[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 21:25:47 03/22/18 Thu
Author: Albert Parker
Subject: Re: COMPARATION BETWEEN BRITISH TREE DECKER 98 GUNS AND FRENCH TWO DECKERS 80 GUNS
In reply to:
's message, "COMPARATION BETWEEN BRITISH TREE DECKER 98 GUNS AND FRENCH TWO DECKERS 80 GUNS" on 18:56:29 03/20/18 Tue
>Hello guys I am research for will write a article in
>english and spanish about the :
>COMPARATION BETWEEN A BRITISH WARSHIP TREE DECKER 98
>GUNS AND FRENCH WARSHIP TWO DECKERS OF 80 GUNS: which
>Can discuss about this topic, what factors can be
>usefull for this comparation?
>What carateristicsthe best?
>What tactics for each?
I'm not sure how many people are still here. To begin, I suggest that you stick to Spanish.
I think that if you compare the broadside weight of a French 80, especially a 24-pounder 80, with that of a British 90, later 98 (an extra 4 9-pounders per broadside didn't make a big difference), you will find that they about the same or that the 98 was inferior. Measured by displacement (not British burthen or builder's measure "tons"), French 80s were also larger than British 90s and early 98s.
You should keep in mind that while the transition from 90 to 98 did not make a big difference in the firepower of British second rates (the addition of 10 carronades was another matter), the French replacement of 18-pounders on the upper decks (deuxième batterie) of their 80s with 24-pounders did. During the 1730s the French navy had no ships more powerful than their 74-gun two-deckers (a three-decker burned on the stocks). Their first two-decker 80 was launched at Toulon in 1744 but had not been completed yet when the French fleet sailed with a Spanish squadron to fight the British fleet based at Hyères Bay. This ship, Tonnant had 30 * 36, 32 * 18, 18 * 8 or 6. The French navy built six more 18-pounder 80s before launching Saint Esprit in 1765 and fitting her with 24-pounders on the upper deck. All of their subsequent 80s had 24-pounder main batteries, but two of the older 18-pounder types were still in service when France entered the War of American Independence (WAI) in 1778.
After Tonnant, the French did not have any three-deckers until Ville de Paris (1764) and Bretagne (1766), and they remained the only French three-deckers until late in the WAI. (Royal Louis, 116,launched in 1759 and completed in 1762 had to be repaired in 1766 and was broken up after dry-docking in 1771, perhaps without ever having really been seaworthy.) Therefore, French 80s played the same role as subsidiary flagships as British 90s and 98s. The served as squadron flagships in large fleets when there weren't enough three-deckers to go around, and as sometimes as flagships of small squadrons. In this role, they would also have played the role of squadron strongpoint that British 90s/98s played.
The 80s were, however, superior to British second rates in speed and maneuverability. I don't know of a case where this was tactically significant. However, assignment of a 90 or 98 to a detached squadron could slow it down in a way that inclusion of a French 80 in a squadron of 74s and 64s would not.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |