HMS Trincomalee

Grem56 wrote:

A new website for me: HMS Trincomalee, a British frigate very similar in size and design to the Constitution.Site contains some nice photo's. http://www.hms-trincomalee.co.uk/ Julian

Uh, not really.   One could not easily find another pair of frigates from between 1790-1820 that would be much more different.   Trincomalee is somewhat more similar in size, armamentm, function and shape to a medium cruiser like HMS Shannon or the USS Chasespeake, and not very much like the heavy cruiser/commerce raider like the Constitution.   The Trincomalee also benefited from major structural innovations not yet dreamt of when Constitution was built.

Okido, I stand corrected . For me it was a new website I found after the TV series "Worst jobs in history". On the film and on the website I found several similarities but I always value the opinion of one of the "experten" here. (still a nice website though)

Julian

Chuck Fan wrote:

Grem56 wrote: A new website for me: HMS Trincomalee, a British frigate very similar in size and design to the Constitution.Site contains some nice photo's. http://www.hms-trincomalee.co.uk/ Julian     Uh, not really.   One could not easily find another pair of frigates from between 1790-1820 that would be much more different.   Trincomalee is somewhat more similar in size, armamentm, function and shape to a medium cruiser like HMS Shannon or the USS Chasespeake, and not very much like the heavy cruiser/commerce raider like the Constitution.   The Trincomalee also benefited from major structural innovations not yet dreamt of when Constitution was built.

I'm a bit confused by the chronology here.  According to the Trincomalee website, it was a member of a class based on a French frigate captured by the British in 1782.  They then approved a class based on that design in 1794 and the first were launched around 1800.  The Constitution was launched in 1797, just three years earlier

Did the British make "major structural innovations" to the French design, or were the French just twenty years ahead of everyone? 

Mark

To see what is going on requires a little digression.   The French, builder of the Hebe, has treated hydrodynamics as a science for most of 18th century while the British continuous to regard hydrodynamics as a more or less inscrutable art through the beginning of 19th century.    As a result, the French often produced ships that sailed far better than contempoary British ships.     IN fact, near the end of the Napoleonic wars, the British were still admiring the sailing qualities of French ships captured 60 years before during the war of 1756.  To bridge the gap, the British would transcribe the underwater lines of captured French ships and incorporate them into new British ships, thus capturing some of the magical benefits of French hydrodynamic science.   This is what is meant by a Trincomalee being based on a French ship - The Trincomalee copied Hebe's proportions, dimensions and the shape of her underwater hull.  

The British opinion of the structural designs of the French were less favorable.   The French navy expects to stay in port and only come out for battle.  The British expectes their warships to stay at sea year in and year out.   So the French ships were built were much less emphasis on structural strength and durability compared to British ships.   The British were also responsible for many more major structural innovations than the French.   The British did not think very highly of strength and design of French ship structure.

As a result, British ships based on captured French examples would not have copied French structure.   The structure, armament, and internal layout would have been based on British practice, which is quite different from French practice.  

Having started with a hull shape based on Hebe but hull structure that is entirely British, the class would have further evolved over the 30 or so years in which it was built.    It must first be member that when two sailing warships are said belongs to the same class, that word class has a different connotation than it would for a steel warship.   Two sailing warships are of the same class if they are of a size, and have the same underwater hull shape.   Their structures, armamement, layout, and numerous other details are likely to be very different.       They would have been built to a set of high level admiralty drawings that specified the shape, the dimension, the number of gun ports, and little else.   Their structures would be designed in detail by the supervising shipwright, based on a general set of guidelines issued by the admiralty.   There would be room for individual interpretation of these guideline, and there is no garrantee that the guideline would not be forgotten altogether.   These guidelines also change as the Admiralty discover new needs the the benefits of new innovations.   So as more members are added to the class, each ship would have very similar lines, but the internal structures would differ both to account of structural evolution and the caprices of the master shipwright.   Being a relatively late member of her "class", Trimcomalee would have incorporated many structural advances that had not been available to the first ships of her "class".  For example, she almost certainly had Robert Sepping's diagonal riders.  This is possibly the single most important structural innovation in the history of sailing warships between 1600 - 1850.   She would also probably have iron structural knees where as her earliest sisters would have wooden knees.   She would also probably have absorbed some of the tactical lessons learned during the Napoleonic war and war of 1812, and incorporated round sterns to resist raking fire.  These are all things that would make her structure and appearence dramatically different from those of her earliest sisters.   She would certainly be vastly different from the Constitution.

Finally there is also the fact that the original French Hebe class, and all the British ships based on her, were designed as conventional fleet scouts and trade protection cruisers.   They were built for a different purpose all together than the Constitution, thereby diminishing their resemblence even more.

I still don't see how the Constitution is "vastly" different.  After all, it also originally had diagonal riders, and the internal layouts look pretty similar.

No offense, but some of the other differences you offer as "probable" (iron knees, round stern, etc.) seem to be speculative rather than based on actual documentation.

And yes, I will concede that a class of ship can vary greatly in detail during its life - the Nimitz class carriers are a good example of that.

Mark

No offense taken.

By vastly different, I meant you could not easily find 2 frigates from that era that would be more different.  If all frigates looks approximately the same to you, then you would not find difference between constitution and Trincomalee striking.   But if you tend to notice individual differences between ships, then you can hardly find any frigate that is more different from the Trincomalee.  I fall in the latter camp.

The iron knees and round stern are features which had been invented and then became standard features as per Admiralty order on British warships between 1805 and 1815.   I only need to know that Trincomalee was a British rated ship built in 1817 to know with almost certainty that these features would be there.   I don't need specific documentation for the specific ship in question in order to conclude that these features would almost certainly differetiate Trincomalee from any frigate built during the 1790s.

The diagonal bracing system pioneered by Sepping involves thorough dispersion of diagonal structure throughout the ship.   The most important of which are the big riders that extend from about the keelson to the top of the hold and contributed the most to the ship's hogging resistence.   It also involves diagonal structure in every element of the ship, including diagonal deck planks.   It also uses the small diagonal deck riders on the gun deck such as those in the Constitution.   The complete Sepping system was a complete solution to the hitherto intractable problem of hogging, and was a feature of every subsequent major British wooden  warship after about 1812.   Trincomalee has almost not hog at all in about 170 years.

Constitution's diagonal rider system exists only on the gun deck, and does not incorporate other, much more important components of Sepping's system.   It also did not completely solve the hogging problem.   It was by no means a system comparable to Sepping's diagonal bracing system. 

Chuck:

I hate to disagree with you, but Constitution did originally have the complete diagonal riders when she was built. They were removed at some later point in her career and they were replaced during her 1990s refit. It was after they were removed that she hogged so much. These large diagonal riders are listed in Humphreys' original specs for the American 44 gun frigates. Tyrone Martin covers this in his research on the Constitution.

I should also mention that Seppings's system also touched on the hull framing practices as well. No doubt Trincomalee's hull framing does not have the more complicated framing chocks, shifted and/or cast futtocks that earlier ships had. Seppings framing system did away with those details and also had the hull frames bolted together much more securely than the older system. This made for much stronger and less complex hull frames.

I agree that the two frigates are not really all that similar. Constitution was larger, more heavily armed, and was designed and built with a much different strategy in mind. Also, if you look closely at the inboard works drawings of the Ledas and the Constitution, there will be be some differences.

Russ 

I was not aware of Constitution having diagonal hold riders.  The drawings I've seen show diagonal riders on the gun deck only.

I love the irony that the Java was carrying the original set of plans for the Trincomalee when she was sunk... by the Constitution!  

Mark

Chuck Fan wrote:

I was not aware of Constitution having diagonal hold riders.  The drawings I've seen show diagonal riders on the gun deck only.

Chuck:

The original specs do include the dimensions etc of the diagonal riders. We know she had them installed because when they opened her up in the lower sections in recent years they found the fastening holes and other marks showing that they had been installed early on in her career. I saw them being reinstalled on a TV documentary in the 1990s. They covered all of this information then. Tyrone Martin wrote about the diagonal rider system in his books on Constitution.  

Are you sure you are not seeing the dagger knees on the inboard profile? These are angled versions of the hanging knees. They would extend from the deck beams down to just above the next lower deck.

Russ 

RedCorvette wrote:

I love the irony that the Java was carrying the original set of plans for the Trincomalee when she was sunk... by the Constitution!     Mark

The Java engagement would be too early for a definitive set of plans for the Trincomalee.  She might conceivably carried a general set of plans for the Hebe/Leda class.   But specifics of the class changed considerably as the years went by.

Incidentally, Trincomalee in her present form owes its existence partially to American frigates.    In 1812, the British medium frigate fleet have crystalized to two basic designs.   One was that of the Leda, originally acquired from the French, the other was very closely comparable a native British design.   The British design was in many ways better suited for British service, having more commodious hold for long term deploymemt, and was somewhat steadier as a gun platform.   But it was the Leda based design - HMS Shannon - that scored the rousing victory over the nearly comparable USS Chasepeake during a war when several British medium frigates were defeated by stronger American heavy Frigates.   So the admiralty choose the victorious Leda design as the basis for post war frigate eventhough the design itself had nothing to do with the success.     Had it not been for the battle between HMS Shannon and USS Chasepeake, the odds are the Trincomalee would be built to the British design.

Chuck Fan wrote:

RedCorvette wrote: I love the irony that the Java was carrying the original set of plans for the Trincomalee when she was sunk... by the Constitution!     Mark The Java engagement would be too early for a definitive set of plans for the Trincomalee.  She might conceivably carried a general set of plans for the Hebe/Leda class.   But specifics of the class changed considerably as the years went by. Incidentally, Trincomalee in her present form owes its existence partially to American frigates.    In 1812, the British medium frigate fleet have crystalized to two basic designs.   One was that of the Leda, originally acquired from the French, the other was very closely comparable a native British design.   The British design was in many ways better suited for British service, having more commodious hold for long term deploymemt, and was somewhat steadier as a gun platform.   But it was the Leda based design - HMS Shannon - that scored the rousing victory over the nearly comparable USS Chasepeake during a war when several British medium frigates were defeated by stronger American heavy Frigates.   So the admiralty choose the victorious Leda design as the basis for post war frigate eventhough the design itself had nothing to do with the success.     Had it not been for the battle between HMS Shannon and USS Chasepeake, the odds are the Trincomalee would be built to the British design.

From the Trincomalee website (which I assume is credible information):

A set of plans for two new Leda Class Frigates were drawn up in England. The first ship was to be named Trincomalee, after an action in 1782 between the Royal and French navies off the Ceylon port of that name, and the second was called Amphitrite. Due to oak shortages, the vessels were to be built in Bombay from teak. During the voyage the vessel carrying the plans, HMS Java, was attacked and defeated by USS Constitution. Taken as a prize, Java sank under tow, taking the plans with her. Further plans were subsequently dispatched by the Admiralty, but only after several months delay.

Good chance that the second set of plans might have incorporated some updates, I suppose. 

Mark

Julian,

Thanks so much for the link to the website! The information is well-presented, and the website is colorful and interesting.

Some statistical data comparing Old Ironsides to HMS Trincomalee:

Leda Class Frigates: 

Type - Fifth Rate Frigate
Length - lower deck 150 ft; keel 125 ft
Breadth - 40 ft
Weight - 1053 tons
Crew - 284

As originally intended, the Leda-class would carry 28 18-pounder guns, ten 9-pounders, and 8 carronades

USS Constitution:

Tonnage: 1576 tons

Length: 204' (billet head to taffrail); 174' 10" (gun deck); 145' (keel)

Beam: 43' 6"

Crew: 473

Armament-Aug 1812: 30 long 24-pounders on gun deck, 1 long 18-pound chaser, 24 32-pounder carronades.

 

Clearly, the ships were built to different purposes. Quoting from the Trincomalee website:

"...frigates were light, fast and agile warships that generally concentrated their firepower on one deck. In terms of both firepower and armour they were no match for a ship of the line, but were more than able to outturn and outrun one. Frigates were essentially predators, stretching out from the grand fleets of the day to seek and destroy hostile merchantmen, pirates, slavers, and other naval vessels of similar size - in most of these cases, the sight of a frigate bearing down on their vessel instilled a sense of real terror in the crew on board, and if they unwisely chose to not surrender, defeat was highly likely...Frigates were the eyes of the fleet, expanding far into the oceans to carry dispatches and orders to and from the sluggish squadrons, and locating and harassing enemy vessels until the bulk of the fleet could catch up and engage in battle proper..."

On the other hand, the fledgeling US Navy was no match for the mighty Royal Navy. With limited resources, the US Navy's weapon of choice was the superfrigate, designed to outsail any ship of the line, and overpower any enemy frigate it encountered, in its mission to protect commerce, the lifeblood of the former colonies, as well as raid enemy commerce. It was more heavily built, more heavily armed, carried larger crew, and carried more sail than any frigate before. Its design was innovative, allowing it to cut through the water, yet still support the heavy armament it carried. Its wooden walls were of live oak, a much harder wood than had been used before. Only 3 44-gunners were built, Constitution, President, and United States; 3 other originally intended sisters were eventually built to smaller specifications. For the British, frigates were the eyes and ears of the fleet; to the United States, frigates were the heart of the fleet.

As far as diagonal riders go, there is sparse documentation as to whether Constitution actually carried them (by diagonal riders, I mean the large timbers rising from the keel, six per side, crossing the hull frames diagonally, curving up to the gun deck, not the diagonal bracing running between the decks). There is some evidence that diagonal riders were part of the superfrigate plan, and some notes about them being installed during the building of Constitution, but no evidence as to when they were removed during her history, and little indication otherwise that they ever existed on her. Cmdr Martin, in his current revision of his excellent book "A Most Fortunate Ship", is a strong proponent of the idea that they were indeed installed, but Thomas C. Gillmer, in his book, "Old Ironsides : the Rise, Decline, and Resurrection of the USS Constitution", is more skeptical about whether they were actually put in place. New evidence may have been unearthed since both of these books were written, but I have not yet seen anything definitive to convince me either way.

Jose Gonzales

It is clear to me now that these two ships construction and size/weight wise are not as similar as I happily proclaimed yesterday. Visually though I still find they resemble each other very closely. I only picked up on the Trincomalee website after watching the "Georgian" episode of the worst jobs in history and I could have sworn that the footage on board had been filmed in Boston on the Constitution instead of in the UK. The one thing that had me in doubt was the colour of the carronade gun carriages which were black instead of the "Terracotta" red colour used on the Constitution.

Julian

Out of curiousity, what would a show about the "worst jobs" have to do with the Trincomalee?

Jose

The british navy was considered a rather bad job in this TV program. Attention was paid to the "medical facilities", food, accomodation and some of the jobs on board : surgeons assistents (lob-lolly boys), powder monkeys, gunnery crews etc. in the Georgian Royal Navy.As I mentioned before filming was done on the Trincomalee (even if at first I wasn't sure if it was the Constitution or not). The series itself is rather interesting.

Julian

"HMS Trincomalee" lat=54.6904829285, lon=-1.20679185882

Google earth coordinates. Clearly visible.

Julian