Force9

Hello Chris 
I'd have to say that I am hesitant to dismiss all of the paintings of Trafalgar. The famous Turner work and the Clarkson Stanfield scene are in some sense "eyewitness artifacts" - albeit decades downstream. Turner absorbed much criticism in his day - particularly from veterans of the battle. So much so, in fact, that he had to retreat to his atelier for 11 days to make corrections demanded by his naval critics - mostly related to the rigging details. Presumably, they would've demanded he modify the fo'c's'le bulwarks if that was warranted. The Clarkson Stanfield painting was commissioned by the surviving officers of Trafalgar - including Sir Thomas M Hardy himself... Stanfield utilized their input every step of the way and had all galley proofs approved by the supervising committee. And unlike Turner, Stanfield was no landlubber artist. He had served as a midshipman in HM navy during the Napoleonic era and would know a mouse from a lizard. The painting clearly includes the built up bulwarks. Hard to fathom that the collective memory of all those veterans would result in such an obvious error.
 

 

 
 
Regardless, your wonderful prototype inspires lustful/impure thoughts - surely this'll align nicely to the target modelers that you folks had in mind... Perhaps some of us will only build the hull (and maybe expose some beams/structure) to save some space.
 
I will be saving my pennies...and nickels...and take out a second mortgage...
 
Thank you for your terrific efforts - we modelers are greatly appreciative of your talent!
 
(Any thoughts towards a 1/64 US Frigate Constitution more aligned to her 1812/1815 appearance?)
 
Evan Gale

Folks...
 
I've just returned from a business/holiday trip to the East coast.  I somehow managed to be on hand when Old Ironsides put up her sails and proceeded along on her own power for the first time since 1997 - albeit for only 1,000 yards or so.  It was done to commemorate her great victory over HM Frigate Guerriere exactly 200 years hence.  After her brief sail, the tug brought her in close to the fort on Castle Island where she fired off her obligatory 21-gun salute to the roaring approval of the gathered throng.
 




 
Enjoy

Folks - Here is my rebuilt log of my Plastic Constitution build.  I've copied the entries over from another forum and I reserve the right to alter a few things to clean up previous errors:    
I’ve had a Revell 1/96 USS Constitution fall into my stash at a very reasonable price (Overstock.com) and it seems appropriate to take it on in recognition of the upcoming anniversary of USS Constitution’s victory over HMS Guerriere on August 19.
 
I’ve been spewing forth much hot air in defense of the Michel Felice Corne paintings and their representation of the ship as she first burst into glory against HMS Guerriere, so I feel obligated to back up my tirades with action. I’ll try to make this version align very closely to what we see in these paintings commissioned by Captain Hull immediately after his victory

(https://picasaweb.google.com/106997252788973852335/PEMMichelFeliceCorneGuerrierePaintings'>https://picasaweb.google.com/106997252788973852335/PEMMichelFeliceCorneGuerrierePaintings).
This does mean that I’ll set aside my Heller HMS Victory build for a time - I haven’t lost a bit of enthusiasm for that project - but I’ll apply what I learn in this new effort towards making that one better down the line.
 
Like many of us (most of us?) I’ve built this kit before... a few decades (or more) back. It seems to have been almost a rite of passage for anyone wanting to take ship modeling seriously. I’ll call that one the MK 1 version and it still exists in a dusty condition on a high shelf in the garage:

 

 
I was never happy with that earlier effort. Much has happened in the intervening years to improve my chances of making a more representative kit - most notably the proliferation of great information on the internet to inform my approach.
 
This venerable kit was originally issued back... well, back before some of us were born(!)... and I think it still holds up well. Certainly there is plenty of flash and injection moulding marks that we don't see in modern kits, but the kit still makes up into an impressive display as we can see in the various log entries across this forum.  It seems to be a copy of the 1/48 George Campbell plan model in the Smithsonian collection (http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/sail/constitution-48-sm/con-index.html'>http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/sail/constitution-48-sm/con-index.html) - which itself is a refinement of the famous Hull model built by the crew and presented to Captain Hull following his victory over Guerriere

(https://picasaweb.google.com/106997252788973852335/PEMUSSConstitutionHullModel'>https://picasaweb.google.com/106997252788973852335/PEMUSSConstitutionHullModel).
We see plenty of similarities in the bow and stern between the models and the Revell color guide somewhat follows the original. So the question becomes - does this Revell kit align well to the configuration of the Constitution when she earned her “Old Ironsides” moniker against HMS Guerriere? Well, strictly speaking no... In fact, if built OOB it would not actually represent Constitution as she was configured in any of her wartime cruises. There is a critical difference between the historic model and her modern copy - the Hull model shows 15 gun ports on each side of her gun deck (although the forward most are a bit too far forward) and the Revell kit shows 16. The difference is explained by this journal entry from Frederick Baury - one of Constitution’s midshipmen:
 
21 Sep 1812  Carpenters cutting bridle ports in bows ‑‑ Lieutenant Morgan and Midshipman Taylor left on recruiting duty.
 
After returning to Boston following the battle, Isaac Hull resigned and command was handed over to the much despised William Bainbridge. He proceeded to make a few changes including the addition of “bridle ports” up forward to help in towing, anchoring, and to potentially serve as bow chaser positions. Unlike the guidance provided by the Revell instructions, these positions would not normally have had a gun mounted. If needed during a chase, a nearby 24-pounder would be hauled into one of these spots to lob a few shots and try for a lucky hit to take out a spar and slow down the prey. To that end Bainbridge made another change as outlined by Commander Tyrone Martin in his overview of Constitution’s armament:
 
Following his succession to command of the ship on 15 September 1812, Commodore William Bainbridge eliminated the 18-pounder, simplifying his ammunition loading and handling problem by dropping one caliber. The gun had been virtually useless, anyway, since the ship's bow structure was not well suited to the accommodation of a chase gun.
 
Bainbridge may have been a jerk of a human being, but he was an astute naval commander and he thought it made more sense to offload the 18 pdr chase gun and make room to store more 24 pdr ammunition for his main guns.
So the 16 gun ports and the spar deck bow chaser as provided in the kit could not co-exist. The easiest solution to bring things into alignment is to ditch the bow chaser and the two forward main deck guns and call it a day. You’d likely have the correct representation of Constitution’s configuration when she scored her victory over HMS Java. Since I am trying to show her during the battle with HMS Guerriere, I will preserve the bow chaser gun, but I will need to take the drastic step of filling in the forward bridle ports. 
 
If you want to represent her last war cruise under Charles Stewart, then you’ll have to revisit the carronades on the spar deck. Here again Commander Martin provides some insight:
 
[Charles Stewart] reduced the number of carronades to twenty and added two 24-pounder "shifting gunades" recently captured from the British by an American privateer. Designed by Sir William Congreve in 1814, each was 8' 6" long, but being of thinner barrel construction weighed only about 5000 pounds on carriage. The design was an attempt to combine the range of a long gun with the lighter weight of a carronade. The pair sat on carriages like the long guns, and it was expected that, since they were lighter, they could readily be shifted from side to side as combat required.
 

 
 
Apparently Stewart had the two forward most and two aft most carronades removed and replaced with one each of the newfangled gunnades. I have no idea how these actually looked when mounted on a carriage, but it might be possible to find slightly over scale carronade barrels and mount them to the two gun carriages no longer needed on the main gun deck. Oh, and you’d also need to paint her with a yellow band - that is well documented.
 
Regarding the carronades... As represented in the kit with the wooden quoins, these would seem to be rather quaint. The carriages on the foredeck with their small trucks would also seem to be inappropriate for 1812. Certainly by the time of Trafalgar it would be more typical for a carronade to be mounted with a pin to the bulwark with trajectory controlled by an elevation screw. I think Karl Heinz Marquardt addresses these same concerns in his AOTS book since the restored ship has these outmoded versions still represented. I’ll optimistically try to modify all of the carronades to include the elevation screws and eliminate the funky rolling carriages on the foredeck.
 
Many folks get caught up in the various permutations of the stern gallery windows. Were there six or five?... or three or eight? The Hull model shows six, but the Corne paintings have five... I’m frankly not concerned either way. I assume there were many chances for the configuration to have changed across the years as different commanders supervised different refits within different time and budget limitations. Perhaps Hull and his crew replaced the six windows with only five after destroying the original gallery windows during their escape from Broke’s squadron (they axed out the windows and some of the transom to position guns to fire at their pursuers). Maybe there were always six and Corne got this wrong. Nobody knows the truth and we likely never will... I’m fine with working with the six depicted on the kit.
 
The rudder on this kit is a bit perplexing... It is moulded with wood grain without any copper plating represented. Hmmm... That doesn’t seem correct. I’ll ponder the idea of putting some of my extra styrene strips to work and setting that right.
 
Of course the kit provided plastic eyelets and rings are worthless - easily broken and a bit over scale. Those will be replaced with wire or PE versions. Somehow I managed to not break any of the plastic hammock cranes on my first effort all those years ago, but I’ll replace those with ones fashioned from brass micro-tubing and Jotika eyelets. Some of the thinner spars are also vulnerable to bending/breakage. I’ll try to shape some brass rod for replacements. I’ll need to carefully consider the moulded blocks - some may be usable or otherwise converted to usefulness. I suspect I’ll replace most with online purchases. The gun port lids will be omitted altogether - the Hull model and the credible paintings of the period (including the Corne series) don’t show them mounted (although the Hull model has a lid for the forward most ports).
 
The pre-formed ratlines, moulded deadeyes, and vacuum formed sails will not be utilized. ‘Nuff said. As for the accuracy of the rig represented in the kit... I am having trouble finding a stable representation of her complete masting and rigging layout. The 1817 Charles Ware diagram may be about the best, but as Marquardt points out it differs in some respects to other seemingly authoritative sources. It is also interesting to note that the Corne paintings are showing crows feet rigged... that is unique. At least it appears that the trysail mast (immediately abaft the mizzen) is authentic - records indicate that Isaac Hull had this added to allow better movement for the boom and gaff. The Hull model clearly shows it fitted as well. I’ll worry more about the rigging when I’m much closer to that phase, but in the meantime I’ll probably fork over the $60 bucks for the Bluejacket manual set and perhaps rely on that for guidance...
 
The biggest bugaboo in this kit is the multi-part decking. Ugh... The forums are full of attempts to mitigate the unsightly seams with various levels of success. Some folks just don’t worry about them at all and instead try to make the rest of the deck interesting enough to be distracting. I’ve even seen one modeler glue “battens” over them and pass them off as a “feature”. My first attempt was relatively successful in aligning the deck sections and eliminating any meaningful gap, but I was hesitant to fill and sand because I was trying to preserve the moulded wood grain detail. I was attempting to follow the “Les Wilkins” method of using a razor or low-grit sandpaper to remove the top layer of tan paint to reveal the base coat of black and highlight the grain (guidance that is also provided in the Revell instructions). I’ve since decided that the grain is a bit overdone at this scale and it’d be best to smooth everything down and use shades of paint and perhaps some artist pencils to impart the wood tones. Eliminating the seams is more important than preserving the grain.
 
There are many fine efforts out there... Here’s one that inspires - well known to those of us who prowl the web for impressive builds:
http://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=11091&sid=a22ea2a7adc8efe9b2fcffd0273bb134'>http://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=11091&sid=a22ea2a7adc8efe9b2fcffd0273bb134
Other useful online resources:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/war1812/atsea/con-guer.htm'>http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/war1812/atsea/con-guer.htm
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/46/46021.htm'>http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/46/46021.htm
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/sailing_ships/constitution/uss_constitution.htm'>http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/sailing_ships/constitution/uss_constitution.htm
http://www.hazegray.org/features/constitution/'>http://www.hazegray.org/features/constitution/
http://navysite.de/ships/consttour.htm'>http://navysite.de/ships/consttour.htm
http://www.captainsclerk.info/'>http://www.captainsclerk.info/
 
Here are some of the modifications I hope to incorporate along the way:
Customized elements:
Fill in the forward Bridle ports.
Thicken the gunport sills.
Add a scratch built galley stove.
Show the anchor cable/messenger cable rigged on the gun deck.
Display Carronades with elevation screws.
Replace rolling carronade carriages with lug mounted versions.
Copper plating on the rudder.
Hammock Cranes fashioned from brass micro-tubing.
Brass Rod for delicate spars.
New capstan on spar deck (and gun deck).
 
Paint scheme (guidance from Corne paintings and Hull model):
Yellow ochre band ending up forward in a scalloped half-circle.
White trim on bow and stern details.
Red gallery windows. 
Red gunport sills/linings,
Green interior bulwarks on spar deck.
White bulwarks on the gun deck.
Green deck coamings/furniture on spar deck.
Yellow ochre lower masts with “natural” above.
Tops in Black.
Black bowsprit with “natural” jib boom.
 
Let the fun begin.

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.

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

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.

Seems like Chuck Manly is in a heap of trouble!

Seems like Chuck Manly is in a heap of trouble!

Seems like Chuck Manly is in a heap of trouble!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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