Wet Navy Ship Design

[atpollard]

timerover51,

I've taken time to think about how to present the following silly questions based on:

Are all of the Marine Power Transmissions going to be dropped or is the screw the only one?

How is someone going to design a battleship similar to the Iowa-Class or a majority of water going vehicles if the screw is dropped?

Strictly my personal preference, but ...
I prefer the High Guard level of detail where the "Power Plant" is x% of the ship and the "Maneuver Drive" is y% of the ship. I liked the MegaTraveller design sequences in general, but the formula are often non-intuitive [therefore difficult to extrapolate for special cases] and the areas of greatest 'detail' often have the greatest difficulty matching reality.

IMHO it is one level of precision too far for general accuracy.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning whartung,

First, my apologies for the late reply,

Perhaps you could posit some replacements to better unbreak the rules, being as you are knowledgable and passionate about the subject (likely more so than the current writer who is content on fixing typesetting rather than rules).

The sfchbryan and timerover51, in my opinion, are both passionate about the subject, however as I mentioned there are issues that need to be resolved before rewriting published works.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning atpollard,

Thanks for the reply,

Strictly my personal preference, but ...
I prefer the High Guard level of detail where the "Power Plant" is x% of the ship and the "Maneuver Drive" is y% of the ship. I liked the MegaTraveller design sequences in general, but the formula are often non-intuitive [therefore difficult to extrapolate for special cases] and the areas of greatest 'detail' often have the greatest difficulty matching reality.

IMHO it is one level of precision too far for general accuracy.

The CT and MT systems are not entirely the same even though there are common elements. CT HG and CT Starships are designed for quick and relatively simple straight forward space going vehicles. MT expands the range of vehicle design to include more than just space vehicles. The simple x%, y%, z% doesn't translate as easily.

One detail in CT Traveller that I've overlooked until recently is that HG has both civilian and military crewing calculated the same. Civilian ships in reality usually don't have the same size crews as warships of the same hull displacement. Of course I haven't looked into the differences but timerover51 might have.

 

[McPerth]

Morning atpollard,

Thanks for the reply,

One detail in CT Traveller that I've overlooked until recently is that HG has both civilian and military crewing calculated the same. Civilian ships in reality usually don't have the same size crews as warships of the same hull displacement. Of course I haven't looked into the differences but timerover51 might have.

Hi Tom,

I'm not sure crew optimal needs for civilian and military ships are different, should they have the same equipement, just that they use to have different needs. Military ships use to have larger crews needs because they use to carry more equipement (electronics, weaponry, helicopters, etc), while civilian ships could need more cabin crew if they carry passengers, tht would ask more than any passengers a military ship carries (that will probably be troops and ask for less commodities).

Aside from those differences, I guess that most engineering and deck crew will have similar optimal needs, just that merchant sips, moved by profit and usually less likely to meet problems, are more likely to go partially understaffed (with less than optimal crewing), while military ships use to have at minimum their full complement (and probably be a little overcrewed, just in case). This is (IMHO) what the different levels of crewing in MgT (core book page 113, not HG crew levels) represents.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello McPerth,

Hi Tom,

I'm not sure crew optimal needs for civilian and military ships are different, should they have the same equipement, just that they use to have different needs. Military ships use to have larger crews needs because they use to carry more equipement (electronics, weaponry, helicopters, etc), while civilian ships could need more cabin crew if they carry passengers, tht would ask more than any passengers a military ship carries (that will probably be troops and ask for less commodities).

Aside from those differences, I guess that most engineering and deck crew will have similar optimal needs, just that merchant sips, moved by profit and usually less likely to meet problems, are more likely to go partially understaffed (with less than optimal crewing), while military ships use to have at minimum their full complement (and probably be a little overcrewed, just in case). This is (IMHO) what the different levels of crewing in MgT (core book page 113, not HG crew levels) represents.

Drat I can't find the material I downloaded or even remember what I used to search the web with so this is from my already suspect memory. Civilian ships need to make money and operate under certain safety regulations. The best I can do is with material I have on hand.

The RMS Titanic with a displacement of 46,329 ton had crew in 1912, per prt.nmm.ac.uk/research/d1.html, of 885 and a passenger capacity of 2,435.

The dreadnought Tegetthoff, built by Austria-Hungary in 1912, per The Illustrated Directory of Warships 1860 to the present day (copyright 2001), displaced 21,595 tons at full load had a complement of 1,087.

The German dreadnought Kaiser completed in 1912, same source as the Tegetthoff, displaced 27,400 ton had a crew of 1,278.

Looking at the crew numbers I'd say there is a small difference between crews.

Of course I will also admit that I'll keep using the HG/Book 2 crew requirements mainly because that I what I've always used.

 

[Hyphen]

NFC falls under the same category as my retypset "4th Edition" MT manuals. It was for my personal use.

Wow, that's always been my dream, to have a redone version of the (my favourite edition) MT rules. I don't suppose thare's a way of getting a copy, provided that I can prove that I own MT?

BTW, have you noticed anything strange about the Naval Guns from the MT article? I tried recreating them via Striker and I couldn't get the numbers to match.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Hyphen,

Wow, that's always been my dream, to have a redone version of the (my favourite edition) MT rules. I don't suppose thare's a way of getting a copy, provided that I can prove that I own MT?

BTW, have you noticed anything strange about the Naval Guns from the MT article? I tried recreating them via Striker and I couldn't get the numbers to match.

Yep, I've noticed that too, of course I also tried in TNE. I haven't tried using BTRC Guns, Guns, Guns yet, which has a conversion method to MT.

 

[Timerover51]

timerover51,

I've taken time to think about how to present the following silly questions based on:

Are all of the Marine Power Transmissions going to be dropped or is the screw the only one?

How is someone going to design a battleship similar to the Iowa-Class or a majority of water going vehicles if the screw is dropped?

As I see, all you should have to do is indicate whether or not your steamship is a side-wheeler, a stern-wheeler, or screw-propelled, and forget about going into detailed design for propellers, side-paddles, or stern-paddles.

For ocean-going ships, it should be either side-paddles or screw propellers, with stern-wheel ships restricted to rivers and small lakes. The big advantage of a stern-wheel ship is that it can be built with minimum draft for use in shallow water areas, but for use on large lakes (I am thinking bodies of water the size of the Great Lakes here) and oceans, the problem of pitching with immediate loss of power and also vulnerability of the stern paddle to wave damage makes them unsuitable. Both a stern-wheeler and a screw-propelled ship can also be pulled directly alongside of a dock, while a paddle-wheel ship has the paddles in the way.

 

[Timerover51]

Hello McPerth,

Hi Tom,

I'm not sure crew optimal needs for civilian and military ships are different, should they have the same equipement, just that they use to have different needs. Military ships use to have larger crews needs because they use to carry more equipement (electronics, weaponry, helicopters, etc), while civilian ships could need more cabin crew if they carry passengers, tht would ask more than any passengers a military ship carries (that will probably be troops and ask for less commodities).

Aside from those differences, I guess that most engineering and deck crew will have similar optimal needs, just that merchant sips, moved by profit and usually less likely to meet problems, are more likely to go partially understaffed (with less than optimal crewing), while military ships use to have at minimum their full complement (and probably be a little overcrewed, just in case). This is (IMHO) what the different levels of crewing in MgT (core book page 113, not HG crew levels) represents.

Drat I can't find the material I downloaded or even remember what I used to search the web with so this is from my already suspect memory. Civilian ships need to make money and operate under certain safety regulations. The best I can do is with material I have on hand.

The RMS Titanic with a displacement of 46,329 ton had crew in 1912, per prt.nmm.ac.uk/research/d1.html, had a crew of 885 and a passenger capacity of 2,435.

The dreadnought Tegetthoff, built by Austria-Hungary in 1912, per The Illustrated Directory of Warships 1860 to the present day (copyright 2001), displaced 21,595 tons at full load had a complement of 1,087.

The German dreadnought Kaiser completed in 1912, same source as the Tegetthoff, displaced 27,400 ton had a crew of 1,278.

Looking at the crew numbers I'd say there is a small difference between crews.

Of course I will also admit that I'll keep using the HG/Book 2 crew requirements mainly because that I what I've always used.

Military ships and civilian ships have massively different crew needs. The Daniel Morrell and the Edmund Fitzgerald were both large Great Lakes bulk carriers, with the Fitz running close to 40,000 tons loaded, and both carried crews of 29. A loaded Liberty ship went about 14,000 tons, and had a crew varying from 38 to 62 (that is from Wikipedia, so I would like to check that more closely), while a WW2 US Navy Cleveland, with a full load displacement of about 14,000 tons had a crew of 1285.

The British, in World War 2, converted a number of bulk grain carriers and oil tankers into what were called Merchant Aircraft Carriers, basically a cargo ship with a flight deck added and carrying 4 Swordfish aircraft. The crews, with air complement of about 40, total 107. Comparably sized purpose-built escort carriers had crews ranging from 555 to 700.

In World War 2, a British Military-class armed trawler, with a coal-fired boiler, built to merchant standards and designed for post-war conversion to a fishing trawler, had a crew of 40. A very comparable US Navy PCE (Patrol Craft Escort), with a Diesel plant, had a crew of 110, but was built to warship standards.

The current US Coast Guard mandated manning standards are here:

http://www.uscg.mil/directives/listing_cim.asp?id=16000-16999

covered in Marine Safety Manual, Volume 3. Those are regarded as overly-generous by many other countries, but that is what a US-flagged ship MUST have to operate.

If you want a better idea of what crew requirements are for current and older ships go here:

http://www.apolloduck.com/

Except for passenger-carrying cruise ships, you will discover that the crew sizes are about the same regardless of the size of the vessel, and that they are a lot less than military ships.

For sailing ships, the disparity between merchant and warships was even greater, with the crew of a sailing merchant ship being based on what was needed to manage the sails, and officer it. If traveling in a hazardous area, it might carry a few extra crew to help with manning whatever self defense guns were carried. A 400 ton, 3-masted whaling ship would carry a crew of about 37 to 40, with about half of them being required to man the whale boats. The 18-gun sloop of war I mentioned in an earlier post would be very comparable in displacement and sail plan, and required a crew of 140.

 

[Timerover51]

BTW, have you noticed anything strange about the Naval Guns from the MT article? I tried recreating them via Striker and I couldn't get the numbers to match.

Rather than using the design sequence, why not simply find the data for an existing gun, and use that, adapting it to MegaTraveller system?

And for his earlier weapons, I am trying to figure out how he has the "Mangronel" as a direct-fire weapon, when one of the other names for that was the "Onager" and it was an indirect fire catapult. Catapult did not throw javelins, ballista and scorpions did, and ballista also were used for stone-throwing. In The Book of the Crossbow, an English noble with a bent for weapons gives detailed instructions on how to build a small catapult/onager/mangonel as he built one.

When it comes to guns and ammunition, I have that covered from circa 1400 to the present, both land and sea, and aircraft guns too. It looks like shells are available at Tech Level 3, or 1800, interesting, given that mortars were using explosive shells shortly after 1600. And it looks like the maximum range for every gun of lower than Tech Level 4 is "very long", or 500 meters. Tech Level 4 is supposed to be circa 1900. The guns that wrecked Fort Sumter in the US Civil War were all firing at ranges in excess of a mile, or 1600 meters or so. The same holds true for Fort Pulaski outside of Savannah, Georgia. The effective range of a British 12 pdr. in the early 1800s was determined to be about 1200 yards, with the US 12 pound smoothbore Napoleon fieldpiece, so widely used in the US Civil War had about the same effective range. The MegaTraveller tables references in the article all stop at 30cm or about 12 inches. Hmmm, that does pose a bit of a problem for a lot of ships.

I also have a detailed US Bureau of Ships study done in 1944 analyzing what it took in terms of torpedoes and aerial bombs to sink a variety of warships that is very handy for quickly determining outcomes.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening timerover51,

Thank you for the clarification.

As I see, all you should have to do is indicate whether or not your steamship is a side-wheeler, a stern-wheeler, or screw-propelled, and forget about going into detailed design for propellers, side-paddles, or stern-paddles.

For ocean-going ships, it should be either side-paddles or screw propellers, with stern-wheel ships restricted to rivers and small lakes. The big advantage of a stern-wheel ship is that it can be built with minimum draft for use in shallow water areas, but for use on large lakes (I am thinking bodies of water the size of the Great Lakes here) and oceans, the problem of pitching with immediate loss of power and also vulnerability of the stern paddle to wave damage makes them unsuitable. Both a stern-wheeler and a screw-propelled ship can also be pulled directly alongside of a dock, while a paddle-wheel ship has the paddles in the way.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening again timerover51,

Thanks for providing the Coast Guard link again, I was going to bring the link over here but failed to find it on the other forum. As usual when I'm searching for something on the forums I couldn't find the right page.

Military ships and civilian ships have massively different crew needs. The Daniel Morrell and the Edmund Fitzgerald were both large Great Lakes bulk carriers, with the Fitz running close to 40,000 tons loaded, and both carried crews of 29. A loaded Liberty ship went about 14,000 tons, and had a crew varying from 38 to 62 (that is from Wikipedia, so I would like to check that more closely), while a WW2 US Navy Cleveland, with a full load displacement of about 14,000 tons had a crew of 1285.

The British, in World War 2, converted a number of bulk grain carriers and oil tankers into what were called Merchant Aircraft Carriers, basically a cargo ship with a flight deck added and carrying 4 Swordfish aircraft. The crews, with air complement of about 40, total 107. Comparably sized purpose-built escort carriers had crews ranging from 555 to 700.

In World War 2, a British Military-class armed trawler, with a coal-fired boiler, built to merchant standards and designed for post-war conversion to a fishing trawler, had a crew of 40. A very comparable US Navy PCE (Patrol Craft Escort), with a Diesel plant, had a crew of 110, but was built to warship standards.

The current US Coast Guard mandated manning standards are here:

http://www.uscg.mil/directives/listing_cim.asp?id=16000-16999

covered in Marine Safety Manual, Volume 3. Those are regarded as overly-generous by many other countries, but that is what a US-flagged ship MUST have to operate.

If you want a better idea of what crew requirements are for current and older ships go here:

http://www.apolloduck.com/

Except for passenger-carrying cruise ships, you will discover that the crew sizes are about the same regardless of the size of the vessel, and that they are a lot less than military ships.

For sailing ships, the disparity between merchant and warships was even greater, with the crew of a sailing merchant ship being based on what was needed to manage the sails, and officer it. If traveling in a hazardous area, it might carry a few extra crew to help with manning whatever self defense guns were carried. A 400 ton, 3-masted whaling ship would carry a crew of about 37 to 40, with about half of them being required to man the whale boats. The 18-gun sloop of war I mentioned in an earlier post would be very comparable in displacement and sail plan, and required a crew of 140.

 

[sfchbryan]

Hello McPerth,



Drat I can't find the material I downloaded or even remember what I used to search the web with so this is from my already suspect memory. Civilian ships need to make money and operate under certain safety regulations. The best I can do is with material I have on hand.

The RMS Titanic with a displacement of 46,329 ton had crew in 1912, per prt.nmm.ac.uk/research/d1.html, of 885 and a passenger capacity of 2,435.

The dreadnought Tegetthoff, built by Austria-Hungary in 1912, per The Illustrated Directory of Warships 1860 to the present day (copyright 2001), displaced 21,595 tons at full load had a complement of 1,087.

The German dreadnought Kaiser completed in 1912, same source as the Tegetthoff, displaced 27,400 ton had a crew of 1,278.

Looking at the crew numbers I'd say there is a small difference between crews.

Of course I will also admit that I'll keep using the HG/Book 2 crew requirements mainly because that I what I've always used.

Warships go into battle, so there will be a need for redundancy that isn't needed on a civilian craft.

Can't really compare the Kaiser & the Tegetthoff - They were both dreadnaughts & they both had 12" guns, but that is the end of the comparisons. The Kaisers had twice the range of the Tegetthoff class for starters. Then there was the fact that the Kaisers had 3 screws & the Tegetthoff had 4. Oh, and your source is wrong about the crew size of the Kaisers - 41 officers, 1043 enlisted swine. Then there is the fact that the Tegetthoffs were designed to fight the Italian Navy & the Kaisers were designed to fight the British Navy.

 

[sfchbryan]

Wow, that's always been my dream, to have a redone version of the (my favourite edition) MT rules. I don't suppose thare's a way of getting a copy, provided that I can prove that I own MT?

BTW, have you noticed anything strange about the Naval Guns from the MT article? I tried recreating them via Striker and I couldn't get the numbers to match.

The naval guns have major issues with both rate of fire and range - they don't match reality. The MT article doesn't take into account that ships have powered hoists as far as rate of fire goes, and the weapons ranges don't match - and then there is the whole fire control issue. The larger guns can fire beyond the horizon, but without radar, they are limited. I went in and changed the charts to match reality

As far as your very own "custom" version of MT - that is why I am posting my templates. Fire up the template in Word and just follow the instructions written into the template.

I have just uploaded the Text portion of the Advanced Character Generation - I can't upload the charts because they won't fit under 195K - nor will they zip under that size.

Let me send a note to the board admin to see if we can get around this - in 2013, a 195K restriction on a .docx is flipping ridiculous.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello sfchbryan,

Thanks for being clear in your reply, mine leaves a lot to be desired.

Warships go into battle, so there will be a need for redundancy that isn't needed on a civilian craft.

Can't really compare the Kaiser & the Tegetthoff - They were both dreadnaughts & they both had 12" guns, but that is the end of the comparisons. The Kaisers had twice the range of the Tegetthoff class for starters. Then there was the fact that the Kaisers had 3 screws & the Tegetthoff had 4. Oh, and your source is wrong about the crew size of the Kaisers - 41 officers, 1043 enlisted swine. Then there is the fact that the Tegetthoffs were designed to fight the Italian Navy & the Kaisers were designed to fight the British Navy.

McPerth indicated that the optimal needs of civilian and military craft are not that far apart. I selected the Kaiser and Tegetthoff to show there was a difference in crew sizes since they were both built around the time of the RMS Titanic. What I failed to include and/or put across was the redundancy you mentioned.

I disagree that my source is wrong, I will concede that the normal crew complement was 1,084 however during the Battle of Jutland the complement was between 1,249 and 1,278 per Rickard, J (25 September 2007), Kaiser Class Dreadnought Battleships , http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_kaiser_class_battleshipsII.html

The following site lists the crew as 1,249 http://www.areamilitar.net/DIRECTORIO/nav.aspx?nn=260

So the complement of the Kaiser can be between 1,084 and 1,278.

 

[Timerover51]

The naval guns have major issues with both rate of fire and range - they don't match reality. The MT article doesn't take into account that ships have powered hoists as far as rate of fire goes, and the weapons ranges don't match - and then there is the whole fire control issue. The larger guns can fire beyond the horizon, but without radar, they are limited. I went in and changed the charts to match reality

For a detailed coverage of World War 2 guns and gun mounts, I would recommend N.J.M. Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War 2, which also picks up a lot of the World War 1 weapons. For older British weapons, there are several possibilities, one of them being Ian Buxton's Big Gun Monitors, while for US guns, there is Norman Friedman's US Naval Weapon Systems. The older editions of Brassey's Naval Annual also have a lot of information, while for older smoothbore guns, I can recommend Jack Coggins' Ships and Seamen of the American Revolution.

 

[Timerover51]

For those interested in older smoothbore ordnance and size of gun crews, Project Gutenberg has a eBook copy of the 1866 US Navy Ordnance Manual available for download. The manual covers the muzzle-loading rifle and smoothbore ordnance used by the US Navy during the Civil War, and does include the gun crew required for the 15" Dahlgren gun mounted in the larger monitors. I have been looking it over and it appears to be a very good copy. I have portions of the manual in my photocopy file.

 

[Timerover51]

In going through available material online that would assist in ship design, I found the following book, by Richard Henry Dana, Jr. (the author of Two Years Before the Mast), THE SEAMAN'S FRIEND; CONTAINING A TREATISE ON PRACTICAL SEAMANSHIP, WITH PLATES, A DICTIONARY OF SEA TERMS; CUSTOMS AND USAGES OF THE MERCHANT SERVICE; LAWS RELATING TO THE PRACTICAL DUTIES OF MASTER AND MARINERS. The book available for download online is the 5th Edition from 1847, with the copyright date of 1841. This would be extremely useful for working up a ship design sequence for sailing ships, specifically merchant ships, but there is also mention of US Navy practice as well. Here is a sample of what is available in the book.

Construction of Vessels.—As merchant vessels of the larger class are now built in the United States, the extreme length of deck, from the after part of the stern-post to the fore part of the stem, is from four and a half to four and three fourths that of the beam, at its widest part. The Damascus, of 700 tons' measurement, built at Boston in 1839, and considered a fair specimen of our best freighting vessels, had 150 feet from stem to stern-post, and 32 feet 6 inches extreme breadth. The Rajah, of 530 tons, built at Boston in 1837, had 140 feet length, and 30 feet beam;—being each in length about four and six tenths their beam.

Tonnage and Carriage of Merchant Vessels.—The amount a vessel will carry in proportion to her tonnage, depends upon whether, and to what extent, she is full or sharp built. A sharp-built vessel of 300 tons' measurement, will carry just about her tonnage of measurement goods. A sharp-built vessel of 200 tons or under would probably carry less than her measurement; if over 400 tons, she would increase gradually to fifty per cent. above her measurement. A sharp-built vessel of 600 tons, is generally rated at 900 tons carriage. A full-built vessel of 300 tons, after the latest model of American freighting vessels, will carry 525 tons, or seventy-five per cent. above her measurement; and one of 500 tons would carry full double her measurement.

For the thickness of the spars, the same book allows for the lower masts one inch and a quarter diameter at the partners, for every three feet of length; and nine tenths in the middle and two thirds under the hounds, for every inch at the partners. For the yards, one inch at the slings, and half an inch at the yard-arms, within the squares, for every four feet of the length. For the breadth of the maintop, one half of the beam, and of the foretop, eight ninths of the maintop.

He has some nice information on lengths of mast and yards as a proportion to the greatest beam of the ship.

Everything being in readiness, the customhouse and other regulations complied with, and the crew on board, the vessel is put under the charge of the pilot to be carried out clear of the land. While the pilot is on board, the master has little else to do than to see that everything is in order, and that the commands of the pilot are executed. As soon as the pilot leaves the ship, the entire control and responsibility is thrown upon the master. When the vessel is well clear of the land, and things are put into some order, it is usual for the master to call all hands aft, and say something to them about the voyage upon which they have entered. After this, the crew are divided into watches. The watches are the divisions of the crew into two equal portions. The periods of time occupied by each part of the crew, while on duty, are also called watches.

There are two watches,—the larboard, commanded by the chief mate, and the starboard, by the second mate. The master himself stands no watch, but comes and goes at all times, as he chooses. The starboard is sometimes called the captain's watch, probably from the fact that in the early days of the service, when vessels were smaller, there was usually but one mate, and the master stood his own watch; and now, in vessels which have no second mate, the master keeps the starboard watch. In dividing into watches, the master usually allows the officers to choose the men, one by one, alternately; but sometimes makes the division himself, upon consulting with his officers. The men are divided as equally as possible, with reference to their qualities as able seamen, ordinary seamen, or boys, (as all green hands are called, whatever their age may be but if the number is unequal, the larboard watch has the odd one, since the chief mate does not go aloft and do other duty in his watch, as the second mate does in his. The cook always musters with the larboard watch, and the steward with the starboard. If there is a carpenter, and the larboard watch is the largest, he generally goes aloft with the starboard watch; otherwise, with the larboard.

Sea-faring persons before the mast are divided into three classes,—able seamen, ordinary seamen, and boys or green hands. And it may be remarked here that all green hands in the merchant service are termed boys, and rated as such, whatever may be their age or size. In the United States navy, an able seaman receives twelve dollars per month, an ordinary seaman ten, and the boys, or green hands, from four to eight, according to their strength and experience. In the merchant service, wages are about the same on long voyages; but on voyages to Europe, the West Indies, and the southern ports, they are considerably higher, and very fluctuating. Still, the same proportion between the classes is preserved, an ordinary seaman getting about two dollars less than an able seaman, and the boys, from nothing up to two dollars less than ordinary seamen, according to circumstances. A full-grown man must ship for boy's wages upon his first voyage. It is not unusual to see a man receiving boy's wages and rated as a boy, who is older and larger than many of the able seamen.

He also spends a lot of time defining the duties of everyone on board the ship, from the chief mate to the "boy" hands.

For wooden warship design, I would recommend looking at something like Chapelle's "History of the American Sailing Navy", Archibald"s "The Wooden Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy", and Coggins' "Ships and Seamen of the American Revolution."

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning PST timerover51,

For wooden warship design, I would recommend looking at something like Chapelle's "History of the American Sailing Navy"

Thanks for all the sources and I agree that Mr. Chapelle's book "History of the American Sailing Navy" is a good source. I have a copy of the book.

 

[Timerover51]

I have been going through a variety of sources to try and come up with a figure for the number of men required to handle sails on a sailing ship, which is going to be roughly the same for both warships and merchantmen, as the rigs are about identical. So far, it looks like it is a LOT less that the one man for every 10 square meters of sail given in the Wet Navy articles. Right now, it looks like it might be more like one man for every 150 square meters of sail, which makes a huge difference in the number of men required. However, those figures so far are for square-rigged ships, and the big sailing fore-and-aft rigged ships carried even fewer men. I will keep working on it.