Super Ship Constitution

[wq3296]

Greetings,

 

Disclaimer: I am not an authority, and my opinion is based on books written by others.

 

The Constitution and her sister ships seem to represent the epitome of frigate design for that era - late 18th century into the 19th century. These so called heavy frigates blended speed, fire power, strength, and seaworthyness into a very potent fighting platform. I expect they could punch well above their weight class. Further, the Constitution probably would have been a match for ships even above her rating if handled well. I expect her speed would have given her an advantage over plodding 74s, and maybe some first rates, even with a deficit in metal through weight.

 

wq3296  

[popeye2sea]

The ironic thing is that nothing that Joshua Humphries designed into the ships was very unique.  All of the concepts he used were found in other ships.  The beauty of his design was combining them into one ship.  He was very forward thinking.  He knew that the country could never afford to build enough ships to go toe to toe with any European navy.

[HIPEXEC]

I'm building a model of the USS Constitution and constantly marvel at its design. I showed a person the shape of her hull and how it was stream lined just like a missile.  It's no wonder she was fast. She's clean as a whistle and a pure fighting machine. There are even guns in the Captain's quarters.

[uss frolick]

Great Yankee super-ships, to be sure, but they were not unique. Let's give credit where it is due ...

 

The 24-pounder French Sister-frigates La Forte and L'Egyptienne predated Humphries frigates by about a half dozen years. They were of the same dimensions, force (thirty 24-pounders on the main deck) and design (flush decked, about 170 feet on the gundeck) and they were not only very successful, but Forte in particular, gained world fame for commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean, and for defeating a British 74. The Forte's successes and characteristics would have been known to H. when he was drawing up his own first draughts. NMM has L'Egyptienne's draughts, btw.

 

Then there was the slightly smaller, but equally successful  24-pounder Frigates La Resistance and La Vengeance, built circa 1794, each also mounting thirty long 24-pounders ...

 

Humphries was known to have been under a "French Influence" when he designed the big yankee 44's, but most writers have assumed that this was limited to the Continental Frigate South Caroline, ex L'Indienne (spelling?), seen by him in Philadelphia during the war, which was built to French designs in Holland. But Forte was much closer to Constitution, et al, in all respects than the South Carolina was.

Edited May 16, 2014 by uss frolick

[wq3296]

Henry,

 

I agree - nothing really new about a Bugatti Veyron, but when you put all the best concepts together into an integrated package, you get something special. I expect that she and her sisters were miles ahead of anything from the Europe.

 

Rich,

 

If you need another good reference, see A Most Fortunate Ship by Tyrone G. Martin. Also, there is a wealth of information on the Constitution Museum web site. It might help if you need to know the colors of the actual ship.

 

wq3296

[wq3296]

Greetings USS...

 

Agree on the guns, but not on the ship design. Humphreys's hull designs for these six heavy frigates were absolutely innovative. Diagonal hull riders, wider and stronger gangways to create a spar deck suitable to handle heavy guns, tight spacing between pairs of frames (2"), new construction methods, etc. were all unique features credited to Humphreys.

 

I am not surprised that a heavy French frigate could take out a 74. If they were anywhere near as fast as the Constitution they could control a battle.

 

wq3296

[uss frolick]

Yes, the Constitution had stouter frames than La Forte did, but this came at a price. The Constitution was not very fast. The USS United States was nick-named "Old Wagon" because she just plodded along. The President's plan was sharpened slightly by Josiah Fox, and her frames, although strong, were lighter than "Old Ironsides" 's frames. The President was the best sailing ship of the three 44's. The USS Guerriere, launched in 1813, had even heavier timbers, and her nick-name was "Old Washtub".

 

The French ships didn't need the riders because they were lighter, and their uniquely French deck clamp arrangement was more of a "uni-body" type, that was more efficient.

[michaelpsutton2]

It is interesting to read Humphrey's often quoted ideas about what qualities the new ships should have. It is so very similar to discussions today on how to beat the rules for America's Cup challengers. Two hundred plus years later....Everybody is still looking for that trick to beat the rules.

 

The more things change the more they are the same.

[Force9]

I think it is important to highlight the philosophy behind the design and construction of the American 44s... The role of the frigate in European navies required much versatility.  These were the "eyes of the fleet", commerce raiders, convoy escorts, and flagships in far distant stations.  Not so the American frigates.  We can see from the exchange of notes between Joshua Humphries and the Secretary of War that these frigates were designed with a single purpose - to kick the *** of the common class of european frigates - specifically the British 38s.  Anything bigger, they'd have speed enough to escape.  As Frolick notes, they were not particularly fast in relation to their opponents - Java, Guerriere, and probably Macedonian could all have run circles around the heavier Americans (heck - Java practically did!).

 

It has become fashionable in recent years to re-analize the American victories in the War of 1812 and demystify the idea that the American navy was better than the Royal navy.  Many times the implication is that British crews were better, but they lost because the American ships were so big in comparison.  This sidesteps the reality that British ships had oftentimes defeated much more powerful ones in the past and had expected to do the same with the American frigates.  British officers also regarded the 24 pounder long guns as too unwieldy for frigate actions and expected to outshoot the American crews.  In reality, they probably did, but with much less effect and they suffered greatly from the accurate and heavy return fire of the bigger ships.  I think it can be conceded that the British ships were generally fought with skill and fortitude against much more powerful opponents, but the truth is those frigates lost their fights long before the shooting started...  They lost their fights when Joshua Humphries put pen to paper and convinced Henry Knox to sign off on a class of frigate that other powers thought were too expensive to build and maintain and too slow to ever be effective in single ship actions.

 

Man were they wrong.

 

Evan

Edited May 16, 2014 by Force9

[Blue Pilot]

The book 6 Frigates is a great read for those that have not read it. It goes into the ships but also the geo political situation a young nation faced. It sheds some light on why the ships were chosen and what political, economic, and military factors influenced those designs.

[Modeler12]

I think it is important to highlight the philosophy behind the design and construction of the American 44s... The role of the frigate in European navies required much versatility.  . . . . .

If I may interrupt here. 

During the many years that the British Navy controlled the seas and the Admiralty controlled the British Navy, very little progress was made to improve the whole idea of 'design and construction' of ships; and that includes guns, ammunition, hull design, etc. Many of the members on the board had never been at sea, hence a model was 'required' in order to introduce a new concept to this board and then it went on from there.

To me it is like government putting on a leash on any new idea, and we all know that is bad.

If the 20th century had occurred then with an open mind and a century earlier, the whole navy concepts would be totally different. 

Perhaps we would be more at peace at sea.

[wq3296]

Greetings Modeler,

 

Sorry, but I have to ask: what is the point of your comment? 

[trippwj]

I think that Jay was getting at the difference between a new navy - no established bureaucracy - and a mature, entrenched administrative entity.  The British admiralty had a couple of centuries of experience behind them - they had struggled through the process of building their own vessels, civilian approval of the ship form, then needing to contract with civilian yards to get vessels built at the rate needed due to the long period of naval conflict they had endured. 

 

While the original 6 frigates were being designed and then constructed, the US did not even have a separate Navy - it was under the War Department and the Secretary of War.  It was not until 1798 that the Department of the Navy was established and Benjamin Stoddert became the first Secretary. 

 

The process of designing the frigates, including the Constitution, was tortuous.  Henry Knox (Secretary of War) solicited opinions from several ship builders in the Philadelphia area (including Humphreys' partner, Wharton).  Several other former ship captains and builders also contributed to the early debate.  Knox selected Humphreys to design as much for his local presence and familiarity to the Secretary as anything else. 

 

The design of the frigates took some time, as there was no established system for naval construction, and much of the background is lost to history as it occurred via face to face meetings with Knox.  What is known is that Humphreys was a mediocre draughtsman - hence the Secretary assigning Fox (capable, familiar with French and British designs and systems of shipbuilding) and Doughty (a talented draughtsman) to assist.  There were philosophical disagreements on dimensions, form and so on that left a bad taste in both the Fox and Humphreys camps (see the 20th century debate in articles published c. 1916 and 1964).

 

The frigates were, surprisingly, built.  Each shipbuilder put his own interpretation into the build - even though they all had a copy of the plan and the moulds.  Each builder was also strongly influenced by the assigned Naval Constructor (who would oversee the work of the contracted ship builder) and Naval Superintendent (who was intended to be the first Captain of his assigned frigate).  There were also other alterations to the design between the first 44-gun frigates and the last one (for example, for the President, which had construction halted for a time, Humphreys requested changes to the height of the gun deck and the position of the main mast).  The 4th 44-gun, Chesapeake, was significantly redesigned by Fox due to both his disagreement with Humphreys over the size and a lack of suitable timber. 

 

So - what we see is that, during this early formative stage for the US Navy, the lack of standardization and consistency of design resulted in 4 44-gun frigates that each was unique and different from the sister ships.  Each also performed differently under sail as a result of not just the way they were constructed, but also the masting, which Secretary of War Pickering left to the discretion of the assigned Captain and Constructor.  This after a rather lengthy debate between Humphreys and Truxton (in particular) over the size of the masts and spars.  Truxton believed the plans by Humphreys were to lofty and oversized for the ships - and had decades of sailing experience to back up his system for masting of ships. 

 

The documentary record of much (though by no means all) of the above, including Truxton's treatise on masting &c., can be found on the Papers of the War Department website at http://wardepartmentpapers.org/

 

Attached, for your leisure reading, are

(1) Truxton's publication on masting of frigates

(2) Correspondence between Secretary of War Pickering and Naval constructors concerning Truxton's recommendations

(3) transcription of (2)

(4) Mast as you wish (Pickering)

 

1794 Masts Article_Truxtun.pdf

1795_NBB19_44 Gun Frigate spars_Truxton.pdf

NBB19 Truxton Pickering.pdf

Mast as you wish.pdf

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2014 by trippwj