East Indiaman stats

I am currently making a spreadsheet showing the stats of the ship class available for the game, it will include in time 3d builds.
But for now I need some assistance, I only purchased one of the models, the Bertin/ Berryer, can someone give me the gunnery stats, action stats and musketry stats for the other two models please.
Are the stats for Duc du Duras and Dauphan the same or any difference. I know Ares published the merchant stats but I am after the militarised ones.
Appreciate the help here

Here you go Chris.

Great, thanks Rob, do you have the Bonhomme R also?
Also once I have completed the French would you mind casting your eye over what I done and give your thoughts please

Be delighted Chris.
I will send the R flie tomorrow.
Did you ever have any luck with a supply of ship bases?
Good night to you sir.

Rob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capn Duff

Great, thanks Rob, do you have the Bonhomme R also?
Also once I have completed the French would you mind casting your eye over what I done and give your thoughts please

---

Chris, be sure you know which side you want--the weaker side of BHR is the historical version, the stronger is what Jones had wanted her to be but couldn't get the guns.

Hi Db, its both sides that I will be putting in, but with the annotation you mention. Also once I completed the French section would you also mind running your eye over the list and give me your comments please.

Chris, get my email from Bligh and shoot me a note. I'll set you up with the historical data I have from BWAS and FWAS, but I think a lot of the Ares numbers were just straight-up MSU.

I personally would not index the stronger BHR, because there's no real empirical data behind it other than looking at how many guns theoretically COULD have been crammed into the available space and my best guesses trying to get into JPJ's head.

On the question of ship bases, I've been experimenting with a cheap, cheerful but effective solution. 5mm foamcore cut to the correct dimensions (its just about the right thickness), then use sellotape or similar to wrap the exposed foam edges, wrapping the tape over the top and bottom of the base and on the top face at least ensure the overlap is sufficient to extend under the ship card when thats stuck in place. Fold carefully (hospital corners :happy:). Paint the assemblage dark blue. Then print the ship card, laminate of you wish and stick in position on top. Simples, cost effective (one sheet of foamcore will probably be more than you ever need) and looks great.

I not heardfrom the people I been speaking to, but will drop them a mail tomorrow toask for an update

Thanks Chris.
Meantime here are your BR stats.Rob.

I thought these may be of use Chris. I unearthed my book "A world for the taking" all on the ships of the HEIc a couple of days ago when I was in the loft looking for a spare JR box to put my American Fleet into. The book is by E Keble Chatterton ISBN978-1-934757-43-7

Rob.

Are those lengths Keel or Deck, though? HEIC also liked to reuse names a heckuva lot...

According to three decks, the 1797 Ganges is 181.5ft GD, 148.67ft keel, 1502BM, with 30 12lb guns 'as commissioned'.

David, Threedecks isn't always 100% reliable though. Ares uses it as a "backup" when better primary sources or research like Rif Winfield's isn't available.

1502 BM isn't consistent with something smaller than a 42 gun establishment ship though... but is consistent with something of the general form of a large heavy frigate. As is a 30 gun gundeck.

It is also reasonable that the 'chartered tonnage' - what is available for cargo be lower than the calculated tonnage, (which is an 'average' used as a rule of thumb for taxation of merchant shipping in general service, and for rough comparison of ships and other vessels beyond merely their "number of guns", which is a flexible and mutable characteristic - often set by custom and fashion, rather than by what will 'carry'), if this is of a finer 'frigate form' than a fat bellied merchant.

EIC ships were sometimes bought/leased as naval vessels when need was high and time short, as they were pseudo military vessels (even if armed en-flute), with a desirability for a balance of cargo, crew and crew stores favouring profit (but not eliminating self defence) in their EIC standard fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bligh

I thought these may be of use Chris. I unearthed my book "A world for the taking" all on the ships of the HEIc a couple of days ago when I was in the loft looking for a spare JR box to put my American Fleet into. The book is by E Keble Chatterton ISBN978-1-934757-43-7

Rob.

---

Based on these charts, I would be comfortable with one large sculpt covering everything from Earl Talbot up. The question then becomes where we split the smaller ships...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lieste

1502 BM isn't consistent with something smaller than a 42 gun establishment ship though... but is consistent with something of the general form of a large heavy frigate. As is a 30 gun gundeck.

It is also reasonable that the 'chartered tonnage' - what is available for cargo be lower than the calculated tonnage, (which is an 'average' used as a rule of thumb for taxation of merchant shipping in general service, and for rough comparison of ships and other vessels beyond merely their "number of guns", which is a flexible and mutable characteristic - often set by custom and fashion, rather than by what will 'carry'), if this is of a finer 'frigate form' than a fat bellied merchant.

EIC ships were sometimes bought/leased as naval vessels when need was high and time short, as they were pseudo military vessels (even if armed en-flute), with a desirability for a balance of cargo, crew and crew stores favouring profit (but not eliminating self defence) in their EIC standard fit.

---

1500 BM is very light, but the dimensions are very close to a 74-gun SOL. Typically, I would say a navalized EIM comes in one rating below a purpose-built man-o-war of similar size, except for the ships Antoine Groignard designed for the French Compagnie des Indes when he *knew* they were financially failing so he designed them for quick-change into fully functional naval warships (several made up the backbone of Suffren's squadron in the Indian Ocean) so that the FCI could recover something to pay its bills (and pay HIM!) by transferring them to the Crown.

Compare older 1789 HEIC->HMS Hindostan (the one in the chart above is 1796; the older ship was bought in as HMS Hindostan 1795) with the similar Portland class... Dimensions in meters.

Ship	Rating	BM	LGD	Keel	Beam	LD	UD	QD-FC
1789 HEIC Hindostan and similar	56	1250	48.77	40.25	12.83	28x18#	26x32#crde	2x18#crde
1770 Portland (most UK 50's similar)	50	1044	44.5	36.28	12.34	22x24#	22x12#	6x6# plus 2x24#crde & 8x12#crde

Hindostan is very close to a 64-gun SOL in size but armed more in keeping with a super-sized Roebuck 44. Also, remember that typical HEIC practice was only to arm one full deck and part of a second (QD+FC counting as one "partial deck" option) at most.

Working that way would certainly cover a multitude of sins DB, and make it more likely that a manufacturer would warm to the idea of producing the moulds, printer data or whatever. Taking that into account would it be sensible to devide the smaller ships into two or just run with one average sized spin off? My own feelings would say at the least two, but as the bulk of players, who are not as accurate in their requirement as we are, just want a token size ship and do not count the buttons on the Captain's coat at that scale, would it not be safer to run with one size fits all for the smaller ships as well?

Rob.

You could probably fake the four major size groups with a 32 or 38 frigate, a 44 to 50 two-decker, a 64 and a 74 SOL. Just need to sand down and fill in the LD guns on the two-deckers...

We would need to watch the sail patterns of the MoW when turning them into HEIC because merchantmen did not set Royals as a rule.
Rob.

There is that, but easier to rework masts/sails than fab a hull from scratch.

The 'normally presented' BM for HBMS, would give a slightly shorter gun-deck length for 1502, on further investigation this should calculate at 175'4" for the recorded 43'6" beam. (President for reference is 175', 157'10" (keel) and 44'4" beam... 1576 BM )
The 181'6" could be interpreted as hull length OA or some other 'wandering' stat poorly defined.

This is quite distinctive, and different from e.g. a 74 gun (Canada 170', 138'1", 46'9" - 1605 BM), 64 gun ship (Anson - 159'6", 130'1.5", 44' 5.25"), a 50 gun ship (146', 119'9", 40'6" - BM 1044 77/94)

OAL would be my suspicion... somehow when we were researching Constitution a wire got crossed and she was scaled to 190' for main deck rather than OAL. Bad news for Old Ironsides accuracy, good news is you have a Razee USS Independence right out of the box. (Too bad she's 20 years too late for the game...)

Most of this discussion is oriented more at casual folks than Plank Counters, though... I'm actually considering replacing all of my Ares Meregildos and Nepomuceno models with Henry's because even though Purisima Concepcion has some subtle differences from Meregildos it's close enough in size and engineering that Rif Winfield referred to the taken San Josef and Salvador del Mundo as near-sisters.

181'6 vs 174'4 looks a bit short for LOA, possibly deck length on spardeck/f'csle-qtr deck?

Without a drawing, interpretation is speculative, but she looks as if she could be like a hull form copied from one of the recently captured large French frigates - from which both the 1813 Java and the Northamptons and United States took their design parameters, if not exact details.

Armed en-flute she would have been able to use a smaller crew and carry more cargo than as a Frigate, but would still have carried less than a two decker - which seems to be shown in her contract tonnage being 300 tons below her BM, while more traditionally formed HEIC ships toward the lower part of the list have contract and registered tonnage the same.

Only my interpretation from the L/B and contract/BM values, and comparison to the whole set of RN vessels by class leader from 1689 to 1825 (and a similar set of US (smaller list) and French (similar list of fewer types, mostly larger hulls).

Take a look at Jacques Boux's Pourvoyeuse class--two were built for the French Navy, don't recall if either was captured, then two more improved versions were commercially built, one became a merchant flute and the other Indien aka SCS South Carolina. Java and Guerriere were William Doughty iterating and improving on the existing Humphreys Superfrigate, a line of "evolutionary but not revolutionary" design development that continued until the move to steam power. Supposedly Humphreys was influenced by Indien in starting the Superfrigate design, but scaled it up and made a few proportional changes.

EDIT: My bad, working from memory, Pestel was a later engineer who his most memorable work was a variation in Sane's Hebe family tree.

I meant "The Surveyors'" Java of 1815, not the (broadly similar) USS Java.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamondback

I'm actually considering replacing all of my Ares Meregildos and Nepomuceno models with Henry's because even though Purisima Concepcion has some subtle differences from Meregildos it's close enough in size and engineering that Rif Winfield referred to the taken San Josef and Salvador del Mundo as near-sisters.

---

I intend to replace the Nepo and sisters for my Trafalgar ships with Henry’s, from previous threads Bahama is correct as I understood it so she will remain unchanged, may look into some 64s that I can use for the Spanish I replace

Even Bahama *should* have approximate size parity with Bellona.

Just noticed, so has anyone else mentioned this before, but the Bertin stats show gunnery of 0-1-0 then 0-1-1 for the last two box’s while Duc du Duras has 0-1-0 and 0-1-0.
I am assuming the last box on Bertin should be 0-1-0

I'd say that's an Error.

Must say that I never noticed, but have not used the Indiamen in any other role than stalking horses, so they never got to loose that many points in any of my games. They were usually just being defended or surrendering to overwhelming force.

Rob.