Some Points on Rättvisan

[Fluffy Fishy]

Its become clear there is a bit of kickback surrounding Rättvisan and its status as and announced DLC ship. While I'm not interested in going into the debate over whether its going to be positive or negative as a game design choice to include a large ship as part of the DLC roster its probably worth clearing a few things up and help people understand what the ship is, her role and where she stands in the general sense of herself historically.

Here is a piece i wrote about 8 months ago as part of a general comparison taken from a picture in the book Das Erbe Der Serenissima by Dr Karl Klaus Korner during my general research for the Fama thread I have built up over my years playing NA. It offers some fairly basic information about the ship and a good starting point for people to understand her.

On 8/21/2018 at 1:48 PM, Fluffy Fishy said:

Rättvisan (1783) Swedish 62 gun Third Rate

Improved Wasa Class

Designer: Fredrik Chapman

Measurements

Total Length: 167 (Swedish foot) (49.6m)

Width: 45’ 9” (Swedish foot) (13.59m)

Depth of Hold: 19’ 6” (Swedish foot)

Draught: 19’6 (Swedish foot) (5.79m)

Armament

Peacetime:

26 x 24lb (Swedish pound) (10.2 kg each)

28 x 18lb (Swedish pound) (7.65 kg each)

8 x 6lb (Swedish pound) (2.55 kg each)

Total Broadside: 588 lb (Swedish pound) (249.9 kg)

Wartime:

26 x 36lb (Swedish pound)

28 x 24lb (Swedish pound) (10.2 kg each)

8 x 6lb (Swedish pound) (2.55 kg each)

Total Broadside: 828 lb (Swedish pound) (351.9 kg)

Plans:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Short History: Rättvisan was one of the Improved Wasa Class ships drawn up by Chapman, constructed at great speed in Karlskrona, with her keel laid down on 19th of July.1783 and was launched only a month and a half later on the 2nd of September straight into service. Rattvisan was heavily involved with the Swedish-Russo war of 1788-90 where she took part in the battles of Hogoland and Vyborg. It was during the battle of Vyborg where she was captured by the Russians, who much prized Swedish ships. Now with Russia, she was commissioned to the Baltic in 1791, then stationed in Revel’ Roads between 1792-4, England 1795-6, then the Baltic again in 1797, the same year she was docked in Kronshtadt and surveyed for draughts so as could be copied. She departed her dock in 1798 and went to assist British efforts in the North sea until 1800. She then returned to russia, and received repairs between 1803-4 after which she returned to service in the Mediterranean. She fought at the battles of Mount Athos, The Dardanelles and Lemnos in 1807, was stationed to Lisbon between 1807-8 and then went on to be interned at Portsmouth. She remained there until she was sold in 1813, although her guns were returned to Russia.

Lets start talking about her role and rating. Sweden has a  long and impressive naval history when it comes to ship design and general projective ability for their sea power, they relied on quality design work so as to be able to defend from their main military threat, Russia. What Sweden wasn't however was a first rate naval power, which arguably Russia was, they are clearly a second rate nation when it comes to their navy, and as such had to behave in a way that was fitting, clearly not having such significant resources as the largest European navies. They did however make up for this with some pretty impressive innovations, such as the original 24lb frigate. The designs of Swedish ships were well regarded by other nations upon capture and Chapman, the designer of Rättvisan, is one of the period's most celebrated naval architects.

Rättvisan is within the Swedish Navy rated as a 3rd rate, and as such she was part of the main battleship role, even as a 62 as Sweden had less resources to build and maintain the typical 74s of the Period, we also need to remember that the naval rating system of the period was simply a tool of rough role definition and funding administration, which defined how many men the ships were to be crewed by, what support and what jobs the ship was best suited for, which varied significantly from nation to nation. NA takes their rough guide of the rating system from a fairly late rendition of the British Royal navy, which from 1760 onwards classes 64s as 3rd rates, and 1817 onwards 70+ as 3rds, which on paper at least leaves Rättvisan as a solid 4th rate. There is however the classic issue with gamelabs design choices is that when modelling ships for the game they tend to up-gun them fairly significantly and skew things up a little, classic examples of this include Rättvisan's half sister Wasa, who bizarrely appears as a 64 rather than a 60 and Bucentaure who has squeezed in 88 guns. I'm also fairly sure I saw it mentioned that Rättvisan would be a 70 gunner which would push her into the 3rd rates, despite her typical service being as a 62 and 64 gun ship.

Her general performance was well known as a good sailor which can be easily cross referenced as it was agreed by each of the nations who commissioned her. her hull is very similar to Agamemnon and the Ardent class built by Britain but she was also more lightly constructed so as to be significantly faster and a little more than the similar Ardent class 64s, it also meant she could carry a significantly heavier armament including a main deck of Swedish and even Russian 36s which gave her a broadside of 352kg under Swedish wartime service and a staggering 400kg during her time with the Russians, which was far greater than the typical British 64 firing around 270kg, again arguably pushing her into NA 3rd rate territory especially as she should really be able to load 36s, which don't really have any distinction against loading 42s in the current game state. However she also took a much lighter peacetime load out to make the most of her sailing qualities, a point that brings some impressive versatility to her design as realistically its incredibly difficult to build a ship to behave how you want it with two very different set ups.

As a ship if balanced to her historical build she should be a light-medium hull strength and thickness with a nasty broadside behind her. She should sail well but with obvious significant drawbacks in agility when armed with her heaviest 36lb armaments and realistically she should behave depending on that armament she is given, which is what she was designed and built to do. Part of what makes this discussion so blurry is the fact as a ship she was specifically supposed to bridge the gap between Line ship and Heavy Cruiser. Armed with her wartime armament she is most realistically a 3rd rate Ship of the Line but during peacetime she sits solidly in the Cruising heavy 4th rate. She's an impressive design and a real credit to the ability of Chapman

I hope this helps shed a bit more light on the ship and hopefully smooth over discussions a little in what seems like a fairly heated environment right now. As ever thank you for reading .

Edited March 26, 2019 by Fluffy Fishy

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

Admin clearly stated DLC Rättvisan will only get what you listed as "peacetime armament" meaning 24lb main deck & 18lb though.

[Malachi]

Some good points, Fluffy.

But two questions:

-where does the peacetime/wartime armament part come from? As far as I know, the intended armament for the class has always been 24/36, it just took some time to equip the ships with the new guns. Some never got it, by the way (probably due to lack of funds).  And the ships displayed good sailing characteristics regardless of the weight of the guns, e.g. Gustav Adolph repeatedly managed ~ 11 knots close-hauled with the 24/36 set-up. But, to be fair, the 24-pounders were 'light', slightly heavier than a british 18-pounder. During the 'Wasa-crisis' back in 2017 (or 2018?), I proposed a much more sensible armament with 18/32, but it didn´t get far

-light construction? Chapman learned his trade in England, so it´s very probable that he also used english buildings practices. And the vessels which did survive the war of 1789 had an average service life of ~ 60 years, the last one broken up in 1874.

 

And you forgot to mention one of the main features of the GA-class: they carried their main battery 7 feet above the waterline, that´s 1 1/2 to 2 feet more than a traditional SoL.

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Malachi

[Fluffy Fishy]

45 minutes ago, Malachi said:

where does the peacetime/wartime armament part come from? As far as I know, the intended armament for the class has always been 24/36, it just took some time to equip the ships with the new guns. Some never got it, by the way (probably due to lack of funds).  And the ships displayed good sailing characteristics regardless of the weight of the guns, e.g. Gustav Adolph repeatedly managed ~ 11 knots close-hauled with the 24/36 set-up. But, to be fair, the 24-pounders were 'light', slightly heavier than a british 18-pounder. During the 'Wasa-crisis' back in 2017 (or 2018?), I proposed a much more sensible armament with 18/32, but it didn´t get far

I honestly don't remember where I found the information, the original post took me about 2-3 days of fairly heavy research during summer of last year trying to dig out some pretty specialised information for Concordia (1772), Dolphin (1784), Grampus (1782), Rättvisan (1783) and Fama (1784). It was a pretty difficult project at the time and I didn't really keep any records of source material I used because I was fairly sure I wouldn't need it again, sorry.

45 minutes ago, Malachi said:

-light construction? Chapman learned his trade in England, so it´s very probable that he also used english buildings practices. And the vessels which did survive the war of 1789 had an average service life of ~ 60 years, the last one broken up in 1874.

Its fairly well known Chapman took a lot of building practises and ideas from his time in England but what he didn't take was the British standard for overbuilding the bulky British brawlers especially the more famous 64s such as Agamemnon weren't something that seemed to translate into Sweden, which is largely why as you point out Adolph could hit 11kn with heavy arms where as Agamemnon struggled to find anything much beyond around 9kn with such similar hydraulic lines.

45 minutes ago, Malachi said:

And you forgot to mention one of the main features of the GA-class: they carried their main battery 7 feet above the waterline, that´s 1 1/2 to 2 feet more than a traditional SoL.

I was unaware that this was the case. its not something that really stuck out to me when I was researching the original post, especially as the picture I was presenting the information for doesn't really show much of a difference in gun port height with the examples shown despite being to scale, but perhaps its because the study is comparing rather similar ships. Thank you for bringing it up though.

Original picture and post can be found here here:

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Fluffy Fishy

[Malachi]

The waterline for Rättvisan is much to high, the LWL with max draft should be ~1 feet below the wale.

 

This draught for Wasa, but the GA-class one looks very similar.

Just noticed: the - almost - continuous berth (?) deck and the 13 gun ports on the upper deck. I always wondered why some ships had 26 and some 28 guns on the upper deck. Chapman omitted a gun port where the wheel is situated, but some captains apparently wanted to have a gun there anyway

On 3/26/2019 at 6:44 PM, Fluffy Fishy said:

It was a pretty difficult project at the time and I didn't really keep any records of source material I used because I was fairly sure I wouldn't need it again, sorry.

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that I've never read something that suggested a difference between wartime/peacetime armament. That´d be really surprising, the swedish navy had enough difficulties properly arming their ships at all, let alone providing two sets per ship.

On 3/26/2019 at 6:44 PM, Fluffy Fishy said:

Its fairly well known Chapman took a lot of building practises and ideas from his time in England but what he didn't take was the British standard for overbuilding the bulky British brawlers especially the more famous 64s such as Agamemnon weren't something that seemed to translate into Sweden, which is largely why as you point out Adolph could hit 11kn with heavy arms where as Agamemnon struggled to find anything much beyond around 9kn with such similar hydraulic lines. 

It's been a while since I made my research for the Wasa/GAs (and I hate Sols), probably around the time Bungee made the GA model ready for submitting, but I'll have a look at my notes if there´s anything about the building practices.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Malachi

[Tom Farseer]

1 hour ago, Malachi said:

where does the peacetime/wartime armament part come from?

Though I cannot answer that question directly, the threedecks page for the Kronprins Gustaf Adolf gives us at least a hint:
Tthe source on the "wartime" armament is given (on threedecks) as " Russian Warships in the Age of Sail", a book by John Tredrea and Eduard Sozaev
That for the lighter loadout is only a website: http://felipe.mbnet.fi/html/sweden.html Sadly there is no primary source given. Only a collection of books.
Yet, it might help @Fluffy Fishy find his source again =)

[Malachi]

I do have 'Russian Warships', might be worth looking into again, thanks for the hint.

5 minutes ago, Tom Farseer said:

That for the lighter loadout is only a website: http://felipe.mbnet.fi/html/sweden.html Sadly there is no primary source given. Only a collection of books.

My best guess for this kind of stuff is 'Svenska Flottans Historia'. Now where is my digital copy of part II?

 

 

[Ligatorswe]

8 minutes ago, Tom Farseer said:

Though I cannot answer that question directly, the threedecks page for the Kronprins Gustaf Adolf gives us at least a hint:
Tthe source on the "wartime" armament is given (on threedecks) as " Russian Warships in the Age of Sail", a book by John Tredrea and Eduard Sozaev
That for the lighter loadout is only a website: http://felipe.mbnet.fi/html/sweden.html Sadly there is no primary source given. Only a collection of books.
Yet, it might help @Fluffy Fishy find his source again 😃

the thing on different arnament is well known here in Sweden.

Peacetime the mission of these ships were to do escorts, and patrol such. Thus 24 pounders. When in a war the purpose of these 4th rates was to be ships of the line, and thus they were equipped with heavier guns. At least that was the case when she was in the Swedish navy.

It is actually a very good idea to let Wasa have 32 pounders in game and the DLC Rättvisan 24 pounders. It is somewhat just. (Bad pun. Rättvisan means THE JUSTICE in english..)

[Vernon Merrill]

Over gunning also put more stress on the ship... which can help prevent hogging.   Again, during wartime this is less of a consideration. 

24's weighed approx. 300-500kg less than 32's.  So I would imagine @Ligatorswe pretty much nailed it.

[Ligatorswe]

Just now, Vernon Merrill said:

Over gunning also put more stress on the ship... which can help prevent hogging.   Again, during wartime this is less of a consideration. 

24's weighed approx. 300-500kg less than 32's.  So I would imagine @Ligatorswe pretty much nailed it.

Chapman constructed the ship with this in mind and it was very robust and could carry 32s with ease. The ships were famous for being very seaworthy.

[DeRuyter]

4 hours ago, Malachi said:

Some good points, Fluffy.

But two questions:

-where does the peacetime/wartime armament part come from? As far as I know, the intended armament for the class has always been 24/36, it just took some time to equip the ships with the new guns. Some never got it, by the way (probably due to lack of funds).  And the ships displayed good sailing characteristics regardless of the weight of the guns, e.g. Gustav Adolph repeatedly managed ~ 11 knots close-hauled with the 24/36 set-up. But, to be fair, the 24-pounders were 'light', slightly heavier than a british 18-pounder. During the 'Wasa-crisis' back in 2017 (or 2018?), I proposed a much more sensible armament with 18/32, but it didn´t get far

-light construction? Chapman learned his trade in England, so it´s very probable that he also used english buildings practices. And the vessels which did survive the war of 1789 had an average service life of ~ 60 years, the last one broken up in 1874.

 

And you forgot to mention one of the main features of the GA-class: they carried their main battery 7 feet above the waterline, that´s 1 1/2 to 2 feet more than a traditional SoL.

 

Sadly the last part does not matter in NA since we don't have real weather. 

[Haratik]

1 hour ago, DeRuyter said:

Sadly the last part does not matter in NA since we don't have real weather. 

If only!

[Fluffy Fishy]

A bit off topic but its curious how much more chunky the improved Wasa class is compared to the original 1777 design.

Wasa Class:

 

 

 

Improved Wasa Class:

Edited March 26, 2019 by Fluffy Fishy
The way spoilers work is toxic.

[Sir Texas Sir]

8 hours ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

Admin clearly stated DLC Rättvisan will only get what you listed as "peacetime armament" meaning 24lb main deck & 18lb though.

They could have a craftable version that is a third rate with "wartime armament", just like they could do that with the Wasa, have a lighter armament as a 4th rate.  Unless they are going to have pretty much the same stats as to making the Wasa the wartime and the Ratt the peacetime.  That would mean they should have the same hull stats than.

[Riparian]

If I remember correctly the wartime/peacetime armament plan is mentioned at least in this book: "F.H. Chapman: The First Naval Architect and His Work".

There is also information about naming the ships in this class. They come from the following sentence: ""Prins Gustaf Adolf styr Fäderneslandet med Ömhet och Rättvisa, Dygd och Ära, välj Försiktighet, Dristighet, Manlighet och Tapperhet till rådgivare""

[Shrez]

Doesn't matter at all, it's a 4th rate i will buy it just to troll PvPers if i loose ship i don't care so is this a good idea of DLC? i don't know.

[Malachi]

19 hours ago, Fluffy Fishy said:

A bit off topic but its curious how much more chunky the improved Wasa class is compared to the original 1777 design.

4 feet longer and a couple of inches more breadth and draft. Body plan looks pretty much the same, imo.

[Lovec1990]

@admin do you think its good idea releasing a DLC ship into game without being propetly tested like requin was?

Edited April 3, 2019 by Lovec1990

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

If it's a wasa with a 24lb main deck, there is not a lot to test..