Frégate d'18 par Sané , la Cornélie

[mtaylor]

John,

 

Pick a period (point in time) and run with it but also follow that point for everything else.  As I understand it, the French were more into "standardizing" (if that's really the right word).  When they changed a standard, it went fleet wide as the ships came in for repair or overhaul (great repair or rebuild).

 

I ran into that with Licorne.  As built, it's a sister of Renommee.  As captured, closer to Belle Poule but still different enough to tell them apart.  Research indicated that at one point the only way to tell a 8-pdr frigate from a 12-pdr frigate was if the quarterdeck went forward of the mainmast.  Masting is same dimensions as Le Venus but rigging should be Belle Poule's.  I'm finding other odds and ends like that as I go as things were constantly in transition.

[uss frolick]

I would go with the later armament. But I think you might have to build up a solid forecastle bulwarks, and re-space the quarterdeck and forecastle gun-ports so that they fall into the shroud spaces made by the gun deck ports. This was becoming standard practice in American, France and England by 1810. This was done as much to protect the tarred shrouds from the carronade's flash, as it was to protect the crew. Look at the Renomme model of 1806 for examples of both.  

 

 

American Naval Constructor Josiah Fox described the new practice in 1807:

 

" .... All the Fore Castle and quarterdeck ports in out frigates (the Chesapeak [sic] excepted)  are equally spaced between the ports  on the Gun-deck; This mode (though uniform) is attended with great disadvantage to the direction of those guns,  particularly Carronades,  where the Ports are in the wake of the Channels; It is usual with all Nations to place their Fore Castle and quarterdeck ports in their frigates between the same Shrouds that are spaced for the Main-Deck ports, by which means the shrouds have less spread fore and aft, and being more abreast of the Mast, afford more support to the Masts than they do now; and at the same time enable the Guns to range clear of the Shrouds, and point to more advantage than in the former mode ..."

 

I also like the French mounting better than the English, with its four casters instead of two, and the breach rope that passes all the way through the bulwarks.

 

By 1810, the French carronade looked like a real British carronade, but back in 1793, the French 36-pounders were shorter brass howitzers (French model 1787 Obusier de Vaisseau) used mostly to toss grape and canister. In the later period, according to British Historian William James, French forty-gun 18-pounder frigates were commonly armed with fourteen 24-pounder carronades and just two long eights.

[JohnE]

I like your thinking uss frolick, since I'm working off an 1810 devis of a 1795 original. I think I would rather have her fitted out in a mid-Napoleonic suite. This is quickly becoming a Frégate d'18 par Sané et modifié par Mr. la Drague (moi).

 

Oh, yes, chains and shrouds and bears, oh my !! That's the purpose of the question, because it defines all those fiddly-bits for the profile plan.

 

I know Brits love him, but I take James with more than a cup of Kosher salt. He is supremely arrogant and nationalistic and gives me rectal infarctions. Like Teddy Roosevelt, I don't trust a word he says once he launches into his "why we won (or lost)" stuff. His armament crap is just that. Sorry, but ....

 

I would much rather go with official French sources and journals of the captains, than anything that man has written.

 

John

Edited December 30, 2015 by JohnE

[JohnE]

Been thinking and there’s no reason at all not to do two separate profile details. Although individual ships were tricked out (armed) in various fashions, there were only two official “systems” in use, allocated in accord with several ‘reglements’. This, in turn, determined where and how the ports were pierced, and distribution of the corresponding chains/shrouds.

 

The main early armament suite was on the 1790 ‘reglement’ using the 1786 gun ‘system’. This comprised:

28 x 18pdrs with vessels nominally pierced 14 ports per side, but some (notably Forfait designs) having a 15^th (empty) bridle port. The bridle port was made functional by shifting a broadside gun.

10 x 8pdrs nominally disposed 8 on the quarterdeck (4 per side) and 2 on the forecastle. The forecastle was pierced (structured, actually) for 4 guns, but due to concern for bow weight and inertial moments, only 2 were ‘authorized’ and carried in practice.

4 x 36pdr sea-howitzers disposed on the quarterdeck (2 per side) ‘aft’ of the 8pdrs. Provisionally, one pair of these might be installed in the forward-most of the two sabord positions of the forecastle.

 

Note-1. The crews (gunners) hated the howitzers. They were a direct copy of the land pattern and designed to fire shell. The gunners found that modality more dangerous to themselves than the enemy, so the sea-howitzers were provided with solid shot and canister. Good for the gunners, absolutely lousy for accuracy and, thus, effectivity.

 

Note-2. Several vessels (notably Forfait designs) went with 12 x 8pdrs and no howitzers. Because Forfait’s model was so fine in bow and stern sections, these were primarily short pattern 8pdrs which were 325pds lighter than the long pattern (2056 vs 2382). That’s 25,000 lbs vs 27,000 lbs (including the howitzers) for the nominal armament, i.e., a practical difference of the weight of 1 gun. Oh yes, the French were very concerned with weights and moments and metacentrics.

 

The main later armament suite was the 1807 ‘reglement’ using the 1804 ‘system’ which comprised the 1786 pattern guns and the 24pdr and 36pdr iron ‘carronades in place of the brass howitzers. This comprised:

28 x 18pdrs with vessels again nominally pierced 14 ports per side, but some (again notably Forfait designs) having a 15^th (empty) bridle port. The bridle port was still made functional by shifting a broadside gun.

8 x 8pdrs nominally disposed 6 on the quarterdeck (3 per side) and 2 on the forecastle.

8 x 24pdr carronades divided between 2 pairs on the quarterdeck, again ‘aft of the 8pdrs, and 2 pairs on the forecastle ‘bracketing’ the central 8pdr long gun.

Gaillard piercing was the same (except in certain dimensions) as in the 1790 ‘reglement, except for an additional carronade sabord at the after end of the forecastle.

 

Note-1. The initial 1804 ‘system’ had 36pdr carronades, but their weight was found to be excessive (2232 vs 1543 for 24 pdrs). They were replaced with 24pdr weapons in the 1807 ‘reglement’ and were no longer manufactured by 1810.

 

Woof, didn’t know I knew all that till I had to write it down.

 

John

[druxey]

Nice going, John. Have a happy New Year with this project!

[JohnE]

Thanks. Roll Tide !!!

 

Et, Bonne Année à tous.

 

Hey War Eagles, next year wil be better. I promise. Rooting hard for the Tide, but wearing an orange shirt.

 

John

Edited December 31, 2015 by JohnE

[JohnE]

Ok, more progress. Lions and tigers and chains, oh My!

Making enchilladas and the timer just went off, so will explain later.

 

John

.

[druxey]

Le sabord flottant has vanished! Where will it reappear? Coming along nicely, John. Bon appetit.

[JohnE]

Ah ! Le sabord flottant ! It floated down to a home on the gaillards. I decided to press on with an armament suite according to the 1807 establishment. That would ideally be 6 x canons de 8 and 6 x caronades de 24 on the quarterdeck and 2 x canons de 8 and 2 x caronades de 24 on the forecastle. This armament suite was often seen before 1807 and the establishment is sometimes viewed as a unification and codification of existing practice. Even so, the ‘rule’ wasn’t hard and fast. Captains had latitude to position pieces where they wanted and even make substitutions or take on a couple more pieces if it didn’t hurt the sailing qualities too much.

 

Position allocation depended a lot on the design (i.e., the lines). For example Forfait’s designs, while noted for their sharp deadrise, had relatively full bow waterlines. This added volume (buoyancy) in the bows and allowed a long gun to be positioned right forward if desired. In contrast, Ozanne had very Sané -like midship sections, but his bow waterlines were notably sharper. He compensated by reducing the rake of the stem, but while the designs were nice and weatherly, there remained a marked sensitivity to weight right forward. Oddly enough, it was Ozanne who commonly pierced fifteen on a side by adding an empty bridle port; one of the very few frigate designs in which this appears.

 

Thus, after all the foregoing blithering, the quarterdeck is pierced six on a side. They were mostly (the last 4 aft) of a size for soit un canon ou une caronade. All had provision for the fighting bolt through a notch at the sill bottom edge. Technically, the two ports in way of the main chains were always armed with 8pdrs because of their muzzle extension beyond the shrouds. I’ll have 8pdr ports shown here in dotted outline, but it really is dealers choice.

 

The forecastle has a center 8pdr port in way of the chains, ‘flanked’ by two 24pdr ports. Only one of these is filled in practice (typically the after port) but both are available if the Captain desires to move the after pair of caronades or shift a pair from the quarterdeck. The forward port is commonly kept clear to allow the crew to get at the bollards/timberheads for anchor and fore-triangle sail handling.

 

As to ‘le sabord flottant’, there is a home for it. Some ships had a seventh port cut in the quarterdeck in the area of the tack fairleads. When this was done, the entry ladder (and hammock railings) moved forward to the line of the aft maître. Tack fairleads would have to move forward accordingly (can’t go aft because of interference with main shrouds). So, ‘le sabord flottant’ will live on.

 

Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. The info comes from many sources, but my main debt is to the works of Jean Boudriot. I can imagine him having a nice evening sail with Sané, Guignace, Morineau, Coulomb, Vial, et cie, and chuckling at my presumptions.

 

Enchiladas were yummy.

 

John

[mtaylor]

As I recall, French frigates didn't have a bridle/chase port mandated until 1787.  It was left unfilled until needed and then the gun from the next port back was moved to fill it.  On many frigates, this was only port to have a permanent lid.  

[JohnE]

You are quite right, except I wouldn't say 'frigates'. It's a translation and usage thing. Vaisseau translates generally to vessel or ship (bateau, navire) but in the period we are talking about, 'vaisseau' had a specific meaning; a 'ship' of the line. i.e., 74 guns and up. In the period lexicon of la marine, frégates were differentiated from vaisseau. In 1787 bridle/chase ports were mandated for 'vaisseau'. Some people do the translation and think, ok, ships. Not so.

 

Pierre Morineau lobbied for bridle ports on frégates but it didn't happen. Witness over 130 frégates built in the Revolutionary/Empire period with only a few, designer specific, instances of bridle ports. Bridle ports did not become a feature of French frégates until after the Restoration; Reglement of 1823, if I remember right.Till then, it was catch as catch can, with the vast majority living without.

 

John

[JohnE]

Ok, think we are done. Have a special box for Monsieur Druxey's le sabord flottalt, because he is so enamored of him/her.Think it is time to move this thread to somewhere 'higher'. It's no longer a 'how-to' with CAD.

 

 

Any comments are more than welcome.

 

John

Edited January 13, 2016 by JohnE

[malachy]

Beautiful, citoyen John. You really did her Justice ( ).

[mtaylor]

John,

Thanks for the clarification.  Where I saw this was in the Belle Poule monograph on a discussion of the bridal port and the port lid.  The authors were referring to frigates in the translation and thus, I assumed....  as usual, always a bad thing.

[druxey]

Bien fait, Monsieur! Je vous remercie pour les sabords flottants! Thanks for the 'extra' floating ports.

[uss frolick]

JohnE, I just noticed your earlier observation that Forfait was more likely than Sane to incorporate bridle ports on the the forty-gun frigates. This would support my theory that La Renomme (later HMS Java) was a Forfait designed ship, and not a Sane, as is often claimed.

[malachy]

Never seen the Renommée model from the front or back, but wouldn´t the hull shape give the most obvious hint whether she was designed by Forfait (or one of his 'disciples' like Degay, LeTellier, Gauthier or Pestel) or not?

 

Edit:

 

Hm, here´s the model in question. In picture number four, the hull does indeed look V-shaped, but the absence of any significant tumblehome (unlike Forfait´s Seine- or Gloire-class) makes me think that either Gauthier or Pestel could have been responsible for the design, probably the latter. And Pestel usually gave his frigates bridle ports, as can be seen on his Nereide.

 

Edit: after some digging, I´ve found the plan for La Renommée in the 'CATALOGUE DES PLANS DE BÂTIMENTS À VOILES CONSERVÉS DANS LES ARCHIVES DE LA MARINE'. It´s the same as for Pallas, Elbe and Chlorinde, all built at Basse-Indre (Nantes) and signed by a certain Bonjean, but all three were part of Sané´s Pallas-class.

 

By the way, what´s 'Éch. Pl. vertical'? Is that just the body plan?

Edited January 14, 2016 by Bava

[JohnE]

John,

Thanks for the clarification.  Where I saw this was in the Belle Poule monograph on a discussion of the bridal port and the port lid.  The authors were referring to frigates in the translation and thus, I assumed....  as usual, always a bad thing.

You are not wrong, Mark. There is some confusion in this and I’m afraid I am causing more. Trying to say much with few words is a recipe for disaster.

 

Pierre Morineau and Blaise Ollivier both lobbied hard (in the 1750s) for the reintroduction of bridle ports since their fall from grace in the early 1700s. It was a local structural weakness issue that had many designers worried, but not so much some others. There were plentiful examples of vessels with bridle ports in the mid 1700s that did not exhibit worrisome structural weaknesses. Time passes slowly in the ancien régime and thirty years later … .

 

An Instruction of April 1787, from the Ministry of Marine, inter alia, “regularized” the new gun Ordonnance of 1786, and included dimensionality, spacing and positioning of the consequent ports. It “recommended” (technically, ‘authorized”) inclusion of bridle ports in both liners and frigates, and provided a mathematical rule for positioning of a bridle port and redistribution of the others when [if] it was incorporated, clearly anticipating the alternative.

 

It remained to be seen if the Ingenieur-constructeurs would adopt them. For example, a Ministry Instruction of 1778 ordered no more poops in frigates and dismantling of those already in place. We all know to what extent this Ministry Instruction was respected in practice. It took till the Regulation of 1807 to finally and affirmatively abolish frigate poops and roundhouses and it only did that by the expedient of adding guns (more iron 24pdr carronades) to the quarterdeck armament.

 

The best way to think of mandates is look at a designer’s “devis” for a vessel or class. They pretty much all went with bridle ports for vaisseaux so it’s natural to think of this as a general ‘mandate’. Notably, the majority didn’t put them on frigates. The Regulation of 1807, in effect, ‘regularized’ standard practice of the preceding 20 years and put bridle ports on vaisseaux but was notably silent on frigates. Sané’s regulation of 1810 (which wasn’t really a ‘Reglement’) is quite clear that the first main deck port was positioned at, or about, forward station VI. But that was for Sané. Other designers thought and instantiated differently.

 

Vial du Clairbois is my bible on this (particularly his 1805 reprint, with annotations) and Jean Boudriot is the modern testament. I consulted such relevant documents that I could find in the archives of SHD and SHM, Vincennes, but concentrated on 18pdr frigates. I’m certainly not saying I know anything. I’m way not that good, but I have drawn some factoids and inferences from the period sources. Any lapses, errors, or inappropriate snarkiness, is my fault alone.

 

John

[uss frolick]

Hi Bava! The midship shape seen in a (kind of) head-on photo of the model clearly shows the rising V-shaped dead-rise as seen on the Forfait draughts, and not the Sane apple shape. But Many, including Boudroit, insist that Sane designed La Renomme. And the stern of the frigate shows her name beneath the windows.

[JohnE]

Hi. Bava, uss frolick.

 

A while ago, uss frolick asked the question and I was getting stuff from SHD and so ordered a copy of that particular Renommee plan to see if it might be useful to him. It wasn't much help at all. Here's what it was. Your typical Sane hull outline with nothing as to stern (or anything else) detail. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

 

 

I have no position on her provenance, except to note that she was on the lists as a Sane frigate, and the dockyard has her drawing as a Sane frigate. There is nothing to indicate otherwise except the museum model. In his books, Boudriot mentions that many models "were not as accurately identified as they could have been". Ya'll's guess is as good as mine.

Edited January 15, 2016 by JohnE

[uss frolick]

Thanks John!  One of the unique features of the La Renomme model is the upright nature of her counter timbers - practically no rake at all. Your sail plan shows the same characteristic. Sane ships usually had a great, gracefully looking rake. One thing that I can not determine, based on the dozen or so photographs that I have seen,  about the La Renomme Model, is whether she had a beak-head bulkhead, of a full bow. If anyone sees the model in person, place make note!

[JohnE]

Well, they say digression is often good for the soul, so what the hey. Went to the Museum collection and looked closely at the photos of La Renommée. Putting the good old Eyeball, Mark-1 to work, I found some things worth noting.

 

 

I do believe the oblique bow photo suggests a more ‘apple’ shape than a ‘heart’ shape. There’s shadows at the turn of the bilge in the midships region. I think these shadows are more consistent with the ‘turn of the bilge curve’ of the ‘apple’ shape than with the relative straight bilge definition of the ‘heart’ shape (which would turn higher, generally in the neighborhood of the upper part of the green crud). I look at the hull and see more ‘apple’ than ‘heart’, but that’s completely subjective.

 

Yep, the model depicts a beakhead. Bottom left, you can see (barely) the catheads and the cross piece, with the bowsprit entry below, but on the same vertical station plane as the catheads. Bottom right shows the forecastle and way up in the upper-left corner, one can see a darkish blop that is the cross piece for the catheads. You can see bollards and the first drift rail up to the fore mast, but then open space. Not consistent with a round bow.

 

I know the ‘real’ issue has to do with her stern: 7 lights or 8 lights, and what’s-up with the angularity at the outside edges and the open railing. I’m as much at a loss as anyone on this part. But basically, the model is pretty much a Sané, in my humble opinion.

 

John

[uss frolick]

Don't you think the stern view on page 92, bottom, of Modeles Historiques, shows a more of a v-shape?

 

Anyway, the only other frigate plans that I have seen with eight windows, or any even number of windows, is Forfait's Topaze of 1804 (HMS Alcmene, 1809), and of course Forfait's large L'Immortalitie class. Although Topaze's counter timbers have greater rake than the Renomme's model, they have less rake than the average Sane ship. Topaze and Renomme were both built in Nantes, two years apart, and I can't think of any other Nantes built 18-pounder frigates.

Edited January 17, 2016 by uss frolick

[JohnE]

Yeah. I would love to continue this. It's kinda like meat and potatoes. I  would like to participate in that.

 

I was just doing a bit of critical thinking on what I could see on the photos. Critical thinking gives no answers. It just tends to help to keep us from ... um ... er ... well .. sticking our winkie into the windmill. Sincerely hope I did not offend.

 

John

[uss frolick]

I agree. We should always interpret the lines of a ship from a small 2D photograph of a model at our peril! Ditto unusual winkie placement.

[JohnE]

Hi, uss frolick.

 

There were a bunch of 18pdrs built at Nantes. The yard was in the commune of Basse-Indre which was roughly 8 km downriver of Nantes. There was 1 x Lamothe, 2 x Gautiers, 3 x Forfaits, and 6 x Sanés built and launched by 1808. You would have 10 x Sanés by going to 1812.

 

Créole, One-off design, Lamothe, launched 1797

Uranie, Clorinde - Uranie class, Gautier, launched 1800

Belle Poule, Surveillante - Virginie class, Sané, launched 1802

Gloire, Gloire class, Forfait, launched 1803

Président, Gloire class, Forfait, launched 1804

Topaze, Gloire class, Forfait, launched 1805

Pallas, Elbe, Renomeé – Pallas class, Sané, launched 1808

4 more Pallas class, Sané, launched between 1810 and 1812

 

Then there were some built in the commune of Paimboeuf, on the south bank, about 30 km downstream of Nantes and about 10 km upstream of St Nazaire. I include these because the yard governance was the same and they shared staff.

 

Clorinde – Pallas class, Sané, launched 1808

4 more Pallas class, Sané, launched between 1810 and 1813

 

You can do a nice comparison between Sané and Forfait from the Chaumont Papers (SHD, Vincennes and Rochefort). Jean-François Chaumont was an Ingénieur, whose career extended from 1793 to 1828, at Brest, Rochefort, La Havre, ingénieur à la direction des constructions at Rochefort and Cherbourg, and directeur des constructions at Lorient. He made many of the drawings himself and they show not only the plans received by the dockyards, but also details of the yard’s implementation. They were, in effect, his ‘book’.

 

 

The Forfait is of Venus and Junon; both Gloire class, like Topaze, but built at Le Havre (launched 1806). The Sané is unidentified. There’s lots of interesting things in the comparison that may help identify vessels as to ‘design style’, if not ‘designer’.

 

Body sections are an obvious difference (‘apple’ vs ‘heart’), and the difference in bow waterline fullness is apparent on the half-breadths. The bilge area was what I was pinging on when looking at the bow oblique photo. But there’s some other differences, too. Contrary to what I have heard, Forfaits had deeper tumble-home than Sanés, at least after Sané’s 1802 Hortense class. Also (still being contrary) the rake of the stern face is darn near the same (within scale measurement limits).

 

One really helpful aid is examining the bowsprit steeve. Forfait went early to a 20-22 degree steeve, with the bowsprit stepped on the main deck. Sané kept to the traditional 28-30 degrees, with the bowsprit stepped on the lower deck (at least till 1810 when steeve got lowered). One has to be careful with this, since the RN ‘always’ (inter alia) reduced steeve of captured French ships, so the provenance of a plan must be considered.

 

The Forfait drawings show two different transom timbering configurations. One has vertical transom timbers (the body plan); one has traditional horizontal transom timbers (the aft profile plan). Not of interest, here, but notably, one can see his vertical stern timbering (same on both iterations) and see exactly where the 8 lights come from (clearly #1 and #8 are false).

 

Seriously cool stuff ! The French archives are an intellectual ‘feast’, laid out in front of a starveling ! I have a bunch of Chaumont papers in my stash, but not these. I shamelessly scanned the images from my Boudriot book on French Frigates.

 

[edit] posted more on the 'plans and research' thread. Thought it more appropriate.

 

Ciao. John

Edited January 20, 2016 by JohnE

[JohnE]

Thinking on the Forfait/Sané discussion of Java/Renommée and had an 'oh gosh' moment.The sterns of French ships were straightened up, along with the tumble home, after 1805, and things got squirrley. Been using the Rochefort draught of Justice as a model, but have some newer and more detailed draughts that I use for 'fiddly bits'. Unfortunately, I used the Erigon draught for the stern. Erigon was an 1811 Pallas class, built in Holland, and was a teensy bit out-of-school for Cornélie. So went back to the well.

 

Took angle measurements of the Justice draught and Boudriot's Venus. Turns out the Justice was only a few degrees straighter than Venus (5 degrees), but significantly more relaxed than Erigon (10 degrees).Woof !!!

 

So did the CAD thing and tilted everything out, and stuck an extra  pane in the lights, and lined things up like they should be, and made sure there was sufficient space between the central lights to put some Egyptian columns in the filials. Ok, so here's the push:

 

 

I just thought if I was going to put a classic 1800 head on her, it made sense to put a classic 1800 stern on her, as well.

 

John

Edited January 25, 2016 by JohnE

[druxey]

Hah! Good stuff, John.

[JohnE]

Okey dokey then, enough with fiddling. Slicked up the lines between the half-breadth and profile plans. Worked out the deck lines and put in Sané's DWLs. Looking very good.

 

Will have to do multiple pages because of all the different stuff that has to be captured, Have a plan page with 2 body plans, including all the tech stuff, and a profile and half-breadth showing the tech stuff.

 

 

Will have another plan page that shows the "pretty" profile and has the stern erection on the half-breadth and also on body plan.

 

I am very close to having an acceptable set of plans. I must thank uss frolick for one of his comments somewhere, that brought me up very short and made much of this stuff possible. I have been working with a ton of references and as you can imagine, they are quite inconsistent and they confuse me. But uss frolick said in one of his excellent posts, "if you start with x, you should continue with x". So everything has been normalized to the Rochefort draught of La Justice//Corné'lie. Thank you uss frolick.

Edited February 7, 2016 by JohnE

[druxey]

Only switch from x if there is compelling and overwhelming evidence from y! 

 

That set of lines looks very nice, John.