On this day 7 March

On March 7 1778, the U.S. frigate Randolph attacked the HMS Yarmouth, an uneven duel that resulted in significant loss for the Americans. During the afternoon, Randolph’s lookouts spotted the British 64-gun ship-of-the-line. By evening, the engagement was in full swing. Outgunned in number and size, the Randolph still was able to take down two of the Yarmouth’s masts as it broadsided the British ship at a ratio of 3-to-1. Unfortunately, the American guns were unable to significantly damage the Yarmouth, and during the battle, the Randolph suddenly exploded killing all but four of her 300+ crew members.

Nicholas Biddle, Captain of the Randolph:
Attachment 2297

Randolph vs. Yarmouth:
Attachment 2298


For more information on today's event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Randolph_(1776)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Yarmouth_(1748)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola...naval_officer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Barbados

I'd say knocking off a couple masts constitutes [sorry :) ] "significant damage", esp. if it then allows one to park off the opponent's stern, double-shot the cannon, and ask him "Where do you want to go today?". >:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

I'd say knocking off a couple masts constitutes [sorry :) ] "significant damage", esp. if it then allows one to park off the opponent's stern, double-shot the cannon, and ask him "Where do you want to go today?". >:)

---

I should have been clearer. The Randolph was not able to do much damage to the body of the ship. Its guns were unable to penetrate the Yarmouth. This enabled the British to survive long enough for the Randolph to eventually lose due to the explosion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

I'd say knocking off a couple masts constitutes [sorry :) ] "significant damage", esp. if it then allows one to park off the opponent's stern, double-shot the cannon, and ask him "Where do you want to go today?". >:)

---

If that was what happened then i'd agree. But if you recall Mark Barker discussed this at length the last time this action came up, where it was revealed that Yarmouth only lost two of her topmasts which as you know are pretty trivial bits of structure. This is a another one of those events where selective quoting, probably starting in a single publication, has spread to become "gospel" and generated a myth, rather than a more mundane reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

If that was what happened then i'd agree. But if you recall Mark Barker discussed this at length the last time this action came up, where it was revealed that Yarmouth only lost two of her topmasts which as you know are pretty trivial bits of structure. This is a another one of those events where selective quoting, probably starting in a single publication, has spread to become "gospel" and generated a myth, rather than a more mundane reality.

---

Yes what he said...quoting from secondary sources is epidemic in history books and although it has a place, it needs to be done with care and a critical eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berthier

Yes what he said...quoting from secondary sources is epidemic in history books and although it has a place, it needs to be done with care and a critical eye.

---

How I wish I had access to a significant naval library. In the past month as I have looked up events of the day, I have found so many entries with discrepancies between given accounts, including different numbers of ship guns, crews, and casualties, differences in dates, names of captains, etc. However, I have found a couple of discrepancies even in what could be considered primary source documents of accounts given by officers at the time. All-in-all, I have enjoyed learning bits of naval history, but I recognize the limitations of what I am reading and posting. Maybe I should include a disclaimer like pharmaceutical companies, but unlike them I would keep the disclaimer shorter than the actual post.

Thanks for the discussion.

Mark Barker is in the lucky position of being close to the Naval Historical Branch in Portsmouth, and has researched original documents at the national A4rchives so his gen is invariably pretty legit. I've worked with the NHB as well on a few projects. It really is a fascinating place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

Mark Barker is in the lucky position of being close to the Naval Historical Branch in Portsmouth, and has researched original documents at the national A4rchives so his gen is invariably pretty legit. I've worked with the NHB as well on a few projects. It really is a fascinating place!

---

Do you know of a link to his work?

You are in an enviable position. Research is quite fun, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Manley

If that was what happened then i'd agree. But if you recall Mark Barker discussed this at length the last time this action came up, where it was revealed that Yarmouth only lost two of her topmasts which as you know are pretty trivial bits of structure.

---

I'd agree "topmasts are trivial", except I can think of at least one engagement (USS _Essex_'s last battle) where losing one topmast was sufficient to cripple the unit affected; and I'm pretty-sure there's others, but I'd have to look them up. I'll also concur _Randolph_'s 12s were inadequate vs. the side scantlings of a ship-of-the-line (this would be demonstrated repeatedly in the war of 1812 [ ;) ]); however, that's why I specified getting in behind the target, where guns are few, scantlings are practically nonexistant, and raking fire is guaranteed to absolutely ruin one's day. For that matter: Knocking off a couple topmasts might well be enough to allow one to RUN THE HELL AWAY from the opponent who is twice one's own size. :) (I suspect what happened was: _Randolph_'s captain saw the topmasts go over, and got optimistic.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csadn

I'd agree "topmasts are trivial", except I can think of at least one engagement (USS _Essex_'s last battle) where losing one topmast was sufficient to cripple the unit affected; and I'm pretty-sure there's others, but I'd have to look them up. I'll also concur _Randolph_'s 12s were inadequate vs. the side scantlings of a ship-of-the-line (this would be demonstrated repeatedly in the war of 1812 [ ;) ]); however, that's why I specified getting in behind the target, where guns are few, scantlings are practically nonexistant, and raking fire is guaranteed to absolutely ruin one's day. For that matter: Knocking off a couple topmasts might well be enough to allow one to RUN THE HELL AWAY from the opponent who is twice one's own size. :) (I suspect what happened was: _Randolph_'s captain saw the topmasts go over, and got optimistic.)

---

From what I read, the explosion seemed to come as a surprise. There seems to be some debate why it occurred. Was it due to an enemy round? A spark caused by a crew member? This is where I appreciate David's and Daniel's comments about potential inaccuracies when using secondary sources. Unfortunately, for many situations of interest, I don't know if we'll ever know what really happened.

Historical sources and "accuracy"

One of my favourite accounts of battle is Mercer's book on the battle of Waterloo. He makes the point that throughout the battle he had no idea what was going on more than 100 hundred yards from him and had no idea if they were winning or loosing. I think Wellington said a battle was like a Grand Ball where all the participants experience different parts of the whole but none sees the ball in it's entirety. This is what makes historical reconstruction so difficult and interesting, numerous accounts of the same battle from different perspectives, all apparently absolutely accurate from the teller's perspective, but often conflicting in points of great importance. There is no solution to this, rather one must accept it as inevitable and try and tease out some sort of truth from the various accounts. First person accounts also suffer from the natural bias of the writer to show themselves in a good light, to make the enemy always seem stronger/better/more numerous etc to explain defeat or increase the glory of success, sometimes to show a rival in a poor light or to get even with another colleague with whom they may have a grudge. Many of these considerations the reader can have no possible knowledge of and thus nothing can be taken as gospel.

To illustrate, imagine the battle of Trafalagar from the perspective of an individual on the lower gun deck of the Victory, the middle gun deck, the top gun deck and the poop deck. Each account would give quite a different impression of the battle, none incorrect but none giving a full and true coverage. Even the time of events would be remembered differently.

Daniel, I couldn't agree more.

This is where I see forums like this to be of great value. Different folks read deeper in given areas than others. To come together and discuss events and share opinions. knowledge, and expertise on an era we all enjoy is both fun and informative.

Great stuff on the Battle of Waterloo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7eat51

Unfortunately, for many situations of interest, I don't know if we'll ever know what really happened.

---

Indeed -- the best anyone can manage is to look at similar instances where enough survivors were left to put together a picture of what happened, and try to extrapolate.