Force9

It is so interesting to see all of this testimony laid out end to end... Thanks Frolic for sharing this. I know folks find it bizarre that I could call out the discrepancy in Dacres' testimony, but it goes to the heart of how accounts of this battle have been dissected and/or manipulated over the years. Notice how the witnesses differ on the commencement of the close action in each account: Lt. Kent: "At 5 she closed within half pistol shot, on our larboard beam, both keeping up a heavy fire and steering free, his intention, evidently, being to cross our bows. At 5.20 the mizenmast fell and exposed the ship to a heavy raking fire from the enemy, who placed himself on our larboard bow..." Master Scott: "At 5 our opponent closed with in half pistol shot on our starboard beam, both steering free and keeping up a [illegible] fire.. At 5.20 the mizen mast went over the starboard quarter, which brought the ship up in the wind against her helm which exposed us to a heavy raking fire from the enemy. In his post-battle report, Captain Dacres stated: "At 5 She clos'd on our Starboard Beam, both keeping up a heavy fire and steering free, his intention being evidently to cross our bow. At 5.20, our Mizen Mast went over the starboard quarter and brought the Ship up in the Wind. The Enemy then plac'd himself on our larboard Bow, raking us..." Captain Hull and 1st Lt. Morris both maintain that Constitution commenced the close action on the Larboard beam of Guerriere. This would seem to be corroborated by Dacres' assertion that the larboard side had thirty shots below the waterline in line with the 5th row of copper. This would imply a well coordinated broadside instead of random shots during the course of a running battle. Very likely the result of the initial broadside that Captain Hull withheld until directly alongside Guerriere within "can't miss" range. Both Alfred Mahan and Theodore Roosevelt assumed that Dacres erred in his initial report and the master's testimony was mistakenly captured by a clerk or otherwise mis-remembered by Scott. All seem to agree, however, that Constitution ended up on the larboard bow at some point. ​Tyrone Martin capitalized on these discrepancies and created an entirely new version of the battle with Constitution engaging initially on the Starboard side. He inserts an entirely new set of maneuvering with Constitution crossing the bow of her adversary before wearing around for another bow crossing where the final entanglement and dismasting takes place. None of this ties back to any testimony or eyewitness account. Fun stuff Evan

Frolic - Can you verify the statement from Captain Dacres: "On the starboard side there were about thirty shots, which had taken effect about five sheets of copper down..." Alfred Mahan cites that Dacres testimony as "On the LARBOARD side there were about thirty shots.." Curious Evan

Jud Careful about signing on to sail into battle with Commodore Bainbridge... Put delicately, hè was not Well liked by his crew. In fact, there was à naar mutiny when Isaac Hull resigned And Bainbridge assumed command of Constitution. Bainbridge didnt hide his disdain of common sailors And treated them with almost no respect. Hè cut à deal with THE crew - if they would give HIM à chance, hè would ease Up on harsh discipline. it worked out in THE end!

I think as far as Constitution keeping away for quite some time before engaging... Bainbridge claimed that he wanted to draw his opponent farther off shore before turning on her. There seemed to be some indication, however, that Bainbridge mistakenly thought Java was a heavier ship at first - perhaps a small ship of the line...

We should also remember that Java was in position to stern rake Constitution TWICE during that fight. The American 44s were generally handled very well during their engagements, but the reality was that they were not nearly as nimble as their smaller opponents. The Java, in particular, was very well handled (helped in part by extra hands on board for transit to a far off station) and leveraged her maneuverability to give the Constitution everything she could handle. The loss of Java's headgear was clearly the turning point of the battle and the Constitution took every advantage. Likely that Old Ironsides would've won under any circumstance, but it certainly shortened the battle with less lives lost. Evan

Beautiful. I do hope you can minimize the exposure to sun rays with the blind drawn... Perhaps a "turnaround cruise" each Trafalgar day to balance the exposure on each side? You best not build the USS Nimitz - you and the admiral will end up sleeping on the patio! Wonderful displays.

Taz - Welcome to the Connie club! I recommend thickening the bulwarks and perhaps scratch building a replacement for the capstan. Everything else is not critical... I think you are wise to want to replace the more fragile spars with something more substantial... Wood makes the most sense for the yardarms and thinner topmasts - easy to acquire a proper fine-grained wood that would suit the purpose. I will, however, try to use styrene tube with brass rod inserts wherever possible. Many of these spars need various cleats and attachments that might be best done with styrene at this small scale. The sails will be done with silkspan on my build... I won't do full sails - just the sails set during battle. I have seen good representations using the kit sails, but I don't prefer the billowing sail effect... If the sails are a bit intimidating, it is entirely acceptable to model the ship with bare poles and avoid all of the necessary running rigging associated with full sails. It could save months of effort. The decking can be done using the kit pieces - you'll see my method elsewhere within my log. The scale decks version does, however, look to be a terrific alternative and I know Arnie over on fine scale modeler used these to good effect. Foxy is well on his way with masts and rigging and I think we will both benefit from following his progress. I look forward to seeing your build here on MSW and please don't hesitate to ping me with any questions... I can at least help you avoid any pitfalls that I encountered! Evan

I think at least two of my sources shows the kedge anchor being stored within the long boat for the US Frigate Constitution. Spare spars were stored along the mizzen/main channels. Constitution doesn't seem to show quarter davits until the 1807 drawing reportedly done by Captain John Rodgers (you'll see the Corne painting of 1803 in my Avatar shows them not yet fitted). The Turner drawings in the Tate collection don't show quarter davits for Victory - nor does Turner's 1806 painting (or his famous Trafalgar canvas). The Clarkson Stanfield painting DOES show them, however. Go figure. Evan

Thank you for the link... Very interesting. I've just finished “The Admirals: Nimitz, Halsey, Leahy, and King — The Five-Star Admirals Who Won the War at Sea,” by Walter R. Borneman and your link added some great background. The book is an interesting perspective of the intertwined careers of the first five star admirals. It is a bit light on the battles and more focused on the overall context of decisions and leadership. It illuminates the wider influence of Leahy and calls out the lack of full recognition for the contributions made by Spruance. A fine read. Evan

Tyrone Martin states that US Frigate Constitution had no rope rails for gangways/ladders with the possible exception of the rearmost near the officer accommodations. Evan

Thanks for this overview. I'm hoping Santa sticks this under my tree this year. Evan

Frank - I see you've started in on the sails for your Victory. I like your initial effort with the spanker. So sorry that I've neglected my log... I have a few updates to add and I will have a good few weeks to do some modeling during the holiday break. I hope to have the hull halves glued together, the gun deck in place, and the false keel done. Thanks for your continued interest!

I think your feline Boomer will rightly want to supervise construction - it is after all a "cat" boat and not a "dog" boat!

Here is a link to a discussion on this in my log: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/270-uss-constitution-by-force9-revell-plastic-revisiting-the-classic-196-kit/page-2#entry8763 Evan

There is much to unravel when attempting to lock in her appearance on any given date - especially August 19, 1812!!! Very nice start. I will sit in the first row to watch. Evan

I'm in! Evan

Jerry - Thanks for posting those more detailed photos of the McNarry model in the gallery. It really has to be seen to be fully appreciated. Markus - Chapelle has a nice overview of the rudder differences in his "History of the American Sailing Navy". I'll look for the page references. As I've indicated in my earlier post, Chapelle thinks the US Navy was an early adopter of this new rudder type - much sooner than the European navies. I have not been working on my model lately - it is too hot in my garage work space for comfort. We Californians are wimps in regard to summer heat waves... I do think I'll be back in action this weekend as the weather begins to moderate. Thanks all Evan

For whatever it is worth... Some contemporary depictions: Crew clambering up rigging:

Dan - an incredible result that I followed in stealth mode (along with many others I'm sure). Just to be overly crisp... The painting you cited was a knockoff... Here is the actual Thomas Birch painting of the Constitution/Guerriere battle: Quite a difference! Evan

Ahoy Mike! Glad you've rediscovered my log... Hopefully you can be inspired to venture forth with nautical efforts and forego the aeronautical stuff for a time. I don't swim particularly well, but I KNOW I can't fly! Perhaps that is why I stick to ships. Work continues at a leisurely pace on my Connie... I am fiddling still with the deadeyes and chains with nothing notable to show for it yet. A few more weeks should yield some pictures. Thanks again to all who check in on my build. Evan

Daniel - I was just admiring your terrific gun deck "diorama"... Can't imagine the time invested in recreating the chaos of a Trafalgar gun deck! Question - would there also be a stout crewman positioned at the inhaul tackle to prevent the many tons of gun from lurching forward in the next ocean swell while some luckless sailor was ramming home the next charge? Evan

Matt - Thank you for the generous comment... I think third time might be a charm? I'd encourage anyone to take a crack at the Revell kit using a few extra touches to produce a very substantial representation of the great ship during her glory years. Time and patience are the key factors... The ring bolt below the first shroud is for the lower stuns'l boom... The Martingale tackle hooks to this point to hold the boom in position in conjunction with the topping lift. I won't display the boom swung out, but I thought the ring bolt should be there for accuracy. I'm glad someone noticed it! JCFrankie - I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of square rig seamanship, but my understanding is that the block would allow the forward shroud to be eased when going to windward or making a hard tack so that the courses could be pivoted around just a little bit more... That is why they aren't there on the mizzen - obviously no such thing as a mizzen course on the crojack yard. Those with more knowledge are free to correct my explanation... Thanks for taking an interest and thanks again to all for the "likes"! Hope to make a bit more progress on Father's day - modeling time is gifted to me already! Evan

Lads... I've been laboring away at the build but haven't taken many photos along the way... And some that I have taken have gone missing in the nether world of my old hard drive. I'll pick up here with my progress and get the build log up to snuff. Firstly, I decided that my original location for the main sheet sheave holes was too far forward. They really should've been positioned aft a bit - centered in the gap between the main and mizzen shrouds. So I filled in the first version and laid in a new row of inner planking with rivet detail, etc. and painted it all to match. Then I redid the sheave holes and moved the cleat. You'll notice the addition of more cleats along the bulwark. My understanding is that halyards were NOT tied off to pin rails... Those tie off to cleats or bollards at the ends of the pin rails. I used the guidance from Olof Eriksen to position appropriate cleats to tie off the various halyards on either port or starboard. The cleats were quickly fashioned from Styrene I-Beams from Evergreen using the handy Chopper: Once sliced off of the stock piece, one end would be snipped and the remainder filed to shape and glued into a hole drilled almost thru the bulwark to maximize the surface area for holding power when glued. After the glue dried, I came back and painted with wood brown. Deadeyes: I've got the deadeyes all primed and painted to resemble wood with iron strops and light tarring (just smeared them with a dark wash). I wanted them to be wood-like- not entirely black. I've reamed out the holes in the channels and test fitted the initial batch on the fore channel. You'll also notice that the forward most shroud will lead to a triple block instead of a standard deadeye. (I've got a test version mocked up for now and should have something in place after I put the solder iron to work on the wire strops.) The Hull model in the Peabody Essex museum clearly shows the triple blocks fitted on the forward shrouds on the fore and main channels. The mizzen does NOT have this block - just the standard deadeye. This contradicts the guidance from Larry Arnot in the BlueJacket kit manual, but Mr. Eriksen confirms this approach against the Brady Naval Apprentice Kedge Anchor (Ed. 1841) Apparently these first shrouds would be eased or tightened as the ship changed tacks. As such, Eriksen refers to these as "Swifters" - although that term is a bit ambiguous to me. I know, for example, that the aft most shrouds on a channel were often referred to as the "Swifters" - they are not paired with another shroud when rigged and seem to have evolved from some sort of backstay in an earlier time. All part of the mysteries of rigging as I venture forth. Sorry for the delayed update and thanks again for all the Likes and interest. Evan

That is very fine and precise craftsmanship! Were such booms used sparingly in that era? Evan

Ahoy Popeye! I will also elbow my way thru the crowd to watch... I have the Commemerative edition of this kit that includes Pontos PE and decking. I don't think it is the most accurate version of the Titanic, but it is certainly representative of the great ship. I'm not a Titanic fanatic so I'm not counting missing port holes and worrying about much minutiae, but I did take the trouble to add the openings on the forecastle and stern decks. I also put some edging around the stern to help support the PE railings I didn't like the fit of the deck towards the bow so I scraped off the kit's molded ledge and replaced it with my own styrene version to help the deck sit even. Otherwise, I really like the fit and finish and have found it to be a terrific kit. Unfortunately, this is about as far as I've gotten, so I'll look to you for guidance going forward. Good stuff! Evan