HMS Victory and Le Redoutable at Trafalgar (1/300)

[marijn van gils]

I made another mistake!
I gave the Redoutable 4 large anchors along her forecastle (like Victory), but she carrier only 3 there, plus 2 smaller stream anchors.

So I had to scratchbuild 2 even smaller anchors to replace one of the large ones.
They are in the foreground. For comparison, left background is a large anchor of Redoutable and right background one of Victory:


And temporarily fixed in place:


I also got the position of her anchors when stowed wrong.
This is how I did it before:


And this is how I did it now:


I also bent the shank of Victory�s front starboard anchor, so it could be squeezed in between the hulls in a more realistic way. I must have gotten quite a bump when the two hulls scraped together!


With 5 anchors, it�s getting quite busy in there!

Dafi, many thanks for all the information!

[dafi]

My pleasure and a treat to see these results!

XXXDAn

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

O Marijn,

These details of the anchors is really superb! And I think really EVERYONE but yourself would have missed the detail of the two smaller anchors instead of one slightly larger!

I come to agree more and more about the statements of you being superhuman...

But kidding, I'm just in extreme admiration of your work.

Just one question: I'm currently researching the Pluton subclass of the T�m�raire. Do you by chance have the right figure for the waterline length of the T�m�raire class? I believe it should be 172 pieds fran�ais (French feet) of 324.8 mm. Am I correct? In that case, I'm sure the Pluton is 5 french feet 10 inches shorter. As this turns out after conversion to be exactly 54 metres (only a few mm), I get the impression that it was standardised on the then new metric metres, instead of the old system.

In the Dutch archives I found a detailed line plan of one of these ships, the Couronne, built in Amsterdam 1811: on this plan the waterline length is given as 191 feet (voet) 3 thumbs (duim). A quick math reveals that these must be 'Rotterdamse voeten' of 282,3 mm. Then the result is also exactly 54 m, given that these Rotterdam feet were divided in eleven 'thumbs', not twelve.

[dafi]

Small remark at Maarten�s question, something that I wasn�t aware either since not to long ago: The 74 from Boudriot is not about the Temeraire class. It is similar in all things within the details, but dimensions and structure vary.

If you can�t get it here, best is to ask the pros:
https://5500.forumactif.org
Forum Arsenal

XXXDAn

[marijn van gils]

Many thanks guys!

Just one question: I'm currently researching the Pluton subclass of the T�m�raire. Do you by chance have the right figure for the waterline length of the T�m�raire class? I believe it should be 172 pieds fran�ais (French feet) of 324.8 mm. Am I correct? In that case, I'm sure the Pluton is 5 french feet 10 inches shorter. As this turns out after conversion to be exactly 54 metres (only a few mm), I get the impression that it was standardised on the then new metric metres, instead of the old system.

In the Dutch archives I found a detailed line plan of one of these ships, the Couronne, built in Amsterdam 1811: on this plan the waterline length is given as 191 feet (voet) 3 thumbs (duim). A quick math reveals that these must be 'Rotterdamse voeten' of 282,3 mm. Then the result is also exactly 54 m, given that these Rotterdam feet were divided in eleven 'thumbs', not twelve.

Hello Maarten!

Dafi is very right that the 74 of Boudriot is not T�m�raire class. It is even not a particular ship at all, but rather an 'average' 74 of around 1780 (so earlier than T�m�raire anyway). Boudriot is very clear and honest about this himself in the introduction. But the book(s) is fantastic anyway: an amazing amount of detail on every aspect of these ships, wonderfully illustrated.
So in short, no it doesn't write anything about the Pluton class...

But this book by Winfield and Roberts does:


It gives 170ft 8in waterline length for the T�m�raire class and 166ft 2in for the Pluton class. All French feet (1ft = 324,8394mm) according to the introduction.

According to the book, there were 3 Pluton class built in Amsterdam: Couronne (later 'Prins Willem de Eerste'), Audacieux (later 'Wassenaer') and Polyph�me (later 'Holland').
The Couronne was ordered on 14/11/1811, keel laid in 12/1811, launched on 26/10/1813 and commisioned in 1816. She was built by P. Schuijt Jr. and Jean-Fran�ois Guillemard. The book writes further: 'Was being commisioned when taken 12/1813in the Dutch uprising and became the Dutch Prins Willem de Eerste. She made a Mediterrean cruise in 1816, was a barracks ship for sailors at Nieuwediep in 1823, and was sold for breaking up in 1829.'

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

It gives 170ft 8in waterline length for the T�m�raire class and 166ft 2in for the Pluton class. All French feet (1ft = 324,8394mm) according to the introduction.

According to the book, there were 3 Pluton class built in Amsterdam: Couronne (later 'Prins Willem de Eerste'), Audacieux (later 'Wassenaer') and Polyph�me (later 'Holland').
The Couronne was ordered on 14/11/1811, keel laid in 12/1811, launched on 26/10/1813 and commisioned in 1816. She was built by P. Schuijt Jr. and Jean-Fran�ois Guillemard. The book writes further: 'Was being commisioned when taken 12/1813in the Dutch uprising and became the Dutch Prins Willem de Eerste. She made a Mediterreancruise in 1816, was a barracks ship for sailors at Nieuwediep in 1823, and was sold for breaking up in 1829.'

Hi Marijn and Dafi, thank you both for all the info! That book must be a very worthwhile investment, something to consider for a 'birthday present'

However, in the short run I think I will set my sight then on the 'Wassenaar' (ex Audacieux) - the spelling varies between sources, but I think Wassenaar was the most common in the Netherlands after 1814. At least the transom I found shows it with this spelling too:

I found several plans of the 'Couronne', including the detailed side view. I had to reduce it to 1200 pixels to show it here:

The data allows exact scaling fortunately. So I will keep the waterline length now at 54 Metres for this ship, at least that is then also confirmed by your source (166 pieds 2 pouces, french feet). Thanks for that confirmation and the exact conversion number!

[marijn van gils]

After construction: deconstruction!
The time had come to add battle damage to Victory�s hull.



When chipping �splinters� out of the resin hull, of course the primer chipped away too. It is not the same as the effect will be after painting, but at least gives an idea.
Some holes go straight through the hull, others don�t. I stuck a ball in some of the holes.
Even though the holes are relatively small, by comparing with the figure you can imagine the size of the wooden �splinters� flying around during a battle� I will still add smaller chips with only paint later.
Reminder of the scale: the figure is about 5mm tall.


I gave her a fair amount of damage at the starboard side. This is the side at which she is fighting the Redoutable. But no extremely large holes; round shot is relatively small (0,4 � 0,5 mm in this scale) and her hull planking was thick� And the battle is not over yet!




On her port side, she was also engaging other ships at the same time, but at longer distance. To reflect that, I added damage too, but much less. Her quarter gallery is even not hit at all here.




I did add damage to the starboard quarter gallery, but the stern is also almost untouched, as there had been no enemy ships at her rear yet.


Her bow on the other hand received quite a pounding during her approach to the enemy line. So I added the heaviest damage there. Especially the weak beakhead bulkhead received some larger holes.




The beakhead bulkhead needed a bit of additional thinning from behind, to show the thin nature of this wall.


Of course, the inside faces of bulwarks received their share of damage too.


And where the they can be glanced below decks too:


I decided not to add any damage to the decks. They will be so much covered with guns, figures, and a lot of rubble (pieces of wood, rope, sail, �) that there will only be small spots left to be seen, and I cannot predict now where damage to the decks would add anything visually, or even be visible. Maybe I�ll add some later on, but maybe it won�t be necessary.

For the same reason, I didn�t add damage to the deck equipment, except the poop deck skylight (which I built �damaged� earlier) and several ladders:




The hammock netting that covers many bulwarks and rails will be covered with canvas, which will also be shot up severely. That will enhance the damaged look of the ship considerably, as will the damaged boats on the beams in the waist. These are still to be built.
But first I will repeat this exercise on the Redoutable!

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

must be a quite controlled aggresive action!

Marijn, does your daily work include studying old inflicted damage, on buildings or so?

[MartinJQuinn]

Holy moly. That is incredible work. Time consuming too, I'll bet! Wow!

[wefalck]

Yes, quite impressive ... however, the records of impact on wood and narratives say that round shot would not just punch through, but that it rather rips out large bits and pieces on the exit side - which was the most feared effect. More people got injured and killed by flying wood splinters than by shot.

There are various mid-19th reports on experiments with different types of guns and projectiles in order to understand the efficacy of just wood and of armour plate and the resulting impact patterns and debris generated.

[Martocticvs]

Looks very impressive!

Yes I'm just reading Howard Douglas' Treatise on Naval Gunnery at the moment, and he mentions how the ideal is for round shot to be moving only just fast enough to penetrate through the hull, as this minimum velocity caused the greatest splintering effect on the inside of the enemy hull. Hellish.

Would certainly be interesting to see some impressive splinters torn out of the spricketing and lying scattered around on deck..!

Are you planning on having any dismounted guns as well? I'm sure they must have lost a few carriages in the course of the battle.

[EJFoeth]

What an excellent method to hide all the bad spots on the model I could try that on Hood too and skip the entire boat deck

[marijn van gils]

Many thanks everyone!

must be a quite controlled aggresive action!

Yes, the effect has to stay in scale of course. It is quite simple though: drill a little hole, scribe and/or cut the surrounding surface in the direction of the wood grain with the tip of a scalpel, and chip out 'splinters' with the tip of the same blade. For the smaller 'chips', no hole was drilled.

Marijn, does your daily work include studying old inflicted damage, on buildings or so?

No, not really... But I have seen some broken wood before!

Time consuming too, I'll bet!

One hole doesn't take much time, but it adds up with the amount of holes of course. I think this took me about 7-8 hours.
Very much worth it I think, as this will be an important element for setting the atmosphere and telling the story.

Yes, quite impressive ... however, the records of impact on wood and narratives say that round shot would not just punch through, but that it rather rips out large bits and pieces on the exit side - which was the most feared effect. More people got injured and killed by flying wood splinters than by shot.

There are various mid-19th reports on experiments with different types of guns and projectiles in order to understand the efficacy of just wood and of armour plate and the resulting impact patterns and debris generated.

That is very correct! Maybe it is not very visible on my photo's, but I did try to mimick wood splintered away around the shot holes (and the smaller ones only have splintered wood, no hole). The painting should make this more visible. I will also add some loose splinters to some of the damaged spots at that stage; now this was not possible in the resin hull.
I used this display on Victory (made with the real thing) as an example, but of course sometimes enlarged a bit for larger callibers and thicker wood:


There is also no doubt that round shot actually penetrated the wooden hulls. At short range, it could even enter one side and exit the other. When Temeraire came along the other side of the Redoutable, Victory's gun crews lowered their guns and reduced the powder charge to prevent hitting Temeraire through Redoutable... There were also damage control parties active during battle, lead by the ship's carpenter, to stop up any holes below the waterline with lead sheet, hides and specially made plugs.
I made some of my shot holes penetrate the hull sides, some not. I stuck little balls in some of the ones that didn't. After the battle, reportedly some 300 round shot were found lodged in Vic's hull...

Yes I'm just reading Howard Douglas' Treatise on Naval Gunnery at the moment, and he mentions how the ideal is for round shot to be moving only just fast enough to penetrate through the hull, as this minimum velocity caused the greatest splintering effect on the inside of the enemy hull. Hellish.

Apparently, this was another advantage of carronades too: because of their lower muzzle velocity, they were even more lethal than long guns because of the effect you describe (at the short range for which they were intended of course).

Would certainly be interesting to see some impressive splinters torn out of the spricketing and lying scattered around on deck..!

Are you planning on having any dismounted guns as well? I'm sure they must have lost a few carriages in the course of the battle.

Absolutely, I want to do several! More on Redoutable than on Victory for sure. By the end of the battle, most of her guns were unserviceable (but Temeraire raking her contributed a lot to that, which hadn't happened yet at this moment).
Lucas reported that two guns aboard Redoutable burst during the battle. One was on the lower deck and thus invisible, but the other was a 32-pound carronade on the forecastle, so I want to include that too.
And the decks will be full of splinters, fallen blocks, rope, shards of sail, pieces of yards, bits of metal, etc. ...
I'm already looking forward to modelling that!

What an excellent method to hide all the bad spots on the model I could try that on Hood too and skip the entire boat deck

I know you are joking E-J, but yes!
And there will be much more, with all the rubble.
If you look at the outside of the port side quarterdeck bulwark, you will see that part of the decorative molding is missing. I damaged this when hollowing the hull. But rather than repairing this, I think it will be the perfect spot for hanging a fallen piece of sail...
I have built undamaged and damaged stuff; and make no mistake damaged is more work, and harder to get a convincing result. So I make no apologies at all for making use of the small advantages there are to it!

[GewoonWouter]

this keeps on getting better and better, dang. You are on a roll boy

[Neptune]

Takes guts to do that to a pristine looking model. I guess you know your skill Great looking effects, love that small stair.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

What an excellent method to hide all the bad spots on the model I could try that on Hood too and skip the entire boat deck

Well, EJ, just one single well aimed 38 cm grenade from Bismarck will be sufficient to safe you years of sterling work And that's not only the boat deck!

[maxim]

But that would be only true for a waterline model depicting her on the 24th of May at 8 am To built the wreck could be even more challenging

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

But that would be only true for a waterline model depicting her on the 24th of May at 8 am To built the wreck could be even more challenging

Yes! And we don't have (yet) the superb images from Robert Ballard like we have them from Titanic and Bismark...

[marijn van gils]

Thanks guys!

Takes guts to do that to a pristine looking model. I guess you know your skill Great looking effects, love that small stair.

Well, it was clear from the start that this would have to be done to get to story across, so I had plenty of time to get myself mentally prepared.
I have to admit there is some trepidation before starting, but once I get going I actually find it a lot of fun to do. There is the constant design element of where and how to make the damage to make it look plausible, random (not that easy!), and visually pleasing all at the same time, which is a challenge I really enjoy.

Well, EJ, just one single well aimed 38 cm grenade from Bismarck will be sufficient to safe you years of sterling work And that's not only the boat deck!

[Dan K]

Artistry in progress.............