Revell's large scale Spanish Galleon and English Man o' War

Well, it sounds like the biggest problem will be the hull molds.  If they are the same, then one of them is wrong!  English galleons and Spanish galleons differed fairly significantly, as I recall.   English galleons were quite fast and maneuverable, while the Spanish were often large towering affairs (at least this was generally the case at the time of the Armada), none too weatherly, but heavily armed.  On this note, during the days of the Armada, there are many references to 'race-built' English and Dutch galleons, which differ from the standard by having no fo'c'sle at all, just a clean sweep from the quarter deck forward.  The only model I have seen which represents this well is actually the Swedish 'Vasa,' which was built to Dutch principles some time later, but illustrates the effect.  Has anyone seen another model galleon which demonstrates this principle?

I have built both of these ships, there are subtle differences them though, mainly the number of masts. You can forget about converting them into anything even remotley resembling ships of historic accuracy. I built my man-o-war into my rendition of the black pearl, and i must say for a fictional ship the build was quite enjoyable, and i'm pleased with the result.

 

Michael

Michael D.,

Do you have any pictures?

Bill

I'm inclined to agree with Michael D.  These two kits, in my personal opinion, are of interest mainly as relics of a remarkably dreary period in the history of the plastic model kit - and maybe as sources of spare parts.

The "Spanish Galleon" originally appeared in 1970.  (The date, like all other specific information in this post, is from Dr. Thomas Graham's outstanding book, Remembering Revell Model Kits.)  At that time Revell had recently gone through a big change of management and, like most other kit manufacturers, was suffering serious financial problems.  The youth market was deserting the hobby, companies were going out of business (or getting bought out by toy companies) right and left, and the survivors were looking desperately for ways to draw in new consumers.

Here (slightly abridged) is the description of the kit from Dr. Graham's appendix:  "A robust, twenty-five inch long model.  Eagle figurehead, three masts, lower poop deck, row of shields along sides are major differences from H-397 English Man-O-War (1972).  Lloyd Jones researched this model at the reference library of MGM movie studio."

The last sentence is, I think, significant and ominous.  Mr. Jones was (and I imagine still is; I assume he's still with us) a deeply respected and highly knowledgable aircraft modeler and researcher.  But by 1970, it seems, the artisans and researchers who had been responsible for the beautiful Revell sailing ship kits of the fifties and sixties were gone.  And the idea of a movie studio as a source of information for the design of a ship model...'nuff said.

The "English Man-O-War" was initially released in 1972.  Again, here's Dr. Graham's description (abridged):  "Big thirty-inch model....Differences from H-400 Spanish Galleon are lion figurehead, absence of shields along sides, extra poop deck and fourth mast.  This kit was designed to look like a traditional old-fashioned wooden ship model."

That last sentence, again, is pretty eloquent.  I can remember reading, in my humble capacity as a part-time clerk in a local hobby shop, some of the trade literature Revell was sending to its distributors and dealers.  I specifically recall a description of the "English Man-O-War" kit:  "We've zeroed in on the market with this one:  young married couples and interior decorators."  Note the lack of reference to scale modelers - who, in 1972, apparently (and probably correctly) were assumed to comprise an insignificant percentage of Revell's clientele.

Two phrases are virtually guaranteed to make a serious scale ship modeler's eyes roll:  "pirate ship" and "Spanish galleon."  (I'm tempted to add another one:  "tall ship."  It's utterly meaningless except in the minds of marketers.)  "Pirate ship," as participants in this Forum probably know, has virtually no meaning in terms of naval architecture; a vessel used for piracy almost by definition had been built for some other purpose.  There really was such a thing as a "Spanish galleon" all right, but the term was used for such a long time, and has such a vague meaning, that it doesn't really mean a whole lot.  More importantly, the available contemporary information about Spanish warships of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is extremely scanty; the truth is that we have only a vague notion of what the ships of the Armada of 1588 looked like.  (We do know enough, though, to make it clear that using the same hull as the bases for models of both English and Spanish warships of the period is ridiculous.) 

I don't know what Mr. Jones found in the MGM library, but the overall shape of both those hulls is, to my eye at least, pretty silly-looking.  I question whether the stern structure of either of them would be capable of supporting itself.  The proportions of the spars are way off.  (There undoubtedly were variations, but in the usual sail plan of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries each square-rigged yard was half the length of the yard below it.) The "English" kit is, if anything, even worse than the "Spanish" one.  (Caveat:  sometime back another Forum member mentioned that he'd converted it into an English warship of a somewhat later period.  He didn't provide any pictures, as I recall, but he certainly seemed to know what he was doing and was satisfied with the results.)

On the other hand, $1.00 for those two big boxes can hardly be called a bad deal.  If I remember correctly, each of the kits contained a sprue full of crew figures who were recycled from Revell's excellent 1/96 Golden Hind.  The figures in Revell ship kits were, without exception, superb; I wouldn't mind paying a dollar apiece for those little guys.  I don't remember what the guns looked like, but I suspect they'd be usable in other projects.  If nothing else, the deck and hull parts, with their "wood grain" detail, would make distinguished contributions to a box full of parts for scratchbuilding.

Revell (the American branch of the company that is; Revell Germany's ship releases are another story that Dr. Graham doesn't cover) only released one more genuinely new sailing ship kit after these two horrors:  the excellent little Viking ship, in 1977.  That one, in my opinion, is one of the best sailing ship kits ever.  Its details look like they were done by a completely different group of people than the ones responsible for the two kits we're discussing here.  The Viking ship, according to Dr. Graham, was in the Revell catalog for only two years, and, as of the publication of his book in 2004, had not been reissued.  (Fortunately it reappeared in a Revell Europe box last year, and currently can be found in hobby shops and on some websites; my advice to every plastic sailing ship enthusiast is to grab it while you can.) 

I'm aware of seven Armada-period plastic ship kits that are worth building.  (Actually that number is, by comparison with other periods in the history of the sailing ship, pretty high.) The Revell Golden Hind is one of my all-time favorites.  The Airfix Revenge is an older kit without as much detail, but the basic shapes of it are sound (clearly based on the famous Matthew Baker Manuscript); it could quite easily form the basis of a good scale model.  Moving a little, but not much, afield from 1588, both Revell versions of the Mayflower are outstanding. They feature some of the finest detail ever put into a plastic sailing ship kit.  The Airfix Golden Hind and Mayflower perhaps aren't quite up to that standard, but, like almost all other Airfix sailing ship kits, they're well-designed, basically sound kits that, with work, could produce beautiful results.

The late, lamented Japanese company Imai, during its brief heyday in the late seventies and early eighties, produced several ship kits from this period.  I can't claim to be personally familiar with them; at that time my personal circumstances were such that my budget couldn't handle Imai prices.  But Imai never made junk [later edit:  other than the Chinese variety.  Sorry about that; I really didn't mean to do it.  Really.].  I've read in several places that the Imai "Spanish Galleon" is just about the only kit (plastic, wood, or otherwise) floating around under that dubious name that's a reasonable, believable interpretation of a Spanish ship of the Armada era.  I haven't read as much about the Imai Golden Hind, but I suspect it, like all the company's other sailing ship kits, is a good one.  Imai had a knack for combining relatively simple, robust parts with overall accuracy (or at least believability); every Imai kit I've encountered has certainly been worth building, and the best of the company's products are among the best the industry has ever offered.  Several of the Imai kits have reappeared recently under the Aoshima label - unfortunately at extremely high prices. 

The "wood grain" detail on those Imai kits looks remarkably similar to that on the Revell Viking ship - which doesn't look much like the "wood grain" in any other Revell kit.  One does have to wonder.

 

I have always had a personal prejudice against ship model kits that don't represent specific ships. I agree that "Spanish Galleon" and "English Man o' War" are almost laughable titles of kits.  And, I have always hated that term "tall ship" as well. I wonder when the manufacturers will drag that term out and name a kit after it.  By the way, I bought an Aoshima re-release of the old Imai USS SUSQUEHANNA on ebay for the requested "Buy It Now" price of $49.00 from a dealer in Korea.  His prices seem to be okay but it took 9 weeks to receive the kit. His seller ID is bboykorea.  You might want to check out his ebay store for those Imai/Aoshima re-releases.

JTilley, I was unaware of the dimensions you mentioned, at least the specific ratios for yardarms. That was most helpful! Thanks!

Bill Morrison

Here's a link Bill.  /forums/660663/ShowPost.aspx

Michael

 

 

I have to say I think there's a place for generic, nameless ship models - especially when they're based on plans or reconstructions that aren't identified with specific ships.  I'd be more comfortable with a model labeled "Spanish Galleon of 1588:  A Reconstruction" (assuming the reconstruction was done intelligently, on the basis of sound research) than one labeled "San Martin."  For that matter, I wouldn't object if Airfix had labeled its Revenge kit "English Warship of About 1588, Based on the Matthew Baker Manuscript."  That in fact is what it is. 

The application of names to kits based on documents that don't have actual names attached to them occasionally produces some amusing results.  In the grand old days of Model Shipways (before the firm got bought out by Model Expo), it was owned by two first-rate gentlemen named John Shedd and Sam Milone.  The company made a couple of quite popular wood schooner kits.  One was based on acontemporary drawing of an unnamed Chesapeake Bay pilot schooner; the other on a contemporary drawing of a Baltimore clipper.  Several generations of modelers have grown up thinking of those two kits as the pilot schooner Katy and the privateer Dapper Tom.  That Katy was John Shedd's wife and Dapper Tom was his college roommate (or maybe it was Mr. Shedd's own nickname; accounts differ) was a not-very-well-kept secret.  In its current reissues of the two kits, Model Expo, to its credit, has let the cats out of the bag.

I've often thought that a generic model would make a refreshing break from the habit of slavishly following detailed plans and documents.  One of these days I want to build a generic fishing schooner or tugboat, put all sorts of interesting, fun, generic details on it, put my wife's name on the stern, and see how many observers figure out what I've done.  I don't think I'll name an English galleon after her, though.

In any event, I certainly agree with those whose preferences are for named models based on named sources.

jtilley wrote:

I've often thought that a generic model would make a refreshing break from the habit of slavishly following detailed plans and documents.  One of these days I want to build a generic fishing schooner or tugboat, put all sorts of interesting, fun, generic details on it, put my wife's name on the stern, and see how many observers figure out what I've done.  I don't think I'll name an English galleon after her, though.

And certainly don't name a scow or barge after a lady, either!

Michael D.

Thanks for the link! It is an interesting build!

Bill

JTilley,

I do undestand what you are saying about generic ship models. I would have to grudgingly agree with your point that a well-founded and researched generic "Spanish Galleon of 1588" certainly has a place among better ship models.  I would refine that a little by stating something like "1000 ton Spanish Galleon of 1588" or "750 ton Spanish Galleon of 1588," etc.  Afterall, there were many designs reflecting the term "Galleon," in fact, the type can be somewhat differentiated by national origin as well as locale of the design and build.

That leads me back to the kits in question.  Can they serve as the basis of accurate generic builds?  Please tell me what you (or anyone) thinks.

Bill Morrison

I agree completely that adding any relevant qualifiers to the label of a "generic" reconstruction would be a good idea.  I think what's most important is to clarify that it is in fact a reconstruction.  One of my few complaints about the Revell Golden Hind is that the company gave the purchaser of the kit no hint of that fact, or any hint of the sources on which the model is based. 

Regarding the two big Revell kits - I think it's useful to rephrase the question slightly.  It is, of course, possible to turn virtually anything, up to and including a beef bone, into a scale ship model.  So maybe the relevant question is:  would turning these kits into scale models be substantially easier than working from scratch?  In my personal opinion the answer is no. 

One could, I suppose, argue that, because we know so little about real vessels of the period, there's no proof that the Revell kits are "inaccurate."  But a competent reconstruction needs to take into account the information that does exist.  Even taking into consideration the paucity of reliable information about Spanish and English ships of the late sixteenth century, the proportions of those hulls just aren't believable.  I'm sure some of the fittings could be put to good use in a scratchbuilt model, but if I were trying to build a model of an English or Spanish warship from the Armada period I'd literally rather start from scratch. 

I'll qualify that with my usual caveat:  to each his/her own.  I certainly have no business passing judgment on any modeler who wants to try it.  But from my personal standpoint, even given the much discussed absence of new plastic sailing ship kits on the market, there are enough to keep me busy for a long time without resorting to those two.

I think that there is one assumption that we can make from what is known; the kit purporting to be English is another variation of the Spanish kit. Given the major differences between English and Spanish ships of the period, modeling it as a generic English "Man o' War (whatever that term is supposed to mean!) is out of the question. I also like jtilley's comment that one can turn anything , even a beef bone, into a scale model. As an historian, I also appreciate his comment that the sources from which these kits are based would be essential to any appropriate build. 

Bill Morrison

And here is an example of a ship model made from bone (French prisoner of war ship model)

I thought that it would be appropriate for me to provide a brief synopsis of the differences between Spanish and English galleons of 1588, since both kits claim to represent ships of the Armada era.

Most frontline warships of the time were broad-beamed in proportion to the length of their hulls, with enormous castellated superstructures fore and aft.  These "castles" functioned as siege towers from which soldiers would fire down onto the deck of an enemy ship that had been grappled alongside.  The combination of low length to beam ratio and the effects of the castles rendered such ships to be very difficult to maneuver and they were very slow.

When John Hawkins assumed a degree of control over Elizabeth I's navy in the 1570's, he began a series of ship reconstructions to lengthen the ships and cut down those awkward castles, using the highly successful Revenge as his precedent.  His goal was to improve the navy by making the ships more highly maneuverable and faster than its opponents.  Whereas the fighting doctrine of the day emphasized grappling and boarding, Hawkins believed that maneuverability and rapid-fire heavy gunnery from a distance was to become more effective.  By 1588, Hawkins' reconstruction program was complete.

As a result, at the time of the Armada, the English ships more closely resembled the "race-built" galleon depicted in the famous drawings by Matthew Baker (alleged to be  Revenge).  These ships were sleeker, narrower, and lower to the sea than their Spanish counterparts.

Therefore, the Revell kits cannot represent both English and Spanish galleons of 1588.  They are basically the same kit with minor differences.  They both have the low length to beam ratio found more likely in Spanish than English ships.  They both have the very high fore and aft castles, again found typically in Spanish ships. The detail differences between the kits have already been identified in an earlier posting and won't be dealt with here.

It is clear that the English kit is not an English warship of 1588; rather, she represents a Spanish ship with a different rig than the other kit.

That being said, does anyone believe that these kits are salvageable as Spanish Galleons of 1588?

Bill Morrison

Personally, no - largely because that hull shape is instantly recognizable as that of the two Revell kits.  (I've never seen anything else that looks quite like it.  A model based on either of those hulls would scream "Revell Spanish Galleon!" at me - and, I suspect, at lots of other plastic sailing ship enthusiasts.  Maybe even at all twelve of us.)  And the overall proportions, to my eye, simply aren't believable; the overhang of the stern structure looks ridiculous.

Here, however, we are deep into the area of personal taste.  Nobody knows for sure what a real Spanish galleon of the Armada period looked like.  None of the responsible reconstructions I've run across bears much resemblance to that Revell shape, but I can't prove that it's wrong. 

Also - I've never seen a model that was based (heavily modified) on either of those kits by a modeler who really knew what he/she was doing.  Maybe it could be done.  A big part of their (to my eye) preposterous appearance has to do with the malproportioned sail plan.  Replacing the masts and yards with new ones to late-sixteenth-century proportions might make quite a difference.

I really think, though, that it would be easier to start from scratch. 

Some people seem determined to look for means to justify badly-designed sailing ship kits.  (The various Forum threads dealing with the Heller Soleil Royal are full of posts from people trying to convince themselves that the proportions and details of that kit might - just might - be right.)  I've never felt any inclination to operate like that.  But we're deep into the realm of personal taste and interest here.  To each his own.  As warshipguy has noted so many times, there aren't many plastic sailing ship kits on the market these days; I guess I can't blame anybody for feeling reluctant to discard any of them.

jtilley wrote:

(I'm tempted to add another one:  "tall ship."  It's utterly meaningless except in the minds of marketers.)

It's first a rather romantic term, with credit to John Masefield, a wonderful poet.

Very good post, as usual I've learned alot. I feel like an audit student over at the local College.

As far as building one's own fantasy, it's an intriguing idea that was very popular in model railroading some decades ago, for a variety of reasons. Now the market is absolutely flooded with so many relatively accurate models of every railroad that is or ever was that it's much more rare.

See John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid

But it did always have the great benefit of instant innoculation from the rivet counters.

Thank you, bondoman, for your comments!  Also, I feel obliged to note jtilley's allusion to his being unable to prove what is wrong about these kits; I believe that our goal as serious modelers should be to prove that which is correct about a given ship model. This perspective then leads to a dilemma concerning these kits; how can one go about proving that the hull dimensions and spar dimensions are correct given the sparcity of primary source materials?  The discussion in this thread has caused me to start perusing the secondary source materials at my disposal, hoping that I can find some appropriate reference to primary sources.  Even a reliable secondary source would be helpful.

Bill Morrison

For a good, general, and reasonably up-to-date overview of the story, take a look at Cogs, Caravels, and Galleons, ed. Richard W. Unger, the relevant volume in the Conway's History of the Ship series.  The bibliography contains some Spanish sources that I haven't seen.  Probably the best, and certainly the most detailed, book specifically on galleons is Galleon:  The Great Ships of the Armada Era, by Peter Kirsch.  That book, the illustrations in which are outstanding, concentrates on English and other Northern European ships; it isn't so useful regarding Spanish ones.  Of the modern attempts to reconstruct Spanish galleons, probably the most believable one I've encountered is in The Spanish Armada, by Colin Martin and Geoffrey Parker, a big, well-illustrated history that was published to coincide with the anniversary in 1988. 

But don't expect to find any reliable, contemporary plans of Spanish galleons.  I'm about ninety percent confident in asserting that there simply aren't any - partly because modern conventions for drawing plans hadn't been established in the sixteenth century.  And be warned - the more time you spend studying good sources (both primary and secondary) about this subject area, the more ridiculous those two old Revell kits are going to look.

I understand that it would be a stroke of exceedingly good fortune to find an actual plan of an actual galleon.  That was an era when many master shipbuilders built "by eye" or intuition.  But, I wonder if there are reliable manuscripts similar to that of Baker's showing first-hand drawings, paintings, or sketches not only of the ships but of general layouts, fittings, and equipment.  I am not referring to romanticised artistic works, of which there are many.  It would be an interesting find!

As for your final point; given that I have studied naval history extensively, those kits do look ridiculous. That is why I started this thread, to draw further upon the knowledge of my modeling peers to help with ideas to make these things less ridiculous.  Therein lies the challenge! 

Bill Morrison

Well, you are all right about any sort of accurate period plan for a galleon, at least of the Elizabethan variety, as the art of drawing ship plans was very much in its infancy in those days.  The art of shipwrightry back then was very much an art, not a science, and no two ships were ever built alike.  Ships were built one at a time, with few actual measurements of any reliability, and mostly depended on the shipwrights skill and 'eye.'  The whole name 'galleon' actually comprises a number of vaguely similar ship-types, and the design could vary considerably depending on what use it was intended for, who built it, when and where.  While it is a commonplace to talk about all English galleons being low 'race-built' affairs, in fact several of them were just as burdensome as those used by the Spanish, with 'high-charged sides,' etc, such as the 'Ark Royal.'  Probably the best reference I have come across for all things galleon from the time of the Armada era is a book by Peter Kirsch named 'The Galleon, The Great Ships of the Armada Era.'  In it are plans, proportions and other specifications drawn from such references as Mathew Baker and many others as well........

Thank you for your good knowledge gentlemen.

In the early '90's the architecture firm I worked for designed and built the new International Terminal at the airport in San Francisco. The signature items were 380 foot long trusses spanning the departure hall. We found the perfect place to have them built- the erecting halls at Mare Island, which had been decommissioned.

It seems that in the heyday of building submarines, in the 20th century, these vast halls were used to fabricate the frames on a smooth floor, with the patterns laid out at full size.

It makes me feel pretty secure that most drawings of ships previous may best be considered design intent.

 

 

Comparing the written accounts of the English and Spanish Armada experiences of the Armada is interesting in that they illustrate the frustrations of The Duke of Medina Sidonia and Admiral Howard, the two in command of their respective fleets.  Remember, the Spaniards saw naval warfare as encounters in which the opposing ships would grapple each other and the battle decided by hand-to-hand combat; the English had no such desire, instead, choosing to stand off and engage in gunnery duels. The Spaniards arranged their fleet in a crescent with many of their most powerful warships on the horns for mutual defense.

The English, on the other hand, were loathe to attack the highly disciplined Spanish fleet.  Howard wrote, "We durst not adventure to put in among them."  If the English moved in close, Howard believed that he would give up any advantage that he held.  He therefore decided to use his superior speed to nip at the Spaniards' wings as opportunity arose.  Even his flagship Ark Royal was nimble enough to dash in, fire her broadsides, and evade.

Medina Sidonia, on the other hand, wrote, "Their ships are so fast and nimble, they can do as they like with them."  Given the superior speed of the English ships, the Spaniards could not force a battle, especially battle as they intended.  The English warships were simply too fast for them.

We must consider, though, that the regular warships were supplemented by many armed merchant ships.  John Hawkins may have reconstructed older warships and influenced the designs of newer ships, but he had no impact on privately owned merchant ships.  Many of these remained as slow and cumbersome as those of the Spaniards, who also supplemented their huge fleet by impounding those merchantmen in Spanish ports around their empire.  Even many English merchantment were impounded.

In short, the English warships were generally faster and more maneuverable than their Spanish warships. This fact influenced the entire course of the battle, giving the English one important tactical advantage.  The Spaniards were typically more heavily armed and were more cumbersome. This, too, reflected a favored style of fighting. They, too, held an important tactical advantage, that of maintaining a disciplined and powerful fleet that the English were reluctant to attack in force.  It was the Spaniards who owned the freedom of deciding where in England to attack; the English could only shadow and attack in pin-prick fashion while the Spaniards maintained their discipline.

Bill Morrison

I think jtilley's revelation that both Revell models were meant as decorative "ship models" rather than scale models is exactly the point. They represent the romantic idea of a galleon, not the historic one. So they have wild, exaggerated features.

If you accept them as that, they then can be fun to build. Put Herb Albert's "Lonely Matador" on the stereo, have a few sangrias, and go to town. Its 1972 all over again.

But if Revell sent its folks off to Culver City to research at MGM or Warner, they were going into an intense studio library laden with several decade's worth of reference material. They were bound to find a few real things in all that. The models' beakheads are actually quite good, for example. The high sterns, with the double galleries, may also be influenced by an actual 1594 Dutch engraving of a very large galleon, also shown in Kirch's book. So even here there are faint echos of something real - but only faint ones.

So while the models are basically decor items, they have value as showing how ships have been viewed in popular culture. That's quite valid in itself - and anything that lets you drink sangrias while building it can't be all bad. Ole'!

woodburner wrote:

I think jtilley's revelation that both Revell models were meant as decorative "ship models" rather than scale models is exactly the point. They represent the romantic idea of a galleon, not the historic one. So they have wild, exaggerated features. If you accept them as that, they then can be fun to build. Put Herb Albert's "Lonely Matador" on the stereo, have a few sangrias, and go to town. Its 1972 all over again. But if Revell sent its folks off to Culver City to research at MGM or Warner, they were going into an intense studio library laden with several decade's worth of reference material. They were bound to find a few real things in all that. The models' beakheads are actually quite good, for example. The high sterns, with the double galleries, may also be influenced by an actual 1594 Dutch engraving of a very large galleon, also shown in Kirch's book. So even here there are faint echos of something real - but only faint ones. So while the models are basically decor items, they have value as showing how ships have been viewed in popular culture. That's quite valid in itself - and anything that lets you drink sangrias while building it can't be all bad. Ole'! Jim

I'll drink to that, if only because ships, and perhaps railroads, exist in the popular imagination, as it was once a great thing, as much as they are documented, IMHO.

Given that I am interested in scale models of ships and not caricatures of ships, perhaps I should simply recoup my $1.00 loss by selling these kits on ebay for $75 to $85 each; that way I can drink a lot of sangrias or margaritas while building the Revenge!  Ole'!   

Just kidding.  I really want to find a way to turn these parodies of ships into real models.  Although I am continuing to research galleons, please keep your suggestions coming! I am really enjoying your comments.

Bill Morrison

It is impoirtant to remember the Armada was also composed of a number of different ship-types, with wildly different sailing performances.  These included not just galleons, but galleases, huge carracks, urcas and others as well.  As a fleet is only as fast as its slowest ship, you begin to see the problem faced by the Spaniards.  It was essential for the Armada to stay together and in formation, which meant there was no room, or opportunity to sally out for battles with individual English ships, as this would either put at hazard the many troopships with the fleet, and/or allow that individual Spanish ship to be overwhelmed by a number of English ships closing in for the kill.  The English were under no such constraint, and kept up a fairly constant level of harassment by individually darting in, firing one broadside, tacking or wearing around (firing either the bow chase or stern chase guns as they bore), then firing the other broadside and retreating away to reload (Elizabethan cannon were much harder to reload than later models).  All that said, the English really didn't inflict much damage the whole way up the Channel (though they burnt up a LOT of gunpowder!), and it was not until they launched a fireship attack against the anchored Armada in the Spanish Netherlands that the Armada became seriously affected, and of course, the rest of the destruction was up to the weather.

The major effect of the eight fireships was to disperse the Spanish fleet, leading to the culminating battle off the coast of Gravelines.  In this segment of the overall battle, the English ships caused tremendous hull damage to the Spanish ships through their devastating cannonade.  The Spanish ships suffered many shot-holes rendering many of them unseaworthy. The storms completed the work begun by the English.

For example, the Spanish flagship, the San Martin, became detached from the rest of the Armada.  She was immediately set upon by Drake's squadron, led by Revenge.  After Drake finished, the San Martin was set upon by Frobisher's squadron, led by Triumph.  By the time Frobisher was finished, the San Martin had suffered over 200 penetrations by English shot and was in danger of foundering.  Her Chief Purser, Pedro Coco Calderon wrote that, "The holes made in her hull between wind and water caused so great a leakage that two divers could hardly stop them up with hemp caulking and lead plates, working all day." 

Although San Martin survived, this account shows that English shot was effective.  Similarly, the San Felipe and San Mateo were reported "so low in the water their loss was expected soon after the battle."  In fact, several warships were sunk as a result of damage caused by English gunnery, including the large galleon Maria Juan.

So, it wasn't until the fireships that the English had a chance of inflicting major damage.  When the Spaniards were dispersed, the English were able to inflict tremendous damage, resulting in the loss of several key warships and heavy damage to most of the others, rendering many of the Spanish fleet barely seaworthy.  The storms finished the job.

Bill Morrison

Bingo!  The trick was to break up the fleet formation so the artillery could do the business, and by multiple ships against individuals.....

I can't believe it!  I think I found evidence of what Revell might have patterned these hulls after . . . there is a mid-16th century model of a Spanish galleon in the Sanctuario de Nuestra Senora de Consolacion in the Andalucian town of Utrera that shares the same hull lines and similar proportions to those of both Revell kits.  I found the photograph of this model in the New Vanguard Series book Spanish Galleon 1530 - 1690 from Osprey Publishing on page 8.  The same hull lines reappear in a color plate of the San Esteban, 1554, although that picture shows a different sail plan than that included in the kits.  Also, the cannon found in the kits match several of those relics pictured throughout the book.  I'm beginning to believe that I am making some progress.

Bill Morrison