performers in light weather conditions for the same sort of underlying design motives.
Hi Byron. This may be due too to better training, sailing ship performance (as in today´s regattas) relays heavily in the ability of the sailors, in their capacity of making sail or shortening them quiclky in order to maximize the propulsion without endangering the ship.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by marcelo_malara »

Byron Angel wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:42 am
> readings in Lavery's "Ship of the Line" (2 volumes) where he criticized the conservative (and arguably parsimonious) British convention during most of the 18th century of building, class for class, small, less expensive, heavily over-gunned ships compared to their French and Spanish counterparts. Lavery deemed this the period of "standard dimensions" French and Spanish ships of any class/rate were habitually much larger and longer, faster overall, more stable and graced with higher freeboard. It was not really until toward the end of the 18th century that British designers really embraced continental naval design practices and began to copy them. Winfield's books on British warships of the Age of Sail quite often remark on British designs being based upon captured French warships.

Byron
I have one of these volumes, the one dealing with design, read it many years ago.

I remember reading in one of D K Brown books that with the length to beam ratios then in use (about 3:1) it is almost impossible to design an hydrodynamically superior hull, that it needs a thinner hull with fine entrances to achieve a higher speed.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by Byron Angel »

marcelo_malara wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:40 pm I remember reading in one of D K Brown books that with the length to beam ratios then in use (about 3:1) it is almost impossible to design an hydrodynamically superior hull, that it needs a thinner hull with fine entrances to achieve a higher speed.

Hi Marcelo,
No disagreement here if your point is that the limits placed upon naval architects and shipbuilders of the era by materials and construction methods certainly constrained design options (and construction accuracy) compared to what has become possible after the introduction of iron and steel. Gardiner's later books on 18th and early 19th century RN frigates (which include a number of contemporary sailing reports) show ships of the same design class delivering different performance at different times, under different commanders and even delivering different performance depending upon which tack she was onwhen sailing close-hauled. A lot might have depended upon the talent, experience and acumen of the sailing master, or the condition of the ship's rigging and sails, or the cleanliness of her bottom, or even the symmetry of her construction, or her trim in the water the day in question.

I was, however, looking at the issue in a somewhat broader design sense:
> Nuances in underwater hull form could make a considerable difference, either in overall performance terms or under specific conditions or on different points of sailing - consider the difference between bluff bows and sharp entry lines;
> Ships of greater length on the W/L would (other things being equal) tend to be faster as a function of sq rt of the W/L rule;
> Ships with a lesser L/B ratio would tend to be "handier" in maneuver.
> Ships with a lesser degree of freeboard would be limited with respect the the amount of heel they could tolerate; hence the amount of sail they could carry.
> Ship of the same underwater block coefficient, but deeper in draft, would tend to be slower.
> Ships with a greater righting moment are generally "stiffer" and can carry more canvas for the same degree of heel.

Devils and details, while fully conceding that I am no naval architect and much of the a/m considerations have complicated inter-relationships

More later.

B
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by marcelo_malara »

Byron Angel wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:50 am
I was, however, looking at the issue in a somewhat broader design sense:

> Nuances in underwater hull form could make a considerable difference, either in overall performance terms or under specific conditions or on different points of sailing - consider the difference between bluff bows and sharp entry lines;
> Ships of greater length on the W/L would (other things being equal) tend to be faster as a function of sq rt of the W/L rule;
> Ships with a lesser L/B ratio would tend to be "handier" in maneuver.
> Ships with a lesser degree of freeboard would be limited with respect the the amount of heel they could tolerate; hence the amount of sail they could carry.
> Ship of the same underwater block coefficient, but deeper in draft, would tend to be slower.
> Ships with a greater righting moment are generally "stiffer" and can carry more canvas for the same degree of heel.

Fully agree with all points.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by marcelo_malara »

Byron Angel wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:50 am
No disagreement here if your point is that the limits placed upon naval architects and shipbuilders of the era by materials and construction methods certainly constrained design options (and construction accuracy) compared to what has become possible after the introduction of iron and steel. Gardiner's later books on 18th and early 19th century RN frigates (which include a number of contemporary sailing reports) show ships of the same design class delivering different performance at different times, under different commanders and even delivering different performance depending upon which tack she was onwhen sailing close-hauled. A lot might have depended upon the talent, experience and acumen of the sailing master, or the condition of the ship's rigging and sails, or the cleanliness of her bottom, or even the symmetry of her construction, or her trim in the water the day in question.
Well, for the first highlight I have to mention McGregor (The tea clippers). He says that the fine bow (Aberdeen´s bow) came almost by chance, when the designers made a very raked stem and fine lines on the bow to cheat on the new tonnage rules. It came as a surprise that the ships so constructed were....faster. So there were a number of fast sailing ships before composite or iron construction. One doubt I have, is if the heavy batteries then in use, that run to the very fore of the ship, could have been floated by a fine bow, simple hydrostatics would make the ship bow heavy.

For the second highlight above, I would like to see some of those sailing report, if you could post here I would appreciate, we could compare those numbers with the those of the clippers.

Regards
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by Byron Angel »

Hi Marcelo,
Well, for the first highlight I have to mention McGregor (The tea clippers). He says that the fine bow (Aberdeen´s bow) came almost by chance, when the designers made a very raked stem and fine lines on the bow to cheat on the new tonnage rules. It came as a surprise that the ships so constructed were .... faster. So there were a number of fast sailing ships before composite or iron construction.

>>>>> My reference to the influence of iron and steel in ship construction was poorly explained. See DK Brown’s “Before the Ironclad – Development of Ship Design, Propulsion and Armament in the Royal Navy, 1815-1860” and “The Sail & Steam Navy List” by David Lyon and Rif Winfield. Even before the launching of Warrior, it was Sepping and his iron diagonal bracing which made possible the growth in L/B ratios in post-Napoleonic War wooden warships and their later re-builds.

Another aspect I was NOT thinking of at the time of writing my earlier post was the influence of wire rigging, which re-wrote the book in terms of the amount of sail that could be safely carried under various wind conditions.


- - - - -

One doubt I have, is if the heavy batteries then in use, that run to the very fore of the ship, could have been floated by a fine bow, simple hydrostatics would make the ship bow heavy.

>>>>> Re hulls designed for high speed under sail, I think it is indeed necessary to distinguish such types from the broadside warship of the sailing era. The gun batteries (and ammunition) of line of battle ships represented an enormous amount of weight, which, as a matter of necessity, had to be uniformly distributed along the keel line in order to avoid sagging/hogging; for the same reason (i.e., hogging/sagging) sufficient flotation had to be provided at the extremities of the ship. I think it is for those reasons that sharp bows and slender stern runs are not seen in wooden line-of-battle ships. Hence, bluff bows and full lines aft would have been the rule.

- - - - -

>>>>> As to the original point of discussion, here is a passage extracted from “A History of Naval Tactics from 1530 to 1930 – The Evolution of Tactical Maxims” by RAdm S. S. Robison, USN (a book I will never sell) –

Page 192 - “WARS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE, 1689-1697 – A year before Charles II’s death in 1685, the Duke of York was reinstated as Lord High Admiral and at once set about improving the fleet.

James, when Duke of York and Lord High Admiral, and again as king, until his bigoted Catholicism caused his removal, not only interested himself in tactics, but in bettering the fighting, sailing and sea-keeping qualities of his ships.

He copies the models of captured Dutch and French ships to get “the lower tiers” higher out of the water, raising them from 3 feet to 4 and 4.5 feet above the water-line. He sheathed the bottom of some ships with lead to prevent fouling, and increased the proportion of length to beam.

It was said that a British ship taken by the French could always be re-captured by using a captured French ships to chase her.”

Page 208 – “On the whole, the French appear to have been better sailers than the English or the Dutch.”


Beyond that, I think Lavery – “The Ship of the Line, Volume 1: The Development of the Battlefleet 1650-1850” - really makes a case for the superiority of French ship design right through the 18th century (see Chapter 7 - “The Age of the Establishments” to start). Moving on from there, it was the French who led the way with the 74 gun ship as a class, but also led the movement toward the large class 74 (see the 74s that were sent to Nelson in the lead-up to the Trafalgar campaign, for example). The French (and Spanish) also showed the way with the 2-decked 80, which the British enthusiastically embraced, placing a number of captured 80s in service under St George’s ensign during and after the French Revolutionary War. Shortly after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, the largest single class of new line-of battle ships to be ordered by the RN were nine 80 gun two-deckers copied directly from the French 80-gun Canopus. The only 80-gun ship class (as opposed to “one-off”) of indigenous British design were the nine ships of the “Vanguard” Class, ordered in the 1830s. FWIW.

- - - - -

For the second highlight above, I would like to see some of those sailing report, if you could post here I would appreciate, we could compare those numbers with the those of the clippers.

>>>>> Kindly bear with me, I will post some for you in the next days.

Byron
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by marcelo_malara »

Byron Angel wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:00 am
>>>>> My reference to the influence of iron and steel in ship construction was poorly explained. See DK Brown’s “Before the Ironclad – Development of Ship Design, Propulsion and Armament in the Royal Navy, 1815-1860” and “The Sail & Steam Navy List” by David Lyon and Rif Winfield. Even before the launching of Warrior, it was Sepping and his iron diagonal bracing which made possible the growth in L/B ratios in post-Napoleonic War wooden warships and their later re-builds.

Another aspect I was NOT thinking of at the time of writing my earlier post was the influence of wire rigging, which re-wrote the book in terms of the amount of sail that could be safely carried under various wind conditions.
Agree with these, pure wooden technics would not have sufficed for a 100 m long warship, as the HMS Orlando (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Orlando_(1858)). Same for the wire rigging.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by marcelo_malara »

Byron Angel wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:00 am
>>>>> As to the original point of discussion, here is a passage extracted from “A History of Naval Tactics from 1530 to 1930 – The Evolution of Tactical Maxims” by RAdm S. S. Robison, USN (a book I will never sell) –

Byron
Thank you for all the data you posted Byron. I didn´t know this book, I will put it in my wish list. Did you read this one?

https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Brian-Tunst ... 215&sr=8-1
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by Byron Angel »

marcelo_malara wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:54 pm Thank you for all the data you posted Byron. I didn´t know this book, I will put it in my wish list. Did you read this one?

https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Brian-Tunst ... 215&sr=8-1
Hi Marcelo,
Yes, I do have Tunstall's book. There is a tremendous amount of interesting material in it; my only complaint is that it is not always easy to "navigate". As I understand it, Mr Tunstall, listed as Author, was a highly prominent authority and lecturer on naval history who had passed away in 1970. The book, based upon his notes and archives, was published posthumously thirty years later in 2001 with Nicholas Tracy credited as Editor. I suspect that the material might have been better organized by Mr Tunstall himself. Nevertheless, I consider the book a valuable resource and still worthy of a place on my crowded bookcases!


RECOMMENDATION -
Go here - https://www.naval-review.com/ - and check out The Naval Review (UK). Find a way to become a member (you will understand when you read the membership guidelines). This publication has been in existence since 1913 (four quarterly issues per year) and has an absolutely stupendous on-line archive which contains every single issue (440 and counting, as I type this). This is an absolute gold mine of RN history, even including periodic academic quality essays on battles and campaigns going back to the Age of Sail. Personalities you will know from WW1 and WW2 will be found in the Letters section debating and arguing with one another. Trust me on this.


Byron
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by Byron Angel »

“I would like to see some of those sailing report, if you could post here I would appreciate, we could compare those numbers with the those of the clippers.”
>>>>> These books contain speed/handling data of various frigate (and some razee) classes:“
> The Heavy Frigate – Eighteen-pounder Frigates: Volume 1. 1778-1800”, by Robert Gardiner.
> Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars”, by Robert Gardiner.

Note that the following comments are Gardiner’s summaries of assorted sailing reports from ships of the named class.

MINERVA Class, 38 guns, 1778
Good, if not outstanding, performers under sail: 7-9kts close-hauled in topgallant gale (or up to 10 knots in smooth water), 11-12kts quartering or before the wind, occasionally reaching 12.5kts. However, they enjoyed the traditional British virtues of good handling and seakeeping, were stiff under sail and weatherly.
Comparatively, they were not as good close-hauled as sailing large, but their real disadvantage was the tendency to pitch in heavy weather and that they were wet forward. – the Phaeton’s captain mentions moving the foremost pair of 18pdrs aft to ease the ship in a seaway. They probably seemed more impressive when first built, but rising expectations of performance in the 1790s lrd to more reserved judgements on their abilities.

PALLAS/ALCMENE Classes, 32 guns, 1790/1793
Only an additional 6 inches to the beam separates these two classes and they share very similar characteristics. The slim surviving evidence suggests that UNICORN may have been marginally faster than her half-sisters (9kts close-hauled, 12.5kts large, which is 0.5-1kt more than recorded for the others), but they certainly share more significant attributes. The reports all date from a period when the heavy, long 18pdrs had been replaced and no complaint is made of their sea-kindliness; indeed they were particularly good sea-boats in most conditions, and were very handy (their tacking was certain even in heavy seas). They were weatherly rather than fast and this comparative advantage increased as the weather worsened; however, they were vulnerable to a head sea ‘more than the generality of frigates’, being retarded by their heavy pitching.

PHOEBE Class, 36 guns, 1794
In this class the Inconstant hull form was lengthened to improve performance and this was certainly achieved from the viewpoint of pure speed: they were capable of 10kts close-hauled and 12-13kts large. They were generally weatherly and retained the handiness of the earlier ships but sacrificed their seakeeping for speed. They were somewhat crank and could not be pressed, particularly in heavier weather, when they were subject to heavy pitching. The first report on FORTUNEE, which had a modified bow, did not complain of pitching but later she is characterized as ‘an uneasy ship but weatherly’.

- - -

Stopping here, as my dinner is ready.

Please note that there are dozens of these report in the two volumes. Any guidance you can provide as to any particular time frame most interests you would be helpful in terms of reducing the transcription workload. I can also simply select reports on the basis of arbitrary time intervals – every five years, for example. Let me know.


Byron
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by marcelo_malara »

Byron Angel wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 10:47 pm “I would like to see some of those sailing report, if you could post here I would appreciate, we could compare those numbers with the those of the clippers.”
>>>>> These books contain speed/handling data of various frigate (and some razee) classes:“
> The Heavy Frigate – Eighteen-pounder Frigates: Volume 1. 1778-1800”, by Robert Gardiner.
> Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars”, by Robert Gardiner.

Note that the following comments are Gardiner’s summaries of assorted sailing reports from ships of the named class.

MINERVA Class, 38 guns, 1778
Good, if not outstanding, performers under sail: 7-9kts close-hauled in topgallant gale (or up to 10 knots in smooth water), 11-12kts quartering or before the wind, occasionally reaching 12.5kts. However, they enjoyed the traditional British virtues of good handling and seakeeping, were stiff under sail and weatherly.
Comparatively, they were not as good close-hauled as sailing large, but their real disadvantage was the tendency to pitch in heavy weather and that they were wet forward. – the Phaeton’s captain mentions moving the foremost pair of 18pdrs aft to ease the ship in a seaway. They probably seemed more impressive when first built, but rising expectations of performance in the 1790s lrd to more reserved judgements on their abilities.

PALLAS/ALCMENE Classes, 32 guns, 1790/1793
Only an additional 6 inches to the beam separates these two classes and they share very similar characteristics. The slim surviving evidence suggests that UNICORN may have been marginally faster than her half-sisters (9kts close-hauled, 12.5kts large, which is 0.5-1kt more than recorded for the others), but they certainly share more significant attributes. The reports all date from a period when the heavy, long 18pdrs had been replaced and no complaint is made of their sea-kindliness; indeed they were particularly good sea-boats in most conditions, and were very handy (their tacking was certain even in heavy seas). They were weatherly rather than fast and this comparative advantage increased as the weather worsened; however, they were vulnerable to a head sea ‘more than the generality of frigates’, being retarded by their heavy pitching.

PHOEBE Class, 36 guns, 1794
In this class the Inconstant hull form was lengthened to improve performance and this was certainly achieved from the viewpoint of pure speed: they were capable of 10kts close-hauled and 12-13kts large. They were generally weatherly and retained the handiness of the earlier ships but sacrificed their seakeeping for speed. They were somewhat crank and could not be pressed, particularly in heavier weather, when they were subject to heavy pitching. The first report on FORTUNEE, which had a modified bow, did not complain of pitching but later she is characterized as ‘an uneasy ship but weatherly’.

- - -

Stopping here, as my dinner is ready.

Please note that there are dozens of these report in the two volumes. Any guidance you can provide as to any particular time frame most interests you would be helpful in terms of reducing the transcription workload. I can also simply select reports on the basis of arbitrary time intervals – every five years, for example. Let me know.


Byron
Thanks Byron, this would suffice. It is the first time I see speed values of the era, and must say they are higher than I expected, which was about 5 knots and not much higher. I think that the highest speed mentioned by MacGregor, is 420 miles in 24 hours, that would be an average of 17 knots. Do you have a total travel time to China? The fastest clippers did that in about 90 days.

Regards
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: French Warships in the AoS 1626-1786

Post by marcelo_malara »

Byron Angel wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:02 pm
marcelo_malara wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:54 pm Thank you for all the data you posted Byron. I didn´t know this book, I will put it in my wish list. Did you read this one?

https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Brian-Tunst ... 215&sr=8-1
Hi Marcelo,
Yes, I do have Tunstall's book. There is a tremendous amount of interesting material in it; my only complaint is that it is not always easy to "navigate". As I understand it, Mr Tunstall, listed as Author, was a highly prominent authority and lecturer on naval history who had passed away in 1970. The book, based upon his notes and archives, was published posthumously thirty years later in 2001 with Nicholas Tracy credited as Editor. I suspect that the material might have been better organized by Mr Tunstall himself. Nevertheless, I consider the book a valuable resource and still worthy of a place on my crowded bookcases!


RECOMMENDATION -
Go here - https://www.naval-review.com/ - and check out The Naval Review (UK). Find a way to become a member (you will understand when you read the membership guidelines). This publication has been in existence since 1913 (four quarterly issues per year) and has an absolutely stupendous on-line archive which contains every single issue (440 and counting, as I type this). This is an absolute gold mine of RN history, even including periodic academic quality essays on battles and campaigns going back to the Age of Sail. Personalities you will know from WW1 and WW2 will be found in the Letters section debating and arguing with one another. Trust me on this.


Byron
Yes, that is true about Tunstall book. Wasn´t he Corbett´s son-in-law? Other rarety, did you know that Admiral Popham, one of the improvers of the RN flag signal system, was a member of the British expedition to Buenos Aires in 1806?
Post Reply