USS _Essex_, Rearmed

Finally I have located some data on the cannon carried by the whalers and other British ships captured by USS _Essex_ during its cruise in the Pacific during the War of 1812:

_Georgina_: Six 18-lb.
_Policy_: Ten 6-lb.
_Atlantic_: Six 18-lb. long-barrel [This ship became _Essex Junior_]
_Seringapatam_: Fourteen unknown-weight (poss. 9-lb.)

Unattributed to any specific catch: Ten 6-lb.; four 18-lb.

At least ten 6-lb. cannon were added to _Atlantic_'s six 18s when it was taken up as _Essex Junior_. This leaves ten 18-lb., fourteen 9-lb., and ten 6-lb.

While the 18s are heavier than the 12-lb. cannon _Essex_ was designed for, they aren't as heavy as the 32-lb. carronades it was left with when Porter took command. So it's possible for _Essex_ to have been rearmed from its prizes thus (L; Long-range; C: Carronade; [O]: Original armament; [P]: From prizes):

6x 12-lb.L [O]; 10x 18lb.L [P]; 16x 24.lbC [O]; 10x 32-lb.C [O].

(I doubt the 9-lb. would have been all that useful beyond lowering overall weight.)

This brings _Essex_ closer to the number of guns it was designed for (42, not 46) as well as the type (26x 12-lb.L main deck; 16x 24-lb.C spar deck), bringing it back to the weight and balance the designer intended. If so inclined, Porter could have swapped _Atlantic_'s long guns for carronades, giving:

6x 12-lb.L [O]; 16x 18lb.L [P]; 16x 24.lbC [O]; 4x 32-lb.C [O].

One wonders how such a loadout would have affected the outcome of the fight off Valparaiso. :)

I just ordered a book with more info; if it adds any useful data, I'll add to this.

Interesting concept. Porter did hate the armament of Essex and fought unsuccessfully to have her armed with 12 pounders and 24 pound carronades as designed. It seems reasonable that he would have altered the armament of Essex while far away from the U. S. and knowing that sooner or later the British would have sent a frigate after him which would have long guns. Surely it would have crossed his mind and there was some reason he did not do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coog

Surely it would have crossed his mind and there was some reason he did not do so.

---

Given what I've read of Porter: He would have been willing to lose his ship if for no other reason than to come home and tell the court-martial "I Told You So".

I have a book on Porter, Nothing Too Daring: A Biography of Commodore David Porter 1783-1843 by David F. Long, United States Naval Institute, 1970, that I have not read yet. I'll have to put aside the books I am currently reading and see if it sheds any light on the things we have been discussing.

I find it very hard to imagine that a whaler would spare deck space and cargo capacity to run 18pdr guns (the only options I am aware of are the 9ft 42cwt, and 8ft 38cwt iron guns, and the impractically expensive 5ft9 18cwt brass guns (recently removed from service after their failure at Badajoz), along with a few other types of brass guns - Brass is extraordinarily expensive as a gunmetal compared to cast iron in this period.)

The description of "long" is instead, I believe a description of the later pattern ~8 cal carronade/gunnades, rather than the shorter patterns (of recently cast examples ~6 cal, but with some of the very early 1780s pattern pieces being even shorter than that.

Atalantic/Atlantic/Essex Junior is usually described as armed with 18pdr carronades and 6pdr guns.

As an additional point of data - the insurance guns for RN transport board hires were "At least six carriage guns or six pounders or less bore as the board shall think proper according to the size of the ship." There was gun money of £5 per gun as an inducement to carry additional guns if the ship would bear it. Carronades of at least 12pdr were an acceptable substitution for the 6pdr guns.

The small size of whalers and their crews doesn't suggest long and heavy naval pattern guns are likely, but carronades are ideally suited to the service.