USS Constitution vs. HMS Victory
Matthew Beesley
again, how would she do against the USN's heavy frigate USS Constitution?
In poor weather Victory's lowest gundeck would not be able to open thier
gun ports so the number of guns on each side may be a little more even;
otherwise Victory's 110 guns would make a sorry mess out of the frigate.
Apparently Constitution was a avery good sailor, while almost all British
battleships were very poor sailors (the best being those captured from the
Spanish and French). Constitution mounted 32 pounders, as did Victory.
Staale Sannerud
Staale Sannerud
A R BREEN
Victory was famous (even beofre trafalgar) as the fastest 1st-rate in the
navy. She was good enough (even after Trafalgar) for her lines to be taken
off and used for the 'Queen Charlotte' group of 1st rates in 1810-1813.
So although she couldn't catch a frigate in calm weather she might have stood
a chance in worse conditions, where her weight would help her.
Constitution's 32pdrs were short-barrelled guns, designed for very close-quarters
smashing. Victory had long 32s on her lower deck and long 24s on her middle
deck (Constitution carried - I believe - a mix of short 32s and long 24s on
her single gun deck).
Constitution was construced with scantlings similar to a 3rd rate (74): to
carry their artillery 1st rates were even more heavily built. Victory could
stand pounding from Constitution's guns far longer than Constitution could
stand up to Victory..
In a stand-up fight Constitution - like any frigate - would have to run and
hope that nothing carried away. If she was pinned inshore and *had* to fight
she might still be able to do some damage (given luck and good handling)
but would almost certainly be overwhelmed in short order - probably carried
by boarding. No frigate could stand a broadside-to-broadside fight with a
ship of the line [1] - the destruction of the big Turkish (2 decked & long
32s!) frigates at Navarino proved that. At close ranges the concentration of
fire from a 1st rate was simply too much. Frigates weren't meant to fight
ships of the line (and sending cruising ships to fight battle ships has
been shown to be a mugs game time & again since).
Constitution was a particularly good frigate for her day. But then
Victory seems to have been a particularly good ship-of-the-line, as her
long active service life (she lasted until 1827 as a seagoing warship:
re-built that year as a 20-gun guardship for Portsmouth) shows. By 1827
she was totally out of date (the 1st rates of that period mounted 120 guns
but these were *all* 32 pounders..) but her sailing qualities seem to have
still been highly thought of.
# Andy Breen # Fflachennau Rhynblanedol / Interplanetary Scintillation |
# ---------- # Adran Ffiseg / Physics Department |
# a...@aber.ac.uk # Prifysgol Cymru Aberystwyth, Cymru, EU. 44+(0)1970621907 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless this posting concerns the solar wind all opinions are purely personal
Andrew Toppan
: deck (Constitution carried - I believe - a mix of short 32s and long 24s on
: her single gun deck).
She has all long 24s on the gun deck, with the short 32s on the spar deck.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."
Andy Spark
(Matthew Beesley) wrote:
> Assuming that HMS Victory could be made sea-worthy and battle worthy
> again, how would she do against the USN's heavy frigate USS Constitution?
It wouldn't happen, unless Constitution had a very brave, or very stupid
Captain Constitution would keep out of the way of a first rate, if she
were foolish enough to come within range then, well you might as well
match off an Invincible against a Nimitz
--
Andy Spark andy....@butterworths.co.uk
Eric Holwitt
>Assuming that HMS Victory could be made sea-worthy and battle worthy
>again, how would she do against the USN's heavy frigate USS Constitution?
>gun ports so the number of guns on each side may be a little more even;
>otherwise Victory's 110 guns would make a sorry mess out of the frigate.
>Apparently Constitution was a avery good sailor, while almost all British
>battleships were very poor sailors (the best being those captured from the
>Spanish and French). Constitution mounted 32 pounders, as did Victory.
The CONSTITUTION would most likely make a run for it. The effects
of a broadside from a first rate doesn't look too lovely,
especially if you're on the recieving end. The VICTORY's
broadsides into the ships at Trafalgar were devastating. However
if the CONSTITUTION was compelled to fight then the results would
be in question.
The VICTORY was a very fast ship, which made her a favorite as a
flagship because of her fast speed.
However the CONSTITUTION was designed to outrun ships far heavier
than herself, and in all probability she was faster than the
VICTORY. If so then her commander could use her speed and
maneuverability (better than frigates and ships larger than
herself and worse than little schooners used by privateers) to
his advantage, probably trying to rake the VICTORY's bow
repeatedly in a running battle. There is a chance, however small,
than the CONSTITUTION could win such a battle, but one or two
full broadsides from the VICTORY and there would not be much left
of the CONSTITUTION.
Joel Holwitt
Frank Gleaves
>Assuming that HMS Victory could be made sea-worthy and battle worthy
>again, how would she do against the USN's heavy frigate USS Constitution?
>In poor weather Victory's lowest gundeck would not be able to open thier
>gun ports so the number of guns on each side may be a little more even;
>otherwise Victory's 110 guns would make a sorry mess out of the frigate.
>Apparently Constitution was a avery good sailor, while almost all British
>battleships were very poor sailors (the best being those captured from the
>Spanish and French). Constitution mounted 32 pounders, as did Victory.
I don't know that HMS Victory was all that bad a sailor. Many Royal
Navy ships-of-the-line were fast when they had a clean bottom - and
that includes some of the British-built ones... :-)
Their length and ability to carry sail gave them the speed - in light
weather or when beating to windward the lighter and more weatherly frigates
had the advantage, but in a strong wind the big liners could really move.
And if I recall rightly, Nelson chose the Victory as his flagship because
of her good sailing qualities.
Constitution would have been faster if her bottom didn't carry too great
a load of barnacles, and could always escape by sailing closer to the wind
than the Victory could - if the way were clear and she wasn't damaged. Any
captain except perhaps Lawrence of the Chesapeake would have chosen that if
he knew what he was up against, but it was sometimes hard to differentiate
between a frigate and a ship-of-the-line.
So in heavy weather the Constitution would likely have an advantage in
both firepower and maneuverability, while in light or moderate weather she
_might_ have been able to outmaneuver Victory and get in a good position
to rake her. Against a French or Spanish crew I'd favor the Constitution,
but against a British crew in anything but heavy weather I'd expect quite
a fierce battle until the Victory shot away her masts and rigging and took
up a raking position. Unless the Constitution got lucky and shot away the
Victory's bowsprite & foretopmast first, of course!
I'm speaking here of early 19th century crews.
BTW, I think the Constitution mounted long 24's and 32 pdr carronades.
Later American frigates did mount long 32's, but AFAIK not Constitution.
Frank Gleaves
Ståle Sannerud
> So in heavy weather the Constitution would likely have an advantage in
>both firepower and maneuverability, while in light or moderate weather she
>_might_ have been able to outmaneuver Victory and get in a good position
>to rake her. Against a French or Spanish crew I'd favor the Constitution,
>but against a British crew in anything but heavy weather I'd expect quite
>a fierce battle until the Victory shot away her masts and rigging and took
>up a raking position. Unless the Constitution got lucky and shot away the
>Victory's bowsprite & foretopmast first, of course!
The Constitution would outgun a two-decker in heavy weather (at least
36+18-pounder 74s, but not necessarily the large 36+24-pounder 80s),
but hardly the Victory. Her lower-deck 36-pounders would certainly be
unusable (unless perhaps if she was to leeward) but her 28 middle-deck
24-pounders would more than match the Constitution's 24s. On the upper
deck she had a full tier of 30 12-pounders. Throw in the 8-pounders on
the upper works and it adds up to a lot of bad news for the US vessel.
True, the frigate's 36-pounder carronades would pack a heavier punch
than the first rate's long guns, but only at _very_ close range -
something any frigate captain in his right mind would surely try to
avoid against an enemy three times his size and with twice his crew!
Staale Sannerud
A R BREEN
Frank Gleaves <fgle...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> wrote:
>
> So in heavy weather the Constitution would likely have an advantage in
>both firepower and maneuverability, while in light or moderate weather she
>_might_ have been able to outmaneuver Victory and get in a good position
>to rake her. Against a French or Spanish crew I'd favor the Constitution,
>but against a British crew in anything but heavy weather I'd expect quite
>a fierce battle until the Victory shot away her masts and rigging and took
>up a raking position. Unless the Constitution got lucky and shot away the
>Victory's bowsprite & foretopmast first, of course!
I think any frigate captian would regard knocking a first-rate's
spars away as an opportunity for a rapid exit - the first rate could
still knock one of his spars away and then he'd be in big trouble.
I think if Victory was well handled and Constitution was unable to run
for some reason then the battle-as-such would only last until Constitution
lost a mast & Victory was able to overwhelm her broadside on, followed by
boarding (think of the difference in crew size).
Of course by 1812 Victory was rather more fomidable than she was
at Trafalgar, having recieved a closed (round) bow which allowed more
guns to fire ahead and gave much greater protection against raking fire
(so crossing her bow was perhaps not a good idea) and a closed stern
which reduced the vunerability from that end a bit. I think in 1812
Victory was rated as a 2nd rate ship (with 98 guns: 32s on the lower
deck, 24s on the middle and 18s on the upper deck & no carronades I think)
- she was restored to 1st rate status ~1817? However no sane frigate commander
would have tried to fight her.
I think the only successful frigate action against a ship-of-the-line
was the Indefagatable (40-gun razee, 24pdrs) and another frigate against
the French 3rd rate Droits D'L'homme of Brittany in heavy weather: the
french ship was driven into the surf and wrecked with heavy loss of life.
This was shortly after the revolution & the French ship may not have been
well handled.
Kevin Stewart
> I think the only successful frigate action against a ship-of-the-line
>was the Indefagatable (40-gun razee, 24pdrs) and another frigate against
>the French 3rd rate Droits D'L'homme of Brittany in heavy weather: the
>french ship was driven into the surf and wrecked with heavy loss of life.
>This was shortly after the revolution & the French ship may not have been
>well handled.
The other frigate was HMS Amazon, and she too was wrecked.
Edward Pellew commanded HMS Indefatigable at the time.
TD Bank IMS Technical Support
I don't speak for TD, and they don't speak for me...
Matthew Beesley
> court-martialled if he stayed anywhere near a first rate that was intent upon
> engaging him. Victory was fast, but so was Constitution and Constitution was
> almost as heavily sparred, meaning that the advantage Victory would have in
> higher winds would not be as great. I do know Victory did run down smaller
> ships of European Navies during her career.
>
Just why was Victory so fast. Was she of a new design? Did she follow
some french design plans (known for better handling ships)?
Bob Keeter
>That aside, as has been said before, the Constitution, barring insanity
>on the part of the Captain would endeavor to show her heels.
>
>>
>>Joel Holwitt
>>
>
Joel,
There's an old saying in boxing, "A great middleweight will loose to a
good heavyweight every time!" It might not always happen, but if your
betting my money, put in on the big guy!
I'm with you, let the Constitution run away and find a righteous frigate
to trash and leave the big boys alone!
Respects
bk
Greg Sigler
> I think the only successful frigate action against a ship-of-the-line
>was the Indefagatable (40-gun razee, 24pdrs) and another frigate against
>the French 3rd rate Droits D'L'homme of Brittany in heavy weather: the
>french ship was driven into the surf and wrecked with heavy loss of life.
>This was shortly after the revolution & the French ship may not have been
>well handled.
>
not very well handled. However, the other British frigate (Amazon, I think)
drove ashore and was wrecked with the French liner. Note that Indefatigable
was commanded by Edward Pellew, certainly one of the British Navy's best.
Regarding Victory vs. Constitution; Constitution's Captain would be
court-martialled if he stayed anywhere near a first rate that was intent upon
engaging him. Victory was fast, but so was Constitution and Constitution was
almost as heavily sparred, meaning that the advantage Victory would have in
higher winds would not be as great. I do know Victory did run down smaller
ships of European Navies during her career.
--
Greg Sigler (gr...@apsg.eds.com) |
EDS Advanced Product Support |
--- Unless I say otherwise, I speak solely for myself ---
Arved Sandstrom
>
> I think any frigate captian would regard knocking a first-rate's
>spars away as an opportunity for a rapid exit - the first rate could
>still knock one of his spars away and then he'd be in big trouble.
>I think if Victory was well handled and Constitution was unable to run
>for some reason then the battle-as-such would only last until Constitution
>lost a mast & Victory was able to overwhelm her broadside on, followed by
>boarding (think of the difference in crew size).
"Boarding _and_ entering" :)
>
># Andy Breen # Fflachennau Rhynblanedol / Interplanetary Scintillation |
># ---------- # Adran Ffiseg / Physics Department |
># a...@aber.ac.uk # Prifysgol Cymru Aberystwyth, Cymru, EU. 44+(0)1970621907 |
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Arved H. Sandstro"m | YISDER ZOMENIMOR
Physical Oceanography Group | ORZIZZAZIZ
Dept.of Physics, Memorial Univ. of NFLD | ZANZERIZ
asnd...@crosby.physics.mun.ca | ORZIZ
Yann Clochec
Bob Keeter <b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>Does not the term "razee" mean that the Indefagatable started out as a 2nd
>or 3rd rate ship of the line but had a deck cut off? That would mean that
>she was built with the heavier framing etc typical of a ship of the line?
INDEFATIGABLE started her career as a 74 two-decker. Must have been classed
as a 3rd rate.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Frog In The White Car - Knight Officer, Order of the Panther - Soundchaser and Cirkusmaster
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The girls is all salty, the boys is all sweet, the food ain't too shabby an' they piss in the streets
In France, way down in France, way on down, way on down in France - Frank Zappa
Bob Keeter
> I think the only successful frigate action against a ship-of-the-line
>was the Indefagatable (40-gun razee, 24pdrs) and another frigate against
>the French 3rd rate Droits D'L'homme of Brittany in heavy weather: the
>french ship was driven into the surf and wrecked with heavy loss of life.
>This was shortly after the revolution & the French ship may not have been
>well handled.
>
Does not the term "razee" mean that the Indefagatable started out as a 2nd or
3rd rate ship of the line but had a deck cut off? That would mean that she was
built with the heavier framing etc typical of a ship of the line? And 40 X
24pdrs; fairly heavy broadside. Assume 32 guns for the other frigate and you
have a pretty 1st rate broadside total.
A second issue would be that with two frigates, they could to a degree
"sandwich" the Frenchman. In that way, they would only have to work guns on
one side whereas he would be firing from both sides. Did the ships of that era
actually carry enough gun crews to man both broadsides at once? Dont think so.
Two frigates, one a trimmed down ship of the line, vs one probably ill-led 3rd
rate ship of the line? I'll put my money on the frigates. Still doesn't mean
a frigate by itself could or should stand up to a ship of the line in a "fair
fight".
bk
Frank Gleaves
>In article <4dgn59...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>,
>Frank Gleaves <fgle...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> wrote:
:: So in heavy weather the Constitution would likely have an advantage in
::both firepower and maneuverability, while in light or moderate weather she
::_might_ have been able to outmaneuver Victory and get in a good position
::to rake her. Against a French or Spanish crew I'd favor the Constitution,
::but against a British crew in anything but heavy weather I'd expect quite
::a fierce battle until the Victory shot away her masts and rigging and took
::up a raking position. Unless the Constitution got lucky and shot away the
::Victory's bowsprite & foretopmast first, of course!
> I think any frigate captian would regard knocking a first-rate's
>spars away as an opportunity for a rapid exit - the first rate could
>still knock one of his spars away and then he'd be in big trouble.
>I think if Victory was well handled and Constitution was unable to run
>for some reason then the battle-as-such would only last until Constitution
>lost a mast & Victory was able to overwhelm her broadside on, followed by
>boarding (think of the difference in crew size).
> Of course by 1812 Victory was rather more fomidable than she was
>at Trafalgar, having recieved a closed (round) bow which allowed more
>guns to fire ahead and gave much greater protection against raking fire
>(so crossing her bow was perhaps not a good idea) and a closed stern
>which reduced the vunerability from that end a bit. I think in 1812
>Victory was rated as a 2nd rate ship (with 98 guns: 32s on the lower
>deck, 24s on the middle and 18s on the upper deck & no carronades I think)
>- she was restored to 1st rate status ~1817? However no sane frigate commander
>would have tried to fight her.
When I said "quite a fierce battle until ..." I didn't expect it
to take very long! (for Victory to dismast Constitution)
With that it was all over - it wouldn't even be necessary for the
Victory to take up a raking position, that would simply be the quickest
way to dispatch her. Her colors would have come down well before that -
and her Captain would likely even be allowed to keep his sword for having
had the nerve to exchange even one broadside with HMS Victory. :-)
Thinking it over, I realize that it was a mistake to count Constitution's
carronades - I was counting on Victory holding fire 'till the traditional
half pistol shot. (under 25 yards is it?)
If Constitution were upwind Victory could bring her full firepower
to bear - if the winds were high the Constitution's masts would go over
the side quite quickly.
If Victory were upwind in high winds, she might not be able to use
her lower guns but any damage to Constitution's sails and rigging would
allow Victory to run her down and destroy her. Or to board her and add
her to the RN. :-(
Now a 74 might be interesting - still a bit heavier than Constitution,
so considering the last two paragraphs I'd take your recommendation -
Run, Frigate, Run!
Frank Gleaves
Peter Skelton
her in broadside to broadside. Anyone know for sure?
Arved Sandstrom
>
>A second issue would be that with two frigates, they could to a degree
>"sandwich" the Frenchman. In that way, they would only have to work guns on
>one side whereas he would be firing from both sides. Did the ships of that era
>actually carry enough gun crews to man both broadsides at once? Dont think so.
>
>Two frigates, one a trimmed down ship of the line, vs one probably ill-led 3rd
>rate ship of the line? I'll put my money on the frigates. Still doesn't mean
>a frigate by itself could or should stand up to a ship of the line in a "fair
>fight".
>
>
In point of fact, warships of the era did _not_ dispose of enough men to
man both broadsides at once.
Ståle Sannerud
>In <4dgve2$7...@texas.nwlink.com>, ja...@nwlink.com (Jack Love) writes:
>I don't know about that. It would depend alot on sea state and wind. I recollect
>Constitution beating a Ship of the Line -- I'd have to hunt up the ref. In anything
>but a near calm the lowest deck of guns on a SOTL couldn't be used because of
>freeboard problems. In such cases Constitution would not have been very badly
>outgunned and might have a heavier weight of broadside. Also the Constitution
>(class) was, as well as being faster, ALOT (!!) more manuvorable (sp?) then any-
>thing her size or larger. The original "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee". Given
>a good seaway and wind she need fear nothing afloat in her day.
> my opinion
> -Brad Meyer
Well, later classes of 74 had up to six feet of freeboard below their
lower gundeck portsills. In a heavy sea they would have to close their
lower ports, but 'anything but a near calm' is stretching it quite a
bit. Besides, Constitution was a very large and heavy frigate, so she
wouldn't enjoy quite the same maneuvreability advantage that a smaller
frigate would. As for the speed advantage, it would deteriorate too as
the wind and sea got up, due to her smaller size compared to the ship
of the line, thus robbing her of this advantage in just the conditions
needed to rob the liner of her gunpower advantage. And then you are
left with the fact that the 74 has twice the crew.
Staale Sannerud
Bob Keeter
>
> Now a 74 might be interesting - still a bit heavier than Constitution,
>so considering the last two paragraphs I'd take your recommendation -
>
> Run, Frigate, Run!
>
Aside from any question of technical capabilities and weight of broadside, any commander of a Constitution's class heavy frigate
should have been courtmarshalled for willingly accepting battle with
even an obviously even match. As long as the Constitution was
prowling over the seas, she tied up squadrons of British ships. Even
if victorious, but heavily damaged and laid up for a long repair, the
usefullness of the ship would be wasted! I would suggest that the
Brits would have gladly sacrificed a second-rate in a heartbeat just
to be rid of a heavy frigate for a year!
The mission of these ships was to tie up the British fleet, be
dangerous enough to not be ignored, and always live to harass
again another day!
Respects
bk
Andy Edgson
b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us "Bob Keeter" writes:
>
> The mission of these ships was to tie up the British fleet, be
> dangerous enough to not be ignored, and always live to harass
> again another day!
>
Now this sounds like a familiar strategy. How come different navies across
the centuries have been so unwilling to engage the RN? Satisfied with fleet
that merely keeps the RN Occupied?
--
Andy Edgson
Peter Skelton
<snip>
>
>The mission of these ships was to tie up the British fleet, be
>dangerous enough to not be ignored, and always live to harass
>again another day!
>
Maybe someone can cleaaaar up something for me. I'd thought these
heavy frigates were designed to be able to take out anything the pirates
had, without posing a threat to the British ships of the line. Their
designers deliberately created something that was no threat to major
warships.
When they were built, commerce raiding was not envisaged as the
mission - cleaning out commerce raiders was. Britain was not the expected
enemy, the pirate states were.
Harvey Chao
(Arved Sandstrom) wrote:
> In article <DLJtx...@ridgecrest.ca.us> Bob Keeter
<b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> writes:
> >
>
> >Two frigates, one a trimmed down ship of the line, vs one probably
ill-led 3rd
> >rate ship of the line? I'll put my money on the frigates. Still
doesn't mean
> >a frigate by itself could or should stand up to a ship of the line in a
"fair
> >fight".
========================
..." a fair fight". I thought the basic thing was to never let yourself
get suckered into a fair fight !!
harvey
--
The above is a personal opinion and in no way is representative of TRW Inc.
Ken Young
> across
> the centuries have been so unwilling to engage the RN? Satisfied with
> fleet that merely keeps the RN Occupied?
world. Also the Navy got priority for all armament expenditure. Up to
about 1914 the Navy was supposed to be stronger than the combined fleets
of the next two strongest navies. This was not always the case witness
the scare in the 1870s but all competing navies accepted that there was
no way they could out build Britain in capital ships.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
"Capitalism is a dog eat dog system. However with most
other alternatives, the dog starves."
Bob Keeter
>
>I SAID:
>>
>>The mission of these ships was to tie up the British fleet, be
>>dangerous enough to not be ignored, and always live to harass
>>again another day!
>>
>
>Maybe someone can cleaaaar up something for me. I'd thought these
>heavy frigates were designed to be able to take out anything the pirates
>had, without posing a threat to the British ships of the line. Their
>designers deliberately created something that was no threat to major
>warships.
>
>When they were built, commerce raiding was not envisaged as the
>mission - cleaning out commerce raiders was. Britain was not the expected
>enemy, the pirate states were.
As best as I can tell, that was in fact the "design mission", I was
referring to the "operational mission" when it came time to face off
with the Brits. The simple fact is that the heavy frigates were about
the best that the US could afford at the time for a Navy. They could
have sunk their total expenditures into one or two 1st rate ships of
the line that still could not have faced down the British fleet, or
a (comparitive) bunch of "frigates on steriods" that could outshoot
everything they couldn't outrun. In one case, a squadron of 4-5 ships
of the line could easily have bottled up the small US battle line; in
the other case, many ships-of-the-line or groups of frigates had to
chase the heavy frigates around the Atlantic and Carribean.
You also have to remember that the US still had the "privateer" mentality from the Revolutionary War. I think that if total costs a=
re considered, the privateer / commerce raider was much more expensive to
the Brits than anything that occurred (Revolutionary War and 1812) in classic naval action. While _possibly_ the politics of threat=
ening the
Royal Navy played in the decision to build these frigates instead of 1st rates, I'm confident that the powers-that-be were also seei=
ng the frigates as infinitely more useful in the role of commerce raiders than a ship of the line.
bk
Gregory Perry
>Andy Edgson <The-...@andy-e.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <DLzC3...@ridgecrest.ca.us>
>> b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us "Bob Keeter" writes:
>>
>>>
>>> The mission of these ships was to tie up the British fleet, be
>>> dangerous enough to not be ignored, and always live to harass
>>> again another day!
>>>
>>
>>Now this sounds like a familiar strategy. How come different navies across
>>the centuries have been so unwilling to engage the RN? Satisfied with fleet
>>that merely keeps the RN Occupied?
>>
>Well, I think that the answer to your question is fairly obvious.
>Over the last 400 years, the British Navy has usually been the navy
>to beat, top of the heap. Except maybee during the Napoleonic
>era there wasn't a true challenger to the Royal Navy since
>the Spanish Armada. The best that an opponent could really
>hope to do was to tie up as much of the RN as possible with
>the least you could invest, while you tried to beat down a
>generally small British land army. On this side of the Atlantic,
>tieing up the RN was particularly attractive since it was only
>through a long supply line from England that the British land army
>was supplied. Furthermore, there were plenty of problems afoot in
>Europe around this time that demanded the biggest part of the RN be
>held in the eastern Atlantic. With many of the RN ships unavailable
>for convoy duty or "frigate chasing" the hunting was quite lucreative
>which in turn put the supplies and reinforcements for the army at
>risk. As long as the RN was tied up on convoy, patrolling for the
>US frigates or fooling around with the French and Spanish, it couldn't
>be blockading US ports.
>All in all, it made very good sense to keep the RN busy.
>Regards
>bk
I think you are being a little unfair to th dutch.
=============================================================
per...@airmail.net
Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
Bob Keeter
Peter Skelton
>
>> Now this sounds like a familiar strategy. How come different navies
>> across
>> the centuries have been so unwilling to engage the RN? Satisfied with
>> fleet that merely keeps the RN Occupied?
>world. Also the Navy got priority for all armament expenditure. Up to
>about 1914 the Navy was supposed to be stronger than the combined fleets
>of the next two strongest navies. This was not always the case witness
>the scare in the 1870s but all competing navies accepted that there was
>no way they could out build Britain in capital ships.
>
Add one point: Continental powers had to have an army good enough to
keep others from marching in. Britain did not. So Britain could give the
navy it undivided attention.
Bob Keeter
>I think you are being a little unfair to th dutch.
>
>
>
>=============================================================
>per...@airmail.net
>
>Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
>
Probably true on both counts. I had totally forgot about the
brew-up with the Dutch. Given the situation, the Dutch did
give the Brits about all they wanted! Unfortunately, or
fortunately, depending on which side you tend to lean towards,
the Dutch had a couple of three "Achilles heels". First, England
sat firmly across the sea approaches to Holland. Second, the Dutch
had to contend with continental land powers, so they had to
channel a significant portion of their resources to watch the
"back door". Finally, they did not have much for deep water harbors
and their ships had to be sized down a bit to get in and out of their
home ports.
Even though they went three rounds, I dont think that they, by
themselves, ever really threatened the English. The other powers
that might have considered jumping on the English (i.e. France and
Spain) and turning the tide were probably just as happy to see the
Brits and Dutch going after each other (and maybee even anticipating
a mutual TKO!).
Regards
bk
Gregory Perry
Undivided attention except for India (Great Game and an assortment of
minor wars), assorted colonies in Africa (Boer, Zulu, Madhi, Etc.),
NewZealand (Maoris ?? ), Canada (U.S.A & C.S.A)
Scott & Kathy Stone
> again, how would she do against the USN's heavy frigate USS Constitution?
> In poor weather Victory's lowest gundeck would not be able to open thier
> gun ports so the number of guns on each side may be a little more even;
> otherwise Victory's 110 guns would make a sorry mess out of the frigate.
> Apparently Constitution was a avery good sailor, while almost all British
> battleships were very poor sailors (the best being those captured from the
> Spanish and French). Constitution mounted 32 pounders, as did Victory.
Interesting idea...
There is no way that the Constitution would ever accept battle with
the Victory. Constitution's main deck carried 24 pounders, Victory
carried 32's. Constitution's 32 pounders were CARRONADES, good only at very
short range. Almost the entire battery from Victory was of 'long guns',
good at any distance.
All that the Victory has to do is get a couple of broadsides in while the
Constitution is closing, and bye-bye frigate.
Yes Constitution was built with very heavy scantlings, but they were still
build for a frigate-to-frigate fight, not to tackle a line of battleship.
If handled right, she may have had a chance against an older 74, but no one,
not even Stephen Decatur would be stupid enough to tangle with a BB.
And as to heavy weather, the lower gundeck of the Victory would not be usable, but
most likely neither would that of the Constitution. Now an even bigger missmatch.
Also, the BB's sailed generally better with the stronger winds, and a
frigate, no matter how big, would start to 'loose it'.
All this assumes that the Victory can catch and/or corner the Constitution.
I wouldn't consider this very likely.
Sorry, I would have to put my money on the Victory. Maybe offer odds.
Scott Stone
Peter Skelton
>
>p...@uptowne.com (Peter Skelton) wrote:
>
>>In article <DM4nH...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Ken Young") says:
>>>
>>>> Now this sounds like a familiar strategy. How come different navies
>>>> across
>>>> the centuries have been so unwilling to engage the RN? Satisfied with
>>>> fleet that merely keeps the RN Occupied?
>>>Mainly because until 1918 we had the most productive shipyards in the
>>>world. Also the Navy got priority for all armament expenditure. Up to
>>>about 1914 the Navy was supposed to be stronger than the combined fleets
>>>of the next two strongest navies. This was not always the case witness
>>>the scare in the 1870s but all competing navies accepted that there was
>>>no way they could out build Britain in capital ships.
>>>
>
>>Add one point: Continental powers had to have an army good enough to
>>keep others from marching in. Britain did not. So Britain could give the
>>navy it undivided attention.
>
>Undivided attention except for India (Great Game and an assortment of
>minor wars), assorted colonies in Africa (Boer, Zulu, Madhi, Etc.),
>NewZealand (Maoris ?? ), Canada (U.S.A & C.S.A)
>
>
Those wars were fought a long way from home (no real threat
if you lost a battle) against third of fourth rate opponents who had
neither the industrial capacity nor the infrastructure it took to win
against a first class power. As long as the navy hung in those wars were
unlosable. (Britain's defeat in the American revolution was caused largely
because the French came up with real naval power.)
Now compare this situation with that of France, Prussia, Austria,
Spain or Portugal. When they lost a land battle they often lost the war.
If they lost a sea battle they could hide behind the army. Britain's
situation was the opposite.
Pete Skelton
j...@alden.com
:>Interesting idea...
:>
:>
:>All that the Victory has to do is get a couple of broadsides in while the
:>Constitution is closing, and bye-bye frigate.
:>
:>Yes Constitution was built with very heavy scantlings, but they were still
:>build for a frigate-to-frigate fight, not to tackle a line of battleship.
:>If handled right, she may have had a chance against an older 74, but no one,
:>not even Stephen Decatur would be stupid enough to tangle with a BB.
I will bet with you. As a big fan of the Consittution, I have to admit,
she was built for reasons other than taking on a large ship-of-the-line.
It was just conceded at the time, that the US would later build such ships,
but the first set of large vessels would be frigates. In fact, the unusual
speed of the Constitution was due to a design ateration from the original
designs from the French. There were many opponents of these changes at the
time too. The speed, making her the fastest frigate in the ocean, was also
suppose to make it more unstable when fighting on the line. This is
suppose to be the reason the Constitution got the best guns, gunners, and
the most attention to gun practice. The ship got the reputation as having
deadly accuracy. Perhaps an overcompensation for the design 'flaw', which
may have contributed to her longevity. This also altered how the
Consitution was deployed. She was seldom used in fleet attacks or
defense, and mostly ran a an oversized privateer. It is why she did
suffer the fate of the Philadelphia, but was sent in on the covert
mission to destroy the Philadelphia.
:>
:>And as to heavy weather, the lower gundeck of the Victory would not be usable, but
:>most likely neither would that of the Constitution. Now an even bigger missmatch.
:>Also, the BB's sailed generally better with the stronger winds, and a
:>frigate, no matter how big, would start to 'loose it'.
Actually not true, ships-of-the-line handled quite poorly in bad weather,
and ships that had three gun decks would often not be able to use two of
them. Frigates did confront ships-of-the-line under such conditions,
since records show there were times when the frigate had her gun deck
open, when the lower levels of the ship-of-the-line did not.
The Constitution handled especially well in foul weather, which seemed to
increase its advantage in speed. She was a foul weather witch.
But I don't recall any incident where she actaully took on a
ship-of-the-line. Yes, she was suppose to run from such, and
did that well.
:>
:>All this assumes that the Victory can catch and/or corner the Constitution.
:>I wouldn't consider this very likely.
:>
:>Sorry, I would have to put my money on the Victory. Maybe offer odds.
:>
:>Scott Stone
:>
:>
A silly battle to begin with, two different kinds of ships.
A better question, which one would you prefer to be on ?
A retorical question, which one is still a commisioned ship of her navy ? :)
Joe McLean
________________
disclaimer:
IMHO, no company involved.
________________
j...@alden.com
:>
:>:>
:>:>Interesting idea...
:>:>
:>:>
:>:>All that the Victory has to do is get a couple of broadsides in while the
:>:>Constitution is closing, and bye-bye frigate.
:>:>
:>:>Yes Constitution was built with very heavy scantlings, but they were still
:>:>build for a frigate-to-frigate fight, not to tackle a line of battleship.
:>:>If handled right, she may have had a chance against an older 74, but no one,
:>:>not even Stephen Decatur would be stupid enough to tangle with a BB.
:>
:>I will bet with you. As a big fan of the Consittution, I have to admit,
:>she was built for reasons other than taking on a large ship-of-the-line.
:>It was just conceded at the time, that the US would later build such ships,
:>but the first set of large vessels would be frigates. In fact, the unusual
:>speed of the Constitution was due to a design ateration from the original
:>designs from the French. There were many opponents of these changes at the
:>time too. The speed, making her the fastest frigate in the ocean, was also
:>suppose to make it more unstable when fighting on the line. This is
:>suppose to be the reason the Constitution got the best guns, gunners, and
:>the most attention to gun practice. The ship got the reputation as having
:>deadly accuracy. Perhaps an overcompensation for the design 'flaw', which
:>may have contributed to her longevity. This also altered how the
:>Consitution was deployed. She was seldom used in fleet attacks or
:>defense, and mostly ran a an oversized privateer. It is why she did
correction line:
why she did NOT suffer the fate of the Philadelphia ....
:>suffer the fate of the Philadelphia, but was sent in on the covert
:>
:>
:>
:>
Frank Gleaves
>Bob Keeter <b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>>Andy Edgson <The-...@andy-e.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <DLzC3...@ridgecrest.ca.us>
>>> b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us "Bob Keeter" writes:
>>>> The mission of these ships was to tie up the British fleet, be
>>>> dangerous enough to not be ignored, and always live to harass
>>>> again another day!
>>>Now this sounds like a familiar strategy. How come different navies across
>>>the centuries have been so unwilling to engage the RN? Satisfied with fleet
>>>that merely keeps the RN Occupied?
>>Well, I think that the answer to your question is fairly obvious.
>>Over the last 400 years, the British Navy has usually been the navy
>>to beat, top of the heap. Except maybee during the Napoleonic
>>era there wasn't a true challenger to the Royal Navy since
>>the Spanish Armada. The best that an opponent could really
>>hope to do was to tie up as much of the RN as possible with
>>the least you could invest, while you tried to beat down a
>>generally small British land army. On this side of the Atlantic,
>I think you are being a little unfair to the dutch.
>Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
True enough. You might even award a TKO to the Dutch - it was in
part the raising of Ship Money that led to the downfall of Charles I,
while William of Orange finally overthrew James II, the former Duke
of York who couldn't get over being Lord High Admiral.
You're also being unfair to the French. Admiral Arthur Herbert, Lord
Torrington, actually is credited with inventing the concept of the "Fleet
in Being" in 1790 to justify taking refuge at Spithead after Admiral Anne
Hilarion de Costentin, Comte de Tourville went looking for him with the
combined fleets of Brest and Toulon - some 75 ships of the line.
Parliament and William and Mary weren't ready to relinquish control of
the Channel, and sent Torrington off to fight Tourville as soon as he was
reinforced by the Dutch fleet. The result was the Battle of Beachy Head,
where the Anglo-Dutch fleet lost 19 of 58 ships. Tourville lost none -
but when he returned to port he had to send 8800 diseased seamen ashore.
Fortunately for Britain the same day of their defeat William defeated
James II in the Battle of the Boyne, and the French weren't ready to
mount another invasion. That wouldn't come until 1792, when Tourville
was ordered to first drive off the Anglo-Dutch fleet. To do it, he
was given 44 ships of the line - to fight 63 British and 36 Dutch liners.
Tourville actually did outfight the Anglo-Dutch fleet in the 15 hours of
the ensuing Battle of Barfleur, causing three times the 1700 casualties
he suffered and disabling 20 of the enemy liners. But in withdrawing
during the night his forces were separated, and in the end 15 French
ships of the line including the flagship were driven ashore and burned.
The French fleet reached another peak of efficiency in the American
War of Independence, 1779 (Admiral Charles Hardy) and 1782 (Lord Howe)
being the only other times after Henry VIII that I can recall when the
British Channel Fleet had to avoid contact with a superior French fleet
(or anyone else) in order to survive as a "Fleet in Being".
A very wise move indeed - in 1779 there were only about 40 British
ships of the line to oppose a fleet of 30 French and 36 Spanish liners
seeking battle in order to eliminate the only threat to the fleet of
transports waiting to land nearly 50,000 troops near Portsmouth and the
Isle of Wight. The Allies swept the Channel all August unchallenged.
The high nobility monopolizing the senior ranks in the French and
Spanish ships were never able to condescend to looking after the welfare
of the cannon fodder in the crowded warships, who rapidly became diseased
while the British steadfastly refused combat. Scurvy and smallpox were
already rampant in the French fleet by the time they were joined by the
Spanish, who had kept them waiting at the rendezvous nearly two months.
The result was a brilliant British victory - the recall of the fever-
laden invasion fleet with hardly a shot fired! (the Allied fleet did
take one unlucky British 64, the Ardent, thanks mainly to two frigates)
None the less, the French fleet remained dominant during the war until
Rodney finally gained a brief numerical superiority in the Caribbean and
broke the French line at the Battle of the Saintes.
The fight was close enough at that - only a bit of bad luck and the
incompetence of the captain of the 74 Zele, and Admiral De Grasse's
unwillingness to abandon the 3rd Rate to Rodney, kept the French from
joining forces with the Spanish assembled for the invasion of Jamaica.
With 46 instead of 26 ships of the line against Rodney's 32, they might
well have driven the British from the Caribbean forever and reversed
the Naval Supremacy only established by the Royal Navy in the Seven
Years War (1756-1763).
Then there was the case of the French 74 Scipion which fought off
the London of 100 guns in 1782.
While in the Indian Ocean the brilliant and aggressive Suffren fought
five battles against the numerically superior fleet of Admiral Hughes
without losing a single ship.
And to give the Spanish their due, they could sometimes do very well
under good leadership. There was one case about the time "The War of
Jenkins' Ear" broadened into the War of the Austrian Succession (a.k.a.
King George's War, 1740 - 1748) where the Spanish 70 the Princesa was
only taken after a long and hard-fought battle against three British
liners of equal rating. Of course the Princesa was of about 1700 tons
and the Britishers little over 1200, making it more like a 74 vs. three
64's, but it was a gallant fight regardless.
Frank Gleaves
Don't you see the ships a-coming, Don't you see them in full sail?
Don't you see the ships a-coming With the prizes at their tail?
Sailors they get all the money, Soldiers they get none but brass.
I do love a jolly sailor, Soldiers they may kiss my ___ .
from the song of the whores of Gosport, greeting the arrival of
Kempenfelt's ships with the dozens of prizes taken from De Guichen's
Antilles convoy, December 1781 "Above and Under Hatches",
CDR James Anthony Gardner, RN (1836)