Constitution's ammunition load and guin batteries

[Berthier]

Couple of interesting links via the Napoleon Series to the War of 1812 magazine on the Constitution.

http://www.napoleon-series.org/milit...tionsload.html

This first article shows the calculated "full" load of shot and powder carried at the time of the War of 1812. What is interesting is the weight of shot carried was over 82 tons and the weight of powder over 16 tons. No wonder the accounts of ships exploding are so dramatic (eg L'Orient at the Nile).

http://www.napoleon-series.org/milit...utionguns.html

This article discusses her actual wartime gun batteries, nominally a 44 gun frigate, when she fought Guerriere she had 30x24lb, 1x18lb and 24x32 carronades (55 guns).

[Gunner]

Thanks Dan. I never knew the full complement of shot, etc. that the Constitution carried when she left port.

[7eat51]

Thank you for the informative links, Daniel. Sometimes, I wish historical accounts, or at least designations, were more descriptive of actual armament at the time of an engagement. I suspect, though, changing from Constitution (44) to Constitution (55) could cause a bit of confusion.

[csadn]

I suspect, though, changing from Constitution (44) to Constitution (55) could cause a bit of confusion.

Also makes it easier to slip the appropriations past Congress '' yeah, yeah, sure, sure, it's a 44...."

Confusion to its friends -- contusion to its foes. >:)

[7eat51]

Confusion to its friends -- contusion to its foes. >:)

Nice line.

[Naharaht]

It is interesting to see how much powder and shot was carried but they needed it considering how much was used in one battle, according to the report.

[Gunner]

Also makes it easier to slip the appropriations past Congress '' yeah, yeah, sure, sure, it's a 44...."

Confusion to its friends -- contusion to its foes. >:)

Ha, ha. Things haven't changed much in over 200 years.

[Comte de Brueys]

Interesting link, Daniel.

It is interesting to see how much powder and shot was carried but they needed it considering how much was used in one battle, according to the report.

From the link:

In addition, the ship carried at least 4020 prepared powder cartridges for muskets and another 3264 for pistols; balls must have been in like numbers, as well as additional powder and cartridge papers for preparation as needed.

I think there is enough powder, David.

Anything would happen, before a "Constitution" runs out of shots in a battle.

[Hobbes]

Î think David was referring to the amount of gun ammuntion used in a single battle.

According to the link nearly a fifth of the ammuntion was used in the engagement with HMS Guerriere. Which is quite a lot, given that during this engagement Constitution hold her fire for a very long time and only shot at close range using double shot.

[Comte de Brueys]

Interesting Info, Sebastian.

So 3200 prepared powder catriges + were leftover, not counted the powder and accessoires you have to make more catridges.

[csadn]

I think y'all are starting to understand *why* the world's navies feared US heavy frigates -- "floating brick with a hellacious throw-weight". :)

[Naharaht]

Surely they were feared because of their unique construction, which made the hull nearly impenetrable. That is why the U.S.S. Constitution is known as 'Old Ironsides'.

[David Manley]

Surely they were feared because of their unique construction, which made the hull nearly impenetrable. That is why the U.S.S. Constitution is known as 'Old Ironsides'.

Apart from them not being unique, and not being impenetrable, yes Their construction was more akin to a 3rd rate or larger which did indeed make them very resistant to fire from 12 and 18pdr guns. 24pdrs were another matter, hence the relocation of RN friigates with these heavier guns to the North American station (Endymion being a good example). Ironically the RN had used 24pdrs extensively in the 1700s but went to 18pdrs as the primary frigate armament since thye were sufficient against the hulls of their primary atrgets, which were French.

[DeRuyter]

Apart from them not being unique, and not being impenetrable, yes Their construction was more akin to a 3rd rate or larger which did indeed make them very resistant to fire from 12 and 18pdr guns. 24pdrs were another matter, hence the relocation of RN friigates with these heavier guns to the North American station (Endymion being a good example). Ironically the RN had used 24pdrs extensively in the 1700s but went to 18pdrs as the primary frigate armament since thye were sufficient against the hulls of their primary atrgets, which were French.

I believe a contemporary account noted that the US 44 class heavy frigates had the scantlings of a 74. The problem of course being that there could never be enough of them, which is why British frigate captains were eventually forbidden to accept a one on one duel with a 44.

The capture of the USS President illustrates the problem. IMO she would have taken HMS Endymion even with a damaged main mast, except for the rest of the blockading squadron bearing down on her!!

Eric

[David Manley]

The capture of the USS President illustrates the problem. IMO she would have taken HMS Endymion even with a damaged main mast, except for the rest of the blockading squadron bearing down on her!

I doubt it. Endymion had shot president into surrender without the presence of the other RN ships, both her and President having outstripped the others some hours previously. Hope was a tactician who knew how to take on a large 44 and win. Despite the "popular" view RN frigate captains did learn from the mistakes and experiences of their peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_USS_President

[csadn]

The capture of the USS President illustrates the problem. IMO she would have taken HMS Endymion even with a damaged main mast, except for the rest of the blockading squadron bearing down on her!!

Indeed -- note the only US frigates taken "in battle": _Essex_ was crippled in its maneuverability (lost main-topmast) and firepower (mostly carronades where the original design called for long guns); _Chesapeake_ was defective in crew quality (unpaid and untrained); and _President_ was run aground for several hours, ruining its powder, plus facing down an entire squadron -- and still slapped _Endymion_ as hard as the Brit hit it.

Make for an interesting solitaire game when _SoG_ comes out -- how many British frigates does it take to defeat a US 44, assuming all sides start undamaged, and all fights are one-on-one?

[David Manley]

Indeed -- note the only US frigates taken "in battle": _Essex_ was crippled in its maneuverability (lost main-topmast) and firepower (mostly carronades where the original design called for long guns); _Chesapeake_ was defective in crew quality (unpaid and untrained); and _President_ was run aground for several hours, ruining its powder, plus facing down an entire squadron -- and still slapped _Endymion_ as hard as the Brit hit it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yadayadayada. Same can be said for most of the Brit ships lost. Smaller crews, smaller ships, fewer guns, poor powder, exhaustion, etc. etc. For every hard luck case that you trot out the RN side could too. We just don't whinge about it as much as you do Just suck it up guys. Sometimes your guys lost to players who were better on the day or who had better materiel. Same as ours. Get over it.

[David Manley]

Make for an interesting solitaire game when _SoG_ comes out -- how many British frigates does it take to defeat a US 44, assuming all sides start undamaged, and all fights are one-on-one?

Probably entirely dependent on who is playing the game :) No doubt you'll play it and the number will be "many" which will of course prove the square root of s*d all :happy"

History shows the number necessary is 1

[Cmmdre]

error

[Cmmdre]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yadayadayada. Same can be said for most of the Brit ships lost. Smaller crews, smaller ships, fewer guns, poor powder, exhaustion, etc. etc. For every hard luck case that you trot out the RN side could too. We just don't whinge about it as much as you do Just suck it up guys. Sometimes your guys lost to players who were better on the day or who had better materiel. Same as ours. Get over it.

See here.
http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthre...ER-AT-YORKTOWN

[David Manley]

See here.
http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthre...ER-AT-YORKTOWN

Proves my point

[csadn]

See here.
http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthre...ER-AT-YORKTOWN

Be nice -- Mr. Manley's employer is probably reading all this as well. >;)

[David Manley]

Be nice -- Mr. Manley's employer is probably reading all this as well. >;)

He was. Didn't you notice?

[csadn]

He was. Didn't you notice?

Nah -- too busy loading the post with NSA keywords. >:)

[Diamondback]

Ooh, someone had to bring up my least favorite three letters... an agancy where "They should all be tried for TREASON" is about the most polite thing I have to say about them.

[David Manley]

Ooh, someone had to bring up my least favorite three letters... an agancy where "They should all be tried for TREASON" is about the most polite thing I have to say about them.

NSA, at last a government agency that listens to you

[David Manley]

Nah -- too busy loading the post with NSA keywords. >:)

You missed "echelon" - lots of naval wargamers around the world have files at Cheltenham because of that

[Diamondback]

You'll note I said "most polite". How I really feel: "They should all HANG for Treason..." After being duly tried and duly convicted of course.

"When the People fear the Government, there is Tyranny. When the Government fears the People, there is LIBERTY."
--V

[David Manley]

Keep an eye out for any unusual white vans or black helicopters around your place now

[Berthier]

You missed "echelon" - lots of naval wargamers around the world have files at Cheltenham because of that

Can you elaborate David, without getting arrested, never heard of echelon except in relation to troop deployment!

[DeRuyter]

I doubt it. Endymion had shot president into surrender without the presence of the other RN ships, both her and President having outstripped the others some hours previously. Hope was a tactician who knew how to take on a large 44 and win. Despite the "popular" view RN frigate captains did learn from the mistakes and experiences of their peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_USS_President

Not exactly. Not making excuses, just looking at the tactical situation. I am not discrediting Hope either, but Decatur was fighting knowing that the other RN frigates were closing in, note that line below about using chain shot (repeating French mistakes) to disable her rig, versus hull shots. He was unable to fully turn and fight, thus exposing himself to the quartering shots. It is quite likely that he would have maneuvered to fight had it been equal odds. BY the time he realized Endymion had hove to to make repair the other two frigates were on him.

From the Wiki article:

"By late afternoon, Endymion and President were exchanging fire using their bow- and stern-chase cannon respectively.[4] By nightfall, the Endymion had closed to President's quarter, where Decatur could bring no guns to bear. Endymion was a very fast ship and her Captain, Hope, yawed to fire a broadside into President's quarter, before turning again to follow and regain his position. The Long Island shore was too close for Decatur to steer northwards to put the Endymion astern.[8]

After Endymion had repeated this maneuver for the third time, causing considerable loss aboard President, Decatur abruptly turned to starboard to cross Endymion's bows. He had mustered boarding parties in case the British were taken by surprise, but Endymion also turned to starboard and the two ships headed south, exchanging broadsides. Decatur had no time to batter the British vessel into surrender, as the other three British ships would almost certainly be in range before long, so his gunners fired high into Endymion's rigging, seeking to disable her, using chain shot and "dismantling shot" (bars of iron linked by a ring), while the British gunners fired low into the hull of the President.[8] However, the shooting was poor on both sides[8] while it is claimed the President's powder was defective.[9]

At 7.58pm, President struck, hoisting a light in her rigging to signify her surrender. Endymion hove to and commenced repairs to her rigging. Captain Hope was unable to take immediate possession of his prize as he had no boats available that would "swim". Seeing Endymion hove to, Decatur attempted to escape, making sail at 8.30pm and running downwind. Endymion completed her hasty repairs and got under way at 9.05pm. In the meantime both Pomone and Tenedos were closing on President and by 9.05pm, Pomone had caught up, firing two broadsides at President, after which Decatur once again indicated his surrender.[10]"

[David Manley]

Can you elaborate David, without getting arrested, never heard of echelon except in relation to troop deployment!

Echelon was reported in the press as being one of the "intelligent listening systems" used in Cheltenham

[David Manley]

Not exactly. Not making excuses, just looking at the tactical situation. I am not discrediting Hope either, but Decatur was fighting knowing that the other RN frigates were closing in, note that line below about using chain shot (repeating French mistakes) to disable her rig, versus hull shots. He was unable to fully turn and fight, thus exposing himself to the quartering shots. It is quite likely that he would have maneuvered to fight had it been equal odds. BY the time he realized Endymion had hove to to make repair the other two frigates were on him.

From the Wiki article:

"By late afternoon, Endymion and President were exchanging fire using their bow- and stern-chase cannon respectively.[4] By nightfall, the Endymion had closed to President's quarter, where Decatur could bring no guns to bear. Endymion was a very fast ship and her Captain, Hope, yawed to fire a broadside into President's quarter, before turning again to follow and regain his position. The Long Island shore was too close for Decatur to steer northwards to put the Endymion astern.[8]

After Endymion had repeated this maneuver for the third time, causing considerable loss aboard President, Decatur abruptly turned to starboard to cross Endymion's bows. He had mustered boarding parties in case the British were taken by surprise, but Endymion also turned to starboard and the two ships headed south, exchanging broadsides. Decatur had no time to batter the British vessel into surrender, as the other three British ships would almost certainly be in range before long, so his gunners fired high into Endymion's rigging, seeking to disable her, using chain shot and "dismantling shot" (bars of iron linked by a ring), while the British gunners fired low into the hull of the President.[8] However, the shooting was poor on both sides[8] while it is claimed the President's powder was defective.[9]

At 7.58pm, President struck, hoisting a light in her rigging to signify her surrender. Endymion hove to and commenced repairs to her rigging. Captain Hope was unable to take immediate possession of his prize as he had no boats available that would "swim". Seeing Endymion hove to, Decatur attempted to escape, making sail at 8.30pm and running downwind. Endymion completed her hasty repairs and got under way at 9.05pm. In the meantime both Pomone and Tenedos were closing on President and by 9.05pm, Pomone had caught up, firing two broadsides at President, after which Decatur once again indicated his surrender.[10]"

Worth noting that no one was "closing in" as President and Endymion had outrun the other ships some hours previously. Decaturs tactics were good and could have led to victory, or at least disabled his opponent the previous year. But Hope was the better tactician on thd day, avoiding or predicting Decaturs manoeuvres, which ultimately gave him the win.

[csadn]

Worth noting that no one was "closing in" as President and Endymion had outrun the other ships some hours previously. Decaturs tactics were good and could have led to victory, or at least disabled his opponent the previous year. But Hope was the better tactician on thd day, avoiding or predicting Decaturs manoeuvres, which ultimately gave him the win.

"Seeing Endymion hove to, Decatur attempted to escape, making sail at 8.30pm and running downwind. Endymion completed her hasty repairs and got under way at 9.05pm. In the meantime both Pomone and Tenedos were closing on President and by 9.05pm, Pomone had caught up, firing two broadsides at President, after which Decatur once again indicated his surrender."

Note emphasis -- it was a completely-different set of ships which caught up with _President_. _Endymion_ had only just completed hasty repairs and gotten underway again when _Pomone_ and _Tenedos_ caught up to _President_. Had _Endymion_ been alone, _President_ likely would have slipped away. Note also the losses suffered by _President_ and _Endymion_ -- Hope's "better tactics" cost him about as many crew as he cost _President_, plus enough rigging and ancillary damage to prevent him finishing the job.

[David Manley]

Maybe, maybe not. Either way
it did give Decatur the chance to surrender twice. Not many captains got to do that :)

[Coog]

Maybe, maybe not. Either way
it did give Decatur the chance to surrender twice. Not many captains got to do that :)

Who said Decatur surrendered the first time? None of the sources quoted in the wiki article say that. It seems the writer of the article was not taking this from them and was either not quoting the source it was taken from or making it up as he went along. Not that anyone would do that in a wiki article. Even William James, who is obviously biased toward the British in most of his writings, does not say it. He is doubtful of a light showing in the rigging and only states that by a period on inaction by President that it was conceived that President was surrendering. I even checked other sources and none say he surrendered to Endymion.

James:

"In 10 minutes the American frigate kept more away, firing only at intervals ; and at 7 h. 58 m. ceased altogether and showed, or appeared to show (for we are doubtful of the fact), a light. Conceiving that the President had struck, the Endymion also ceased firing, and began to bend new sails, her present ones having been cut into ribands by the President's bar and chain shot; one of which had torn away 12 or 14 cloths of her foresail, stripping it almost from the yard."

[David Manley]

Raising a light, ceasing fire and heaving to was probably the first clue

IIRC it was established at the following inquiries that he had. And actually "reference 10" does say that (its Prof Lambert's book). The reference being to the paragraph as a whole.

[DeRuyter]

Who said Decatur surrendered the first time? None of the sources quoted in the wiki article say that. It seems the writer of the article was not taking this from them and was either not quoting the source it was taken from or making it up as he went along. Not that anyone would do that in a wiki article. Even William James, who is obviously biased toward the British in most of his writings, does not say it. He is doubtful of a light showing in the rigging and only states that by a period on inaction by President that it was conceived that President was surrendering. I even checked other sources and none say he surrendered to Endymion.

James:

"In 10 minutes the American frigate kept more away, firing only at intervals ; and at 7 h. 58 m. ceased altogether and showed, or appeared to show (for we are doubtful of the fact), a light. Conceiving that the President had struck, the Endymion also ceased firing, and began to bend new sails, her present ones having been cut into ribands by the President's bar and chain shot; one of which had torn away 12 or 14 cloths of her foresail, stripping it almost from the yard."

oooh! Is James actually giving credit to the American ship for seriously damaging Endymion's rigging? That's novel! (although I must concede that David could say the same about Roosevelt!)

Eric

[David Manley]

oooh! Is James actually giving credit to the American ship for seriously damaging Endymion's rigging? That's novel! (although I must concede that David could say the same about Roosevelt!)

Eric

Abso fraggin' lutely dammit

[csadn]

Maybe, maybe not. Either way
it did give Decatur the chance to surrender twice. Not many captains got to do that :)

Hell, look at William Bainbridge's track-record -- makes me wonder whose side he was on.

FWIW: The various games I've used to try to simulate what would have happened had _Endymion_ been on its own, it's about 60% _President_ "wins" (either gets away, or actually manages to defeat _Endymion_.

Doesn't change the reality that it took an entire squadron to beat one (crippled) 44. In fact, it looks as tho' it took 3:1 odds -- now where have we heard *that* ratio used before? ;)

[David Manley]

Doesn't change the reality that it took an entire squadron to beat one (crippled) 44. In fact, it looks as tho' it took 3:1 odds -- now where have we heard *that* ratio used before? ;)

I see that hair being split there. Doesn't change the reality that President (which was hardly crippled - another "Scooby Do" defence) struck to the gunfire of a single ship.

3:1 odds - number of Shermans needed to take down a Panther? Or was that 5:1 on average?

[csadn]

I see that hair being split there. Doesn't change the reality that President (which was hardly crippled - another "Scooby Do" defence) struck to the gunfire of a single ship.

Nope -- struck to two ships (three if we include _Endymion_, which wasn't in any condition to capture another ship...).

3:1 odds - number of Shermans needed to take down a Panther? Or was that 5:1 on average?

Shermans weren't "anti-tank" units; they were "infantry support". Anti-tank work was left to "tank destroyers". (An appalling screwup on the part of the US Army, to be sure; but if you think I have a low opinion of the British, ask me about Army Infantry sometime.... >:) )

[David Manley]

I see the ostrich defence is still in use to

Yes, TDs were supposed to be tasked with taking out tanks and the M4s solely there to support the infantry. Unfortunately it seems many operators failed to read the memo

[David Manley]

Btw, sorry for mentioning tanks again - we got a collective slagging over atcthe Aerodrome for talking about them and cats too kuchc

[csadn]

I see the ostrich defence is still in use to

Yes, TDs were supposed to be tasked with taking out tanks and the M4s solely there to support the infantry. Unfortunately it seems many operators failed to read the memo

Like I said: If you think I have a low opinion of the British, ask me about Army Infantry sometime. Phrases like "box of rocks", "bag of hammers", and similar will be used early and often. (It's a sad comment that the Soviets figured this s*** out before anyone else did, and brought the world the Tankodesantniki.)

[Wargamer]

The phrase was "soldier proof" which was impossible since soldiers would break anvils.

[Diamondback]

Like I said: If you think I have a low opinion of the British, ask me about Army Infantry sometime. Phrases like "box of rocks", "bag of hammers", and similar will be used early and often. (It's a sad comment that the Soviets figured this s*** out before anyone else did, and brought the world the Tankodesantniki.)

Firsthand experience? LOL :P (It's worth noting that the M1911 was designed as the last of the HORSE CAVALRY pistols...)

[csadn]

Firsthand experience? LOL :P (It's worth noting that the M1911 was designed as the last of the HORSE CAVALRY pistols...)

Not first-hand; but I am on other fora with large contingents of Army Infantry, and trying to get an idea into their skulls is like trying to drill out the Holland Tunnel using currant jelly.

[David Manley]

LOL, I know the feeling