Force9

Frolic - I think you well know my own opinion regarding Tyrone Martin's revisionist version of the battle. Stated plainly, I have serious doubts about his use of facts and interpretation. Regarding the overview provided by sailor Moses...The prodigious amounts of ammunition used would rightly raise eyebrows. But Tyrone Martin seems to have overlooked the simplest and most obvious explanation for this remarkable output of iron and lead. The truth is that the Constitution fired every broadside - every discharge – with two round shot. Every. One. I think your own valuable research regarding the use of TWO round shot in each discharge explains the ammunition expenditure across the relatively short duration of the close action. Here is a snippet of my long-winded rebuttal of Martin's version of the battle that is focused on the ammunition (Full version here: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/270-uss-constitution-by-force9-revell-plastic-revisiting-the-classic-196-kit/?p=205092 ): Tyrone Martin seems to have never considered this explanation to the dilemma of the ammunition expenditure. If we isolate and examine the 32 pounder carronade round shot - which would only be used during the close engagement - the math works out quite nicely (even for those of us without advanced math degrees). I agree with Martin that the grape and canister would've been thrown in on top of the round shot for good measure and can be omitted from our calculation: 236 32 pdr round shot expended in 35 minutes. (Let's round up to 240 for us math-challenged types) Double-shotted , so divide by two and get 120 discharges in 35 minutes. 12 carronades on a broadside... 120/12 gives 10 discharges for each gun. 35 minutes/10 discharges gives us one discharge every 3.5 minutes. (BTW - the math works out exactly the same for the 300 24-pdr shot) According to Mark Adkin in his excellent Trafalgar Companion, a well drilled British gun crew would be expected to fire three rounds in five minutes. Does anyone think a new American crew drilled constantly for six weeks by professional American naval officers can fire one double-shotted round every 3.5 minutes? Me too. I've used 35 minutes because Martin mentions that length of time in the same context as the ammunition breakdown. Using Hull’s estimate of 30 minutes we have a discharge on average every 3.0 minutes - I'm good with that too. It seems likely that the American gun crews loaded full charges with two round shot with the remainder of the tube loaded with whatever grape/canister would fit and then let ‘er rip. It certainly explains the gruesome damage inflicted on the Guerriere - all the accounts of washtubs of blood flowing down hatches and bits of brain and skull scattered across the smoldering decks when the prize crew got on board. Not to mention the water filling her hold that eventually sealed her doom. My view is that Captain Dacres' testimony regarding the thirty shot holes on the larboard side was not meant to suggest a complete accounting of the hits Guerriere absorbed. It was likely meant to highlight the damage inflicted by Constitution's initial broadside (15 long guns double round shot= 30 holes). Other accounts state that two of the gun ports on the larboard side were blown into a single gaping hole. The detained ship master William Orne noted that the first broadside from Constitution fairly rocked the Guerriere and "washtubs" of blood poured down the hatchways. The prize crew after the battle were stunned by the blood and gore distributed throughout the upper decks. The ship was completely disabled and in a sinking state. On the contrary, I think Constitution hardly missed across the 30-40 minutes of punishment meted out to Guerriere during the decisive close action. Certainly some of the American shot went high and caused little damage, but the mizzen and foremasts seem to have been cut down by shot that struck fairly low down - indicating more fire concentrated against the hull. I think the American gun crews were well trained to fire on the down roll and maximize her advantage in broadside weight. The British, in contrast, likely fired more rapidly, but with little regard to high or low... RN practice would probably have reduced the powder charges at such a close range (to avoid having round shot punch neat holes in one side and out the other without inflicting showers of splinters and collateral damage within) which contributed to the "Old Ironsides" moniker.

Mark - Guerriere was actually en route to Halifax for refit. She was detached from Broke's squadron as part of a regular rotation for each ship. She was certainly worn down, but that was the typical status of so many ships in the RN that were under manned and overused. I think you're right that her condition was not considered an issue for her captain and crew until after they lost the battle. Likewise it was a convenient defense to imply that the American ships were well crewed because they were largely manned by RN deserters. There is some truth to the assertion - many Americans had been impressed in the RN and had served in the fleet for years (some even at Trafalgar). It was also interesting that American crew members on the Guerriere were allowed to go below during the battle while onetime citizens of the British empire (who claimed American naturalization) helped man the Constitution and fought like tigers. These were largely Irish (and in some cases Scottish) who felt no loyalty/love for King and country. The plucky Irishman Dan Hogan clambered up the rigging in the heat of the fight to secure an ensign that had been flapping loose on the foremast. Hull called attention to his courage to the Navy secretary and approved an extra month's pay. Hogan was later wounded in both hands during the Java battle. A pre-war Destroyer was named after him. The court martial failed to fully reveal the true underlying reasons for the defeat that could be quickly socialized within the fleet to alter future outcomes. Dacres gamely suggested to the court that he would gladly refight a similar opponent with the same ship and crew. The facts strongly suggest that he was spewing unrealistic bluster and he would've lost that battle under any circumstances. Nothing about the result would indicate any chance of success. It took a few more kicks in the gut before the RN acknowledged that the big American frigates were an overmatch for any standard 38 and orders were issued prohibiting single frigate actions with the American 44s. We modern folk would've reprimanded Captain Dacres for engaging a clearly superior force with a ship in impaired condition with less than a full complement of able bodied crew.

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