Cut down / Razeed ships

[shipman]

Hi, I'd be interested to find out which 90/100 gun ships were cut down from 3 to 2 gun decks and if there are any decent illustrations and or models to be found. If this appeal turns anything useful I'd consider letting my curiosity run over onto the work bench. Searching the forums hasn't been successful.

[Mark P]

Hi Shipman;

 

The first one to spring to mind is the Royal William,  which never actually sailed as a three-decker,  and was eventually cut down to a two-decker (I think with 80 guns)

 

Look her up.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[shipman]

Thanks for a quick response Mark, I'll check that out. I am aware of museum models as a 3 decker, you've surprised me.

My best to you

[malachy]

Blenheim, launched as a 90 in 1761, was cut down to a 74 in 1801. There's a profile plan showing the alterations (without the round bow, though) in the NMM collection.

[dafi]

Have a look for Alexander and his Anson. he is preparing a second set of plans that shows it as razé.

 

https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/828-64-gun-ship-anson-build-in-1781-in-plymonth/&do=findComment&comment=414569

 

http://zope.mein-media.de/meinmedia/anson64/plans/index.html

 

XXXDAn

Edited March 29, 2018 by dafi

[druxey]

Also:

 

Elephant, 1786, razeed 1819

Marlborough, 1732, razeed 1761

Royal William 1719, razeed c.1756

[shipman]

Thanks for the heads up guys, I'll be delving into your suggestions.

dafi !!! I'm honoured with this tenuous contact. I've sent you a couple of e-mails recently; wishing to order your sheet of brass ringbolts and hooks. Unfortunately I've had no response. Must be doing something wrong (wouldn't surprise me).

[Talos]

There are also the five broadened Caledonia-class 1st rates that were cut down to 89 gun two-deckers when they were converted into screw steamers in 1858.

 

HMS Neptune

HMS Trafalgar

HMS Saint George

HMS Waterloo

HMS Royal William (never commissioned as a steamer, but was converted)

 

HMS London got the same, cut down from a 120-gun first rate to an 89-gun steamer.

 

HMS Royal Frederick of the Queen-class was as well.

 

HMS Prince Regent (converted to a 92-gun sailing ship in the 1840s)

 

HMS Boyne (cut down to a 76-gun third rate in the 1820s)

 

HMS Ocean (cut down to an 80-gun third rate in 1820)

 

HMS Windsor Castle (cut down to 74 in 1813)

 

HMS Atlas (cut down to 74 in 1802)

 

 

 

[uss frolick]

Let's not forget the USS Independence, 74, of 1813, a ship so badly altered from her design, that they had to caulk her lower ports shut while crossing the Atlantic on her only cruise. But after she was razeed, she became one the navy's favorite and  best performing frigates. She lasted until about 1913. 

[BANYAN]

and.... HMS Nelson (1814) which was subsequently transferred to the Colony of Victoria.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[shipman]

Har Har, uss frolick.

I did read somewhere sometime, that it was common practice to caulk gun port lids shut in heavy weather, which if you look at these lids they often have a small 'port' lid in the middle with that distinctive horseshoe hinge, presumably to gain a little ventilation.

It's hard to imagine, but all these sailing ships were relatively small compared to ships these days and you know how even large modern ships can be thrown about like the proverbial cork in a big storm.

Can't remember how near the water 'Victory's' lower gun ports were, but it could have been only about foot or so when fully loaded. Crikey!

Had another thought today....when did hammock nettings/cradles come into common use?

And is there any evidence to suggest the open waists had some sort of canvass covering during heavy weather. Again, in a storm, they must have taken regular green seas over the bulwarks. Sailors were seriously tough then, and there was a significant number discharged with insanity. Truly a different world.

I also believe it was common to rig nets over the open decks, to catch any falling tackle/debris, especially during combat. When was the last time that you saw that feature on a model?

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this post. Much appreciated.

[Talos]

On 3/30/2018 at 5:29 PM, uss frolick said:

Let's not forget the USS Independence, 74, of 1813, a ship so badly altered from her design, that they had to caulk her lower ports shut while crossing the Atlantic on her only cruise. But after she was razeed, she became one the navy's favorite and  best performing frigates. She lasted until about 1913. 

He specifically asked about three-deckers cut down to two-deckers, not two-deckers cut down to frigates. 

 

Now there were proposals to cut down Pennsylvania into a two-decker. In an 1845 pamphlet called "The Big Guns" by a guy with a total 68-pdr fetish, he proposed cutting down Pennsylvania to a 100-gun 68-pdr ship with a double broadside of 6800 pounds, compared to 140 32-pdrs equal to 4480 pounds. He also proposed replacing the armament of the other ships, 60 guns in the 74s, 30 guns in the large frigates, 18 guns in the razee sloops, 14 in the large sloops, 12 and 10 in the smaller sloops, etc, etc. Doesn't specify if it's the 63cwt Paixhans gun or more like the British 68-pdr of 95cwt (the US Navy has their own version of this, the 64-pounder shot gun of 106cwt). He also advocated building 60-gun two-decker frigates displacing 2600 tons, and 30-gun sloops displacing 1300 tons.

 

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=yK1WAAAAcAAJ

 

 

On 3/30/2018 at 7:08 PM, shipman said:

Har Har, uss frolick.

I did read somewhere sometime, that it was common practice to caulk gun port lids shut in heavy weather, which if you look at these lids they often have a small 'port' lid in the middle with that distinctive horseshoe hinge, presumably to gain a little ventilation.

It's hard to imagine, but all these sailing ships were relatively small compared to ships these days and you know how even large modern ships can be thrown about like the proverbial cork in a big storm.

Can't remember how near the water 'Victory's' lower gun ports were, but it could have been only about foot or so when fully loaded. Crikey!

Had another thought today....when did hammock nettings/cradles come into common use?

And is there any evidence to suggest the open waists had some sort of canvass covering during heavy weather. Again, in a storm, they must have taken regular green seas over the bulwarks. Sailors were seriously tough then, and there was a significant number discharged with insanity. Truly a different world.

I also believe it was common to rig nets over the open decks, to catch any falling tackle/debris, especially during combat. When was the last time that you saw that feature on a model?

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this post. Much appreciated.

 

A foot is way too low to the water. Even Vasa had more! Victory had over four feet, one foot would mean the lower gundeck itself would be below the waterline (it's about two feet below the lower sill of the gunport).

 

Waists were covered up by canvas all the way back to Elizabethan times (1500s). Though not filled in, you can see the waist racks for the hammocks that would be covered in canvas in the center of this frigate painting from the 1700s. There were lifelines sailors could rig to help stay on deck as well.

 

[shipman]

Hi Talos,

I admit I was wrong in my assumption as to how low Victories' gun-port sills were. At launch they were 4'6'' above the water. However, at launch the ship wasn't complete by a long way. No guns, many fixtures and fitting absent, no masts or cordage, minimal ballast, no stores or crew. All of which adds up to a not inconsiderable tonnage. Without ploughing through a heap of books, I would suggest the lower gun deck must have been pretty close to the waterline at full load; the sills being only 2 feet above the deck, so that is only 6 inches above my original assumption of perhaps 1'6'' above water. The sea is rarely flat. I will attempt to find the actual figures.

Thanks for the illustration showing hammocks stowed in the waist, a familiar feature. When did this practice originate?

A single decker such as this would have been even more prone to having heavy seas coming over the bulwarks. Once aboard the biggest and most obvious drainage rout would have been straight through the proportionally massive open waist and directly into the rest of the ship.

Bearing in mind the British spent prolonged periods in all weathers blockading French ports and were rarely and reluctantly forced to abandon their duty on station, surely there must have been provision to minimise incoming water, otherwise a ship would surely and rapidly become awash.

I'm enjoying the opportunity for this discourse, and am keen to hear from members with actual deep sea sailing experience on this matter.

Thanks to you and everyone else for humouring my curiosity. To be here is my privilege and pleasure.

[michaelpsutton2]

What frigate is shown in the pic above?

[Talos]

I'm not sure. It's from the collection of the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich and only described in generic terms, the only other info is that it's from the late 18th century (I'd say into the early 19th century even), which fits the fittings, the mizzen spanker, and lack of forecastle bulwarks.

 

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/112664.html

 

I did notice the sweep ports between the gunports, which are rarely seen in depictions of frigates this large and this late.

[druxey]

With all due respect, the freeboard - the distance from waterline to lower gun ports - was between 4' 6" and 5' 0" when fully laden, not at launch. Were this so, the ship, when rigged, armed, provisioned and manned would not make it far out of harbor!

[Talos]

51 minutes ago, druxey said:

With all due respect, the freeboard - the distance from waterline to lower gun ports - was between 4' 6" and 5' 0" when fully laden, not at launch. Were this so, the ship, when rigged, armed, provisioned and manned would not make it far out of harbor!

 

Indeed. Independence, the worst of the first generation American '74s, was said to be totally useless at sea because her lower gunports were only 3'10" from the water amidship when fully loaded with cannons, ammunition, and six months of provisions. There's zero way Victory was less than a foot higher than this when launched empty! Independence /did/ have to sail with her lower ports caulked shut during her time overseas too, Victory never had to.

 

On 4/1/2018 at 4:22 AM, shipman said:

Hi Talos,

I admit I was wrong in my assumption as to how low Victories' gun-port sills were. At launch they were 4'6'' above the water. However, at launch the ship wasn't complete by a long way. No guns, many fixtures and fitting absent, no masts or cordage, minimal ballast, no stores or crew. All of which adds up to a not inconsiderable tonnage. Without ploughing through a heap of books, I would suggest the lower gun deck must have been pretty close to the waterline at full load; the sills being only 2 feet above the deck, so that is only 6 inches above my original assumption of perhaps 1'6'' above water. The sea is rarely flat. I will attempt to find the actual figures.

Thanks for the illustration showing hammocks stowed in the waist, a familiar feature. When did this practice originate?

A single decker such as this would have been even more prone to having heavy seas coming over the bulwarks. Once aboard the biggest and most obvious drainage rout would have been straight through the proportionally massive open waist and directly into the rest of the ship.

Bearing in mind the British spent prolonged periods in all weathers blockading French ports and were rarely and reluctantly forced to abandon their duty on station, surely there must have been provision to minimise incoming water, otherwise a ship would surely and rapidly become awash.

I'm enjoying the opportunity for this discourse, and am keen to hear from members with actual deep sea sailing experience on this matter.

Thanks to you and everyone else for humouring my curiosity. To be here is my privilege and pleasure.

 

For something of the size of a frigate or ship of the line, water coming in over the bow wasn't a major issue. It was for the small open-decked sloops and brigs however. Indeed, the Cherokee-class brigs were often likened to a rock at half-tide because the water kept coming onto the deck in any kind of weather. There were attempts to rectify it, including the Cherokees having a slight upwards kink at the bow, and other sloops like the Cruizers adding in a forecastle platform both to cut down on the water coming in over the deck as well as provide a better area for the sail handlers to work from (and I presume better for handling the anchors too). That's why you'll see plenty of sloops with a forecastle but no quarterdeck. One of the modifications to the Cherokee-class HMS Beagle when she was refit into an exploration ship was to install a low forecastle platform specifically to cut down on the water coming in over the bow. It was only a few feet above deck level, so useless for doing much under it.

[michaelpsutton2]

If you peruse the plans on the NMM website, you will see that for some ships oar ports are not shown on the sheer plans but appear only on the inboard profiles

[shipman]

Guy's, I surrender my sword.

It just goes to show how easy it can be to be mislead by unreliable sources. my original figures came from a quick Google search.

Your collective responses have driven me to my dusty bookshelves (really must organise them better).

The first tomes to hand, AOTS Victory and the Ballantyne/Eastland  book of the ship both refer to Slades original intention that the gun port sills should ride 5'3'' fully laden, however, at launch it was this was 9'' lower than expected, giving 4'6''. Google give this figure at launch!

There was concern the ports would have to remain closed in action if a sea was running. Fortunately, Victory never went into combat in anything other than calm water.

Eventually I will unearth the information about caulking port lids in rough weather being common practice. It would seem Victory was a prime candidate for this, but the information didn't refer to this specific ship.

As for water coming on-board, ships weren't always driven into a head sea, big waves came in all directions. Catch a look at the old films of clippers in storms on youtube with decks seriously awash, some of which may have been shot by that doyen Alan Villiers.

My respects, Gentlemen.

[druxey]

Dear Shipman, what you have written is a valuable reminder to us all: primary sources are always better and more reliable than secondary ones!

[Mark P]

Good evening everyone;

 

To throw some light on references to caulking port lids shut,  this was certainly done with some of a certain type of Royal Navy vessel.  I refer to the 80 gun three-decker,  bane of many captains' lives during the first half of the 18th century.  These ships became notorious for their inability to open a lower-deck gunport in any kind of sea.  One admiral complained that his ships were useless,  and unless on a mill-pond would never be able to haul up a port-lid,  and he named at least one ship under his command whose ports had been caulked when she was launched.

 

The 80 gun ships were too short,  too high,  but most importantly could not displace enough water to provide the lift required to raise them far enough out of the water to be usable.  The shipwrights,  however,  stuck doggedly to their guns,  and refused to admit that there was anything wrong with the type even in the face of the most determined criticism from the sea officers. 

 

The situation was resolved by Lord Anson,  First Lord of the Admiralty,  who upon the death of Jacob Acworth,  the long-serving Surveyor of the Navy,  installed Thomas Slade and William Bateley as joint Surveyors.  They had urgent plans to construct a 74 gun ship, but to try and divert criticism,  for a long time they had to claim that the first 74 was actually a new 70 gun ship.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[shipman]

Just read  'A Frigate of King George' by Brian Vale. Based on the ships logs HMS Doris 42 guns. Page 78; 'to keep out the cold, the lower halves of the gun ports were caulked.....'

I assume if the wind could get in, so could the sea.

On a slightly different tack.......pre WW1, an Admiralty study of average wave height in different sea states. at the lower end of the scale 0-5, waves could be expected up to 8 feet high. No matter the era, the sea is the sea, which sheds a little light on how vulnerable gun ports could be to water exposure.