|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Dec 12, 2012 6:04:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 12, 2012 15:32:08 GMT
'Old Ironsides' is best known as the nickname for the USS Constitution, a name she was given during the War of 1812 when it was reported that shot was seen to bounce off her sides. However the USS Constitution was not the first ship to earn the nickname 'Ironsides', HMS Britannia had earned the same name for the same reason some 40 years earlier during the American War of Independence.
There were two factors as to why shot was seen to do this, the first was not the guns but the powder they were using, the second the thickness of the ships hull.
In the case of powder there is considerable reason to suspect that the firing ships were using either low quality or spoiled powder.
For the incident with the Britannia, we need look no further than the quality of the powder used by the French Navy. Throughout the various wars between France and Britain in the mid to late 1700's, the British Royal Navy became rather good at blockading French ports and cutting off overseas trade. This was a major problem as one of the key ingredients for high quality black powder came from the East.
This resulted in the French having to produce their powder from local sources, which in turn meant that their powder tended to be of lower quality than British powders - meaning less powerful. It didn't help that France treated its Navy as a second class force, tending to reserve the best equipment and supplies for the Army. (Britain was the opposite).
For the later battle with the Constitution the culprit was almost certainly spoiled - ie damp - powder. The Royal Navy understood the need for good gunnery, but with some 400 frigates in service with an average of 36 18 pound guns each of which used between 4.5-6 pounds of black powder per shot per gun allowing significant live fire practice was impossible. The costs in powder alone would have bankrupted a navy that was always underfunded. In order to save money, and make sure that ships didn't use up their powder before coming into contact with an enemy, very strict restrictions were placed on how much powder and shot could be used for live gunnery practice. If Captains wanted to train their crews more than this they had to find their own powder. Most Captains lacked the personal finances to do this, and never had the luck to capture ships from which they could take powder. (Captain Philip Broke of HMS Shannon is a notable exception to both, and it is no coincidence that the Shannon had some of the best gunners of the period).
The ships that the Constitution engaged during the early parts of the war of 1812 had been on overseas stations for months or years, didn't have rich or lucky Captains and as such had almost certainly not fired their guns for several months if not years by the time they ran into the Constitution.
This meant that not only had the guns been sitting there loaded, but the ready cartridges would have been sitting in the magazine for months or more likely years. While every effort would have been made to keep the powder dry, the cloth bags used were not ideal for this and would have absorbed damp - spoiling the powder and at the very least reducing its power. It wasn't until after the Napoleonic wars that the Royal Navy started storing pre-filled cartridges in copper tins - which solved this problem.
So in both instances there is very good reason to say that the guns being fired were using understrength powder, which in turn means that the shot had significantly less force than it should.
The second factor was hull thickness - which is related to the type and design of the ship.
HMS Britannia was a ship of the line (in modern terms a Battleship). Ships of this type were large, and intended to fight ships of the same size that were largely armed with 24, 32 or even 42 pound cannon. As such they needed very thick gunwales, and typically show hull thickness of some 2 feet of solid oak.
The USS Constitution in comparison was ostensibly a 44 gun Spar-deck 'heavy frigate' - 'Heavy frigate' meant a frigate with 38-44 guns, although in the Constitutions case it was probably also an indication of the fact that her guns were 24 pounders where most frigates carried 18 pounders. Spar Deck meant that the weatherdeck had a continuous bulwark, which in theory allowed guns to be mounted in the waist turning the weather deck into another gun deck. (In practice this wasn't done, as guns mounted in the waist on the weather deck just got in the way)
However, the Constitution and three of her five sisters were not really built as frigates, but as what would later be called 'Pocket-Battleships.
At the time the 'six frigates' were designed the United States had decided that they didn't want, and didn't need, ships of the line. In part this was cost (line ships cost a lot to make, maintain and crew), but also because they didn't really have to concern themselves with the possibility of fighting a major fleet action. The compromise was to design a ship type that could out gun anything it couldn't outrun, but which would be capable of taking on a ship of the line if working in pairs.
While a typical Frigate boasted a hull that was 14-18 inches thick, the Constitution had a hull some 22 inches thick - not quite as thick as a first rate ship of the line, but certainly as thick as many older line ships - which is understandable since they might have had to deal with the guns on the big ships.
What we end up with is a scenario where a ship with the hull thickness of a Ship of the Line was being hit by underpowered shot from guns a lot smaller than what the ship had been designed to deal with.
Not a great surprise that some shot would fail to do more than dent the hull in this light.
It should be noted that while shot was seen to bounce off the Constitutions hull, she still took so much damage she was forced to return to port for repairs. So clearly her hull wasn't stopping that much of the shot coming at her.
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 15, 2012 19:14:29 GMT
'Old Ironsides' is best known as the nickname for the USS Constitution, a name she was given during the War of 1812 when it was reported that shot was seen to bounce off her sides. However the USS Constitution was not the first ship to earn the nickname 'Ironsides', HMS Britannia had earned the same name for the same reason some 40 years earlier during the American War of Independence. Possibly not. According to author Robert Gardiner ("Fleet, Battle & Blockade", Chatham, 1996), the nickname for the Britannia came from another source - "During the American War the cumbersome 42pdrs had been gradually replaced by the more practical 32s only the old Brirtannia retained them by the 1790s, earning her the nickname 'Old Ironsides' long before it was applied to the USS Constitution." That is, the nickname came from the old iron (guns) she carried not from her apparently 'iron' sides. As far as I can tell, although she was commissioned in 1778, the Britannia first saw action in 1795 (off Genoa) after she had earned her nickname. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 15, 2012 19:51:39 GMT
'Old Ironsides' is best known as the nickname for the USS Constitution, a name she was given during the War of 1812 when it was reported that shot was seen to bounce off her sides. However the USS Constitution was not the first ship to earn the nickname 'Ironsides', HMS Britannia had earned the same name for the same reason some 40 years earlier during the American War of Independence. Possibly not. According to author Robert Gardiner ("Fleet, Battle & Blockade", Chatham, 1996), the nickname for the Britannia came from another source - "During the American War the cumbersome 42pdrs had been gradually replaced by the more practical 32s only the old Brirtannia retained them by the 1790s, earning her the nickname 'Old Ironsides' long before it was applied to the USS Constitution." That is, the nickname came from the old iron (guns) she carried not from her apparently 'iron' sides. As far as I can tell, although she was commissioned in 1778, the Britannia first saw action in 1795 (off Genoa) after she had earned her nickname. And he is wrong. HMS Victory was armed with 42 pounders, which were replaced with 32 pounders in 1778 only for them to be reinstalled a year later. She was still armed with the 42 pounders when she was decommissioned in 1797, and (at least practically if not officially) wasn't armed with 32 pounders on the lower gun deck until her great refit in 1803. Both Victory and Britannia were 100 gun ships of the line laid down circa 1750. First rates from this period (and earlier) used 42 pounders as their main guns, with the 32 pounders being used on the smaller second and third rates. Most of the first rates from this period retained their 42 pounders until around 1800. The change to the 32 pounder was down to the smaller gun having a higher rate of fire, smaller gun crew and its lower weight not stressing the ships frame as much. The more powerful powders that were being introduced around this time might also have played a part, since the 42 pounders tended to be brass* and might not have been strong enough to handle the newer powders. Cost certainly would have played a part, brass was four times the cost of iron and the 32 pounders would have used two and a half pounds less powder per shot than the 42 pounder. (That may not sound like a big difference until you consider that this meant using almost 40 lbs less powder per broadside....) (*Which also begs the question as to why, if her main guns were the reason for her nickname, she wasn't known as 'Old Brass-sides'.) |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 15, 2012 20:11:58 GMT
Care to name the battle in which the Britannia supposedly earned this nickname then? (*Which also begs the question as to why, if her main guns were the reason for her nickname, she wasn't known as 'Old Brass-sides'.) That would be because the 42-pounders on the Britannia (and the Victory) were iron. The last brass guns on a major British warship were carried by the Royal George, which sank in 1782 (and those brass guns were 24pdrs). |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 15, 2012 22:34:11 GMT
That would be because the 42-pounders on the Britannia (and the Victory) were iron. The last brass guns on a major British warship were carried by the Royal George, which sank in 1782 (and those brass guns were 24pdrs). Wrong. HMS Victory's 42 pounders were bronze when she was decommissioned in 1797; www.hms-victory.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&catid=84&Itemid=479You may be thinking of the last ship to have an all brass/bronze armament. Brass/Bronze* guns were status symbols, mainly due to their higher cost, and were more common on line ships - which were status symbols in and off themselves. (*Sailors often used 'Brass', even though the guns were bronze. So in this context 'Brass' and 'Bronze' are interchangeable) Over time the size of ships and navies increased to the point that no one could realistically afford to use brass/bronze guns in significant numbers. So you see an increasing move towards iron guns, with the first-rates retaining their brass guns since, well if you were going to spend a fortune on building such a large ship you may as well have the more expensive guns. This was more practical for the first rates, since there were never more than about a dozen of such ships in any navy of the period - and 2/3rds of those were usually laid up or under repair. (Victory spent the first 13 years of her commissioned life laid up in ordinary. First rates were not only eye-wateringly expensive to build but also to operate and crew. So they tended to be laid up until or unless someone felt they were really needed.) That the 42 pounders remained brass is not unexpected, since they could only be carried by the first rates. Every other size of gun could be carried on smaller ships, and as such were being produced in much larger numbers. The slight exception was the 32 pounder, which wasn't carried on anything below the third rate. The 24, 18 and 12 pounders** carried by line ships were also used on frigates - although the 12 pound frigate was obsolescent by 1800. (**Victory carried 12 pounders on the Upper Gundeck and on the weather deck, 24 pounders on the middle gundeck and 42 (later 32) pounders on the lower gundeck.) |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 16, 2012 2:02:59 GMT
You may be thinking of the last ship to have an all brass/bronze armament. No, I took my info from Brian Lavery's "Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815, Ch. 15, Materials: Brass & Iron [Conway, 1987]" where he states "The use of brass further declined in the eighteenth century. In 1716 it was stated that the only ships with brass guns were three First Rates. In 1782 it was recorded that only one ship, the First rate Royal George of 1756, still carried brass guns. Nelson's Victory had been completed in 1765, and she was now the largest and most prestigious ship in the Navy, but it seems she was never allotted brass guns, The Royal George sank at Spithead in 1782, and she took with her the last brass guns carried by a major British sailing warship. In fact she was not carrying a full set. Her lower deck 42-pounders had originally been captured French 36-pounders (equivalent to 39 English pounds) and they had been bored up to 42 English pounds. During her final refit they had been taken out, and exchanged for conventional 32-pounders of iron. On her middle deck she still retained brass 24-pounders, made at the Royal Brass Foundry in Woolwich in 1743." According to his references, that info was based on manuscripts from the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich (papers GUN/1 and GUN/12). He then concludes "The great majority of naval guns, and all those used after 1782, were therefore made of cast iron". And he also said pretty much the same in his earlier work ("The Ship of the Line, Vol II, Ch. 8 [Conway, 1984]"), which also references a contemporary list of the iron guns in naval service in 1782 (which included 42-pounders). According to F. L. Robertson's "The Evolution of Naval Armament, Ch. 2 [Constable, 1921]", by the latter part of the eighteenth century, iron had a number of advantages over brass for cannon manufacture. "The cost of iron was only one-eighth that of brass. The art of casting iron in homogeneous masses had by this time made progress, and though hitherto it had been the custom to make iron ordnance of great thickness and weight, repeated trial proved that they could be made lighter, if required, without undue loss of strength, and that in action they outlasted brass ordnance, which cracked, bent at the muzzle and wore out at the vent. A well made iron gun was almost indestructible."While there may have been a degree of hyperbole in the last sentence, it would seem that, by the 1780s, iron guns surpassed brass in every way. They were cheaper, stronger and lighter. Robertson goes on to mention that plans were suggested to replace all of the brass guns on the Royal George which would "give a saving in weight of over a hundred and sixty tons". [It's notable that only the Royal George is mentioned, which adds credence to Lavery's statement about her being the only ship with brass cannon] Getting back to the Britannia, although I've read several references to her being nicknamed "Old Ironsides", the only account that I've seen that actually gives any explanation is Gardiner's. If she had obtained the nickname the same way as the USS Constitution, I would have expected the account to have similar prominence. From what I can see in her service history, the only notable engagement that she had, with the French, during the AWI was at the Second Battle of Ushant (1781). That was a battle bearly worthy of the name, in which the French Navy were merely spectators, as the British fleet pounced on the transport ships of a French military supply convoy. In the sparse accounts of that action, the Britannia doesn't get a mention. If she did get the nickname in action, when and where did it happen? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 16, 2012 15:36:25 GMT
The general statements about iron guns is correct, and iron working was certainly capable of making smaller, lighter, cheaper and more effective guns than brass/bronze working by the mid to late 1700's. Indeed, it was improvements in iron working that allowed the Carronade company to produce the short-barrelled Carronade which effectively replaced the cannons on the majority of unrated* vessels after 1779**.
However Brass guns stuck around, and there are some references to some ships retaining them as chase guns. However chase guns were not usually counted as part of a ships armament (unlike the 1500's where the strength of a warship was measured in part by the number of stern mounted guns it carried - which is why many of the images we have of ships of that period show the ship stern on). It is also VERY clear that Victory retained her brass 42 pounders - the above link is to the ships official site, and you'd think these people would know what they are talking about.
Other navies retained brass guns for much longer than the British, mainly because their industry wasn't capable of producing high quality iron - which probably explains why Napoleon favoured the brass 24 pounders in his armies.
In the case of British First Rates. I'm guessing that they stuck with the 42 pounders out of tradition, and because they didn't need many didn't feel it was worth commissioning new guns so kept using the older brass guns they had sitting around. This would make sense as there were not that many ports that were capable of refitting ships of this size*** so they could concentrate the existing 42 pounders and their shot in one or two locations.
(*In context mainly Brigs and Sloops, although some of the smaller frigates ended up with carronades replacing their cannon.)
(**HMS Speedy of 1801 was on exception. This small brig was armed with 4 pound cannon not carronades - possibly because there were no carronades available in the Mediterranean for her, or because ironically she wasn't a very fast ship so she might never have been able to get close enough to use such short ranged weapons. There were other small ships that never got carronades for one reason or another.)
(***Off the top of my head there were two ports in Britain, two or three in France, one or two in Spain, one in India - meaning the entire far East - and none in Denmark or America. Of these only Britain and Spain had a dry dock capable of taking a first rate ship of the line. Britain had two, one in Portsmouth and one in India - which was technically owned by the East India Company - while Spain had one in Ferrol.)
In relation to the Britannia, the source is one of the many books I have on the topic. However finding out which book it is in, let alone where in that book the reference is, is something I don't have the time to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 16, 2012 16:31:50 GMT
two interesting bits of trivia. for the last refit, the timbers for the Constitution were cut at my great uncle's sawmill - and according to our geneaology, I have an ancestor who has the same surname as a captain of the constitution who was a naval captain in the right time period - but we have no indications of whether or not he was the captain of the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxman on Dec 23, 2012 4:10:04 GMT
Although, if you include carronades, the Constitution has 56 guns (most don't, and only go by the long gun armament as-built, so if a carronade was used to replace a long cannon, it would be included, but if it was added to the existing armament, it isn't included).
|
|
|
|
Post by maxman on Dec 27, 2012 4:41:05 GMT
I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Hull hadn't managed to escape from Broke's squadron in July of 1812.
Broke's squadron was the 64 gun Africa, the Shannon, the Guerriere, and the 32 gun Aeolus, plus the 36 gun Belvidera that escaped the President, Congress and United States while simultaneously leading them away from from a convoy from Jamaica.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Dec 27, 2012 11:46:36 GMT
I am guessing that you wouldn't be able to visit it as a museum ship. Maybe in England somewhere as the Constitution mill  you can't rewrite history but I believe computer simulations/war games can help you experiment with it. At the end of the day winners are grinner's ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 27, 2012 17:11:38 GMT
I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Hull hadn't managed to escape from Broke's squadron in July of 1812. Broke's squadron was the 64 gun Africa, the Shannon, the Guerriere, and the 32 gun Aeolus, plus the 36 gun Belvidera that escaped the President, Congress and United States while simultaneously leading them away from from a convoy from Jamaica. She would have struck her colours as soon as it came clear she could not escape before being engaged by several of the British ships. If she had retained her guns* she would have fired at least one broadside before this**. It was considered honourable to strike to a superior force you couldn't possibly evade - which would have been two or more of the above ships. (And the British were under orders not to try and take on any of the Big American frigates alone at this point). The Battles the Constitution fought were nominally against other frigates, and as such were seen as battles between equals - even though the Constitution really out-classed her opponents. (This was why the British public was outraged at loosing ships to the Americans. While the RN itself was well aware that the big 44 gun ships outclassed all but a handful of their own Frigates, even the 38's, the public just read it as a battle between equals which they lost***) As to what would have happened to the Constitution had she been captured. The most likely outcome would have been that she would have been examined, and assuming she was in good condition would have been commissioned as HMS Constitution on the North American station - for no other reason that to sail her up and down the East Coast to rub her capture in. After a year or two she would have been sent back to England, and most likely broken up****. This is because the big American ships were expensive to maintain, lacked the ability to carry the amount of stores the RN required for its frigates and were in terms of construction badly outdated. They were also poor sailors by RN standards, even the USS President which was considered the best sailor of all of the Six Frigates failed to impress RN Officers. (*Throwing the main guns overboard to lighten a ship when trying to escape a superior force was a common tactic. At least one gun would have been retained for signalling, but that would hardly be enough to challenge another man of war.) (**This would depend on the crew not panicking, which is a question I can't answer. Going of the conduct of the USS Chesapeake's crew this is a possibility.) (***The majority of frigates in RN service at this date were being built using fir rather than Oak. This meant they had weaker hulls and a shorter working life, but were also a lot cheaper to build - a major consideration when you had over 200 such ships in service. This fact isn't just something the the general public of the time was aware of, it is also something that tends to get overlooked by naval historians.) (****Statistically captured ships in RN service were decommissioned after an average of three years anyway. The reasons are probably due to; Damage caused during their capture. The design of the ship not being compatible with the needs of the navy - for example too slow, not enough room for stores or required too large a crew. The expense of maintaining the ship in seaworthy condition. In the case of the American frigates they were built by a nation that was using them as line ships - ie symbols of national pride and power - and as such they cost a lot to keep in good condition. The RN simply couldn't afford to spend this much on maintaining such a large Frigate as it was cheaper and easier to build a new frigate.) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 27, 2012 17:17:51 GMT
I've noticed over time that the British tend to have that opinion of all things not British - whether valid or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 27, 2012 20:03:18 GMT
I've noticed over time that the British tend to have that opinion of all things not British - whether valid or not. It isn't a uniquely British trait. Military forces are equipped depending on national preferences as to how they will be used and what for. In this historical context the Constitution was not designed to be deployed far from the United States so didn't need to carry stores for six months voyages. British ships in comparison were required and expected to spend very long periods at sea - officially a RN Frigate was meant to be capable of carrying enough supplies to remain at sea for six months. Although in practice it seems few could carry more than five months of supplies without problems. This was due to the different needs of the USN and RN. The UK needed to patrol large areas of the oceans, covering trade routes and connecting the 'Empire' while at the same time guarding against the French Fleet at Brest. Guarding against the French (and before that the Dutch and Spanish) dictated a large powerful fleet that could cover the English Channel*, and by the late 1700's it was understood that even better than that was a large powerful fleet that was sitting outside the French Ports to prevent them from joining with additional ships sailing from further South. This strategy required ships that were capable of spending months at sea - sometimes years. Covering the trade routes required a large number of ships, with cost and manpower considerations dictating that smaller ships were used - helped in this case by the fact that all of the major fleets that could threaten the RN were based in Europe and built there, so they didn't have to worry about facing ships of the line. However ships sent overseas could expect several months at sea - six months or more to travel to India for example - and then were likely to be on station there for several years. The USN didn't have any overseas possessions, and unlike the RN no one expected them to patrol trade routes**. So their ships didn't need to have the range as they were originally envisioned, designed and constructed*** In terms of sailing abilities, it should be remembered that the RN had received a very nasty shock during the American Independence war when they realised that French ships were larger, more powerful and a heck of a lot faster. This lead to the RN becoming obsessed with speed - up until the end of the American war British ships were small and short, which gave them astonishing agility but low speed and poor handling in bad weather. After the American war the British effectively copied French designs, which were longer, lower and as a result faster and more capable of handling rough weather. This applied for both Frigates and Line Ships - the 74 gun third rates were modified French designs from the American war, one of which held off two 80 gun British Second rates for several hours. In this light the claims that French ships were faster than comparable British ships was incorrect by 1790, and indeed examination of records indicate that captured French ships were in fact faster in RN hands due to advances in rigging. In regards to construction the British had good reason for feeling that their ships were 'better' than their French counterparts - in fact even French shipwrights would have agreed with this. The reason was that the British built ships to last, as they needed to be capable of remaining at sea for months at a time and limited funds meant that they could not afford to replace old ships every few years. In essence the French Navy was built up of ships that had a very short working life, where the British built their ships to last. French frigates, for example, tended to end up condemned after three to five years regardless of how they were captured or what they had been doing. British Frigates were expected to remain in service for at least 10 years, and several of the 'cheap' fir-built frigates**** circa 1805 were still in service 20 years later even after heavy use. The main problem for the French was that they were designed using the 'scientific' methods of the time, which for some reason thought that flexing of the hull made a ship faster. The designers were, therefore, not shipwrights and had no practical experience of sailing and made some astonishingly bad design decisions - several French line ships sank when launched, at least one frigate sank mid-channel when she fell apart and the flexing of the hull wore the frame out in short order. (French shipwrights noted that ships were designed in Paris, launched to general acclaim...then taken back into dock to be rebuilt so they might remain afloat the next time they put to sea...) In comparison British ships were being designed by men who understood ships on a practical level, and Captains were not only allowed by often expected to submit comments as to how their ships could be improved - ideas which were seriously considered and usually acted on unless the improvements were too expensive or would have taken the ship out of service for too long. It isn't unusual to find British frigates having their hatches and wheel moved around when she got a new Captain. The need for large numbers of ships and to keep those ships in service for longer periods, as well as limited supplies of oak lead to the British experimenting on ways to strengthen ships to keep them in service longer and ways to strengthen hulls so they could be built using less material. This is why it is misleading to simply look at the thickness of the frame of the Constitution compared to the thickness of the frame of a 38 gun British Frigate. The thinner framing on British ships was offset by a much better design, which gave them comparable strength*****. (*Its called the English Channel for no other reason than it annoys the French) (**Of course the situation is now reversed, in that everyone expects the USN to do the patrolling) (***Ironically the first deployment of the American Frigates was to the Mediterranean, which caused significant problems for the Captains as by the time they got there their supplies had all but run out. Compare this to Nelsons Fleet, which was capable of sailing from the Med, through the Caribbean and back to Europe without major problems....) (****'Fir-built' is slightly misleading, as these ships did include oak in their construction.) (*****Of course the Constitution was armed with 24 pound cannons. This explains the amount of damage she caused to her opponents, rather than the damage being down to having thinner framing or a structurally weaker ship.) |
|
you can't rewrite history but I believe computer simulations/war games can help you experiment with it. At the end of the day winners are grinner's ;D