USS Constitution by Force9 - Revell - PLASTIC - Revisiting the classic 1/96 kit

[HIPEXEC]

I've read mixed reports about frigates going without gun lids. I'm going to add them to my Connie, though. Thanks for the reports on gunlids.

[Force9]

Folks -

 

I'll make one last pitch for the absence of the gun lids... 

 

Here are some credible sources all piled up:

 

Michel Felice Corné 1803 - commissioned by Commodore Preble:

 

 

Thomas Birch 1813 Constitution vs Guerriere - Based on interviews with participants:

 

 

"Hull" model 1812 - built by the crew and presented to Isaac Hull:

 

 

 

Michel Felice Corné 1812 Constitution vs Guerriere - commissioned by captain Hull and supervised by his purser Thomas Chew:

 

Nicholas Pocock Constitution vs Java - based on sketches by Lt Buchanan of HMS Java

 

 

Thomas Birch United States vs Macedonian - based on interviews with participants:

 

 

Now we can probably dig through each of these representations and find various flaws and discrepancies, but we can't dispute that ALL of these have something in common - no gun port lids.  Constitution, United States, Guerriere, Java, Macedonian... All shown without lids by different artists after consultation with crew and battle veterans.  We have log entries and journal accounts of water pouring in through the gun ports in heavy weather... But how can we modern folk reconcile the idea that these ships would sail without gun port lids and be so endangered on a voyage?

 

I think the absence of gun port lids is a vestige of the era when this class of ship had open gun decks - at least very open space along the waist - which were generally treated as "weather" decks.  It was common to not have lids on ports along the open waist and many of these ships would only have them  mounted on the most forward ports to minimize wetness from a plunging bow.  Sometimes the sternmost would also have protection against following seas, but all others would be without lids.  It was no big deal for the water to slosh in one side, across the deck, and out the other side and/or out the scuppers.  There are certainly examples of frigates being fitted with lids, but likely at the discretion of the captain.  We know from log entries that Preble had carpenters add lids during his tenure (which implies, of course, that none were there before).  The American spar deck frigates represented a transition away from the open waist and the utilization of the top deck for more guns and ship handling space.  The great success they had in the War of 1812 spurred the other naval powers to evolve their frigates away from the smaller open waisted types and into the big frigate era.  As the gun decks became more commonly enclosed, the gun port lids became more standard.

 

I certainly understand that most of my fellow modelers will not follow me down this path, but I would think that most would at least appreciate my reasoning and respect the fact that I'm basing my own representation on credible contemporary sources - specifically the Michel Felice Corné paintings and the Hull model - however illogical that may seem!

 

I'm glad that my build has inspired some deeper explorations of some elements of the great ship that defy conventional thinking... Stay tuned for the yellow stripe!

 

Thanks to all for the engaging discussion.

 

Evan

Edited May 16, 2014 by Force9

[Paul Mullins]

Evan ,

 

It's your model, and based on my own research, I agree with you on the gunport lids. There will always be people who disagree with just about anything. so don't worry about it too much. You're doing a spectacular job on the ship and I think you're going to end up with a museum quality model at the end of the build that will be the envy of all who see her. My version will have the yellow stripe from the top of the gunport lids down to the main wales based on the Thomas Freeman painting, "A payment in Iron". I have some wood taken from the ship I bought at the museum in Boston. It's available on the website, I'm still mulling over what to make as a small piece of actual ships wood to place on my model. Good Luck with yours.

 

Paul

[popeye the sailor]

I have a few links bookmarked for the Connie.......one is the official site.  while it is not shown as hard proof {actual pictures of the ship in that era},  today's Connie does support the fact that she does have gun port lids.  this does not conclusively prove that she sported them back then.   please consider that you both may be right.   I'm afraid to say though that I don't give much credence to sketch drawings or portraits........they contain too much artistic licence.   the model's box art should support  this as well.........it's a painting too,  isn't it?

 

 

tied to a cleat on the ceiling,  is the rope for the top section of the gun port lid.   since I could not find any diagrams or pictures of the lids........I looked at pictures that might show them.  here is a picture showing the chain plates and dead eye lanyards

 

 

now,  I'm not saying that neither one of you are wrong.........and I'm sure that tucked away in some obscure book,  a single paragraph revels whether or not she sported them.......or whether they were split or full size.   I amassed a bunch of info in my research into the United States.......even exposed some guy,  touting he was taking collections to see her rebuilt.  can't say what I called him,  but I sent him packing     I bookmarked info on the Connie as well.......she'll make a great window into some of the United State's fittings.

 

build her as you see fit...........your well on your way in building a superb looking ship!

Edited May 16, 2014 by popeye the sailor

[Force9]

Hello Popeye -  

 

Regarding the modern ship... I generally shy away from using her as a reference for my 1812 build.  If you talk with the folks at the USS Constitution museum, they'll tell you that the restored ship was based on plans dating into the 1840s.  Apparently this was the most complete set that Lt. Lord was able to get his hands on when restoring the ship in the 1920s.  I would certainly agree that gun port lids would be standard in that period. Fortunately, the current plans are to migrate the ship towards the War of 1812 configuration as opportunities arise during scheduled refits.  The open waist has already been restored and the bow and stern will be reconfigured across the next couple of refits.  I think Henry has indicated that the stern is next up.  I do expect, however, that gun port lids will always be in place - it is a practical need to help preserve the interior comfort for a public "museum" ship.

 

BTW - your wooden decks are looking great!  I'm very impressed that you accounted for the underlying beam structure and aligned your plank ends with the edges of the hatches.  Well done.

 

Evan

[popeye the sailor]

thanks for the good word Evan....I have the decks sealed and in place.   I'm pleased with the way they look.

 

 

that's what I'm saying.......I find it hard to doubt what your saying.   are there any plans for her in existence from that time period?  I've been looking around since this came up........I promise you.......if I find anything, I'll let you know     the United States and the Connie were similar in many ways.......I would suspect that the President was as well,  even though she was a tad smaller in girth.  as I said......build her,  my friend..........I think she's gonna look every bit as sweet     have fun with your build,  and I'm gonna keep watching. 

[Guest Tim I.]

Evan,

 

 

First, I would like to mention I have been following your log in the background and you are doing superb work. Your attention to detail is stunning as well as your work with the Revell kit, that has challenges all its own.

 

 

Your background research is also comprehensive and very thorough, on the subject of the Constitution's condition in 1812-14. As we all know there is a great deal of discourse on her condition related to port lids, and color of her gun deck striping. As a professional historian (I have a Master’s degree in military history and my research focus is early American naval architecture), I have spent a great deal of time researching the Constitution. The bottom line to the debate is besides vague references in Captain's logs (that you have already mentioned) and the supply logs, there is no conclusive proof to settle either matter in an authoritative fashion. Rather only adds to the murky nature of the discourse.

 

 

I should note. In most board or admiralty models of the period there is as it has been pointed out an absence of lids. This could be for a multitude of reasons, as some board / admiralty models did not even have cannons added (time to add, materials, or the fact that board / admiralty models where built to illustrate / manifest a ship’s hull structure). As for a fifth or sixth rate not having lids, the British (Royal Navy) example is accurate. However, often ships were still provisioned with lids but were often were stowed. There have been several theories proffered as to why. For one, on wooden naval vessels of this period, the biggest risk was splintering. The lids, while not directly on the interior, but in proximity could be fractured (in combat) and have potential to shower the gun crew with splinters. Another theory is that they were removed most of the time to prevent fouling of the gun port if damaged, and thereby reducing the weight of broadside that could be brought to action at a critical juncture. While these two theories are still circumstantial, they are at least a plausible explanation / possibility but should not be considered fact (until conclusive proof substantiates them).

 

 

So let us talk about the actual condition of the ship. Most scholars consider the Hull Model in the Essex Peabody Museum, as the best representation of the ship from the period. This fact, also in conjunction with the models condition, agree with the logs of Hull, and shipboard supply / purser records. In addition, the Michel Felice Corne paintings are also considered excellent primary sources of the period. Although Corne's work is not without its own detractors or pundits. However, Corne's work is the most factual, and like the Hull model has the most points of intersection between the logs and other various original sources on the Constitutions condition from the period. Corne besides supervision by ship’s officers (Thomas Chew as you mention) when he was creating these paintings (to insure accuracy) that took place in these battles, Corne also had an intimate first-hand knowledge of the vessel and spent considerable time dockside and aboard.

 

 

Corne's work also introduces another point of discourse though. Was it five or six windows in the Captain's cabin? It appears that from the earlier work that it was six, and in later work it was five and then other paintings show five or six and some eight. The Hull model shows six. Other paintings / engravings also show six, but are not period works with the exception of Samuel Seymor’s painting of the battle that shows the Constitution with Six windows. Many detractors of Corne's work often use this to refute the veracity of his work. An important thing to consider is that these ships where by no means static in specifications. Yes, the Constitution was built to Joshua Humpries design with eight windows. However, as the ship aged her various commanders made many changes to the rigging, colors of the vessel as well as structural changes. One thing that does support the change in Corne's paintings (for six windows) is post the engagement with the Guerriere, pursur’s logs have an entry for a charge for carpenters to repair the damaged stern windows and surrounding timbers. Although the log entry does not specify what did change in a conclusive manner, it does open up a point to research further. Also this adds some credibility as to earlier work shows six windows and Corne’s work post the engagement shows five. This is all still very subjective and should not by any means be considered fact, but offers a strong indication of the vessels condition.

 

 

I like you and many others have found these facts and matters of subjectivity to be murky at best. Unfortunately, they still are. In my collaboration with the historian’s on staff on various points of research, from the Constitution Museum there conclusions are similar to what you have arrived at. That the Hull model, and Corne’s paintings offer the best source of record to re-create the ships condition during this period. Although it does not settle the above points of discourse, I would argue that there is really no way to accurately re-create the “true “condition of this period. In a recent conversation with one of the historian’s at the Constitution Museum, they boiled the discourse down to this, “…we have to draw the best conclusion we can based on the factual sources available”.

 

 

Another interesting point about the Constitution’s 1812 condition. It has long been rumored that in the scheduled refit in the Spring of 2015, the stern windows and galleries would be changed to better represent the condition of the vessel in 1812 or more closely the Hull model and Corne paintings. Instead this will not occur, as the debate has not been settled in a conclusive fashion. So during the refit, some timbers will be replaced, copper will be removed for inspection of the frames, and then replaced before the ship is refloated.

 

 

I know this is a rather lengthy post and does not settle the discourse already mentioned in the thread. In my professional opinion, you are on the right track by the sources you have chosen to use to represent the ship in the 1812 condition as best as is possible given the nature of what they are.

 

 

I am looking forward to following your build log to conclusion.

 

 

Thank you,

 

 

Tim

 

P.S. Written in haste on my iPad. 

Edited May 21, 2014 by Tim I.

[popeye the sailor]

there are many ships that we know little or nothing about.  the challenges that a modeler faces,  in trying to uncover fact and history,  is a huge task.  this is the major form of enjoyment in this medium we play in.   our admirals think we're nuts........{but that's another story}

 

the models we see,  are the flesh made of many volumes,  written from the past.   time moves on.........the past getting cloudier and the pages yellow,  but is still there to glean and ponder.   the model is old........but is looked on by many new minds...and new questions are asked......more than the model can supply.  even the books, suspended by time,  can only answer so many,  before it becomes common knowledge and hearsay.   the model is but a window of the volume and mind.......made flesh for the ocular view...........like the volume,  it suggest ideas and thoughts of what could have been,  what might have been,  and what was.   as for the model of today,  we see it as a work of beauty,  craft,  and vision.  it suggests the what is......and most importantly,  what if.   no to worry dear friends.......the model of today will soon become the model past.........and it will be looked at by many more new minds.  as time is the thief......the old model is now gone,  and all that remains,  are snapshots in a drawer or album.   keep on thinking free  

[jud]

Gun ports in the Constitution? Go to sea in a ship of similar size in heavy weather, while there think about keeping a ship dry and her equipment in good condition with open Gun Ports. Also give some thought about living in such a space as the Gun Deck with open ports. Common sense should make anyone very sure that the Constitution had Gun Port lids when she went to sea, only the type should be in question.

jud

Edited May 21, 2014 by jud

[Force9]

Paul - I owe you a reply! Thanks much for your perspective - I appreciate your very nice compliments regarding my efforts. I also have a chunk of Old Ironsides purchased at the museum. I haven't yet decided how it can be incorporated - probably I'll make it into a small stand and display one of the ship's boats alongside the main model. I very much like the work of Tom Freeman - he's done some beautiful paintings of Constitution. And it should be noted that he does extensive research on his subjects and you can go count the number of gunport lids on his War of 1812 representations...

Tim - Thank you as well for your insight. I make no claims at being an historian, scholar, or researcher - so it is gratifying to have a professional chime in and echo some of my thoughts regarding the historical configuration of Constitution. I would also echo your underlying message - we don't know how the ship actually looked in her early wartime years. We can probably make a better guess at her 1815 appearance than her 1812 appearance... Many records were lost when Washington was burned and I think the records were better kept and organized later in the war. All we can do is suggest likely configurations based on snippets of fact and similarities to other resources. I would, however, hesitate to buy into the idea that these ships carried removable lids as standard practice. I'm not sure that I've seen many references to such outside of Preble having his carpenters make custom removable split lids. The arguments put forth for such an arrangement would apply equally, if not more, to the larger classes of ships that fight yardarm to yardarm in fleet actions, and we don't see that in play.

Jud - I think you've brought us full circle to where we started - one camp firmly in mind that it is insane to think of ships with no lids, and those of us who are crazy to think that the lids were not standard because so many contemporary sources show it to be the case.

Coincidentally enough I've just today received my copy of The Sailing Frigate - A history in ship models by Robert Gardiner. Page 59 includes a study of the beautiful and highly detailed model of the frigate Lowestoffe of 1760:



Gardiner notes: "With around 7ft of freeboard, gunport lids are unnecessary except where the ports open into cabins or other enclosed spaces..."

It seems to be the case that Frigates had generally higher freeboard than larger rates AND did not use the "gun deck" as living space. Frigates had the advantage of dedicated berth decks below for the crew. I put gun deck in quotes because until the early 19th century, the deck with armament was referred to as the "upper deck" in the Royal navy - which acknowledges the exposure to the elements - and the berth deck still retained the old "gun deck" label dating back to the days when these rates had lower deck gun ports. I personally believe that this goes to the heart of why the gun port lids were usually not there (with the understanding that there were some exceptions) - in the late 18th century and into the 19th the 5th and 6th rates generally had higher freeboard than other classes and had dry berth decks for the crew. The lids didn't commonly appear until the standard frigates evolved to the bigger spar decked type with enclosed gun decks sometime after the War of 1812 and into the early 1820s.

Regardless, I'm convinced that the lack of gun port lids posed no real danger to this class of ship - at least not enough danger to warrant their widespread use. The comfort of the crew was not significantly compromised since they lived on the deck below. I'm certain that I've convinced nobody to switch their views. Most modelers, I'm sure, will continue to include the lids so that their models don't seem naked... Kinda like that guy who shaves off his mustache and some people can't quite explain it, but something's not right.


I really do appreciate the feedback and I'm glad to spew forth my brain dumps to anyone who will burn through minutes of their lives reading this stuff.

Thanks again to all who follow along

Evan

Edited May 22, 2014 by Force9

[Paul Mullins]

The yellow stripe on my model will look very much like the photo.

[lambsbk]

Well, for what it's worth you have convinced me...but mine are already on ship so they will remain, like my transom, unchanged. You have, Evan, without doubt made my attention to detail awareness more acute for the the remaining portion of my build and I will continue to watch yours with fascination and admiration.

[Marcus.K.]

What an interesting debate!!

 

Thanks gentlemen, for all this information, opinion and arguments. The latest with Gardners remarks is new to me and very interesting.

It seems to me that this question was another one each commander could decide to his own thinking, experience and fashion. Difficult to judge without any reliable source.

 

For my point of view: seeing so many paintings of so many painters of that times (and the Hull Model - which DOES show one port lid at the first gun port at the bow!!! So the man doing the model did obviously NOT forget them! ) .. with each of them showing NO lids I think it must be allowed to show the ship without them. At least if you show the ship at battle station - because each of those paintings do show this status - even the 1803 Corné Side view - in which the first gun is shot for a salute. (Or was shoting a salute done without beating the quarters?).

 

There is a well known interesting picture of USS President in heavy seas in Mediterian sea .. One day I will build a Revel Constituiton in exaclty this conficuration  - with heavy seas and the masts and spars secured like here .. Great action!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Usspresidentatanchor.jpg

I saw different versions. To me it seems that there are port lids with openings for the guns barrels. I think the painting shows the ship in about 1805?? But I am not sure about it.

For me it will seem as if in heavy weather port lids have been in use .. but the is just guesstimeation.

 

At the end you could argue and say: this is the ships configuration following Corné´s painting xyz ... It WILL be a beautiy anyhow!

 

I am looking forward seeing progress on your beautiful build - and I am always curious with which sources you again add some interesting knowledge about the ships layout !

 

Thanks to all here!!

Edited May 23, 2014 by Marcus.K.

[lambsbk]

Interesting. Heavy seas. Guns outboard. Someone just recently mentioned how this is believed to have added stability. Ahhh...if only photos were around back then...   

[Guest Tim I.]

This document might help shed some light on the port lid debate. This document was prepared by the one of the historians at the USS Constitution museum, and is drawn from primary sources.

 

GunPortLidsFinal.pdf

 

Hope it helps!

 

- Tim

[Guest Tim I.]

This document might help shed some light on the port lid debate. This document was prepared by the one of the historians at the USS Constitution museum, and is drawn from primary sources.

 

GunPortLidsFinal.pdf

 

Hope it helps!

 

- Tim

 

The conclusion points to half port lids with the exception of a few, and the ability for them to be removable and stowed when the ship went into action.

 

The documentation listed here is also supported by purser logs and other accounts.

 

- Tim

[Marcus.K.]

Cooooool .. thanks a lot Tim. Very interesting paper. It fits to my understanding - and I forgott completly about the Roux-paintings showing the ships during entering a port or being at sea without "action". .. and here half port lids visible .. while in action they seem to be dissapeared.

 

Meaning for this model: not showing them does not mean "there are no" .. but would still be a valid presentation!

 

I did never think of canvas for the captains ports .. I assumed this would be glass - but seeing some of the paintings / sketches it seems obvious that the author is right. Again something new for me!

 

Great - thanks a lot for this input!!!

Edited May 24, 2014 by Marcus.K.

[Force9]

Dave and Markus - Thank you for your continued interest and the kind compliments.

 

Tim - your insight is invaluable and the article you've provided is incredibly illuminating. I wish Ms. Desy would post this along with the other public articles in the online Naval Heritage Command Constitution tour site. (It should be pointed out that Margherita Desy is the official historian of the USS Constitution attached to the Naval History &Heritage command.)

 

This passage is very informative:

 

 

HALF-PORT..., shifting shutters fixed in the stops of those ports, which have no hanging lids. Those to the quarter-deck and forecastle ports are in general in one, and made of two thicknesses of slit deals, and to the ports for the long guns have holes in them for the gun to run out; and those to the upper deck, In two parts called buckler half-ports; for long guns, the lower part is to the center of the gun, when run out and levelled, as they have a hole in them that fits close round the guns ; and to carronades, to the under side of the gun, if not too low, that they may be fixed over them. The lower piece of these half-ports is of fir, and in one piece, to fill up the stops; with a rabbet taken out of its upper edge, to receive the upper part, and with two strengthening bolts driven up and down through it. This piece is in general hung with hinges at the lower part, and kept in its place by sliding bolts. The upper part is made commonly of whole and slit deal, the whole deal up and down, and the slit deal, to cross it, fore and aft.” 2

 

This indicates that the permanent full lids seen in so many contemporary models up forward and along the quarterdeck is likely accurate. The rest of the ports would have the half-lid "stoppers" - at least as commonly practiced by American captains. Ms. Desy seems to confirm that the ports as represented by the Hull model are accurate. There does not seem to be any indication of hinged lower half lids in place during the Guerriere fight. The receipts suggest that those were installed afterwards. It may well be, however, that Captain Hull followed what appears to be the common American practice of having removable half lid stoppers on board. They would've (obviously) been removed for the battle. The research around the canvas covers along the captain cabin ports is extremely interesting. I wonder if this is a uniquely Yankee innovation? Tim, you've indicated in your earlier post that the Royal navy may not have followed the practice of gun port lids - at least not thru the War of 1812? I see one or two models in the NMM collection that show hinged half lids on British frigates, but not until the post-war period.

 

I think we're all a bit smarter as we walk through these sources and I'm feeling very comfortable with following the Hull model in this area.

 

The Abell engraving shown in the essay has a full lid over the BRIDLE port - not a gun port. It may be that Ms. Desy would need to reconcile the fact that the Hull model does not have the extra bridle port in front as the modern ship does... Technically the front THREE ports on both sides (the Bridle port and two gun ports) would need lids on the restored ship if the Hull model example is strictly followed. I wonder if the Hull model builders put hinged lids on all the ports positioned along the forward curve of the bow in their representation. I think the gun ports extend a little too far forward on the Hull model - there wouldn't be room to add the Bridle port.

 

I may consider only including a hinged lid over the very foremost ports (not the TWO foremost) on each side of my model to allow for the fact that the Revell kit will only have one port positioned along the forward curve of the bow now that I've eliminated the Bridle port. The next port is under the fore channel and a full lid would be blocked from opening fully. I'll have to experiment to see what looks right...

 

Thanks again Tim for the historical consultation and please keep an eye on my build.

 

Off to the workshop to revisit the scuppers and berth deck ventilation scuttles... I think I'll redo these based on some other considerations.

 

Stay tuned

 

Evan

Edited May 25, 2014 by Force9

[Guest Tim I.]

My apologies I should have also posted this document written by Ms. Desy. This document addresses the controversy around the stern decoration and the number of windows. Although in my mind, it does not settle it. Given the Humphries draught and notes reflecting six windows (the plans from the Smithsonian also reflect six windows, as well as the Hull model. I still and stuck on the point that Corne's paintings show five.

 

ConstitutionSternDecoration.pdf

I currently have the Model Shipways 1:76 kit on my shelf for the USS Constitution, but will not start her for another year. I most likely follow the same logic you are on your build. I most likely will follow the Hull model, and cross check it against details from the Corne paintings. Although at this point, I am still largely undecided. I will end up where the research takes me.

 

- Tim

Edited May 25, 2014 by Tim I.

[patrickmil]

The above two articles are incredible. Tim, you wouldn't happen to have anything from Ms Desy regarding her gunport stripe or original figurehead would you? LOL

[Force9]

Patrick -

 

The other articles - include one related to the gun stripe - are to be found on the Constitution virtual tour Navy History website:

 

http://www.history.navy.mil/USSCTour/frManuals.html

 

The gun stripe article is not as thorough as the gun lids article just posted by Tim. There is no mention of the Corne Guerriere battle paintings, for example, which is a significant miss.  There is also an article on the figureheads to be found here.

 

Thx

Evan

Edited May 25, 2014 by Force9

[Guest Tim I.]

The above two articles are incredible. Tim, you wouldn't happen to have anything from Ms Desy regarding her gunport stripe or original figurehead would you? LOL

 

Firstly for Evan. My apologies if by adding this information it has taken over your thread and your wonderful build. It is a real joy to see the work you are putting into the Revell kit, despite its numerous challenges and your stalwart attention to authenticity.

 

Secondly, on the gun-stripe:

 

The consensus from what I have read are as follows. In the original logs the stripe changes from yellow ochre to white and back again on several occasions. With my numerous conversations with the staff at the Constitution museum, it has been intimated to me that if I follow the Corne paintings my strip should be yellow ochre, the Hull model -- white. However, nothing beyond that to conclusively settle the debate. The one thing to consider is often ships were re-painted often, and when a new commander assumed command. If the Corne paintings are accurate, as it has been suggested then the yellow stripe for 1812 would be close to the mark. Determining its composition (color) earlier, I am unsure. I also am seeking to answer that, as I am considering building my Connie to follow the 1790-1805 configuration.

 

- Tim

Edited May 26, 2014 by Tim I.

[Guest Tim I.]

Patrick -

 

The other articles - include one related to the gun stripe - are to be found on the Constitution virtual tour Navy History website:

 

http://www.history.navy.mil/USSCTour/frManuals.html

 

The gun stripe article is not as thorough as the gun lids article just posted by Tim. There is no mention of the Corne Guerriere battle paintings, for example, which is a significant miss.  There is also an article on the figureheads to be found here.

 

Thx

Evan

 

It has been suggested to me by the staff of the Constitution Museum that is one follows the Corne paintings on paint color they will be close to accurate for the engagement with the HMS Guerriere. This however, was not without the admonishment that the paintings show a snapshot of the ship in time (they consider the Corne paintings to be accurate, and a legitimate source of record), and that the ship was constantly in a flux of change from one cruise to another.

 

It does not settle, or clarify the debate, rather make it more complex in my humble opinion.

 

- Tim

[JerryTodd]

Note: those half port lids are not the type the ship carries now, that are the standard type of the 1850's and later with a vent and two port lights.  The half ports described above are plan and simple with the only "hole" being the cut out for the gun.

[Force9]

All...

 

A bit of miscellaneous progress.

 

I've added the channels and I think I've got them on very firmly. I took the liberty of reinforcing them with a small strip of .040 x .040 Evergreen underneath to increase the surface area when glueing to the hull.

 

I've also reinforced the pin rails by drilling thru the bulwark and inserting small steel pins. They were snipped to size, covered with some blobs of filler, and sanded smooth.

 

I did some spot primer in key locations to help determine areas in need of improvement then gave the two half hulls a complete coat. Still a bit of touch ups and tuning needed, but I'm getting closer to the painting phase.

 

 

Additionally, I decided to change course on the berth deck ventilation scuttles and gun deck scuppers. Originally I did not like the large openings for the scuppers and elected to cover them up and treat them as the ventilation scuttles. It gnawed at me enough that it wasn't a correct representation that I finally went ahead and popped off the previous work to expose the scupper holes and built new ventilation doors lower down in a more proper location. I even depicted one of the doors swung open to add some dimension:

 

 

 

A note to add regarding the ship's boats... I got pinged on another forum by a terrific modeler who is also building the Revell Connie using some of the Bluejacket parts. He was wondering if I was using the BJ resin whaleboats. I did purchase a couple of the whaleboats along with the resin pinnace. I was a little disappointed that they came with pre-molded floor boards - I would've preferred to add my own interior details:

 

 

Mine came in good condition - I know sometimes resin parts can be full of air pockets and blemishes, but these can be easily improved. My original pinnace came very warped and I wasn't able to correct the shape under warm water. The folks at Bluejacket cheerfully sent me a replacement.

 

Unfortunately, it looks as though I can't use these on my build. Apparently the whaleboats did not appear on Constitution until AFTER the Guerriere fight. Receipts and invoices indicate that Commodore Bainbridge first purchased whaleboats from local New England sources to replace some of the boats lost or damaged in the Guerriere battle. They've been associated with the ship ever since. The USS Constitution museum Log Lines blog had a nice article about this: http://usscm.blogspot.com/2012/09/whaleboats-for-constitution.html

 

I think that catches me up on my current progress.

 

Thanks for looking in...

Evan

Edited May 30, 2014 by Force9

[usedtosail]

Thanks Evan for the information on the whaleboats. I'll not be adding them to my build then, but will add a gig or cutter like the article mentions.

[Guest Tim I.]

Evan,

 

Your USS Constitution is really looking great!

 

- Tim

[dafi]

Wonderful as ever!

 

Or to say better: Wonderful as Evan?

 

Great work and thanks for all the details along the way!

 

DAniel

Edited May 30, 2014 by dafi

[rock1947a]

I found the information on the following URL about the USS Constitution very interesting, and thought I should share it with those who might be unfamiliar with it. Although not strictly modeling related, the short description of the Guerriere engagement and the expendititure of powder and shot are details I haven't seen before. Being new to sailing ship modeling, please forgive me if this is common knowledge. I'm not trying to hijack this thread, just to add to the excellent information about this historic ship included in it.

Pete

 

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2006/Issue2/c_constitutionsload.html

[Force9]

Hello Pete...

 

Thanks for chiming in... That is a very interesting link. The website looks to be a goldmine of terrific insight into the Napoleonic era in general and the War of 1812 in particular. I've bookmarked it for future reference.

 

The ammunition breakdown is a critical component in our understanding of the Constitution vs Guerriere battle. Commander Martin has a very forceful perspective on how that fight played out based on his research done decades ago. As recently as the bicentennial of the battle, he has presented his personal theory of the event in a lecture entitled "What really happened...?" His ideas run rampant thru the article in your link - including his supposition that the battle lasted much longer than what Captain Hull stated in his official report based on his interpretation of the ammunition expenditure. We've explored this on other discussions within MSW, but in the interest of completeness I'll copy my perspective into this log:

 

 

I'll subject you all to my brain dump regarding Cmdr Martin's version of the Guerriere battle. Be forewarned - those of you who proceed will lose 15 or so minutes of your life that you will never get back...

 

I'll admit that my current Connie build originated from some dialog on another forum a few years back where someone was saying that the Corne paintings were "debunked" by Cmdr Martin as being a blatant effort by Isaac Hull to cover up the true facts of the battle to trump up his victory while masking his mistakes. Martin essentially maintained that Hull won the battle in spite of himself. Considering that the Guerriere was soundly defeated and Hull was showered with glory and accolades before these paintings were completed or made public, it seemed an odd accusation. Why on earth would Isaac Hull go to such lengths to distort the facts of a battle that he won so convincingly??? I decided to dig around and form my own opinion...

 

Here are some samples of Martin's commentary from his website - The Captain's Clerk:

Short, rotund Captain Isaac Hull scored the first major American victory of the War of 1812 when, in USSConstitution, he fought and defeated HMS Guerriere on 19 August 1812 at a point some 600 miles east of Boston. Unlike some of the later American victors, he fought a graceless fight that owed more to his ship's larger size and heavier guns than to his tactical skill. Nonetheless, through clever report writing he made it appear that victory had come in just a half hour of skilled shooting against an opponent of at least equal power, and thus became the best-known of the ship's captains...

HMS Guerriere's mizzenmast goes by the board, as depicted in the second of a series of four paintings by Michel Felice Corne commissioned by Captain Isaac Hull. Note that, by Hull's direction, Constitution is toGuerriere's larboard, a position disputed by his purser, Thomas Chew. Hull's purpose in this evidently was to preclude any queries regarding any collision resulting from the mast going by the board to starboard, as might have resulted had the painting accurately depicted the situation, and as happened. (Neither of Hull's reports include mention of either collision that actually occurred.)

 

 

I should acknowledge a few things at the outset.

 

It can be fairly said that Commander Tyrone G. Martin is one of the best friends Old Ironsides ever had. He is a former captain of USS Constitution and instituted many of the traditions still continued today including sailors in period dress and the morning and sunset guns. He has written numerous articles and books about the rich history of the USS Constitution and his A Most Fortunate Ship is widely considered to be the definitive biography of the ship. His Captain’s Clerk online repository is a gold mine of terrific information and a genuine contribution to our public knowledge. He has collected more awards and other accolades than I'd have time to list. My credentials, on the other hand are…er…well…um…okay - I have no credentials. I am not an academic and I otherwise lay no claim to being a scholar or researcher. I'm a hack ship modeler who has read more naval history than ought to be considered healthy. But please hear me out…

 

On August 19, 1812 Captain Isaac Hull in command of the US Frigate Constitution met HBM Frigate Guerriere under command of Captain James Dacres in battle somewhere around 600 miles east of Boston. He was tipped off by the privateer Decatur the day before that there was an enemy frigate in the area. According to official reports, the two ships maneuvered for 45 minutes or so trading long-range shots without inflicting any crippling damage, before Guerriere backed a topsail and Constitution added a topgallant to close the distance and settle the issue. Despite absorbing some damage, Hull held his crew back from responding until he was directly alongside Guerriere. At that point he leaped into the air and split his breeches as he yelled “fire!” (or something to that effect). After a 15 minute exchange of initial broadsides at half-pistol shot distance, Guerriere lost her mizzen and stopped answering her helm when the broken spar jammed up under her counter. Constitution, firing from her starboard broadside, then fore reached ahead and parked on Guerriere's larboard bow and delivered at least two devastating partial rakes that likely ensured Guerriere's fate. After losing forward momentum to milk her advantageous position, Constitution failed to cleanly cross the bows of her enemy and became entangled with Guerriere's bowsprit. Many of her braces had been shot away and she couldn’t react in time to avoid the contact. The sea caused the bow of Guerriere to plunge up and down, preventing a boarding action. The plunging action snapped off Guerriere’s jibbom – but only after Constitution’s gaff and crojack yard had been broken. After a sharp exchange of musketry (which inflicted most of Constitution's casualties) the ships pulled apart with enough force to pull down the weakened masts of Guerriere and the battle was effectively over. Captain Hull claimed the decisive close action lasted about 30 minutes. Hull achieved an insignificant strategic victory, but the morale boast for the United States and the political ramifications were widely felt on both sides of the Atlantic. To capitalize on his instant fame, Hull commissioned the noted artist Michel Felice Corne to create a series of paintings depicting the key moments of the battle and asked his purser Thomas Chew to supervise the details while he was assigned to another station. He apparently wanted these paintings translated into lithographs for wider publication. We can see these paintings today in the collection of the Peabody Essex museum (apparently Corne made an extra copy of the series - I think the Naval Academy also has a set) and they include many of the details outlined in the ship's log and Captain Hull’s lengthy after battle report to the Secretary of the Navy. Being very humble by nature, Hull also included a much more abbreviated version of his battle report with no flourishes that he asked the Secretary to submit for public consumption.

 

This was generally the accepted view of the event for the better part of two hundred years - then Tyrone Martin came along. Commander Martin was bugged by a couple of things that just didn't add up:

- How many times did the ships collide during the close action? (Surgeon Amos Evans’ journal states that the Guerriere’s bow came into contact twice during the fighting - this implies TWO collisions)

- Was Constitution on the Starboard or Larboard side of Guerriere when broadsides were initially exchanged - (some British reports say the starboard, almost all American reports say larboard/port)?

- How could the decisive part of the battle last only 30 minutes, as Hull claimed, given the tremendous amount of ammunition that Constitution expended?

- Did Hull fudge the facts to hide the fact that he lost the wind gauge?

 

After sifting through the various clues, Commander Martin reconstructed the battle in a completely different form than what was previously understood. Instead of Constitution closing in on Guerriere's larboard side and firing her starboard broadside as Hull and other American accounts stated (and is shown in the Corne paintings), Martin switched Constitution to the other side. This helps him argue that Constitution crossed the bow of Guerriere twice in the course of the battle. To explain the two collisions he inserts an entirely new sequence into the battle that has Constitution scrape her adversary as she crosses from the starboard side to the larboard bow (all parties agree that Constitution was off Guerriere's larboard bow at some point) then wear around in a wider loop to eventually collide again after several more exchanges of broadsides where the final entanglement and dismasting takes place. Because of the prodigious amount of ammunition fired, he surmised that the battle lasted much longer and uses the expanded timeline to insert these new maneuvers. Commander Martin further bolsters his version by assigning a motive to Hull for altering what really happened. He portrays him as an uncertain rookie who is downright hesitant as the crash of battle rages around him. He asserts that Isaac Hull's tactics were simplistic/graceless and he flubbed up the timing of his maneuvers after embarrassingly giving up the wind gauge at the outset. Therefore, he maintains, Hull distorted the log and after battle reports (and the Corne paintings) to cover up his blunders and protect/enhance his reputation and honor. Martin claims Isaac Hull's short version of the battle report was a blatant attempt to obfuscate the details and glorify the victory. He also generally asserts that the other American accounts followed suit to preserve the reputation of their beloved commander and benefit from the reflected glory.

 

Commander Martin put forth his essential justification in the Winter 1987 edition of the American Neptune - the now defunct quarterly journal of the old Peabody museum. Let's review some of his arguments:

 

Martin states in his article that "neither of Hull's reports specify which side of Guerriere he closed in on. The second of the Corne paintings shows him to have had it portray him to larboard, a point about which he and his purser differed…" He further says "with the fall of Guerriere's mizzen…her forward motion slowed and the dragging mast caused her head to fall off toward Constitution as the latter drew ahead more quickly than before. Hull, seeing he was moving ahead, sought to come to port to rake Guerriere, but sundered braces prevented his crew from handling the sails smartly enough." Here is what Hull said about this same juncture in his report: "his Mizen Mast went by the board, and his Main Yard in the Slings, and the Hull, and Sails very much injured, which made it very difficult for them to manage her. At this time the Constitution had received but little damage, and having more sail set than the Enemy she shot ahead, on seeing this I determined to put the Helm to Port, and oblige him to do the same, or suffer himself to be raked, by our getting across his Bows, on our Helm being put to Port the Ship came too, and gave us an opportunity of pouring in upon his Larboard Bow several Broadsides, which made great havock amongst his men on the forecastle and did great injury to his forerigging, and sails, The Enemy put his helm to Port, at the time we did, but his Mizen Mast being over the quarter, prevented her coming too, which brought us across his Bows, with his Bowsprit over our Stern."

 

I don't think Martin acknowledges all that is contained in Hull's report. Hull does, in fact, say which side he closed in on – at least implicitly. "I determined to put the helm to port…On our helm being put to port the ship came to and gave us the opportunity of pouring upon his larboard bow several broadsides..." It may be that Martin interprets this as having Hull turn Constitution to port, which would mean he was on the starboard side of Guerriere, and cross over to end up on her larboard bow - momentarily snagging her bowsprit as he passed. We modern folk have to remember that this is 1812. Back in that day a ship's helm was rigged to behave like a tiller - in simple terms: spin the wheel to the left, the bow will swing to the right. (In fact this was still generally true 100 years later when Titanic had her bad day - google "Hard a Starboard" and you'll get an education). What Hull is actually saying is that he was to port of Guerriere and ordered the helm turned to port in order to swing the ship to starboard where he ended up positioned across Guerriere's port bow for a partial rake. Because Guerriere was entangled with her mizzen wreckage, she could not match Hull's maneuver and instead hung in place, enabling Constitution to get into her advantageous position. Isaac Hull also says something very pertinent that further undermines Martin's stance - "the ship came to…" which means she swung her bow towards the wind. In other words, being on the port side he had given up the wind gauge. Martin implies in the Neptune article that Hull lied in his reports and had Corne alter his painting to show he did not give up the wind gauge. In fact, Captain Hull admits to it in his report and if you look at the directions of the flags and smoke in Corne's paintings (which Martin apparently did not) you'll see the stories match. Hull wasn't trying to hide the fact that he gave up that advantage - he implies it in his report and had Corne show it in the second scene.

 

 

The wind was apparently blowing from astern with a slight bias in favor of Guerriere when the close engagement began. Hull was asked years later in an interview with a Yale professor why he choose to engage on the port side – he replied that it didn’t much matter which side since the wind was dead astern of both ships. Maybe he chose the larboard position to maximize the sea state - his crew would be firing on the down roll of the swells.

 

Commander Martin also argues in the American Neptune that the amount of ammunition expended makes it obvious the battle went much longer than the 30 minutes Hull claimed in his longer report. Here is what Martin puts forth on this point: "As for Hull's statements that the close action lasted 30 minutes, one must consider them in relation not only to the sequence of events but to the reported ammunition expenditure by Constitution. This appears in Moses Smith's recollection and is said to have been taken from the ship's log. According to this source, she fired 953 rounds of all kinds. If we delete the ten 18-pounder shot…by the bow chasers, and if we assume that the 260 stands of grape all were used in double-shotted loads, we are still left with 683 rounds to be fired by twenty-seven guns in a half hour. This equates to each of those guns firing once every minute and eleven seconds, an incredible sustained rate of fire for gun crews in their first battle. Even if we assume that the 100 rounds of canister likewise were expended in double shots, the rate of fire remains a surprising minute and twenty-three seconds between rounds." This argument ultimately provides the foundation for all of Martin's other arguments… By suggesting that the guns took much longer to load and fire all that ammunition, it lengthens the battle considerably and allows him to justify inserting a whole section of maneuvering that no eyewitness account corroborates (Martin actually states in his book "the record goes blank" here and proceeds to fill it in with his speculation presented as fact - yikes!).

 

The numbers quoted by Smith are broken out in more detail in Tyrone Martin's published work Undefeated - Old Ironsides in the War of 1812:

- 300 24-pdr round shot (Long guns)

- 236 32-pdr round shot (Carronades)

- 10 18-pdr round shot (Bow chaser)

- 140 stands of 32-pdr grape

- 120 stands of 24-pdr grape

- 40 24-pdr canister

- 60 32-pdr canister

- 47 24-pdr double-headed shot

 

The prodigious amounts outlined would rightly raise eyebrows. I actually think they're about right. Commander 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.

 

Look at these interesting snippets plucked from Commander Martin's own website - The Captains Clerk:

 

[Journal Entry of Midshipman Frederick Baury]

15 Jul 1812 Test fired doubleshotted, doublecharged carronades with no problems.

 

From Captain Thomas Tingey, Washington Navy Yard, 28 Aug 1813 [To the Secretary of the Navy]:

"I...enclose here with a statement of the number of rounds of shot of the different qualities taken on board...of the public ships which have been fitted out here. The number of shot has been chiefly at the will of the captains... But in submitting my opinion, I beg to recommend that for every long gun mounted on board our ships of war, the complement of shot should be 100 to 120 rounds of round shot, 50 to 60 round [sic] of grape shot and 20 to 25 rounds of cannister. For every carronade, 80 to 90 rounds of round shot, 30 to 40 round [sic] of grape, and 10 to 15 rounds of cannister...

"Each stand of grape has heretofore generally, one iron stool and twelve round shot and this practice should be continued for proper proportioned long gun the stool and shot constructed as to weigh fully the denomination of the piece intended for. But for carronades I would recommend only eight balls and the stools to be made of wood... My reason is that in consequence of the light charge of powder...to a carronade they heavy iron stool will be very much...the velocity of the shot and...cause these to fall short of the distance intended and of there [sic] effective force... The Constitution fired from her carronades two round shot each discharge during the entire battle with the Guerriere."

 

[From the Secretary of the Navy] To Captain Charles G. Ridgely, Baltimore, MD, 31 Aug 1813:

"I have before me your letter of yesterday, and am not surprized that you burst one half Mr. Dorsey's Carronades. The proof was too severe, and I am astonished that any of them stood it. The particulars of the proof of the Carronades for the Constellation, having certainly escaped your recollection. The Gunner of the Navy Yard, who has proved all the Guns, for several years, on this station, assures me, that he has never used any other proof than that which Capt. Tingey certified, and delivered to Mr. Dorsey; and that, in the instance of the Constellations Carronades, none of them were tried a second time The long heavy Guns were, and this may have given rise to the mistake. "The Constitution's Carronades were proved in the same manner, and they, in the action with the Guerriere, stood a full charge, with two round shot, every round during the action. "The pocket Gunner is very equivocal in respect to the proof of Carronades. He says, 'They are proved with 2 rounds, with their chambers full of powder, and one Shot, and one wad;' but, in the table, assigns 8 lbs of powder to a 32 pr. Carronade, as a proof charge, but says nothing of a shot or wad. The chamber will not hold 1/8 part of the weight of the Shot in powder. The fact is, that the proof, used at this station, has been amply sufficient, and Mr. Foxall, or his clerk, always attends to see the powder weighed, agreeably to the proof charge contained in Com. Tingey's certificate. You will, therefore, have all the Carronades proved in conformity with the certificate; and if, after the first proof, you have reason to suspect any particular piece, it will be well to repeat the proof."

 

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.

 

According to Alfred T Mahan, James Dacres testified in his hearing that “on the larboard side of the Guerriere there were about thirty shot which had taken effect about five sheets of copper down.” This is a very telling statement. The implication that these shot holes were generally in line with the fifth row of copper strongly suggests that this damage was inflicted by one well-coordinated broadside fired on the down roll and not by some random shots across the course of the battle. Probably not coincidental that Constitution mounted 15 long guns on her broadside and when we account for the double round shot loads… Hmmm…15x2 = 30. It would be logical to assume this would’ve been the first devastating broadside delivered when Hull leaped in the air to shout “Fire!” and split his breeches. Accounts also noted that two gun ports on the larboard side of Guerriere had been blown into a single gaping hole by the Constitution's guns. All this damage on the larboard side doesn't bode well for Martin's idea that much of the close engagement was initially fought on the starboard side of Guerriere.

 

And what about Martin’s condescending innuendo that Isaac Hull was an overwhelmed neophyte in above his head? Let’s be clear – Captain Isaac Hull was not a tentative amateur as Martin portrays to help justify his reconstruction. He was, in fact, a very experienced and professional naval officer whose performance under fire reflected the highest standards of the U.S. Navy. He was clearly not flustered when he held his crew back from returning fire until he was directly alongside his opponent and certain to achieve the maximum effect he desired. Martin may be correct when he characterizes Hull's tactics as inelegant and graceless. He forgot to also mention that his tactics were brutally effective. The Constitution didn’t eke out a victory over her opponent – she annihilated the Guerriere. That ship was completely shattered and defeated in every way possible. The results are highly credible to Isaac Hull. Getting his inexperienced crew in close enough to not miss, training them to fire double-shotted rounds at a reasonable rate of fire, and letting his advantage in sheer weight of iron decide the contest, are all signs of a very smart naval commander. Despite his rotund and humble outward self, the facts suggest Hull was a calculating, and ferocious fighter when caught up in the heat of battle. It may be part of why he seemed so remorseful afterwards (and rarely ever wrote about the battle after his official reports).

 

It may not be that great a sin for Tyrone Martin to have put forth his version of the battle for others to contemplate. It provokes thought and stimulates more conversation about the famous ship and her glorious deeds. The great sin is that Martin proceeded to represent his pet theory in his books (and on his website) as whole truth woven from whole cloth. It is not - never was. It is actually highly speculative and weak on its foundation and easily refuted. The facts work against him and the written accounts are almost universally in line with Captain Hull's version. More recent scholars including Ian Toll (Six Frigates) and Stephen Budiansky (Perilous Fight) have tended to eschew Tyrone Martin's version. Margherita Desy, the official historian of the ship, very deliberately avoided Martin's version when she was recently asked to write an article on the battle for Naval History magazine. In fact, they all practically go out of their way to snub it. At best it may be that Tyrone Martin got excited to introduce a new perspective and just got a bit too far out over the tips of his skis… At worst he was extremely unscholarly in his approach and did not have his best moment as an historian. To make his theory fit, he added weight to certain facts and sources that didn’t deserve it, and diminished other facts that should have been emphasized. His characterization of Isaac Hull is pure imagination.

 

Get yourself a copy of the American Neptune - Winter 1987 (I got my copy on ebay). And by all means buy yourself a copy of Tyrone Martin's A Most Fortunate Ship... But read them with a critical eye and be prepared to come away scratching your head at how such a theory could've survived relatively unchallenged for so many years.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Force9