All ships not listed as merchant vessels were built previous to the war, or in the season they appear.
June to December 1812
*Advantage at the beginning of the war; British up until November
British
Commander Hugh Earle
Royal George 20 Guns
20 32 pound carronades
Prince Regent 12 Guns
10 12 pound carronades, 2 6 pounders
Duke of Gloucester 12 Guns
12 6 pounders
Governor Simcoe 12 Guns (former merchant ship)
10 32 pound carronades, 2 12 pounders
Earl of Moira 10 Guns
10 18 pound carronades
American
Commodore Isaac Chauncey *September onwards
Madison 24 Guns (built in November)
20 32 pound carronades, 4 18 pounders
Oneida 18 Guns
16 24 pound carronades, 2 6 pounders
Former Trading Vessels
The Americans towed several of the smaller vessels
Scourge 10 Guns
4 6 pounders, 6 4 pounders
Hamilton 9 Guns
8 18 pound carronades, 1 12 pounder (pivot)
Governor Tompkins 6 Guns
2 18 pound carronades, 1 32 pounder (pivot), 1 24 pounder (pivot), 2 9 pounders
Growler 5 Guns
1 24 pounder (pivot), 4 4 pounders
Conquest 3 Guns
2 24 pounders (pivots), 1 6 pounder
Pert 3 Guns
1 32 pounder (pivot), 2 4 pounders
Asp 3 Guns
1 32 pounder (pivot), 2 6 pounders
Julia 2 Guns
1 32 pounder (pivot), 1 12 pound (pivot)
Ontario 2 Guns
1 32 pounder (pivot), 1 12 pounder (pivot)
Fair American 2 Guns
1 32 pounder (pivot), 1 24 pounder (pivot)
Lady of the Lake 1 Gun
1 9 pounder (pivot)
1813
*Advantage in 1813 except for May; Americans
British
Captain James Lucas Yeo
Wolfe 22 Guns (May)
2 68 pound carronades, 18 18 pound carronades, 2 12 pounders
Brock 23 Guns (burned at York before completion)
Royal George 20 Guns
2 68 pound carronades, 16 32 pound carronades, 2 18 pounders
Earl of Moira 16 Guns
14 24 pound carronades, 2 9 pounders
Lord Melville 14 Guns
12 32 pound carronades, 2 18 pounders
Prince Regent / Beresford 12 Guns
10 18 pound carronades, 2 9 pounders
Duke of Gloucester 12 Guns (Captured April, Burned May)
12 6 pounders
Sir Sydney Smith / Governor Simcoe 12 Guns
10 32 pound carronades, 2 12 pounders
American
Commodore Isaac Chauncey
General Pike 26 Guns (June)
*the size of a razed 4th rate
24 24 pound guns, 2 24 pounders (pivots)
Madison 24 Guns
20 32 pound carronades, 4 18 pounders
Oneida 18 Guns
16 24 pound carronades, 2 6 pounders
Sylph 10 Guns (August)
4 32 pounders (pivots), 6 6 pounders
Former Trading Vessels
The Americans towed several of the smaller vessels
Scourge 10 Guns (sunk in squall in August)
4 6 pounders, 6 4 pounders
Hamilton 9 Guns (sunk in squall in August)
8 18 pound carronades, 1 12 pounder (pivot)
Governor Tompkins 6 Guns
2 18 pound carronades, 1 32 pounder (pivot), 1 24 pounder (pivot), 2 9 pounders
Growler 5 Guns (captured then recaptured)
1 24 pounder (pivot), 4 4 pounders
Conquest 3 Guns
2 24 pounders (pivots), 1 6 pounder
Pert 3 Guns
1 32 pounder (pivot), 2 4 pounders
Asp 3 Guns
1 32 pounder (pivot), 2 6 pounders
Julia 2 Guns (captured then recaptured)
1 32 pounder (pivot), 1 12 pound (pivot)
Ontario 2 Guns
1 32 pounder (pivot), 1 12 pounder (pivot)
Fair American 2 Guns
1 32 pounder (pivot), 1 24 pounder (pivot)
Lady of the Lake 1 Gun
1 9 pounder (pivot)
1814
*Advantage 1814;
April to May; British
May to Early June; Equal
June to September; Americans
September 10th On; British
British
Captain James Lucas Yeo
Broadside Weight Before Sept; 2809 Tonnes
Broadside Weight Sept On; 4373 Tonnes
Broadside Weight Dec On; 5157 Tonnes
St. Lawrence 108 Guns (September 10th)
2 68 pound carronades, 34 32 pound carronades, 34 24 pound long guns, 34 32 pound long guns
Prince Regent 58 Guns (April 14th)
*a razed third rate; Leander Class
4 68 pound carronades, 24 32 pound carronades, 28 24 pounders,
Psyche 56 Guns (kit ship from England, December)
28 32 pound carronades, 28 24 pounders
Princess Charlotte 42 Guns (April 15th)
2 68 pound carronades, 16 32 pound carronades, 24 24 pounders
Montreal / Wolfe 23 Guns
4 68 pound carronades, 8 32 pound carronades, 1 24 pounder (pivot), 8 18 pounders
Niagara / Royal George 21 Guns
18 32 pound carronades, 1 24 pounder (pivot), 2 18 pounders
Star / Lord Melville 14 Guns
12 32 pound carronades, 2 18 pounders
Charwell / Earl of Moira 13 Guns
12 24 pound carronades, 1 18 pounder (pivot)
Netley / Beresford 11 Guns
10 18 pound carronades, 1 24 pounder (pivot)
Magnet / Sir Sydney Smith 11 Guns (Blown up to avoid capture in August)
10 24 pound carronades, 1 9 pounder (pivot)
Under Construction at the End of War
Wolfe 108 Guns (Est. June)
36 32 pound carronades, 76 24 pounders
*this is what was planned in 1813, since all ships seemed to be going with heavier guns, this may not have been the armament for these two ships
Canada 108 Guns (Est. June)
36 32 pound carronades, 76 24 pounders
American
Commodore Isaac Chauncey
Broadside Weight; 2740 Tonnes
Superior 58 Guns (May 2nd)
*this ship was the size of a razed 2nd rate or large 3rd rate
26 42 pound carronades, 30 32 pounders, 2 24 pounders
Mohawk 42 Guns (June 11th)
*the size of a razed third rate
16 32 pound carronades, 26 24 pounders
General Pike 26 Guns
*razed 4th rate
24 24 pounders, 2 24 pounders (pivots)
Madison 23 Guns
8 32 pound carronades, 14 18 pounders, 1 18 pounder (pivot)
Jones 20 Guns (overgunned and unstable) (April 10th)
16 42 pound carronades, 4 24 pounders
Jefferson 20 Guns (overgunned and unstable) (April 7th)
16 42 pound carronades, 4 24 pounders
Oneida 18 Guns
16 24 pound carronades, 2 6 pounders
Sylph 16 Guns
14 24 pound carronades, 2 9 pounders
Under Construction at the End of War
New Orleans 106 Guns (Est. Early April)
*I have different numbers for these 3 ships depending on the source
28 43 pound carronades, 70 32 pounders, 8 24 pounders
Chippewa 106 Guns (Est. May 15th)
28 43 pound carronades, 70 32 pounders, 8 24 pounders
Plattsburgh 56 Guns (Est. May 15th)
*this ship would be started after New Orleans was complete. I'm assuming it would be identical to Superior
26 42 pound carronades, 30 32 pounders, 2 24 pounders
1815
It's hard to say what a battle would have looked like. Usually only 3rd raters and up fought each other, but since these fleets were so small, the smaller ships probably would have engaged at a distance. This is a list including what was under construction in 1815. By June of 1815 the fleets are listed below.
British
Broadside Weight; 8133 Tonnes
3 First Rate Ships
1 Large Fourth Rate Ship (razed third rate)
1 Fourth Rate Ship
1 Fifth Rate Ship
2 Sixth Rate Ships
3 Smaller Ships
Americans
Broadside Weight 1815; 7362 Tonnes
2 First Rate Ships (larger ships)
2 Large Fourth Rate Ships (razed second/third rate)
1 Fifth Rate Ship (razed third rate)
4 Sixth Rate Ships
2 Smaller Ships
*The American ships were all razed (no upper decks), and had larger hulls at every level of size of ship, so although they look outnumbered, it may have been fairly even. It will have to be settled in game.
British; 524 Guns
Americans; 468 Guns
Advantage; British in Guns, but probably equal in tonnes of ships
I would suspect it would have been nearly equal in weight of metal as well, if not even in the Americans' favour. Of course carronades are a great equalizer, and on the lakes, the range problem is not so much of a problem.
ReplyDeleteThere's very little information on Psyche but what I have found seems to indicate she wasn't actually built from one of the kits, but rather the plans reached Kingston and built there completely from scratch. And certainly the ship that was built was different from the plans, but who knows. It missed the war anyway.
I haven't read a huge amount of material on the naval war on Ontario, but I'm still researching. In "Great Lakes Warships" it gives all of the details about the HMS Psyche, including that it was indeed one of the four frigate kits. Actually I just noticed it was launched in December. I will adjust my list above. I will post the pages on it for you.
DeleteInteresting! "British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793–1817: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates" claims otherwise, that the kits were sold at Montreal, and Kingston simply received the plans and Thomas Strickland modified them to produce Psyche. I'm not too sure of that, since Psyche had such a quick turnaround time, from keel to launch - despite still being late.
DeleteIt further states that they were designed in Chatham as 32s. The plans are 42s, and the actual ship was a 56! (As well as a flush two-decker.)
I built a 42 and a 56 using the plans, regardless.
I have found Osprey sources to be hit and miss. More of a summary than anything else (though useful enough I have many of them). Depending on which volume they often have errors, so it could be as you said.
DeleteSince your source is more specific, it is more likely to be more accurate.
DeleteWikipedia also claims that Psyche was built with the frameshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Psyche_(1814)
DeleteI have calculated the broadside weight, up until the launch of the St.Lawrence it is very close. After that, the British are way ahead. They both had about half carronades and half cannons so no advantage there.
DeleteThe American ships were bigger, but we're not bring made with oak but any wood. Both sides took other shortcuts however. I will add up the tonnes of weight of each ship later. I would estimate it will be equal.
Psyche is persistently a problem. The fact that she never really served means there's so little documentation. I was surprised to be able to find full plans of her. She was laid on Halloween and launched on Christmas, so I do tend to think it actually was a kit, but Regent and Charlotte had quick buildtimes, too. For a "what-if", you could certainly run with both kits being built, however. Though if they were built to plan then they would be 14 guns (presumably carronades) short of what the actual Psyche carried.
DeleteI'm not very familiar at all with the American lake ships. Did they make use of the closer framing seen on the "superfrigates"? If so I would assume they'd mass greater, even being made from inferior wood. (No mythical live oak on the lakes, that's for sure!)
The Osprey book says they heavily modified the kit. I will post the pages.
DeleteIt looks as though the British used oak but the Americans used whatever hardwood was at hand.
The Americans seemed to have copied their smaller ocean vessels, but there does not seem to be a Constitution class of ship. The Americans overall seemed to have had their own style however. Razed large ships. The same size ship in the Royal Navy would have had more guns, more decks, and more crew. It would have the advantage of a thicker and larger hull, and a low profile. All pluses. On the other hand more wood would be needed.
I'm not sure how much of the framing from ocean going ships they used, but they seemed to have taken a lot of shortcuts. I don't know how much the shortcuts would have weakened the hull of these vessels. Between that and the mix of hardwoods, they would not have been comparable to the ocean going class of ships.
Reading about the few battle reports for Ontario during the so called "Burlington Races" the USS Pike had several holes in its hull while the British fleet seemed to have none, though the rigging of the Wolfe was very damaged. The Pike was a bigger ship than the Wolfe. During the attempted capture of the Royal George Chauncey claimed it was in sinking condition with several holes in the hull. The British don't seem to corroborate this and only had one killed. It could have been his way of trying to make a defeat look like a victory.
That's interesting about the Americans using whatever wood was at hand. It explains how they were able to respond to British construction, and it also shows a very different philosophy from the superfrigates - and the British. The British were staunchly conservative about wood, and with the possible exception of Indian teak, were loathe to use anything other than english oak if at all possible, even if other woods were actually superior.
DeleteIn the document you posted about the wrecks in Deadman's Bay, all of their wood samples from Princess Charlotte were white oak. I looked at hardness chart, and white oak is only slightly harder than red oak. Many of the woods the Americans were using were a lot softer than oak, who knows how much of those other woods they used. I see it as a plus to hull thickness, but a minus to hull hardness.
ReplyDeleteJanka Hardness Test
Southern Live Oak; 2680 (on the US Super Frigates only)
Maple; 1450
White Oak; 1360
Red Oak; 1290
Ash; 1320
Soft Maple; 950
Elm; 830
Chestnut; 540
Pine; 420
If you ever want to go down a rabbit hole regarding wood and shipbuilding, check out the Naval Action forums. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/4636-timber-types-used-in-ship-construction-request/
DeleteThere are Admiralty surveyor reports, as well as personal opinions from captains and admirals, about various woods around the world. From what I understand, white oak (and of course live oak) was in fact quite a lot better than English oak, but the British just didn't really care, and preferred their own oak. And other than the handful of Americans, they never faced ships built out of North American woods anyway, so I suppose in the end white oak's superiority didn't come in to play.
Maple was(/is) poor for shipbuilding because of the sugars, it's given to rot very easily. Red oak, apparently, is very happy to become waterlogged and lose buoyancy. I don't think it was ever used much. But for the lifespans expected on the Lakes, I doubt if either factor would have mattered much.
Er, also meant to say that the British didn't build ocean-going ships in North America, either, contributing to white oak not getting to shine (other than where it was used in the superfrigates, but even then, it gets overshadowed by the live oak.) There was one sloop built in Halifax, but that's the biggest there ever was, and it probably was red oak, if it was even oak of any kind. Even Bermuda didn't build anything bigger than sloops.
DeleteEnglish oak scores 1120 on the Janka test. Softer. Than red wood.
Delete