But it did occur...USS United States vs HMS Macedonian...and as far as Bainbridge goes, we've discussed his competence before.
It may be just easier to replace the whole gunnery system with something home grown.
Printable View
Seems fair!
I think if you look at the larger fleet battles, especially in the 18th century, you'll see that the engagements were at longer ranges, of course they weren't always decisive either!
Some of the effectiveness at longer range also depended on the sea state, very calm at Trafalgar and thus more hits at longer range (or damage to the rigging in this case).
Part of the reason for this is the difficulty of manoeuvring a long line of ships effectively. And this is still an issue today. I was involved in an exercise with another navy which included a squadron in line astern engaging a target. Despite several attempts the rearward ships were unable to engage the target at all due to having to conform to the manoeuvres of the squadron as a whole. Poor "tail end charlie" had to sit for over an hour until the serial ran out and we moved on to the next phase of the operation watching the leaders having fun whilst they couldn't bring their weapons to bear.
Shouldn't this thread be in the "House Rules" forum? Just sayn' :hmmm:
Yes of course it should :happy:
Its in there right?
Now it is. Thanks David! :beer: What about the other thread started in "The Chippy Shop" forum - the Howitzer thread?
Just trying to be ship shape and Bristol fashion! :steer:
Rodger's _The Command of the Ocean_ mentions a British ship (_Defence_?) which took a single hit from a Combined Fleet shot in one of the fighting tops -- the estimation of how far over the firing ship had to be heeled, and how far away it was, in order to accomplish this suggests this hit was what the Mythbusters like to call "Plausible -- but unlikely". :)
And as noted: Longer-range engagements tended to be less decisive; it was the "knife-fight in a phone booth" where the results appeared. (What was it Nelson told his captains? :) )
when playing FLoB and other rules in the past it has been interesting seeing the approach taken by different players - those who open fire at long range to start causing (limited) damage early, and those who double shot with a touch of grape for good measure, hold their fire to preserve any initial broadside bonusses and try to get up close and personal for a devastating stern rake as their opening shot. If you are playing with decent morale rules against a flakey enemy it can make for a quick victory if done just right.
Actually, I just saw an intriguing theory about Andrea's numbers, which gave me an idea...
Per another poster, the gun numbers are broadside weight in pounds, rounded to nearest 100 and divided by 100. What I'd propose, IF this is correct, is we add up the gun and carronade weights and figure out their draw values separately, then add the CRDE broadside to the guns at S and subtract at L.
By this logic, looking at HMS Victory as an example...
1765 as-built would see a broadside of 1032# from guns, 0 from carronades. Short, Medium, Long standard effect. Full broadside 10 S, 10 M, 10 L.
1779 rearm is 1032# guns, 48# carronades. Carronade weight insignificant, stats unchanged.
1781 rearm is 1032# guns, 80# carronades. Enough CRDE weight for 1 broadside unit. Full broadside 11 S, 10 M, 9 L.
1783 rearm is 1068# guns, 110# carronades. Full broadside 12 S, 11 M, 10 L.
1793 rearm is 1068# guns, 32# carronades. Disregard carronades, full broadside is 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1803 rearm is 1080# guns, 32# carronades. Gun gain over 1793 insignificant, still 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1805 Trafalgar fit is 1080# guns, 68# carronades. Gain of 1 CRDE draw over 1803. Broadside 12 S, 11 M, 10 L.
Simple and straightforward enough? Also might be good for creating Custom Card logs to give ships a little more variety and "uniqueness" if it works.
Quote:
then add the CRDE broadside to the guns at S and subtract at L.
Why subtract at L? If I had a ship that scored a broadside of 8, and then the ship was refitted and given additional carronades that boosted this to a 9 at S why would I reduce its long range firepower if the long range guns were unchanged? :question:
Fair question--my first thought was to give it as a bonus with full value at Short and half-value rounded up at Medium leaving base guns only at Long, but then I wanted to try for something simpler like what Da Boss had suggested while still tacking toward better fit for historical proportions.
Done this way, the stats above would change to...
1765 as-built full broadside 10 S, 10 M, 10 L.
1779 rearm stats unchanged from '65.
1781 rearm full broadside 11 S, 11 M, 10 L.
1783 rearm full broadside 12 S, 12 M, 11 L.
1793 rearm full broadside is 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1803 rearm still 11 S, 11 M, 11 L.
1805 Trafalgar fit broadside 12 S, 12 M, 11 L.
Not sure it makes it simpler, but it does make it more questionable :salute:
Second option I outlined sound better?
Yup :happy:
I like the methodology here, can't speak to if that's how they came up with the stats or not!
I'd like to see various ships worked up like this to see how much it changes things. How does it work when you start to get ships with full decks of carronades on them? Does it make some of the heavier frigates who had a significant amount of carronades too vicious? Interesting and simple system, which could yield a lot more variety in the ships (won't know until we work out the numbers for a few more ships).
So looking at one of the heavier frigates out there who carried a significant number of carronades, took a look at an Endymion class 40-gun fifth rates (as designed).
As designed it was equipped with - 28x24pdrs on her upper deck, 16x32pdr carr on her quarterdeck, 2x9pdrs and 4x32pdr carr on her forecastle.
So that would mean she throws 410# of cannon shot, and 640# of carronades. So would that equate to something like 7S / 7M /4L?
If I'm understanding your formula correctly, I'd end up with something in that neighborhood I believe. I just took 400/100 for long, 600/100 and split it between short and medium (adding to what the cannons gave it)? I couldn't figure out the rationale above for when you bumped only short or short and medium, so I just split the adding of carronade weight between the two range bands - 3S and 3M added to the 4 from the cannons.
MH, basically I figured the carronades would be half-use at medium, so Endymion would be more like 10S (4 cannon, 6 carronade), 7M (4 cannon, 3 carronade), 4L (cannon only).
Even if the 1 chit=100# formula is off, we can adjust it proportionally to fit whatever the chits drawn/lbs. shot-weight ratio is.
OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll probably look at a few more ships tonight, just to see how the model works a bit more.
I like that carronade armed ships do get fairly deadly at close range, but that's how I feel ships with carronades over cannons should perform.
I think I'll look at a few more heavier frigates, some 32's, then maybe look at some of the big boys of the line.
For comparison, pre- and post-"carronade crazy" USS Essex:
Before: 26x12# = 156# (2 chits), 16x24#crde = 192# (2 chits), 4 S/3 M/2 L.
After: 6x12# = 36# (0 chits), 40x32#crde = 640# (6 chits), 6 S/3 M/0 L.
After I get some laundry started, I'll see about finding some pre-/post-carronade variants of Wave 1 sculpts, post those and we'll see what the deviation is between "assumed formula" and "SGN standard stats".
OK, picked up Winfield's book and started at the beginning with first rates - found a first rate that was fairly heavily carronade armed, HMS Hibernia.
As designed, she carried 32x32pdrs on her lower deck, 32x24pdrs on her middle deck, 34x18pdrs on her upper deck, 12x32pdr carr on her quarterdeck, 2x18pdr + 4x32pdr carr on her forecastle, and 6x18pdr carr.
Cannon weight = 1,220#, Carronade weight = 310#
So that puts her at roughly - 15S / 14M / 12L
Going back to some of the middle weight ships, I took a look at some of the 74 gun rasee's that were cut down to 58 gun fourth rates and ended up with a lot of carronades. Looked at the Majestic, Saturn, and Goliath as examples.
As designed they were 28x32pdr on lower deck, 28x42pdr carr on upper deck, and 2x12pdr on forecastle.
Cannon weight = 460#, carronade weight = 588#
Which gives us - 11S / 8M / 5L
In trying to "analyze" your formula, I'm really trying to push its boundaries. Find those ships where you go, heck, that doesn't seem right at all. The problem I'm seeing is that this 58-gun fourth rate throws out as much short range firepower as what you calculated for the Victory at many points in her career. So this definitely starts to push the boundary of - does this feel right?
For ranges, I don't know what David was thinking, but I'd think C/D = S, 1/2 ruler = M, full ruler = L should work.
1777 Concorde as-designed: 26x F12# plus 6x F6# = 188 Engl # broadside = 2 S/2 M/2 L.
Concorde as recommissioned into RN: 26x12# plus 6x6# = 174# broadside = same.
Concorde 1793 rearm: 26x12# = 156#, 6x24# crde = 72#, broadside = 3 S/3 M/2 L.
Courageuse 1794 rearm: 26x F12# plus 6x F6# = 188 Engl #, 2x F36# obusier = ???. Haven't figured out how to tackle these...
Hermione 1789 rearm: 26x F12# plus 8x F6# = 194# broadside = 2S/2 M/2 L.
1777 Charmante "Side B cards", as-designed same as Concorde.
HMS Unite, as recommissioned into RN: 26x12# +6x6# = 174#, 4x24#crde = 48#. Insignificant carronade weight, so still 2 S/2 M/2 L.
Temeraire 74's, I'm just going to start with the ingame ships unless I find some diverse variant armaments. F_# is weight in French livre, I've converted final weights to Avordupois/Imperial, and after the "reference design" I'm grouping by expected gun-power.
Baseline armament is 28x F36# plus 30x F18# plus 16x F8#, total 904 Engl #. 9 S/9 M/9 L.
HMS Belleisle, 1800 arm: 30x32# + 30x24# + 4x9# = 858#, carronades 14x32# + 8x24# = 320#, for 12S/10M/9L.
1791 Redoutable, Trafalgar arm & Veteran, 1803 arm: 28x F36# + 30x F24# + 16x F8# = 1003#, 4x F36# crde = 78#, broadside 11 S/10 M/10 L.
1798 UK Northumberland variant, design spec: 30x32# + 30x24# + 6x18# = 894#, carronades 12x32# + 6x18# = 246#, for 11S/10M/9L.
Suffren, 1806 arm (F#, 1.079 Avdp #): 28x36 + 30x18 + 14x8, carronades 10x36, score again 11S/10M/9L.
HMS Impetueux, 1796 arm: 30x32 + 34x18, carronades 18x32 + 6x18, score 11S/10M/8L.
HMS Tigre, date unknown: 28x32 + 34x18, carronades 4x68 + 12x32 + 6x18, score 11S/9M/8L.
HMS Pompee, 1795 arm: 30x32 + 30x18, carronades 16x32 + 8x18, score 11S/9M/8L.
HMS Spartiate, 1803 arm and HMS Genereux, 1800 arm: 28x32# + 34x18# = 754#, 20x32#crde = 320#, broadside is 11 S/9 M/8 L.
HMS Chatham, date unknown: 28x32 + 28x24 + 6x12, carronades 12x32 + 6x18. Stats 11S/9M/8L.
HMS Pompee, date unknown: 30x32# +30x18#, carronades 16x32 + 6x18. Another 11S/9M/8L.
1798 Achille copy design: 30x32 + 36x18, carronades 12x32 + 6x18. Again 11S/9M/8L.
Scipion, 1805 arm: 30x36 + 30x18 + 20x8, carronades 2x18. Carronades discounted by insignificance, 10S/10M/10L.
Hercule, 1797 arm; Magnanime, 1803 arm; Duguay Trouin, 1805 arm: 28x36 + 30x18 + 16x8, crde's 4x36. 10S/9M/9L.
HMS Scipion, 1805 post-cap rearm; HMS Implacable, 1806 arm; HMS Mont Blanc, undated: 30x32, 30x18, 4x12. Crde's 14x32. 10S/9M/8L.
HMS Genoa, undated: 28x32, 30x18, 6x12. Crde's 14x32. 10S/9M/8L.
HMS Donegal, undated: 30x32, 30x18, 16x12. Crde's 8x32. 10S/9M/8L.
HMS Abercrombie and HMS Marengo, both undated: 30x32, 30x18, 10x12. Crde's 10x32. 10S/9M/8L.
HMS Rivoli, undated: 28x32, 32x18, 2x12. Crde's 12x32, 6x18. 10S/9M/7L.
HMS Maida, 1807 arm: 64x24 (regular and Gover's combined). Crde's 14x24. 9S/9M/8L.
HMS Donegal, 1802 arm: 30x32, 30x18, 16x12. Crde's 2x32, 6x18. 9S/9M/8L.
HMS Hercule, 1802 arm: 60x24 (reg/Gover's mixed), crde's 14x24. Basically HMS Maida with two less guns per full gundeck. 9S/8M/7L.
Tabled by obusier question: Spanish Ferme, 1793 arm (Spanish lb.); America, 1794 arm; 1803 Suffren and 1805 Argonaute.
1773 Amazon 32's...
As-designed 26x12# + 6x6# = 174#, 6x18# = 54#. 3 S/3 M/2 L.
HMS Castor 1808 arm: 2x12, 2x6. Guns all but useless by total throw. Crde's 28x32. Broadside 5S/2M/0L.
Slade 74's...
As-designed Bellona: 28x32# + 28x18# + 18x9# = 781# broadside. Game stats 8 S/8 M/8 L.
EDIT 1806 Goliath: 28x24# (lower) +32x24# Gover (upper, QD & FC) = 720#, 14x24#crde = 168#, stats 9S/8M/7L.
EDIT 2 1782-92 Egmont: 28x68#crde (lower) +28x42#crde (upper) + 12x24#crde = 1684# crde broadside, stats 17S/9M/0L.
EDIT 3 1805 Resolution: 28x32# + 28x18# + 2x9# = 709#, 16x32#crde = 256#, stats 10S/9M/7L.
Actually, those kind of numbers make sense given the conventional wisdom... scary-effective for turning hull to toothpicks and crew to hamburger at Halitosis Range, but easily outreached at longer ranges--again, this would fit how Essex's denouement played out IIRC, keep a distance and whittle 'em down while staying safely out of range. And I seem to recall Victory inflicted a nasty hit on a smaller ship at Trafalgar by a stern-rake with just ONE 68# carronade hit...
Okay, let's see if I have this straight.
Constitution: 32x24#=384, 20x32#crde=320 Broadside is 7S / 5M / 4L
Guerriere: 30x18# + 2x12# =282, 16x32#crde=256 Broadside is 6S / 4M / 3L
;
Got it... :) Gun counts are total, then divide by two for guns in a broadside.
USS United States with her 42#crde would have been quite an opponent with a broadside of 8S / 6M / 4L
* For short range on United States I added up the pounds which equaled 822 instead of adding up the factors 5 (462) short and 4 (360) for long which would have given her 9.
Aubrey's HMS Surprise would have numbers somewhat like the USS Essex:
2x4#=0, 34x32#=544 Broadside is 5S / 3M / 0L
I haven't received the game yet, but are there any rules for heavy weather rendering the lower gun decks unusable and cutting the gunnery factor for the three and four deckers?
I'd also expect 74's and larger to have that lower-deck issue, maybe 64's and the midsize two-deckers like Serapis too.
Using Diamondbacks's system, the advantage that carronade armed British ships often had over their French equivalents can be seen. This is actually the same ship, the French corvette Unité rearmed and renamed HMS Surprise after capture.
HMS Surprise: 2x4#=0, 34x32#=544 Broadside is 5S / 3M / 0L
Unité: 24x8# + 8x4#=112# Broadside is 1S / 1M / 1L
Just wondering--why did throw weight play such a big role in determining destructive potential, vis-a-vis velocity. I seem to recall from high school physics that kinetic energy = mass * velocity ^2. So what made large/slow projectiles more damaging than fast/small ones?
Fred, a good question about an argument that rages to this day, though the modern incarnation is us .45 (handgun)/.308 (rifle) snobs against those deluded 9mm (pistol)/5.56mm (rifle) cultists. LOL
I know this... if my options are to be hit by a pin moving at relativistic velocity, a .22LR, a .45ACP or an Indy 500 racer at track speed, that order's my "ranked preferences" from "least unpleasant" to "most".
I would also expect that heavier projectiles were favored using inertia to keep the projectile on a relatively more accurate flight path, and that after a while the weight of several full broadsides rolling around your decks could have adverse impacts. David, about how many pounds of added crap rolling around would you think it might take to make capsizing or stability problems more likely?
I doubt any ship was made unstable by being peppered by round shot, however heavier round shot would create more and larger splinters and even travelling at low speed can do catastophic damage. In reading of Napoleonic battles on land I recall several accounts of a foot being lost to a cannonball that was bouncing quite slowly along the ground. It is about momentum and surface area and being able to transfer the momentum to damage the target. A very small super high velocity particle will go through and through but impart less damage to the receiver than a larger slower one.
Dan has it right there. Kinetic energy is only really useful in a round if you can effectively couple that KE into the target. Low velocity rounds would bounce off of "plug" in the target (which was an issue with explosive shells up until the 1860s as the fuse would often be plugged or dislodged and rendered ineffective). High velocity rounds would tend to punch through - think "Tom and Jerry" cookie cutters - causing some spalling or splintering behind; slower rounds tend to cause "scabbing" in steel plates and bigger fragments over a wider extent of the panel that the round is passing through; so in many cases the lower velocity round actually has a greater effect when looked at from at a fragmentation perspective.