I would say that Constitution was lucky in the sense she was blessed with captains who knew how to use her.

@irishjw

4 жыл бұрын

Very good point in battle it's leadership and the willingness of troops to follow..

@irishjw

4 жыл бұрын

Read where about half of crew were from Wellfleet Ma so when two British ships meet up with { Constitution } near there out sailed them by knowing local waters. Jettisoned all unnecessary items and think could replace for shallow draft said to where could not follow. Captain and crew leadership and good crew.

@genericpersonx333

3 жыл бұрын

Very much the key factor that Drach rationally doesn't emphasize since it is somewhat an intangible (how good a captain and/or crew not being provable until actually put to the test of battle) but the United States Navy clearly was employing good men at all levels, and so the Royal Navy could not take control of the seas for granted where ever a line of battle was not present.

@ariancontreras4358

3 жыл бұрын

@@genericpersonx333 Oh I agree.

@Derzto

3 жыл бұрын

Pretty much this. During the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, the French were outmatched by the Royal Navy on almost every occasion. Even though the French built better quality ships, much of their talented naval command was lost due to the French Revolution. This resulted in poor leadership and tactical skill in the decades to come. A ship is only as good as the men on board.

Outgun anything that can outrun it and outrun anything that can outgun it. So a pocket battleship

@jamesricker3997

5 жыл бұрын

Except it could outrun many of the vessels it could out gun.

@notlogical4016

4 жыл бұрын

@@jamesricker3997 quite, super pocket battleship?

@garretphegley8796

4 жыл бұрын

They were more like the Uboats than pocket battleships.

@robertf3479

4 жыл бұрын

@@notlogical4016 Not exactly. Call her a very well designed and built heavy cruiser, a next logical step in the evolution of the sailing frigate type. The Royal Navy was quick to adapt by refining an idea that had been around even longer, cutting down older or lighter two decked ships of the line into 'frigates.' HMS Indefatigable was one such, only so-so as a two decker but after being 'razeed' into a frigate but keeping her SOL masts and rigging (or so I've read) became a very successful frigate armed with the lower gun deck 24 pounders of the original design. They also laid down a series of their own purpose build heavy frigates to counter the USN 'President' class, Constitution was one of the three along with United States. President was captured while trying to break out of the blockade of New York, ran aground while trying to avoid overwhelming numbers and was forced to fight briefly after freeing herself. Captain Stephen Decatur was commanding. One of the RN 'heavies' was one of the ships she faced, HMS Endymion. HMS President served until around 1818 when she was scrapped. USS United States survived until the burning of the Gosport Navy Yard (modern Norfolk Naval Shipyard) when she and other frigates and ships of the line were burned.

@A_Man_In_His_Van

4 жыл бұрын

@@notlogical4016 super pocket rocket?

Something else to think about in the Shannon vs. The Chesapeake. Broke was an excellent captain and he spent a lot of his own wealth in making sure his ship was expertly equipped. Giving tobacco to gun crews that hit their mark during gun drills as well as fitting out the guns with the latest gunsights for the era so the gun crews could actually aim the weapons at specific points instead of a general area. Phillip Broke was a leader in the ideal of precise gunnery.

@garfieldfarkle

4 жыл бұрын

The Chesapeake was thought to be cursed because a workman was killed when she was launched. Timbers from the Chesapeake survived until at least 2001. They were repurposed to build the Chesapeake Mill in Wickam, near Portsmouth, England.

@neilwilson5785

3 жыл бұрын

@@garfieldfarkle That's not far for me. I will visit, so I can see the Chesapeake for myself.

@garfieldfarkle

3 жыл бұрын

@@neilwilson5785 Cool. Let us know what you find. It's too bad we can't post photos here. By coincidence, when I saw this post, there was a newspaper article about it I'd saved on my desk. The drawings I've seen show her to be a lovely ship. In terms of the real Chesapeake - as in the bay - that's where I live.

@TH-sn7mw

3 жыл бұрын

And one of few in the British Navy to do so.

@richardmalcolm1457

3 жыл бұрын

Well said, @Cragified. Crew quality clearly played a big role in the War of 1812 frigate battle outcomes. No question that the US frigates were bigger, tougher, and more heavily armed, but the battle usually went to the better trained crew (esp. in gunnery). In Constitution-Java, that was easily Bainbridge's crew; in Chesapeake-Shannon, the difference was closer, but the edge was with Philip Broke's gun crews, who were man for man probably the best trained in the world by that point. The U.S. Navy had the advantage of a small number of ships it could man entirely with volunteer crews of experienced seamen, whereas by 1812-13 the RN was often making do with whatever the press gang and jails could supply to make up much of its cruisers (and first rates) manpower. Broke, however, was a rare frigate captain who not only prized gunnery but who had had years to keep and train his crew.

This is by and large a fair assessment. The engagements between USN frigates and RN frigates was similar to engagements between heavy cruisers and light cruisers, i.e. the outcome was predictable. On the other hand, the RN had a record of engaging and defeating more heavily armed French and Spanish frigates. The string of defeats by the fledgling Americans was therefore quite a shock.

@garretphegley8796

4 жыл бұрын

British Naval stratagem During the Napoleonic Wars. "Have a similarly sized vessel as the enemy, never fear for if your crew speaks English then the battle is all but won." British Naval Stratagem during the War of 1812 "Ohh Shit, What happens if the Enemy crew also speaks English?" "...Hopefully you're in the bigger boat."

@hajoos.8360

4 жыл бұрын

Commanding officers are the decisive factor. Lord Cochrane (best seaman in human history) would have found a trick to defeat Constitution with a scooner, as he did before with a spanish frigate.

@hajoos.8360

4 жыл бұрын

@@garretphegley8796 your quote only describes the sympton. The main historical factor are the rules of the British admiralty for education to train officers and crews. Unfortunately this advantage is lost. British losses against a miserable led Argentine air-forces were caused by the badly trained british crews. As Drach recommends "train your crew".

@keithmitchell6548

4 жыл бұрын

@@hajoos.8360 You clearly just dislike the British. In fact, the Argentinian Air Force was much more professional than their army, and attacked British ships with much courage. As Admiral Sandy Woodward, the British Task Force commander said: "the Argentine Air Force fought extremely well and we felt a great admiration for what they did." Hardly 'miserably led'.

@hajoos.8360

4 жыл бұрын

@@keithmitchell6548 of course, the fascist Brits tortured the planet for 300 years. Who likes them? Only annglophilic jealous submissive people. Europe has to pay now for british sins. Guilty for 2 WWs or do you think the Chinese have forgotten the Opium wars or the East-Indians the empress of India? Some Argentine pilots and squadrons acted bravely, but check the military comments. A fish rots from the head down.

One of the main advantages the American Frigates had was that hard oak build that you mentioned at the end of the video. By 1800, England had pretty much cut through their old-growth trees, whereas the Americans had the advantage of access to many old and hardened tress that made thick timber for building navy ships. This strategic advantage led to the British setting an order to not engage the American Frigates in a one-on-one fight and calling the U.S.S. Constitution Old-Ironsides.

@stanklepoot

5 жыл бұрын

Which is exactly why the British were so scared that America would become too chummy with the French...leading to them agreeing to the charitable terms they did at the end of the American Revolution. The British didn't want to leave a lasting impression in the minds of their former colonists that the British were the enemy and the French were their BFFs. America was a great source of resources for naval construction and maintenance, which is quite important when you're an island nation that imposes its will around the world largely due to naval superiority. Of course, a bit of short-sightedness set relations back a bit when the Brits decided to start attacking neutral American ships so that they could kidnap their sailors and force them to crew British ships.

@LordWukits

5 жыл бұрын

slight correction... not hard oak, but live oak provided a huge advantage.

@mangalores-x_x

5 жыл бұрын

They set that order because their 5 rates were lighter as the video describes and only dedicated modified ships matched US frigates while the ships of the line would be too slow to catch them. The US essentially build sail style battle cruisers. Something capable to kill anything used for ocean patrol and control while being able to evade any ship of the line which would have made mince meat out of them due to bigger broadsides and sturdier hulls. The German surface warships of WW2 copied that idea. Something capable to operate alone in an ocean controlled by the British navy. It only works as long as you can catch a British warship alone and only if said warship is outgunned. But that order by the British was precisely about using superior numbers to gang up on the US ships.

@adje7355

5 жыл бұрын

It was a different species of oak as well wasn't it?

@davepeters4955

5 жыл бұрын

Yes. Live Oak grows around the southeastern coast of the US (GA, FL, South Carolina) and is about 30% stronger by weight than red or white oak. The Constitution's hull had a layer of live oak from St. Simons Island, Ga. - incidentally where the Battle of Bloody Marsh ended the Spanish colonial presence in Georgia - with one British casualty.

No one could have seen that two centuries later, not only are the Victory and Constitution still around , afloat, and cherished by their respective nations as naval treasures, but the crews and preservation experts from both ships work closely with each other to ensure that they will continue to last for a long time to come. I hope someday to see both of them.

@robertf3479

5 жыл бұрын

Just picking a small nit here Sterling, but HMS Victory will never float again. She's been so badly treated by age and earlier neglect that the only way she'd ever float again would be to tear her down to her individual timbers and rebuild her from the keel up, somehow I don't think the Royal Navy would do that since it would require replacing nearly every piece of timber in her. USS Constitution survives because she's been receiving a LOT of tender loving care since the poem 'Old Ironsides' was written and published. Even so, only about 20% of the timbers in her today are original, dating back to the laying of her keel.

@catjudo1

5 жыл бұрын

@@robertf3479 I didn't know that HMS Victory was not afloat. The documentaries and videos I've seen didn't indicate that. Or I was too dense to notice. As for USS Constitution, I was aware of the replacement lumber used, but it has never bothered me as it conforms closely to the original stuff and there is still a decent bit of the old stuff. I appreciate you giving me some new intel on these classic ships!

@robertf3479

5 жыл бұрын

@@catjudo1 I think Victory was permanently drydocked in 1922 to preserve her. I do know that when I visited the ship in 1992 the Chief who was guiding our tour mentioned that the butts of her masts rest on the drydock floor, not on her keel as they would if she were seaworthy. Incidentally, the old lady is tough … she was struck by a bomb during the Battle of Britain which damaged one of her supporting cradles and foremast. The Germans claimed her destroyed while the Royal Navy quickly denied it.

@1IbramGaunt

5 жыл бұрын

@@robertf3479 yep and think it's pretty clear who was telling the truth and who was lying their arses off THERE haha, but there's probably some German conspiracy theorist wehraboos out there claiming the present-day Victory is a fake replacement haha

@notlogical4016

4 жыл бұрын

@@robertf3479 jesus, i mean who would willingly want to bomb a VERY historical landmark, seamark? idk but i dont know if the bomb was intentional or not but im always sad when i hear of countries willingly blowing up/ destroying historical artifacts, landmarks etc. and after ww2 im glad that germany was able to rebuild most landmarks in berlin and around germany, and that most in russia were mostly preserved, idk about poland though.

Woke up. Saw the title. Grinned in anticipation of the inevitable flame war.

@ianboyd9827

4 жыл бұрын

yep

@tonyennis1787

3 ай бұрын

There is no flame war.

clap, clap, clap. I'm a 3rd generation American shipwright and I cannot state enough how unbiased this video was for the greater part of what is needed to understand the effective qualities of ships of the time. My only critique would be about designating the speeds of particular vessels during combat. The design of a ship may or may not quantify the speed of the vessel, given the sail area, the ease of use of those sails and the training of the crews involved. The British navy at the time did after all have a lot of pressed crew but I digress. The most realistic calculation to the speed of a particular vessel of the time would have inevitably come down to how long they were at sea. Both the British and US navy's used copper bottoms which helped to keep sea growth down, but having actually witnesses boats after having been some time at sea with copper bottoms I can tell you that things do grow on them. They are much, much easier to clean and the growth does take longer but it is something that cannot be avoided. P.S. The USS President had impacted a reef on the eve of her sailing out of harbor while trying to avoid British ships. The keel of the ship was said to have been damaged and some of the corking had been sprung. At the time of the battle she was already taking on water and there were notes that she was not capable of maintaining speed in her condition. Captain Decatur had decided to sail regardless. At the end of the battle captain Decatur was taken not just as a prisoner but as a well known and respected military comander and was treated as such. Not only known for his capture of the Macedonian but in 1805 after infiltrating and fighting in hand to hand combat in the harbor of Tripili to free American and European hostages, he was venerated by many, even admiral Lord Nelson who called it "the bravest act of the age". It was a different time, and chivalry still existed on the high seas. Perhaps on of the reasons we all have so much revernce for that time.

@JimDebones

5 жыл бұрын

Email me some time.

@seth1422

5 жыл бұрын

I feel there is an excess of “technical determinism” in this discussion, and not enough on crews and leadership. The French made fine ships, and always seemed to lose to the British on even odds. There is little discussion of how surprised the RN was by the quality of American crews and captains. And it is worth noting that the Chesapeake has just recrewed when it fought the Shannon and had not even drilled on its guns.

@seth1422

5 жыл бұрын

Lord Cochrane and, in part, the Peninsular veterans *_did_* go to America in summer 1814. The resulting campaigns culminated in the Battles of Baltimore (where Cochrane commanded the naval squadron and Peninsular regiments fought) and New Orleans (where Packenham led and half the force were Wellington’s veterans).

@seth1422

5 жыл бұрын

My mistake. You are right it was Sir Alexander Cochrane commanding at Baltimore not Lord Cochrane (who was his nephew). The latter was more distinguished in single ship and squadron actions than fleet actions, no? Your description of how warfare should work suggests you have a “Dragonball Z” sensibility, where all participants state their innate “power rating” at the beginning, then roll weighted dice, and the top number wins. I feel like you are missing some important elements. The British had a very unpleasant time fighting in America between 1812-1815 because it always seemed to come down to some combination of (i) bombarding fortresses from ships in shallow confined waterways or (ii) long marches through trackless wastes punctuated by battles on broken ground. Time and time again this proved to play against the strengths of the RN and the British Army. And unlike during the Revolution, the British had no meaningful potential support available from political elements in the territory they intended to occupy. Trying to occupy the US would have been like French occupation of Spain only 20 times bigger and more disconnected. Part of the reason the British wanted to stop fighting in mid 1814, despite the fact they had only grown stronger strategically, was because they saw how little they had to win.

@seth1422

5 жыл бұрын

What? To summarize: Seth: the RN was surprised by the quality of American crews. Tangles: if Cochrane and Wellington had invaded they would have conquered America. Seth: they sort of tried that and it didn’t work. Tangles: well if they tried harder they would have beaten everybody everywhere completely because they were so awesome. Seth: I think you are ignoring how much work it is to hold onto America, or all the unpleasant fighting situations conquest would involve. Tangles: But (i) Wellington was really *_really_* good, (ii) there were two battles in the War of 1812 the Americans did bad in, (iii) the British could have transported the Revolitionary loyalists (after 40 years) back to colonize America, (iv) the British had loads of fleet commanders, and (v) here is a book about the Napoleonic Wars. Did I miss anything? ‘Cause that is crazy. Are you a troll or just a bit dim?

This is a strange debate. It is impossible to build a ship that can defeat every other vessel afloat in every permutation. The Six Original Frigates selected a design strategy to exploit their opponents’ vulnerabilities. They succeeded spectacularly. The fact the USN won ANY action against the RN came as an astounding shock to the British people, and was about as astonishing to British military planners as Taranto was to the Italians or Tsushima was to the Russians. It was a revelation demanding a radical revision in technical development and broad strategy. The other shock to the British (and the world) is that the American crews and captains were good, sometimes excellent. British naval preponderance in this era is hard to fully explain through manufacturing; the French built well and still seemed to always lose on even odds. The fact the Americans handled their ships well and could take the British ships in close action proved a level of professionalism the RN had not expected. The fact that impressment of American citizens into the RN was a core cause for war, the US needed to project some capacity to harm the British at sea in order to help credibly acheive its political aims. In achieving this goal, the Constitution was a triumph.

@Joachim1167

5 жыл бұрын

"It is impossible to build a ship that can defeat every other vessel afloat in every permutation." Perhaps. I think HMS Dreadnought came pretty damn close... :)

@seth1422

5 жыл бұрын

That’s just what I mean: what if the Dreadnought had to fight in shallow shoals or came afoul of one of John Holland’s electric boats. Give me a ship, and I can devise a hypothetical in which other extant vessels vanquish it.

@Joachim1167

5 жыл бұрын

@@seth1422 Funny that you mentioned John Holland's boats...as HMS Dreadnought is the only battleship that has ever sunk a submarine in combat (by ramming). :D

@seth1422

5 жыл бұрын

I fear you haven’t grasped the point.

@Joachim1167

5 жыл бұрын

@@seth1422 Oh I got the point and I agree with you. No such thing as a perfect weapon system and weapons development is pretty much an arms race - reacting to what the other guy builds with something better (better capability and/or, as you said, exploiting a weakness). I said HMS Dreadnought CAME CLOSE because it pretty much rendered every existing weapon of its type (battleship) obsolete the day it was commissioned. I just chuckled at the examples you gave in response. Yes, the submarine has great advantage over the battleship, but yet in the case of U-29 vs. HMS Dreadnought "shit happens", hence, it goes back to your original post. :)

USS Constitution is the only active ship in the U.S. Navy to have sunk another ship in combat

@globial5329

5 жыл бұрын

pandax75 my mind is being fucked by this comment

@megarogerish

5 жыл бұрын

yes ofc, US Navy ships never sunk any japanese ships in combat? HAHAHA

@pandax75

5 жыл бұрын

Roger Look at my comment again. I said the only active ship. Any other U.S. Navy ship to have sunk another ship has been decommissioned. BTW not an officer I was petty officer 3rd class. But maybe you have a hard time understanding things. HAHAHAHAHA

@megarogerish

5 жыл бұрын

@@pandax75 ah you mean still active ship. You are probably right my man. Cheers

@gallendugall8913

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe officially, but we, FFG-34, sunk a feisty boston whaler with a lot of .50 cal and flaming diesel after 12 hours of fighting. It put up a heck of a fight. Fiberglass is very buoyant.

As a USN sailor, i was on that ship while she was in dry dock for a tour. All i got to say being 6'4 i am to tall to go down to the lower decks.

@infinitecanadian

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for serving.

@dennis4774

3 жыл бұрын

@@infinitecanadian it was nothing, my mom told me to go to college or get the hell out of the house. So I chose the Navy.

@infinitecanadian

3 жыл бұрын

@@dennis4774 One of the things I like about armed forces is that they will take care of you. Three square meals a day, shelter, even paid training that translates to civilian life.

@dennis4774

3 жыл бұрын

@@infinitecanadian actually the funny thing when you read a contract, everything you do from boot camp until you get out does count for college credit. When I went back to college I did not know training and firing gun gives me two free hours to put on any course I want for college. And when you enter college you do not need to take the basics or entrance exam all you had to do is go to the Vet rep have them fill out your paperwork for whatever course and the VA pays for your classes.

@infinitecanadian

3 жыл бұрын

@@dennis4774 I like that.

There were also the spar-decked frigates HMSs Leander and Newcastle. They were hurriedly built to be an exact match for the American 44 gun frigates. They mounted 30x 24-pounder long guns and 26x 42-pounder carronades. Leander and Newcastle almost caught Constitution in 1814; they were overhauling her, when a misunderstood signal led the British squadron to recapture the Constitution's prize (HMS Levant), rather than press an attack on the Constitution herself. The US 44s were long and heavy-hulled ships, fast enough in a straight line, but relatively unhandy when manoeuvring. In theory the smaller British 38s should have had an advantage in an encounter of manoeuvre, however, neither Guerriere, nor Macedonian attempted this, Java did, but was unsuccessful. Of greater note than any superiority of design of the US ships was the outstanding seamanship of the American captains in handling their rather unwieldy frigates.

@etaoinbshrdlu

4 жыл бұрын

This is perhaps the finest comment on this post! The captain of the Leander, George Collier, a very well-regarded officer, was almost court-martialed over his failure to immediately close on and fight Constitution, when that was exactly his mission! This is the "luck" of the Constitution in the original post's title! Given a chance, Constitution escaped the pursuers! Collier had overwhelming forces. His career was ruined, and years later he took his own life. Very sad, but this is the stuff of history!

@night8285

19 күн бұрын

If it's only 44 guns ship, why did it carry 56 guns?

@urseliusurgel4365

19 күн бұрын

@@night8285 Because the carronades were not fully counted. In essence the 'rated' number of cannon were as if carronades (lighter short-barrelled cannon) had not been invented, and only 'long guns' existed. Because 'long guns' were heavier fewer of them could be carried on the quarterdeck and forecastle of a ship, because of stability problems. Contemporary mariners were aware of this illogical system and could accurately judge the firepower of any vessel from its 'rated' gun number.,

@night8285

18 күн бұрын

@@urseliusurgel4365 Thank you! I was really confused when you and drach listed those guns.

It's interesting that the US Navy and the British Navy regularly exchange technical information to help their former adversaries maintain their old wooden warships. Navel personnel involved in the preservation of both the USS Constitution and the HMS Victory regularly cooperate back and forth to help the other side.

@Phukugoooglification

5 жыл бұрын

Like how the British sold Japan a ton of war ships in the mid 30's then were used to attack Pearl Harbor. Ironic.

@jdb47games

5 жыл бұрын

Japan had long since stopped buying warships from Britain, and was building her own vessels by then. Your comment is both factually wrong and irrelevant to the discussion.

@dennis4774

5 жыл бұрын

Japan strip the old British ship reverse engineer and build their own stronger ships.

@Phukugoooglification

5 жыл бұрын

@@jdb47games Your input is irrelevant carbon based unit. Disconnect and power off.

@Phukugoooglification

5 жыл бұрын

@@dennis4774 Believe it or not, I am not a maritime history professor. Thanks for letting me know.

A lot of research and no jingoism went into this video, making it unique on two counts.

So, basically the USA designed a ship that due to their smaller available numbers, needed to be more powerful and better armed that most of what was in their theater of operation. So yeah, seems like they were "good" and not just lucky. But like any combat situation, both sides need to adapt, which given the amount of available resources, the British were able to do more quickly. Seems like a fair view on the situation. Neither nation was "better" at what they were attempting to do because the situation was very fluid and everyone was adapting. I suppose given the ability, time and need the USA would have built something different in an attempt to adapt to the British adaptations. But, the economy just wouldn't allow it and thus eventually the British navy would have shut down the US navy (and basically did). It's very similar to the central powers in both WW1 and WW2. Economic ability to adapt and adjust won the war for the Entente as Germany and her allies simply didn't have the economic ability to adapt any more. They had a go at it, but just couldn't keep up economically.

@netpackrat

5 жыл бұрын

The remarkable thing is that they even bothered to build ships that could be threats to the great powers.... You have to remember that the original six frigates were built in response to the pirate threat. Going up against pirates, "regular" frigates would have done quite nicely, and would have been cheaper both to build and crew. Given the political fight at that time over whether the US should spend money on building a navy at all, it's pretty amazing that they built what they did, and a lot of the credit goes to Joshua Humphreys, the designer of 5 of the 6. The Chesapeake was clearly the runt of the litter, her builder thought he knew better and didn't follow the design. Speaking of adapting, after having fought Britain more or less to a draw with its small, anti-piracy navy, and a whole lot of privateers (which ran wild while the Royal Navy was occupied with blockading the US Navy in port), the US realized that it could in fact go toe to toe with the big boys and not necessarily lose. After the war, they did build a number of ships of the line, but because they were expensive to operate and not really suited to the day to day needs of the USN, they were mostly kept in ordinary (mothballs) in case they were needed for a major conflict. Another interesting point about the Constitution in particular, is that while the design called for the diagonal braces to control hogging, she was not originally built with them. We know about them mainly because the British studied President after they captured her, the drawings they made still exist, and were used as a reference during Constitution's most recent restoration. The braces called for in the original design were finally added in that refit some 200 years after the fact.

@derpimusmaximus8815

5 жыл бұрын

'Fought Britain to a draw'. You do know the Royal Navy were fighting the French and Dutch navies at the time, right?

@diehard2705

5 жыл бұрын

Derpimus Maximus and? What point does that make, it takes months to sail across the Atlantic, so we still fought them to a draw with a smaller fleet

@netpackrat

5 жыл бұрын

Yup, the RN had a lot on its plate. I'm not sure how that diminishes what the fledgling USN was able to accomplish, or the US as a whole for that matter. Again, Constitution and her sisters were only a part of it. While the Royal Navy was busy pursuing and blockading the US Navy, US privateers were exacting a heavy toll on British shipping, which was not something a nation so dependent on its maritime economy could sustain. A decisive military victory over your enemy is great for bragging rights, but realistically all we had to do was hold them off long enough for the economic costs of the conflict to force them to the bargaining table. And yeah, being at war with the other European powers at the same time didn't help Britain's economic picture either. You can be the biggest, toughest kid on the block and able to whip any other dude in your neighborhood, but it's usually a bad idea to take them all on at the same time. Particularly when one of them is a vicious little shit who just wants to be left alone. 8^)

@derpimusmaximus8815

5 жыл бұрын

Netpackrat, *they* took *us* on. And lost.

As an American and an amateur naval historian, I really enjoyed this summary. Very fair assessment, though missing a discussion of the training and morale of the two navies' crews. I look forward to more of your videos.

@1970DAH

2 жыл бұрын

Are you insane? The morale of crews? This video is not about a battle or any pair of ships. It is about the engineering and capability of the ships. Did you not listen when he spoke of the USS Constitution's sister ships?

@hisdadjames4876

2 жыл бұрын

Two years, 100 Drydocks and countless others Specials and Guides later, you certainly got your wish for more Drach videos. 😂 I consider it a huge privilege to have found this guy, who has imparted so much knowledge and entertainment over this time. 👏👏👏

@AnthonyBlamthony

Жыл бұрын

@@1970DAH There’s no need to be a prick about it. Especially to a pretty good point, Drachinifel even hearted the comment and made a video on what Cody suggested. Please don’t be an online Karen.

@jacktattis

11 ай бұрын

@@1970DAH And did you not listen when the Royal Navy came back with a counter to your Ships

@1970DAH

11 ай бұрын

@@jacktattis Not about to review this old video and comments.

The whole point of the Constitution and her sisters was simply to say, "Hey, we are not going to be abused without biting back." there was no possible way that the newly born US of that day was going to match any of the European powers in naval tonnage or support infrastructure, or wealth to support that infrastructure. However, the Constitution did is job in showing the European powers that, the US could stand on its own feet and they had to respect that.

@ezplays2038

5 жыл бұрын

Tbf m8 all the European countries didn't take the us as threat since they were more bothered about each other. They never respected the us they just didn't see them as a threat.

@solace6633

5 жыл бұрын

It could only handle french vessels. If the British sent its vessels it got spanked like other ships in its class

@jacquesstrapp3219

5 жыл бұрын

@@solace6633 Totally wrong. The USS Constitution outgunned every British ship of it's class, and could outrun a ship of the line. So basically what you said was nationalistic bullshit.

@solace6633

5 жыл бұрын

@@jacquesstrapp3219 you didn't watch the video did you? There was a battle of the sistership being captured even though the differences between them were minimal.

@solace6633

5 жыл бұрын

@@jacquesstrapp3219 also im Australian and have no links to any European nation. The ships were vulnerable to anything that was British...

0:45 "...as effective as an angrily worded letter." Brilliant!

@catjudo1

5 жыл бұрын

"Go away or I shall taunt you a second time!"

@notlogical4016

4 жыл бұрын

league of nations when germany italy and japan started getting rowley.

Nice to see myself in your presentation! Your second photo, of the longboat engagement, featured the longboat 'Rollette', owned and operated by the Provincial Marine Amherstburg reenactment unit, in the foreground, Midshipman J. Whyte commanding. This image is from the engagement at Nancy Island (Wasaga Beach, Ontario) and is probably about ten years old.

A ship is only as good as her commander. Case and point, the schooners of the Revolutionary War.

Constitution still floats, n'est pas? Edit: I have had the honor as a United States Coast Guardsman (Boatswain's mate) of enlightening the crew of USS Constitution. Due to the wonderful and gracious giving of the those who thought the Constitution should sail again, she was refitted and made seaworthy during the '90's. Yet the US Navy had forgotten the fine arts of square rig sailing. That's where Eagle stepped in. Being a petty officer of the Main Mast in said Cutter, I aided those wonderful sailors to become mariners. And they in return let me sally drunkenly about the decks of the oldest ship yet in commission. That was the night I learned of scorpion bowls.... I also saw the O's play the Sox at Fenway for 7$.

And to this day the USS Constitution is still an active duty US Navy warship. No enemy has ever set foot on her deck except as a prisoner of war.

@jackthorton10

3 жыл бұрын

Yet....

Being a proud American and a history buff. I will say the young American Navy caught some breaks. The ship construction used live oak that was at the time plentiful in the US but not in the UK. And the design, USS Constitution had the firepower to take on anything near her class and the speed to avoid anything that could whip her. That being said, I can not discount the British Navy, coming off the Napoleon Wars she owned the oceans. At the time of the War of 1812 the US Navy was a minor blip on the British navy's mind. She was busy blockading all of Europe to keep Shorty hemmed in. IMHO there is a reason the young US Navy were going against captured French made ships, the best the British had was being used elsewhere. And I think the best crews as well, but you have to admit by 1812 the British Navy from all of the constant press gangs had naval training down to a science. The War of 1812 went the way it went because frankly the British had bigger fish to fry. That being said, imagine what was going thru their heads as they engaged a Royal Navy ship at that time. Imagine Iran going against the US Navy now. Not even close. But with the US attention elsewhere sometimes strange things happen like that US boat crew being captured and paraded. But we all know that if the full power of the US Navy came to bear the Iranian Navy's remaining time could be counted in seconds. The USS Constitution is an amazing ship and I am so proud she is still commissioned. I have visited her several times. Young America being mostly British ex-patriots were also wise to the ways of the sea. She had good crews and good Captains like Hull and Bainbridge. The biggest break of all is the fact that at that time we did not have the full weight of the British Navy bearing down on us. A hand full of frigates no matter how well made and captained would have no chance.

@frostroxie2740

5 жыл бұрын

Shannon Woodcock ..... bigger fish to fry... .... ???? North-south America had 10x+ Europe didn’t even have good wood... soft limpy wood.. . j. I might add

@richardsinger01

5 жыл бұрын

@@frostroxie2740 I dont understany your comment. Please clarify.

@keithyork7691

5 жыл бұрын

Shannon woodcock well said. There is no denying that USS Constitution and her sisterships were leaders in their class. But also lucky as was the young US nation that Britain and the Empire was far more concered with the Napoleon Bonaparte and the insuring European Wars.

@SeekerLancer

4 жыл бұрын

@@frostroxie2740 I'm an American but if Britain had taken the naval war more seriously its navy could have easily crushed the fledgling US fleet. Thinking otherwise is insane. The War of 1812 was a serious conflict in the eyes of the USA and Canada but it was a minor conflict in a much broader war for Great Britain.

@frostroxie2740

4 жыл бұрын

Christopher Blair .... I’m glad they were that stupid.... 😳

There's a book called Six Frigates that goes into great detail of the USS Constitution and her Sisters. It goes into detail of the design differences, the fight to actually get them built, and each frigate's strength, weakness and sea actions good and bad. It also discusses the commanding officers and crews.

U.S. ship designers knew they didn't have the money and ability to build a Ship of the Line so they just said, "Frigate!!!"

@darrenjpeters

4 жыл бұрын

Numbers of potential crewmen were also an issue, a fledgling country with low population is not well equipped to man ships of the line. I would also say that you are wrong about the ability to build ships of the line. If building them had been deemed a viable option, I am confident that the Americans could have built very good ships of the line.

@ragimundvonwallat8961

4 жыл бұрын

they totally had the money and ability ro build ship of the line....they simply would not had a use for this kind of ship as the goal was to avoid set piece battles....those frigate werent that good either but 'murican love to stroke there over inflated ego with them. 1812 wasnt even a real war but a squabble between rich merchants and wasnt really fougth in full force by the british who were occupîed to figth a real war....without that real war going on the 1812 war would have never happen and we would never have heard of those shitty frigates

@CapLP7800

3 жыл бұрын

Ragimund VonWallat, Had You Not Watched the Video? He Had Presented that The Frigates had been Superior Compared to The Vast Majority of Frigates, Simply Inferior to Razeed Ships of The Line.

@ChuckJansenII

3 жыл бұрын

I started my statement as a joke. "Frigate!" "F--- It!"

@CapLP7800

3 жыл бұрын

Charles W Jansen II, Had You Responded to Myself or Another?

Thank you. Your vids are consistently the most professional on ships of all ages on the tube. They are dense with information, yet elegantly presented. I never miss opening your postings first.

I've had the distinct pleasure of boarding and touring both the USS Constitution and the HMS Victory, both of them remarkable in their own way. I found this segment particularly interesting. As always, thank you for sharing. Steve

Drachinfel, you are producing excellent work. Keep it up, please. In these times of short attention spans, the 5 minute concept seems good, but I think your audience is generally not given to such an approach. I think many of us enjoy the greater detail offered when more time is devoted to the subject. I love your sense of humor because you use it to make a point more vividly than literal speech would do. If you chose to do smaller craft, I'd love to see you do an hour or so on boats that have won the America's Cup, or to cover the delightful skipjacks we have on the Chesapeake Bay. While the use of old-growth live oak on the Constitution is fairly well known to those interested in sailing ships, another valuable American product is less well known. In the 18th century, hemp grown in Virginia made into rope was prized for its quality. British ships sailing to and from the Caribbean would go out of their way to stop in Hampton Roads to refit their ships with it. One nation, I forget which (best guess - Sweden), sent her entire navy to Virginia to be fitted out with rope made of Virginia hemp. Much good work gives you plenty to be justifiably proud of, sir. Thank you.

I was studying to be a historian or history teacher, but the lack employment opportunities made me change careers. I had some small familiarity with naval warfare but had majored in geopolitics. These excellent videos have bolstered what I knew and filled in some gaps. I've visited the USS Constitution several times, and recommend that anyone passing through Boston take the time to board her. On special occasions, especially Independence Day, Harborfest, Tall Sail Rallies, etc. she weighs anchor and makes a circuit of Boston Harbor. As the oldest military vessel afloat, she receives gun salutes from military vessels, bell, whistle and siren salutes from civilian vessels and water cannon salutes from fire boats. Quite a spectacle and usually crowded as Boston is a major tourist draw at most times. Thanks again for your interesting and fact filled videos.

Just found the channel. What a great channel indeed! Very well articulated and infopacked videos. Keep up the great work:)

A very in-depth, concise, fair, and well executed video. Thank you.

THANK YOU for responding so quickly, and brilliantly, to my requests for videos on the Hipper class cruisers and early American frigates. Nicely done. Idea: Please cover the Roman navy. From decaremes to liburians, it is a fascinating history of naval architecture, technology, weaponry, command structures, and, of course, great battles. Thanks again.

I'm sure there is a lot of antique mahogany furniture that started life (death?) as a Spanish warship.

@sergarlantyrell7847

5 жыл бұрын

It would be ironic if the furniture on-board the ship was made of oak.

@vespelian5769

5 жыл бұрын

The USS Chesapeake finished up as a barn in Essex and still stands today.

not bad for a 20-year-old nation just starting out.

@Simonsvids

5 жыл бұрын

The 20 year old nation had all the knowledge and expertise of a 1000 year old nation! 20 years earlier they would have called themselves British! It was basically a civil war.

@thegadsdenguru4368

5 жыл бұрын

@@Simonsvids although i don't doubt yes all of their naval knowledge they know came from the british, but they reallllly can't go back in talk to Experienced Naval architects in the UK and look in their naval building archives now can they, they can only use what documents, people and Experience that are now in the US from the UK, which obviously wasn't the best that the Royal Navy has to offer.

@Kardia_of_Rhodes

5 жыл бұрын

Best Analogy I can think of is a Tractor Factory Suddenly being asked to start building Tanks.

@kyletyler5370

5 жыл бұрын

@@Kardia_of_Rhodes didn't that actually happen before?

@Simonsvids

5 жыл бұрын

@@DanielMinottoII Ah yes of course! That explains the surnames of the signatories of the declaration of independence (not!) Wishful thinking on your part perhaps?

Thoughtful question elicits thoughtful answer. Brilliant stuff, Drach. Thanks.

Fantastic concise coverage of these ships. Thank you!

"Okay, so they have bigger ships, well just stick bigger guns on ours." Murica

Going through the comments I'm surprised to see that nobody has mentioned the book "Six Frigates" by Toll. Great book.

@SeekerLancer

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the recommendation, I'm going to read this book.

@nukclear2741

4 жыл бұрын

Was think of the book as I was watching

@ClockworkAnomaly

4 жыл бұрын

Dude that's my most valued history book

This is a fantastic and very informative video on naval history! Everybody on the various comment threads appear to be extremely knowledgeable and dedicated to learning. Thank you all for your well informed contributions!

I genuinely enjoy your videos. I don't always agree with your conclusions, but I can rarely find fault with your scholarship. Thanks for doing these.

USS Constitution found it's niche in naval warfare and was good for awhile, great video thank you.

A good presentation . I would have enjoyed them mentioning that the USS Constitution is still with us and is on display in Boston Harbor.

@Claytone-Records

5 жыл бұрын

I’ve been on several large ships around the world and thought that I was on the Constitution in Baltimore harbor in either of the late 60s early 70s. This while on a school field trip. Hmm?

@s51curtis

5 жыл бұрын

@@Claytone-Records what you were on in Baltimore harbor was the USS Constellation which was launched in 1854 as the US Navy's last all sail ship. Don't confuse her with the first USS Constellation, which was launched in 1797 as one of the original six frigates that included the Constitution.

That was a fantastically informed and detailed breakdown! Thank you!

Absolutely beautiful paintings 👍

How about a very extended episode on HMS Victory?

@Diego-zz1df

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe a three part special (one each week or so), the first one being a comparison between HMS Victory, the Santísima Trinidad and french ships of the line, then one about the battle of Trafalgar, and finally a standard saturday episode specifically about HMS Victory.

@scottwhitley3392

5 жыл бұрын

Diego Salvati I think HMS victory was the smallest of the 3 it was nearly 40 year old by the time the battle of trafalger started, what it special was the high standard of training by the crew

@swordmonkey6635

5 жыл бұрын

@@scottwhitley3392 Yeah, the Victory was coming to end of her career at the time of Trafalgar. She was a strong ship, but by no means cutting edge or even the best ship in that battle. Her claims to fame are: she was the flag ship of Nelson during that decisive battle and that she still exists as a monument to First Rate fighting sail. The Santisima Trinidad was the biggest thing floating at the time of Trafalgar.

I must say I found your channel yesterday and am loving it... can't listen to the robot voice ones though. Lol

Great analysis, and great video. ADM Isaac Hull was my (7x)great-Grandfather, so Old Ironsides has a special place in my heart. Thanks.

Excellent job, matey!

It‘s funny how sail ships always look much bigger in pictures than they actually are. The USS Constitution here is just 53m (62m over all) long, like a medium sized trawler, a large yacht or a small ferry.

@educatedcockroach

5 жыл бұрын

Seeing the pictures of her sailing next to a couple of Arleigh Burkes back when she was first brought back under sail (1997 or 98 I think?) is pretty cool. She looks like a yacht, like you said, next to them, and those are destroyers! Imagine her next to the Iowa or one of the supercarriers!

@DeliveryMcGee

3 жыл бұрын

See also: WWII fighter planes vs. modern ones. The P-51 was the best air superiority fighter of its time, and not small for its time, was about half the size and less than a third the weight of its modern equivalent the F-15C.

I really enjoy your videos, very well put together. I agree with most of your conclusions but they beg one important question I didn’t hear addressed. In the summer of 1813 the British Admiralty through a gentleman by the name of Croker issued instructions to the fleet that they were not to engage our Frigates one on one. When this bit of history is researched you will find several different takes on it. It would have been interesting to hear your opinion of this decision. Great vid!👍

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

Many thanks for pointing this out, it would bear covering in a follow up video at some point about the naval side of the war of 1812 in general. In this video I mainly aimed to cover the combat capability of the ship in question :)

One of your best videos!

Your videos are much better when you do them voiced as oppose to the robo narrative . Good comparison , probably the one of the best I've heard on the subject with the time allotted .

It’s actually quite amazing to see how these old ships were planed and built given the technology of the age

So the U.S. frigates were basically battle-cruisers; too powerful against anything that could catch them, and too fast for anything that could destroy them.

@robertewalt7789

3 жыл бұрын

The British battle cruisers did not fare too well in the Battle of Jutland.

@dennisavent1686

3 жыл бұрын

@@robertewalt7789 Absolutely. And if USS Constitution had gone up against British 1st Rate warships, she would have been destroyed as well. A 50 gun frigate was no match for a 100 gun 'Ship-of-the-Line.

Great video - thanks for posting. Good crews make a huge difference.

Your thumbnail looks like the Revell model of the Constitution. I built that back in the '70s, was 90+% done when I caught a yardarm on the sleeve of my sweater and gave it a one-time only flying lesson. Too old to cry, too hurt to laugh. I never tried to build another one. TY for the video, very interesting.

@solarsatan9000

5 жыл бұрын

Mabey you could try to find an easier to build kit a britsh company called airfix may have one (tho you may have to get it shipped from the place of manufacture to a freind or aquantience in the UK so they can remove the glue before shipping)

Easy answer. American exceptionalism baby!

The way you say constitution 😍

I am especially pleased that you mentioned all the battles, and capture incidents. Most people only hear about the Constitution in her 2 victories. They dont hear about 2 of our new Frigates being captured, and or about the Philadelphia having to be burned at the Barbary coast because of being grounded. Then the movie Master and Commander makes a ship like the Constitution look very weak against a ship that had been a French Corvette with upgraded 18 pounders. It is a good movie, dont get me wrong, but it is a movie. The real Capitan its based from did capture ships almost twice his ships size though. It was quite ingenious to construct the new frigates the way they did, and the stories and embellishments will always follow a victory. It was a good start for the U.S. Navy. It is perhaps a good thing we didn't have a few large ships of the line in the war of 1812. The British would have prioritized engaging them and would have hunted them like the Bismarck.

Enjoyed this video...informative and insightful. Thanks!

I love how you suggest the reason for the loss was a French built ship..lol

Slightly bigger dimensions than the British frigates is mostly what saved it, as well as better gun handling. American sailors were better trained and more motivated than impressed (enslaved) British seamen.

Very well done, Thank You!

Excellent video. Thanks.

That's a lot of 32lber carronades for a ship like that. Jesus Christ.

@sabrecatsmiladon7380

5 жыл бұрын

lotta buckshot

@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681

5 жыл бұрын

@@sabrecatsmiladon7380 A carronade does not fire buckshot, it uses ball just like other guns. Its simply that its shorter but heavier. Think of it as solid slug fired from a shotgun. It doesnt have the range of a rifle, but if it hits you, its gonna rip a hole in you that is much worse. That said, all smoothbores are capable of firing GRAPESHOT, a load of smaller balls just like a shotgun, the size closer to small tomatoes rather than grapes, CHAINSHOT which is two balls connected with a chain or a hinged bar, that is good at cutting ropes and spars. The last is CANISTER shot, which is basically a huge, huge shotgun. Its a metal canister, like one used for storing food, filled with standard .60 caliber musket balls. 32 pounds of musket balls. Some shotgun, eh? Lastly, for short ranges the cannons could be double loaded, for example a canister shot on top of a standard round shot, with decreased range and speed, but obviously gruesome effects.

@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681

5 жыл бұрын

Its a lot, but consider that some light british ships carried carronades as primary armament. Useless at range, but absolute monster at knife fight ranges.

Excellent commentary and video. Thank you so much. Q&A Could you please do a video on the Royal Navy in George 111's time, comparing it to contemporary navies?

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

It'll have to be a special, but sure :)

@jaybee9269

5 жыл бұрын

Matthew Robinson >> It took me a moment to realize you weren’t referring to George the One-Hundred-Eleventh.

@danyapanya5089

5 жыл бұрын

@@jaybee9269 long may he reign

Thank you to sharing your knowledge.

Very interesting, I am not a naval historian. I am more interested in land and air warfare, but the video and comments about you video are very interesting. Definitely not a waste a time to watch and enjoy. Thanks

THAT GOOD IVE BEEN ON THE SHIP! AND ITS IN MY BACK YARD IN BOSTON HARBOR AND IS STILL APART OF THE NAVY GOD BLESS HER!!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

I am from Boston and so I am prejudiced, but I love your fair review.

Well done!

I remember going aboard with my family as a kid back in the day. It was hugely impressive and if I ever get back to Boston I want to revisit her.

Fun fact, the USS Constitution is the only commissioned ship in the american navy to sink a ship in combat.

I just wanted to know how she ended atop the Weatherby Savings & Loans Bank of Boston in Fallout 4... Ended up with enough knowledge to write an essay about her...

That Majestic model is beautiful!

An excellent video.

She was that good. Over gunned and one heck of a hull, and badass nickname.

Hi, great video, as always! Do You only do videos about warships? If not, I learned about the Story of the SS Great Eastern a few days ago (built by Brunel, 3 different types of "power units" at the same time, more than 200 meters long und 4,000 Passengers in die mid 1800's and a quite interesting history of service). I think this would be quite interesting, although she was no warship. But anyway, thank you for your videos and greetings from Germany;)

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

Can do, although would have to be a special

@spookyshadowhawk6776

5 жыл бұрын

der Fuchs The Haunted Ship, Haunted by the Ghost of a riveter trapped between the double Hull's, when this Ship was sent to the breaker's, the Skeleton of the riveter was found between the double Hull's. Very Interesting Ship!

My fist response when reading the title was "you better tread carefully sir"!

That oak and those Cannons....She was not lucky, she was built to take a punch and dish-out two in return. Very little could stand up to her and wonderful build quality. She was, is, remains a true warrior... I was in the Royal Navy and even we, begrudingly admire her.

To my mind, Constitution was a Razee. A normal Razee was a third rate ship of the line, with a deck removed thereby becoming a two-decker but keeping the heavy guns, normally 36LB and having the advantage of the heavier, bulkier more solid hull than the lighter timbers of a normal frigate or sloop. With Constitution, they didn't have a three deck ship of the line, so they built a Razee from scratch using the same principles of heavy timbers and large caliber guns and the same sail area of a 74 gun ship of the line. I feel it is a bit of falsehood to call her a Frigate, when she wasn't in the normal sense. That's what fooled the British commanders of the Frigates she faced, and their smaller 12-26LB cannon balls were not sufficient to penetrate. Conversely, the heavier armament on Constitution would have torn right through the flimsier frail timbers of the Frigates she faced. It was Royal Navy doctrine to aim at the hulls and sink the enemy that way, rather than the masts and disable. It would be interesting to see what would happen if those ships she faced changed those tactics or had engaged with a 50 gun British 4th/5th Rate. That does mean, by writing this, that I downplay here achievements or impact on the Global stage. It is just something I think that should be taking onto account

@s51curtis

5 жыл бұрын

Justin, there is a video on Amazon Prime about the Constitution that's pretty good. What you learn from it is how Joshua Humphreys was a genius and his design of the six frigates that included Constitution was revolutionary. You can also read about it in Ian Toll's book "Six Frigates." One key to the Constitution's hull strength were the four diagonal beams that ran from stem to stern meeting in the middle at the keel. They gave the hull plenty of strength to support the 24lb long guns that the Constitution carried (not 36lb) and a good inventory of carronades.

@garfieldfarkle

4 жыл бұрын

Justin Lee, razees were ships that were reduced in size and armament, whereas the Constitution and other U.S. frigates increased in armament and spars when built. Following French custom (but not design) the U.S. decided to build ships in various classes at the upper end of the class. For an American razee, see the Independence, a 74 gun ship of the line launched in 1814, with thirty long 32 pounders, thirty-three medium 32 pounders and twenty-four 32 pound carronades. She was razeed to a 54 gun frigate in 1836. As a ship of the line, Independence came in at 2,257 tons, while the Constitution was 1,576 tons; 15 feet shorter, 6-1/2 feet thinner and had a depth in hold 6 feet 9 inches less.

All things being equal....british training (Gunnery) carried the day....A close run thing.... *WHAT-WHAT!*

Very accurate review, sir.

Some French Ships of the Line carried 36 pdrs on their main decks. One was in dry dock during the attack on Baltimore in 1812. The French captain loaned a few 36's to the Americans to help with range as the heaviest gun mounted was the 24 pdrs in in the main fort. 18 pdrs were in several harbor batteries.

Sophie vs. Cacafuego next pls.

14:00 Where are models of that quality procured? That is gorgeous.

Awesome 👍

Given that the Constitution is still a commissioned ship in the US Navy, I'd say she's proved her worth. She's also a great ship to visit at the Charlestown Navy Yard.

Please do the last British battleship HMS Vanguard.

So the USS Constitution was both really good and pretty darn lucky. P.S. Silly Spain, mahogany is for furniture.

@patricklaffey3915

5 жыл бұрын

But they looked good.

@bulruq

5 жыл бұрын

It was good enough for flight decks on American aircraft carriers.

@colormedubious4747

5 жыл бұрын

I believe most US carriers used teak before the war and Douglas fir after Pearl Harbor.

@charlesharper2357

5 жыл бұрын

Spain didn't have much access to oak...

@ragimundvonwallat8961

4 жыл бұрын

@@charlesharper2357 they dont care about facts....they are only here to cream ther colossal ego

Excellent.

Thanks, very interesting.

Your videos are most informative. They make me wonder where you got your education in the details of navel history. It is quite extensive.

Got to hand it to the Yanks: they've been trying to get people to leave them the hell alone for _years_ .

Very good Thank you

Tolls’ Six Frigates talks about this issue, and the design and construction of these “super” frigates. Highly recommended. It should also be remembered that the Royal Navy had swept virtually everyone else from the seas and was literally invincible; her global responsibility’s stretched her enormous navy pretty thin, with only the Halifax Station and the West Indies squadron available for Northern Hemisphere operations: even so, the Royal Navy was able to effectively bottle up the Americans for most of the War of 1812. Even so, Constitution broke out and created, at the very least, significant public reaction in Great Britain. Quite good commentary.

USS wasn't used until 1901, so there never was a USS Macedonian

Would it be fair to say these frigates we're built with an early version of the battlecrusier concept? By that I mean faster than anything bigger, stronger than any ship that could catch her.

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

In a broad sense, possibly. However, as pointed out Endymion and ships like her, though rare, could both catch and fight them. And once you had ships like HMS Majestic, the paradigm somewhat falls apart. Personally I would put her more as something like Georgios Averoff or SMS Blucher, capable of outfighting almost anything at their tier (cruisers) but not seriously able to take on capital ships or full on battlecruisers. If the frigates had run with 32lb long guns and maybe 24lb carronades, then I'd feel more confident pegging them as early battlecruisers. However, although more powerful than most frigates the 24lb long gun was the equivilant of a secondary battery on a ship or the line.

@CSSVirginia

5 жыл бұрын

@@Drachinifel Thanks for the relpy, great channel!

@americanmade6996

5 жыл бұрын

But everything in your video screams battlecruiser-built bigger and much more powerful to outfight typical frigates, and fast enough to outrun ships of the line. How well any particular design was suited for this role can be debated, but that is what the type was built for. Did I hear you refer to the 24pdr.as secondary armament on ships of the line? I don't think that does it justice, even when accompanied by the larger 32- or 36-pounders. Its use was generally limited to the heaviest frigates and ships of the line; it was too heavy for most late 18th and early 19th century frigates. In application and relative power then they seem to correspond more to the mid-20th century 12- or 14-inch guns.

@Drachinifel

5 жыл бұрын

@@americanmade6996 the typical ship of the line of the period carried a main battery of 32lb long guns, or 36lb if you were French. When the ship was built the RN was just coming off using 42lb guns instead, after finding their shot too heavy to handle in battle. 24lb guns were the second largest long guns on capital ships of the period, carried in the next deck above the heavy battery. Hence why I think in later naval terms I would class her as a 'cruiser-killer' rather than a battlecruiser. Something like SMS Blucher, Churchill's mini-KGV cruiser, etc would be more fitting. The Alaska's or B-65's might also be comparable in the context of their time when contemporary battleships used 16 inch+ weapons. One of the main features of a 'full' battlecruiser has generally been main guns of contemporary calibre to the majority of battleships of the period. Hence my hesitation in this case, since the six frigates did not carry a gun deck battery of equivilant weight guns. It could definitely be said they were built with the same ROLE as the original battlecruiser concept, but as above not precisely to the same paradigm.

@CSSVirginia

5 жыл бұрын

@@Drachinifel I must confess that I was only thinking about their role, I didn't consider armament.

I had USS Constitution wallpaper in my bedroom as a child...

Interesting and informative.