Jump to content

Welcome to Model Ship World
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Cruizer-class Brig-Sloops of the Royal Navy


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#121
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 787 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Here is scout's plan from Greenwich archives, what do you think guys?

Attached Thumbnails

  • large.jpg

  • mtaylor and Beef Wellington like this

#122
Beef Wellington

Beef Wellington
  • Members
  • 1,522 posts
  • LocationConnecticut

I think it shows the square tuck pretty clearly...I'll bet my lunch money.


  • mtaylor, uss frolick, Joe V. and 2 others like this

Cheers,
 
Jason


"But if you ask the reason of this, many will be found who never thought about it"
 
In the shipyard:

HMS Snake (c1797: Cruizer Class, ship rigged sloop)

HMS Jason (c1794: Artois Class 38 gun frigate)


#123
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 787 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Well which Cruizer class brigs are confirmed as not having a square tuck?


  • mtaylor likes this

#124
uss frolick

uss frolick
  • Members
  • 991 posts

Thanks for the enlargement, Charlie! Lyon's pic is small. Is that the fashion piece shown on the body plan? It's very feint, but it looks like something is there. I'm leaning the other way now too. But why would an oak ship need one? Only six of the hundred or so brigs were built of fir ... The Scout's framing plan would be more decisive.


  • mtaylor and CharlieZardoz like this

#125
uss frolick

uss frolick
  • Members
  • 991 posts

Well, Beef W's log on his Snake model shows the Gannett's framing plan, and that shows the square tuck frame, so I'm guessing now that they all had them? (But why?)

 

The answer to your question Charlie is, I don't know of any specifically. I just assumed that small oak ships were built according to the same rules of the larger ones. Why didn't the Swan/Pegasus Class Sloops have had them, since they were even smaller?


  • mtaylor likes this

#126
druxey

druxey
  • Members
  • 4,762 posts
  • LocationNiagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

Ship sloops such as the Swans were, I believe, slightly larger vessels. 

 

Large ships, if built of fir, had square sterns. All small vessels such as the Cruizer class, seem to have been built with square sterns regardless of timber species.


  • trippwj, mtaylor, uss frolick and 1 other like this

#127
Talos

Talos
  • Members
  • 216 posts

Totally meant to post this earlier with the discussion about sparing. I found this table in a 19th century book on rigging (I have to go back and look it up again to see which one. I realized that the measurements listed for hull length were that of the Cruizer and Cherokee.

Attached Thumbnails

  • Royal Navy Brig Spar Dimensions.jpg

  • trippwj, mtaylor, druxey and 3 others like this

#128
uss frolick

uss frolick
  • Members
  • 991 posts

Surprisingly, while both were about 100 feet on the gun-deck, the Swans were just  300 tons, where as the Cruisers were just a tad under 400 tons! It seems counterintuitive, since the Swans were ships, built like miniature frigates, while the Cruisers were just flush-decked brigs.


Edited by uss frolick, 22 October 2016 - 11:09 AM.

  • mtaylor and druxey like this

#129
druxey

druxey
  • Members
  • 4,762 posts
  • LocationNiagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

Hah! Interesting observation, Frolick, and you are quite correct: Swans were about 300 tons and 96' 7" between perpendiculars.


  • mtaylor and uss frolick like this

#130
uss frolick

uss frolick
  • Members
  • 991 posts

I think that it is now safe to conclude that all Cruisers had the square-tuck stern. This was probably done because nearly all (if not all) were built in private yards, where the standards were much lower than naval yards, using every dwindling bit of available oak timber, under emergency conditions, so it was thought that the stern, a potential weak point, would have to be built as strong as possible, even if that meant using a strong, tried and true, and ancient method of framing. I suspect that the earlier Swans had a much stouter frame.

 

One of the editions of Steele's Shipbuilders Repository, c.1805, includes folded plans of the Cruisers, so I wonder if he mentions their unusual stern frames?


  • trippwj, mtaylor, druxey and 2 others like this

#131
Beef Wellington

Beef Wellington
  • Members
  • 1,522 posts
  • LocationConnecticut

This was probably done because nearly all (if not all) were built in private yards, where the standards were much lower than naval yards, using every dwindling bit of available oak timber, under emergency conditions, so it was thought that the stern, a potential weak point, would have to be built as strong as possible, even if that meant using a strong, tried and true, and ancient method of framing. I suspect that the earlier Swans had a much stouter frame.

 

Frolick, this does feel a little like conjecture.  I know I'm going to sound argumentative, but think its important that opinions don't get confused with facts.  There is a bigger picture here to understand here and its important to understand the broader strategic direction as well as just ship construction techniques.  I'm not a professional historian, just a interested amateur whos done lots of reading from various sources.  And yes, I have a sweet spot for the Cruizers....  :D 

  1. Many significant, successful ships of wide array of rates, before and after, were built in private yards.  Its not appropriate to conclude that private yards equated to lower quality/lower skill levels
  2. Timber availability was a concern, and had been before and was to continue to be after this period.  Your interpretation reads a little like the 'tired empire on its last legs and the cruiser design was the best it could do' story, which clearly was not the case when you look at the size of the fleet and individual ships of the post war battlefleet right until end of sail.  Ship design and the compromise with available funds had been a factor in the RN for centuries.
  3. There is a need to recognize how ships were designed and approved.  It was very often Royal Naval policy to adopt, rescale and shamelessly copy successful designs.  It is apparent from looking at draughts and models that the Cruizers owe a lot to cutter design, including the square tuck and significant rake of the keel.  These ships were selected after building prototypes and letting the "best ship win", I don't think its an appropriate conclusion to reach that square tucks, despite being anachronistic, were necessarily compromises.
  4. The need for economy was driven more from manpower usage and the need to project naval power on far flung strategic stations with the dwindling number of sailors needed given the escalating threat.  Therefor the cruisers provided an excellent balance of firepower, long range cruising ability and crew minimization (which is apparent when comparing the Swan to Cruiser classes, different ships for different roles).  Now living in the States, it never ceases to amaze me that there is little understanding of the context of the US revolutionary war against the broader, and larger global war Britain was engaged in against Napoleonic France and Spain.

  • trippwj, mtaylor and uss frolick like this

Cheers,
 
Jason


"But if you ask the reason of this, many will be found who never thought about it"
 
In the shipyard:

HMS Snake (c1797: Cruizer Class, ship rigged sloop)

HMS Jason (c1794: Artois Class 38 gun frigate)


#132
uss frolick

uss frolick
  • Members
  • 991 posts

That's why I used the weasel-words 'probably' and 'suspect'. :)


  • mtaylor and druxey like this

#133
Talos

Talos
  • Members
  • 216 posts

Surprisingly, while both were about 100 feet on the gun-deck, the Swans were just  300 tons, where as the Cruisers were just a tad under 400 tons! It seems counterintuitive, since the Swans were ships, built like miniature frigates, while the Cruisers were just flush-decked brigs.

 

Almost four feet shorter (96'7" versus 100 feet) /and/ 26'9" versus 30'6" wide Cruizers. Judging by the plans for Swan in the RMG, she looks shallower too despite having nearly the same rated draft. So it really doesn't surprise me that they would be nearly a hundred tons apart using Builder's Old Measurement, where a shift in beam can cause a large shift in size.


  • mtaylor, druxey and uss frolick like this

#134
Talos

Talos
  • Members
  • 216 posts

 

Frolick, this does feel a little like conjecture.  I know I'm going to sound argumentative, but think its important that opinions don't get confused with facts.  There is a bigger picture here to understand here and its important to understand the broader strategic direction as well as just ship construction techniques.  I'm not a professional historian, just a interested amateur whos done lots of reading from various sources.  And yes, I have a sweet spot for the Cruizers....  :D

  1. Many significant, successful ships of wide array of rates, before and after, were built in private yards.  Its not appropriate to conclude that private yards equated to lower quality/lower skill levels
  2. Timber availability was a concern, and had been before and was to continue to be after this period.  Your interpretation reads a little like the 'tired empire on its last legs and the cruiser design was the best it could do' story, which clearly was not the case when you look at the size of the fleet and individual ships of the post war battlefleet right until end of sail.  Ship design and the compromise with available funds had been a factor in the RN for centuries.
  3. There is a need to recognize how ships were designed and approved.  It was very often Royal Naval policy to adopt, rescale and shamelessly copy successful designs.  It is apparent from looking at draughts and models that the Cruizers owe a lot to cutter design, including the square tuck and significant rake of the keel.  These ships were selected after building prototypes and letting the "best ship win", I don't think its an appropriate conclusion to reach that square tucks, despite being anachronistic, were necessarily compromises.
  4. The need for economy was driven more from manpower usage and the need to project naval power on far flung strategic stations with the dwindling number of sailors needed given the escalating threat.  Therefor the cruisers provided an excellent balance of firepower, long range cruising ability and crew minimization (which is apparent when comparing the Swan to Cruiser classes, different ships for different roles).  Now living in the States, it never ceases to amaze me that there is little understanding of the context of the US revolutionary war against the broader, and larger global war Britain was engaged in against Napoleonic France and Spain.

 

 

I agree with this. Some comments on the points:

 

  1. The initial Cruizer and Snake prototypes were ordered in 1796 and completed in 1798 under Earl Spencer’s board. One of the other projects Spencer did was give eight different 74-gun 3rd Rate contracts to various private yards. No more Cruizers were ordered until 1801 when they needed them.
  2. A concern, but the UK running out of oak is an exaggerated myth. The real problem was supplies were getting harder to procure at a price the admiralty wanted to pay, and they let the reserves dwindle and for a few years their supplies were tight. By the end of the war they had plenty again though prices were still above pre-war levels. The more acute shortages were in difficult pieces, like knees.
  3. The Cruizer and Snake were designed before there was any wartime production crunch, so they were hardly austere designs. Fully worked-out designs to all naval standards, designed for global operations anywhere the Royal Navy was and they took their time with it. They really were in a sweet spot between capability and economy, as were the Cherokees after them. Incidentally, the part that screams cutter to me the most is that little sheer by the bow, which doesn’t match the deck line. Nothing wrong with being inspired by cutter designs. Those were the UK’s most notoriously seaworthy small craft, coastal vessels designed for channel work and the like.
  4. This, not a timber shortage, was the real problem. So few ships were sailing at their proper, rated complements all the time, most had larger proportions of pressed landsmen and long overseas deployments and brutal blockade periods both wore down what crews they did scrounge together. Cruizer’s crew size was typical of both ship and brig sloops of her size. Even HMS Peacock (ex-USS Wasp) had an identically rated crew of 121 in British service and Swan only had four extra men under older crew regulations, and 121 after 1794. Between the 32-pounder carronades (which were also added to small post ships like Cyane) giving a heavier armament for their size, while still being large enough for proper ocean sailing and deployment, they were very versatile craft. They weren’t particularly designed for economy so much as being a standard and modern design in an economical size class (compared to all the older quarterdeck sloops based on designs dating back decades).

  • mtaylor, dgbot, druxey and 3 others like this

#135
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 787 posts
  • LocationQueens New York
http://www.modelsail...grass_text.html

Hey guys according to this link the ships of 1811/1812 did not have a square tuck stern. So the first Grasshopper probably had one while the second did not. Also says the Epervier did not. Assuming we can trust this one source but that's my opinion that the tuck was probably something removed after 1810 but still not considered obsolete circa 1804. There is a 4/5 year gap in builds for the Cruizer class after 1807 so probability a chance for the plans to be revised a bit.

Edited by CharlieZardoz, 22 October 2016 - 08:27 PM.

  • mtaylor, dgbot, uss frolick and 1 other like this

#136
Chapman

Chapman
  • Members
  • 20 posts

http://www.modelsail...grass_text.html

Hey guys according to this link the ships of 1811/1812 did not have a square tuck stern. So the first Grasshopper probably had one while the second did not. Also says the Epervier did not. Assuming we can trust this one source but that's my opinion that the tuck was probably something removed after 1810 but still not considered obsolete circa 1804. There is a 4/5 year gap in builds for the Cruizer class after 1807 so probability a chance for the plans to be revised a bit.

Moin from Germany.

 

Sorry, but the plans of the Epervier say something different
Square Tuck!
 
Source: NMM

Attached Thumbnails

  • Epervier Schnitt.JPG

Edited by Chapman, 23 October 2016 - 06:08 AM.

  • mtaylor, uss frolick, Joe V. and 2 others like this

#137
trippwj

trippwj

    Scullery Maid

  • Members
  • 3,487 posts
  • LocationEastport, Maine, USA

Totally meant to post this earlier with the discussion about sparing. I found this table in a 19th century book on rigging (I have to go back and look it up again to see which one. I realized that the measurements listed for hull length were that of the Cruizer and Cherokee.

 

Would be quite interested in your source for this table - based solely on the terminology used, this appears to be a late 19th century analysis rather than a contemporary description.  Also, given the long history of the class, as well as the number constructed, there was quite probably a difference between the early rig dimensions and the latter members of the class.


  • mtaylor, dgbot, uss frolick and 1 other like this

Wayne

Neither should a ship rely on one small anchor, nor should life rest on a single hope.
Epictetus


#138
trippwj

trippwj

    Scullery Maid

  • Members
  • 3,487 posts
  • LocationEastport, Maine, USA

 

I agree with this. Some comments on the points:

 

  1. The initial Cruizer and Snake prototypes were ordered in 1796 and completed in 1798 under Earl Spencer’s board. One of the other projects Spencer did was give eight different 74-gun 3rd Rate contracts to various private yards. No more Cruizers were ordered until 1801 when they needed them.
  2. A concern, but the UK running out of oak is an exaggerated myth. The real problem was supplies were getting harder to procure at a price the admiralty wanted to pay, and they let the reserves dwindle and for a few years their supplies were tight. By the end of the war they had plenty again though prices were still above pre-war levels. The more acute shortages were in difficult pieces, like knees.
  3. The Cruizer and Snake were designed before there was any wartime production crunch, so they were hardly austere designs. Fully worked-out designs to all naval standards, designed for global operations anywhere the Royal Navy was and they took their time with it. They really were in a sweet spot between capability and economy, as were the Cherokees after them. Incidentally, the part that screams cutter to me the most is that little sheer by the bow, which doesn’t match the deck line. Nothing wrong with being inspired by cutter designs. Those were the UK’s most notoriously seaworthy small craft, coastal vessels designed for channel work and the like.
  4. This, not a timber shortage, was the real problem. So few ships were sailing at their proper, rated complements all the time, most had larger proportions of pressed landsmen and long overseas deployments and brutal blockade periods both wore down what crews they did scrounge together. Cruizer’s crew size was typical of both ship and brig sloops of her size. Even HMS Peacock (ex-USS Wasp) had an identically rated crew of 121 in British service and Swan only had four extra men under older crew regulations, and 121 after 1794. Between the 32-pounder carronades (which were also added to small post ships like Cyane) giving a heavier armament for their size, while still being large enough for proper ocean sailing and deployment, they were very versatile craft. They weren’t particularly designed for economy so much as being a standard and modern design in an economical size class (compared to all the older quarterdeck sloops based on designs dating back decades).

 

 

Concerning point 2 - the Crown OWNED the Oak growing in Britain.  HOWEVER - quality Oak, in the quantities needed, was becoming more scarce.  See, among other research, the following:

 

Albion, R.G. 1926. Forests and Sea Power: The Timber Problem of the Royal Navy, 1652-1862. Harvard University Press. http://archive.org/d...estsAndSeaPower.
Knight, R. 1986. New England Forest and British Seapower: Albion Revisited. The American Neptune XLVI, no. 4: 221–229.
Layman, W. 1813. Precursor to an Exposé on Forest Trees and Timber ... as Connected with the Maritime Strength ... of the United Kingdom. https://books.google...id=KNxbAAAAQAAJ.
Loewen, B. 2000. Forestry Practices and Hull Design, Ca. 1400-1700. In Fernando Oliveira E O Seu Tempo. Humanismo E Arte de Navegar No Renascimento Europeu (1450-1650), ed. F.C. Domingues, 143–151. Patrimonia. https://www.academia...n_ca._1400-1700.

 

An additional consideration, particularly at this time, is that the theory and science of Naval Architecture was undergoing a sometime vicious shift in the paradigm of design.  This was the period of the Reverend Inman and George Atwood.  We also saw the influence of the Society for the Improvement of Naval Architecture and Fredrik Henrik Chapman on the field.  The changes, while sometimes slow, were incremental and evident.  They were not accomplished via simple edicts from the Surveyor of the Navy and Admiralty (history showed how poorly that approach had worked over many decades - too many of the ship yards were passive-aggressive on implementing those orders). 

 

Steel, as a case study, perhaps, is in a unique category.  There has been, since long before our life time, speculation concerning the source for his Naval Architecture.  The timing of the publication implies that there was some connection to the attempt to incorporate scientific theory into ship design - and, indeed, some of the narrative in Steel's Vade Mecum seem to advocate for such a path.  Steel was a publisher and former barrister with the Admiralty, but not a ship builder nor rigger.  What he was, however, was well connected - as evidence by his ship lists &.c. published over many years.


  • mtaylor, druxey, Joe V. and 1 other like this

Wayne

Neither should a ship rely on one small anchor, nor should life rest on a single hope.
Epictetus


#139
Talos

Talos
  • Members
  • 216 posts

Would be quite interested in your source for this table - based solely on the terminology used, this appears to be a late 19th century analysis rather than a contemporary description.  Also, given the long history of the class, as well as the number constructed, there was quite probably a difference between the early rig dimensions and the latter members of the class.

 

Looked it up, it was Fincham's Treatise on Masting Ships. My specific source I used was the 2nd edition of 1843 as found on Google Books.

 

https://books.google...epage&q&f=falsePage 88, the first and second examples, which match the length and beam of Cruizer and Cherokee brigs.


Edited by Talos, 23 October 2016 - 12:19 PM.

  • trippwj and mtaylor like this

#140
druxey

druxey
  • Members
  • 4,762 posts
  • LocationNiagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

Be careful of secondary sources! We come down squarely (sorry about the pun) on the side of square sterns.


  • trippwj, mtaylor, Joe V. and 2 others like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Welcome GUEST to the Model Ship World Community.
Please LOGIN or REGISTER to use all of our feautures.