Senior ole salt

Hi Chuck, good to see you starting your log build. I got some deck plans that you might not have and would be glad to get a copy out to you.
( I Obtained them from a former skipper of the replica)
 
Thanks for posting the history of the ship that hasn't gotten much attention from the public and especially kit builders.  Maybe we can get them off their  collective duffs and  come out with one!! 
 
SOS

After a summer of sailing Carrianne,  
  
I figure it's time to continue work on the Sloop  Providence.
So I pinned on the sails to see how they might look. OK but not full of wind.
So I made forms to kind of mold the wind in. This worked pretty good. But attaching the sails to the model and coping with the rigging might prove a problem for me, i decided to do some of the standing rigging off the model like the P&S shrouds etc.then attach the main sail and top sail, deal with their running rigging and then do the head  sails Time will tell if this works.
I'll post pix as I go.
 
S.O.S

Mike you aren't kidding. So far I haven't lost any but I have to be super careful.
 
Well a little more rigging done.
 

 

Mike - no groove. Just carefully placed.
 
Some work done on the stern.
 
 

Did a bit more work on deck got some cap rails on and a capstan and hatch.  Also worked on the stairs.  That was a core and a half.  I'm still debating whether I like the outcome.  I might take it all out and try again.  
 

 

 
 

]Lower deck guns rigged and run out .. ready for the first broad side... well ...almost. Got all of the poop deck to do as well as its fittings  rails and swivel guns. etc. (  deck not glued down in the image") For now I'd like to know just what sort of binnacle was typical for a 18th century ship during the American revolution. The plans I have show a deck box and I assume engine controls probably a compass etc . Also where the ships bell might be.
 
My big question is a rigging plan. My plans show only standing rigging and main peak & throat  blocks  halyards etc.with no clue as to just where they might go. So my question is any one here knowledgeable where all the running rigging should go and belay to?  
 
 
 
Thanks
 
S.O..S

After a summer of sailing Carrianne,  
  
I figure it's time to continue work on the Sloop  Providence.
So I pinned on the sails to see how they might look. OK but not full of wind.
So I made forms to kind of mold the wind in. This worked pretty good. But attaching the sails to the model and coping with the rigging might prove a problem for me, i decided to do some of the standing rigging off the model like the P&S shrouds etc.then attach the main sail and top sail, deal with their running rigging and then do the head  sails Time will tell if this works.
I'll post pix as I go.
 
S.O.S

Update :
 
Build log part 50....
 
I`ve taken down all the boatsdeck, the dry fitting and vents, etc, in order to prepare for the permanent mounting of the aft boatsdeck half. But first there must be some fitting out to the promenade-deck-after-half portion like....
- fitting the mahogany handrail to the long railing
- mounting the 6 anchors on each side for the aft mast shrouds and backstays (they will go upwards through the boats deck in twelve places whilst the boats deck is glued on to the brass framework and the deckhousings below. Also the holes for the vent tubes and the aft mast that go through the deck have to be brought in alignment. Trust that all will be quite a tricky moment, hope it will go well and like it was intended.
- All the figurines on the aft half of the promenade deck must also be placed before the boatsdeck goes on (otherwise no access later !)
 
The little red tape markings on the outside frame are for showing where to put on the clamps when glueing the deck down...
 
Nils
 

 
Mahagony handrail all around. Red little tape markers, where to put on the clamps
 
 

 
 

 
10 of the 20 benches (scale 1:144) go on to the total promenade deck
 
 

 
 

 
the blackened anchors go through the boatsdeck when it is on and are for fastening the aft mast`s buckle screws of the shrouds and backstays
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

Watch also this video . . 
 

Here is a fascinating video and information about a Revolutionary war vessel that was a part of Benedict Arnold's fleet.
 
http://www.lcmm.org/shipwrecks_history/shipwrecks/spitfire.htm

Here is a fascinating video and information about a Revolutionary war vessel that was a part of Benedict Arnold's fleet.
 
http://www.lcmm.org/shipwrecks_history/shipwrecks/spitfire.htm

Here is a fascinating video and information about a Revolutionary war vessel that was a part of Benedict Arnold's fleet.
 
http://www.lcmm.org/shipwrecks_history/shipwrecks/spitfire.htm

Here is a fascinating video and information about a Revolutionary war vessel that was a part of Benedict Arnold's fleet.
 
http://www.lcmm.org/shipwrecks_history/shipwrecks/spitfire.htm

Here is a fascinating video and information about a Revolutionary war vessel that was a part of Benedict Arnold's fleet.
 
http://www.lcmm.org/shipwrecks_history/shipwrecks/spitfire.htm

Here is a fascinating video and information about a Revolutionary war vessel that was a part of Benedict Arnold's fleet.
 
http://www.lcmm.org/shipwrecks_history/shipwrecks/spitfire.htm

I continue to be astounded by the quality of the works displayed here on this forum. it's a shame it's not recognized by the public and the "art " world. Auction housed continuously pedal art that don't come near what's shown here and for huge sums of money.
 
S.os

That's a rough sketch? It looks like a work of art to me.  You're doing fine in my opinion. Keep up the good work.
 
I'd like to try that kids someday.
 
S.os

The sloop Providence will be soon ready to have mast stepped and the rigging started   But wait a minute I have no detailed rigging plan.   Guess work will not work . I'm at the stage where I have to order blocks single , double and some triple but how many and what size. Same with the cordage. what size and thickness etc.
 
So I'm thinking the Cutter Cheerful 1/48 scale is similar in size and era and should be near enough. Chuck's thick ness gauge is a help. But still doesn't solve my problem.
 Which is:
 
Just what sizes and # of single blocks
 
                               # of double blocks
 
                              # of triple blocks
 
I have the dead eyes for the main mast and enough for the top mast
 
Also just what thickness cordage for various members of the standing rigging, fore and back stays for main mast and top mast and associated yards 
 
and the running  rigging for all of the above.
 
I guess I'm aiming at the HMS Cutter Cheerful   builders here . Can they come to the aid of a Revolutionary Man-O.- War Sloop Providence ??
 
Thanks
 
S.O.S.
 

Ahoy all Modelers,
 

 
Coming along on the model. and got the swivel guns mounted on the poop deck. Also an officer was piped aboard this week to help supervise the further construction. I got a different scheme for mounting the gun port lids that might be unorthodox. If it works Ill post it here. Still to go some kind of binnacle , channels and deadeyes ( awaiting the blackening agent).
Notice the cable going to a holes in the fwd. grating and below to the cable locker.
 
Thanks for the help in various questions I posted in other threads.
 
S.O.S.
 
 

I mispoke there.  Force9 has the right of it.  Broke in Shannon was indeed the Commodore, and the famous stern chase was in August.
Further to the damage received, Guerriere was a French prize with, one presumes, the typical light scantlings of French construction.  Her timbers, in this scenario, would be lighter and more widely spaced for strategic reasons.  Constitution, on the other hand, has the timbers and spacing of a 74-gun ship.  Combining the presumed differences of timbering with the known weight of metal advantages of Constitution and it is no wonder Guerriere was left in such battered condition.

Frolic -
 
I think you well know my own opinion regarding Tyrone Martin's revisionist version of the battle.  Stated plainly, I have serious doubts about his use of facts and interpretation. 
 
Regarding the overview provided by sailor Moses...The prodigious amounts of ammunition used would rightly raise eyebrows. But Tyrone Martin seems to have overlooked the simplest and most obvious explanation for this remarkable output of iron and lead. The truth is that the Constitution fired every broadside - every discharge – with two round shot. Every. One. 
 
I think your own valuable research regarding the use of TWO round shot in each discharge explains the ammunition expenditure across the relatively short duration of the close action.
 
Here is a snippet of my long-winded rebuttal of Martin's version of the battle that is focused on the ammunition (Full version here: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/270-uss-constitution-by-force9-revell-plastic-revisiting-the-classic-196-kit/?p=205092 ):
 
Tyrone Martin seems to have never considered this explanation to the dilemma of the ammunition expenditure. If we isolate and examine the 32 pounder carronade round shot - which would only be used during the close engagement - the math works out quite nicely (even for those of us without advanced math degrees). I agree with Martin that the grape and canister would've been thrown in on top of the round shot for good measure and can be omitted from our calculation:
236 32 pdr round shot expended in 35 minutes. (Let's round up to 240 for us math-challenged types)
Double-shotted , so divide by two and get 120 discharges in 35 minutes.
12 carronades on a broadside... 120/12 gives 10 discharges for each gun.
35 minutes/10 discharges gives us one discharge every 3.5 minutes. 
(BTW - the math works out exactly the same for the 300 24-pdr shot)

According to Mark Adkin in his excellent Trafalgar Companion, a well drilled British gun crew would be expected to fire three rounds in five minutes. Does anyone think a new American crew drilled constantly for six weeks by professional American naval officers can fire one double-shotted round every 3.5 minutes? Me too. I've used 35 minutes because Martin mentions that length of time in the same context as the ammunition breakdown. Using Hull’s estimate of 30 minutes we have a discharge on average every 3.0 minutes - I'm good with that too. It seems likely that the American gun crews loaded full charges with two round shot with the remainder of the tube loaded with whatever grape/canister would fit and then let ‘er rip. It certainly explains the gruesome damage inflicted on the Guerriere - all the accounts of washtubs of blood flowing down hatches and bits of brain and skull scattered across the smoldering decks when the prize crew got on board. Not to mention the water filling her hold that eventually sealed her doom.
 
My view is that Captain Dacres' testimony regarding the thirty shot holes on the larboard side was not meant to suggest a complete accounting of the hits Guerriere absorbed. It was likely meant to highlight the damage inflicted by Constitution's initial broadside (15 long guns double round shot= 30 holes). Other accounts state that two of the gun ports on the larboard side were blown into a single gaping hole.  The detained ship master William Orne noted that the first broadside from Constitution fairly rocked the Guerriere and "washtubs" of blood poured down the hatchways.  The prize crew after the battle were stunned by the blood and gore distributed throughout the upper decks.  The ship was completely disabled and in a sinking state.  On the contrary, I think Constitution hardly missed across the 30-40 minutes of punishment meted out to Guerriere during the decisive close action. Certainly some of the American shot went high and caused little damage, but the mizzen and foremasts seem to have been cut down by shot that struck fairly low down - indicating more fire concentrated against the hull.  I think the American gun crews were well trained to fire on the down roll and maximize her advantage in broadside weight. The British, in contrast, likely fired more rapidly, but with little regard to high or low... RN practice would probably have reduced the powder charges at such a close range (to avoid having round shot punch neat holes in one side and out the other without inflicting showers of splinters and collateral damage within) which contributed to the "Old Ironsides" moniker.

My bad.  I was not aware of Guerriere heading for refit.  Thanks for insight on everything else as that was my impression of things.    In some ways, I suspect the Brits thought they were fighting the same Navy as in the Revolution and that it would be just as easy this time around.
 
On the subject of crews... as I understand it, the English were not very forgiving about "their men" fighting on the American side so I can see where the Scots and Irish would probably be fierce fighters.   

Mark -
 
Guerriere was actually en route to Halifax for refit.  She was detached from Broke's squadron as part of a regular rotation for each ship.  She was certainly worn down, but that was the typical status of so many ships in the RN that were under manned and overused.  I think you're right that her condition was not considered an issue for her captain and crew until after they lost the battle.  Likewise it was a convenient defense to imply that the American ships were well crewed because they were largely manned by RN deserters.  There is some truth to the assertion - many Americans had been impressed in the RN and had served in the fleet for years (some even at Trafalgar).  It was also interesting that American crew members on the Guerriere were allowed to go below during the battle while onetime citizens of the British empire (who claimed American naturalization) helped man the Constitution and fought like tigers.  These were largely Irish (and in some cases Scottish) who felt no loyalty/love for King and country.  The plucky Irishman Dan Hogan clambered up the rigging in the heat of the fight to secure an ensign that had been flapping loose on the foremast.  Hull called attention to his courage to the Navy secretary and approved an extra month's pay.  Hogan was later wounded in both hands during the Java battle.  A pre-war Destroyer was named after him.
 
The court martial failed to fully reveal the true underlying reasons for the defeat that could be quickly socialized within the fleet to alter future outcomes.  Dacres gamely suggested to the court that he would gladly refight a similar opponent with the same ship and crew.  The facts strongly suggest that he was spewing unrealistic bluster and he would've lost that battle under any circumstances.  Nothing about the result would indicate any chance of success.  It took a few more kicks in the gut before the RN acknowledged that the big American frigates were an overmatch for any standard 38 and orders were issued prohibiting single frigate actions with the American 44s.  
 
We modern folk would've reprimanded Captain Dacres for engaging a clearly superior force with a ship in impaired condition with less than a full complement of able bodied crew.

It is so interesting to see all of this testimony laid out end to end... Thanks Frolic for sharing this.
 
I know folks find it bizarre that I could call out the discrepancy in Dacres' testimony, but it goes to the heart of how accounts of this battle have been dissected and/or manipulated over the years.  Notice how the witnesses differ on the commencement of the close action in each account:
 
Lt. Kent: "At 5 she closed within half pistol shot, on our larboard beam, both keeping up a heavy fire and  steering free, his intention, evidently, being to cross our bows. At 5.20 the mizenmast fell and exposed the ship to a heavy raking fire from the enemy, who placed himself on our larboard bow..."
 
Master Scott: "At 5 our opponent closed with in half pistol shot on our starboard beam, both steering free and keeping up a [illegible] fire.. At 5.20 the mizen mast went over the starboard quarter, which brought the ship up in the wind against her helm which exposed us to a heavy raking fire from the enemy.
 
In his post-battle report, Captain Dacres stated: "At 5 She clos'd on our Starboard Beam, both keeping up a heavy fire and steering free, his intention being evidently to cross our bow. At 5.20, our Mizen Mast went over the starboard quarter and brought the Ship up in the Wind. The Enemy then plac'd himself on our larboard Bow, raking us..."
 
Captain Hull and 1st Lt. Morris both maintain that Constitution commenced the close action on the Larboard beam of Guerriere.  This would seem to be corroborated by Dacres' assertion that the larboard side had thirty shots below the waterline in line with the 5th row of copper.  This would imply a well coordinated broadside instead of random shots during the course of a running battle.  Very likely the result of the initial broadside that Captain Hull withheld until directly alongside Guerriere within "can't miss" range.  Both Alfred Mahan and Theodore Roosevelt assumed that Dacres erred in his initial report and the master's testimony was mistakenly captured by a clerk or otherwise mis-remembered by Scott.  All seem to agree, however, that Constitution ended up on the larboard bow at some point.
 
​Tyrone Martin capitalized on these discrepancies and created an entirely new version of the battle with Constitution engaging initially on the Starboard side.  He inserts an entirely new set of maneuvering with Constitution crossing the bow of her adversary before wearing around for another bow crossing where the final entanglement and dismasting takes place.  None of this ties back to any testimony or eyewitness account.
 
Fun stuff
 
Evan

Excepts from the official British court martial (PRO Document: ADMI 5435, page XC 14734) for the loss of HMS Java, 38, to the USS Constitution, 44 . Pretty dry stuff on the whole. The official letter of Lt. Chads (Captain Lambert was killed) is included, which can be found published elsewhere, the decision of the court, and some testimony. Mostly "Do you agree with the contents of Lt. Chads letter", and "Did the men behave bravely", etc.. No bombshells here. 
 
The court seemed much interested in whether many of the Java's casualties, upwards of 120 men, were caused by American small arms fire.
 
The court martial was held on board HMS Gladiator in Portsmouth Harbor, April 23, 1813.
 
"Lieutenant James Saunders of the Royal Navy was called and sworn:
 
Q: Did you suffer much on the forecastle from the enemy's musquetry?
A:  Very much indeed.
 
Q: Were you stationed there?
A: Yes.
 
Q: Did you think the Java had a fair chance of succeeding before the end of the bowsprit was shot away?
A: Yes.
 
Q: In which period of the action did you suffer most?
A: When the bowsprit went.
 
Q: Did the American appear to you to avoid close action at the first part of it?
A: Yes.
 
Q: Did the American appear to keep up her fire early in the action, as she did after the bowsprit was carried away?
A: She slackened her fore after the first broadside of the Java and appeared to be in confusion.
 
Q: Did you understand that the American lost her wheel?
A: I afterwards found that she had lost her wheel by the first broadside from the Java and that four men were killed.
 
 
Mr. James Humble, late Boatswain of the Java was called and sworn.
 
Q: How long had the action lasted before you were wounded?
A: Better than an hour, I believe.
 
Q: Was the Java much disabled before you were wounded?
A: Yes, aloft. The fore top, two planks were shot out of it and lodged into the bunt of the fore sail.
 
Q: Did you suffer much from the musquetry on the forecastle?
A: Yes, and likewise from round and grape.
 
Q: Did you think you had as good [a chance] in the action as the American before you were wounded?
A: They seemed to be very sick upon it.
 
Q: Did you come up again after going below?
A: Yes, I was down about an hour and when I got my arm put a little to rights by a tourniquet, being put on it, nothing else. My hand was carried away and my arm wounded about the elbow. I put my arm into the bosom of my shirt and went up again, when I saw the enemy ahead of us repairing his damage. I had my orders from Lt Chads before the action begun, to cheer up the boarders with my pipe, that they might make a clean spring in boarding.
 
Q: Did the Java receive much damage from the enemy before the Java returned any fire at all?
A: Yes, we received besides what I have stated, much damage in the rigging.
 
Q: Did you think that the Java had a fair chance of succeeding before you were wounded and went below.
A: It appeared to me she would. The second broadside his wheel was carried away, and he got a good touching up about the quarterdeck and forecastle, and he downed fore and main tacks to go a head of us, and when our foremast went, he up courses again, and continued the action. Then I got wounded.
 
John MacDonald, Boatswain's Mate, belonging to the Java, was called in and sworn:
 
Q: Where were you quartered in the action?
A: At the fifth gun on the quarterdeck.
 
Q: Did you think that before the Java was disabled that you had a good chance of beating the enemy's ship?
A: Yes, I think we had as good as they had.
 
Q:  Did the American appear to you to avoid a close action, or not in the early part of the action?
A: They kept at long balls, they kept edging away until the Java was disabled.
 
 
Q:  Did you hear Captain Lambert's order the Java to be laid on board the American?
A:  Yes.
 
Q:  What distance was you from the enemy's stern?
A:  Not quite a cable's length upon our lee beam, the helm was put a weather.
 
Q:  Do you remember the [Java's] bow sprit touching the mizen rigging [of the Constitution].
A:  Yes, it took the mizen rigging which appeared to me to prevent our boarding that the time.
 
 
Q: Were the men all ready?
A:  Yes, they had been called and were all ready for jumping on board, on the forecastle, marines and all.
 
Q:  Did you see any of the enemy's men ready to receive the boarders?
A:  No. I did not see any of them at the time.
 
Q: Did you hang some time by the mizen rigging?
A:  Not long.
 
 
Q: Did they get their chasers out then and rake you?
A: Yes.
 
Q: When you were about to lay the enemy on board, from your seeing no men on her decks, and from the state of your own ship, did you think that the action would have terminated in your favor had not the foremast been carried away?
A: Yes, I think it would.
 
Q: Were you ever in action before?
A:  Yes.
 
Christopher Speedy, Captain of the forecastle was called in and sworn:
 
 
Q: Were you on the forecastle during the whole of the action?
A:Yes, from the beginning to the last, quartered at the foremost carronade.
 
Q:  Before the Java was disabled by losing the end of her bowsprit and foremast, did you think you had a as good of the action as the American?
A:  Yes, I thought we were going on very well. About the middle of the action I thought that they had had enough of it, and was making off from us. I saw her stern towards us, and came round on the other tack.
 
 
Q: Did they annoy you much on the forecastle by musquetry? 
A:  More by round and grape [and] double headed. I picked up  five bar shot which fell out of the foremast by rolling. I put them in our guns and fired them back again.
 
Q: Did the American appear to avoid close action?
A: He did always avoid close action. He kept away when ever the smoke cleared away, we always found him yawing away from us.
 
 
Q: Do you remember when the Java endeavored to board her.
A:  Yes. It was just as the foremast fell.
 
Q: Were you all ready for boarding them?
A:  They were called on the forecastle and gangways, and were all ready, boarders and marines.
 
Q: Did you see many of the enemy ready to oppose the boarders?
A: Not many on deck. I saw some men there,but there were a great many in the tops.
 
 
Q: From the few men you saw on the deck of the enemy's ship,, had captain Lambert's intention succeeded in laying on board, have you reason to believe it would have been successful?
A: Yes, I have.
 
Q: Was you ever in action before?
A:  Yes I have.