Talk:Redridge Fleet/@comment-7263041-20160112091403/@comment-6335668-20160112095326

Aretain, I strongly advise you cease giving advice on this matter.

First, the crew: I don't know why you don't think 1350 men can fit on 28 ships. Let me provide a list of ships, by crew, from the real world:

HMS Sovereign of the Seas (1637): 80 crew, + 100 gunners, +400 crossbowmen - but this figure, according to Page 42 of Sovereigns of the Seas, is almost certainly wrong in its ratios.

The Great Michael (1511): Per p96 of the same, 420 crew - 300 sailors and 100 gunners.

HMS Victory: Per p4 of British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714–1792, 850 crew.

Now, you may try and argue that to use figures for very large ships is unfair. Let's look at some smaller ships:

Swan pattern sloops: Per the same, p 281, 125 crew.

Fifth-rates of the 1741 establishment: Per the same, p 170,  280 crew each.

Only very small ships take less than 50 men; six gunners, exploration ships, harbour vessels, and single-cannon gunboats. I can provide specific examples if you like.

But, maybe steam is the answer! It isn't. Here's some quite small steampaddlers, from the The Sail and Steam Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815–1889:

Cyclops steam frigate: 175 crew, per page 15.

Salamander class paddle sloop: 135 crew, page 155.

A variety of small steam paddle gunships, all from page 162: Pluto, 80. Firebrand, 80. Lizard, 60.

Your idea of 'too many men for the ships' would put each ship at less than 50 crew, regardless of their size. This means you would have it that the Redridge fleet has no ships of the line or even frigates - nothing but small sloops and cutters. The problem is not too many men, too few ships - it is too many ships, too few men.

Second, boats versus ships: The number of boats - that is, brigs, cutters, schooners, anything not a ship proper - should exceed the number of ships, not be smaller than it.

Please, stop giving guys bad advice.