The Ship Model Forum

[/quote]
For this, I used a very specialist tool: [/quote]

Yes, Indeed, that type of tool is very good. I normally use this:

hello Marijn

it's been a long time since I was on your thread
this perfection level of is rarely seen
you are really a great artist
cheers
Nicolas

Looks fantastic Regarding royals etc; we know the winds dropped away a lot as the British ships approached the allied line, so presumably they set everything they had to close to the distance as fast as possible. Victory was known as being fast (for a first rate) and a handy sailer, but as mentioned already Temeraire was essentially built to the same design, slightly refined, freshly coppered, and with a lighter armament so it makes sense that she was a little faster (we're probably only talking a fraction of a knot though). I would imagine a few of the 74s were also not taxing themselves to maintain station with Victory (although they had mostly been at sea for quite a long time, so that may not be accurate!)

One point - was Victory not starting to settle a little in the water at this point? She'd taken considerable hull damage and was taking in a fair amount of water. This may have manifested more later in the day, I'm not sure. I am aware though that at some stage they were worried she would sink.

this caught my eye...

I know about the colour controversy etc etc

but the concept and interpretation of the painting are quite neat!
=============================================
Neptune is painted in a pale ochre ( thought to be correct for that time period)

and Victory in the ( hitherto thught !!) " proper" yellow that my generation and many others grew up with ....

link below-- ( in German) but maybe open in Google chrome and use auto-translate ?

http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/mo ... ry-neptune

one of the image from Modell-marine

Many thanks everyone!

Martocticvs wrote:Looks fantastic Regarding royals etc; we know the winds dropped away a lot as the British ships approached the allied line, so presumably they set everything they had to close to the distance as fast as possible. Victory was known as being fast (for a first rate) and a handy sailer, but as mentioned already Temeraire was essentially built to the same design, slightly refined, freshly coppered, and with a lighter armament so it makes sense that she was a little faster (we're probably only talking a fraction of a knot though). I would imagine a few of the 74s were also not taxing themselves to maintain station with Victory (although they had mostly been at sea for quite a long time, so that may not be accurate!)

Thanks Martocticvs!
Meanwhile, I also found this passage in 'Voices from the battle of Trafalgar' which strenghtens this idea:
During her approach Lieutenant Clavell, a favourite of Collingwood�s, had seen the Victory setting her studding sails and pointed it out to the admiral requesting his permission to do the same. �The ships of our line�, replied Collingwood, �are not yet sufficiently up for us to do so now; but you may be getting ready.� The studding sail and royal halyards were accordingly manned. Fewer than ten minutes passed before the admiral, observing Lieutenant Clavell�s eyes fixed upon him with a look of expectation, gave the nod.

This is of course no direct evidence that Victory had royals set, but it is that she had stun�sails set. Also, it shows that royals were used at the time, and makes me think how much they may have been used in conjunction with stun�sails�, serving the same purpose?
So at the moment, I�m inclined to believe Victory did have royals set during her approach.

Martocticvs wrote:One point - was Victory not starting to settle a little in the water at this point? She'd taken considerable hull damage and was taking in a fair amount of water. This may have manifested more later in the day, I'm not sure. I am aware though that at some stage they were worried she would sink.

Thanks again! I haven't read that yet myself though (yet...). Do you remember the source?
I did read that she had only one casualty (wounded, not killed) on her lower gundeck though. This seems to contradict heavy hull-piercing damage low in the ship. They also did have an active damage-control party under the ship's carpenter's command active during action to close any gaps as quickly as possible. They wouldn't be able to handle everything of course, but it was pretty rare for ships of the line of this period to sink because of battle damage.
Maybe this happened during the storm after the battle? I certainly read this about other ships, especially the prizes. It was hard to keep the exhausted crews motivated to work the pumps, many of which were destroyed anyway.

Thanks Jim! That is a very nice and inspiring diorama!
I'll go there and read it in detail now. My German is pretty bad, but since Dutch (my native language) is pretty close I'll manage anyway...

On hull damage and flooding I meanwhile found this passage on p188 of 'Voices from the battle of Trafalgar':
At Trafalgar the Victory sustained 80 shot holes 'between wind and water', but all of them were plugged by her carpenters during and immediately after the battle and although her sailing capability was seriously impaired by the battle her integrity as a gun platform remained unquestionable.

So, unless other evidence pops up, I'll keep her at normal depth in the water. Anyway, the scene is set rather early in the battle.
But many thanks Martocticvs for making me consider this aspect carefully!

I do not think that she was deeper in the water by that time but rather higher

Shot holes were plugged as fast as possible, so as the depicted time was near the start of the engagement, there should not have been so much water in yet. Later on, after the battle and during the storm this was quite a problem. The water inside was quite high and this affected the rolling and so the left overs of the rigg had much more strain to carry as the ship could not roll as fast as usually to the side to give way to the wind.

On the other side there was quite a lot of weight missing as the mizzen and plenty of other rigging was already overboard, plenty of stuff jettisoned and especially all the weight of the iron that was then already expended.

Plenty of contemporary drawing of french prizes show this effect, when depicted under complete jury rigg in the english harbor, supposedly without water inside.

XXXDAn

Many thanks Dan!

These images are also very interesting regarding French ships of the period. As most details of Redoutable are unknown, and Boudriot describes ships from 1780, these provide good inspiration for things like rig details, painting, battle damage, ...
Do you happen to have more of those by any chance?

You can always go to Cherbourg and photograph the original!

EJFoeth wrote:You can always go to Cherbourg and photograph the original!

Now that would make for a funny diorama!

Really interesting discussion regarding how a ship might be affected by the loss of shot, powder, masts, timber and rigging, while possibly gaining water weight over the course of a battle. Enjoying this thread immensely.

dafi wrote:IPlenty of contemporary drawing of french prizes show this effect, when depicted under complete jury rigg in the english harbor, supposedly without water inside.

XXXDAn

Thats a very good set of paintings, especially the ones that depict ships where what looks like masts are actually the temporary masts rigged up for quick power (im sure those had a special name). And you can see actual masts much thicker being shot off/laying on the deck etc. Very interesting to see it in so much detail, as you go through every corner of the painting.

pascalemod wrote:the temporary masts rigged up for quick power (im sure those had a special name).

Yes, jury rigg

XXXDAn

dafi wrote:I do not think that she was deeper in the water by that time but rather higher

Shot holes were plugged as fast as possible, so as the depicted time was near the start of the engagement, there should not have been so much water in yet. Later on, after the battle and during the storm this was quite a problem. The water inside was quite high and this affected the rolling and so the left overs of the rigg had much more strain to carry as the ship could not roll as fast as usually to the side to give way to the wind.

On the other side there was quite a lot of weight missing as the mizzen and plenty of other rigging was already overboard, plenty of stuff jettisoned and especially all the weight of the iron that was then already expended.

Plenty of contemporary drawing of french prizes show this effect, when depicted under complete jury rigg in the english harbor, supposedly without water inside.

XXXDAn

Yes this all makes sense. I was half-remembering things I read years ago, so appologies for being a little off! They certainly lost a few ships during the storm that followed whilst under tow (such as the Santissima Trinidad), so I guess the concerns were mainly from that time.

marijn van gils wrote:Do you happen to have more of those by any chance?

Yes I do

Let me unearth the stuff

XXXDAn

marijn van gils wrote:Boudriot describes ships from 1780,

Hey Marijn,
those drawings are from the Glourious First of June, mid 1794, so in-between Boudriot and Trafalgar. Interesting is that on the last picture there are the old flag with white background AND the new flag the Tricolore are shown

XXXDAn

Very interesting indeed Dani�l! Many thanks!

Martocticvs, no need to apologize at all! On the contrary, your input made sure this aspect was considered consciensly and researched further instead of simply forgotten. Thank you very much!

ModelMonkey wrote:Really interesting discussion regarding how a ship might be affected by the loss of shot, powder, masts, timber and rigging, while possibly gaining water weight over the course of a battle. Enjoying this thread immensely.

Well, in that case, here we have some more research :

I found these �4 views of the Redoutable at Trafalgar� on an art auction website:


The provenance was indicated as �Lucas, through family descend� and it was dated 1806. They are credited to louis-Philippe Cr�pin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Philippe_Cr�pin).

I also found 3 illustrations in a very similar, yet slightly different style online.

And I also found 4 similar illustrations from a British newspaper.
These state that an original set of illustrations was made by an officer of the Redoutable for captain Lucas. They were passed on to his granddaughter. She allowed copies to be made for the Mus�e de la Marine at the Louvre. Of these copies, another set of copies was made for the newspaper.

So, there are 3 series:
A: the originals: I believe these to be the image above. I cut them out below to show them at higher resolution, marked with �A�. The attribution to Cr�pin doesn�t fit with �an officer of the Redoutable�, but one of both sources can easily be mistaken.

B: a set of copies in the Mus�e the la Marine. I have no way to be sure, but I believe these to be the files I marked with �B� below. I found only 3, so one must be still out there.

C: a set of copies of those copies in the newspaper. These are quite obvious. I marked them with �C� below.


I tried to order the illustrations of each set chronologically (from 1 to 4) and correlate the three sets:

1: Victory approaching the combined line, being fired on by the Bucentaure and Redoutable:







2: Victory and Redoutable early in the battle, before the arrival of T�m�raire (approaching at the left):







3: The height of the battle for Redoutable: figting both Victory and T�m�raire, while the Tonnant is raking her stern:





4: The redoutable after the battle, towed by the Swiftsure and about to founder:







Some observations and musings:

The copies of the Mus�e the la Marine and the newspaper are very similar in composition and content. But they differ quite significantly from the originals. That may not be surprising, as who knows under what conditions and with what intent the copies for the museum were made�

I have tried to correlate each set as good as I can, but because of these differences I cannot be 100% sure. It would help to find the missing illustration of the copies in the museum. Also, any input on my (uncertain!) attempt at correlation, or any info on these illustrations, is very welcome!


In any case, I think we can only use the original set as a sound historical source. But then again, we also have to treat that one as a historical source and take the ability and intent of the original maker into account.

And that brings us to the first illustration (Victory closing in on Bucentaure and Redoutable), as the original differs significantly from the copies.



On the original we don�t see any royals. Not even any topgallant sails, as her main topgallant mast and fore topmast are gone. This doesn�t show she had no royals set during the approach as all topgallant masts are gone in this illustration. But it does show that we cannot trust the copies who do show royals, but based on what?

The original does fit better with Lucas� report than the copies, as the report states that the main topgallant mast was gone by the time Victory broke the line. Also, het fore topsail is shown shot down as described in the report.

British sources on Vic�s damage do not indicate that her fore topmast was destroyed, but the illustration could have made a free interpretation from Lucas� report (which only talks about the fore topsail and its yard, not topmast, while it does mention the main topmast going down).

Anyway, my overall feel is that the original series does follow the report of Lucas� pretty closely. That makes it into a very interesting visual source. We can hope that they don�t contain mayor mistakes, especially to the appearance of Redoutable as the �client� (and maybe the maker?) would have known that ship intimately.

But then again, we can also expect some mistakes. The most obvious one seems to be the stern configuration of Victory with open galleries.

But during Trafalgar, Victory�s stern was never visible directly from Redoutable: Redoutable�s poop deck was alongside Victory�s quarter deck during their engagement. Only after Victory broke loose later during the battle, Redoutable�s crew, or what was left of it, had a chance to see her stern. But I can imagine that they had much more serious matters on their mind at that time�
So it may not be surprising that the illustrator �filled in the blanks� with a rather �standard� British first rate stern?

It is also striking to me how the general view of both ships looks a lot like in the painting "Le Redoutable � la bataille de Trafalgar" by louis-Philippe Cr�pin, dated 1807 ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... g_9431.jpg ):



The wrong stern on Victory, the position of her fallen mizzen mast and ensign, mainsail not yet clewed (while it is on timeframe �2� in the illustrations), stun�sail configuration, fore topmast down and sail hanging over the fighting top and lower yard, main topgallant gone, �
Redoutable is of course missing more of her masts and rigging as the moment portrayed here is later in the battle than in the first illustration, but her general position and appearance is very similar too.

If this is indeed Cr�pin using one of his illustrations to develop the composition of a painting later on, but from a different moment in the battle, this gives a most interesting glimpse in his artistic process!

It doesn�t necessarily prove that he is the author of the original illustrations (he could have been showed or even lend them by Lucas), but it does become a little more likely. The high quality of the illustrations also leads me to believe that they were not just made by an officer of the Redoutable, but by a trained artist.


Sorry for the long post, and without any plastic in it!
Anyway, I�m very interested in any ideas or observations anyone can make on these!

Cheers,

Marijn

Bravo!

More feedback soon

XXXDAn

Hey Marijn! And Dafi too.

What about the very big elephant in the room?

Victory depicted still with 2 open stern galleries? Is it really wrong? When were the galleries closed for sure?

Temeraire apparently still had 2 open galleries in Trafalgar.




And by the way. Temeraire has a curious paint pattern on her hull.