PDA

View Full Version : Stats for Victory and Constitution?



Dobbs
05-17-2015, 16:26
I was curious if anyone had posted the stats for Victory and Constitution, as I wanted to compare them to other ships before maybe buying them.

Coog
05-17-2015, 17:42
Eric (7eat51) posted these in another thread:

USS Constitution 1797 (1798)
Burden: 5
Deck: L
Veer: 5
Hull: 353, 343, 343, 233, 232, 222, 121, 121, 111
Crew: 4,4,4,4,3,3,2,2,1
Musket: 3,3,2,2,2,2,1,1,1

USS Constitution 1797 (1812)
Burden: 5
Deck: L
Veer: 5
Hull: 464, 454, 353, 353, 343, 232, 232, 222, 111
Crew: 4,4,4,4,3,3,2,2,1
Musket: 3,3,3,2,2,2,1,1,1


HMS Victory 1765 (1783)
Burden: 6
Deck: I
Veer: 4
Hull: 576, 575, 475, 475, 465, 354, 354, 343, 243, 232, 121
Crew: 4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,2,2,1,1,
Musket: 4,4,4,4,3,3,2,2,2,2,2,1

HMS Victory 1765 (1805)
Burden: 6
Deck: I
Veer: 4
Hull: 575, 475, 475, 465, 464, 354, 353, 343, 233, 132, 121
Crew: 4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,2,2,1,1
Musket: 4,4,4,3,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,1

Mark Kaiser
05-17-2015, 23:46
I was just curious, was the VICTORY also made of 'American live oak'?, because if it wasn't, than the CONSTITUTION kind of got short changed in the burden department I think. One of the posts here said historically during Trafalgar, I believe, that the VICTORY was damn near sunk, and that a British Captain ordered his ship to take fire for her (Effectively sailing between the VICTORY and the enemy fire) . Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the armor rating of any Live Oak vessel would be the highest of the game due to it's extreme density and ability to bend and snap back into form. The stuff was coveted by all nations ship builders above any other form of wood because it was tougher than metal.

Popsical
05-18-2015, 01:26
I think that would be purely because of the size of victory compared to constitution and the woods used too rather than just the wood.

Mark Kaiser
05-18-2015, 01:38
I think that would be purely because of the size of victory compared to constitution and the woods used too rather than just the wood.
Maybe, but a volley of cannonballs flying through softer, splintering wood of lower decks taking out deck braces, effectively collapsing those decks upon the crew, would render a tall hulled ship ineffective in a hurry. Kind of like a sandwich someone stepped on.

David Manley
05-18-2015, 05:41
because it was tougher than metal.

Alas it wasn't. It was good, but it wasn't a "wonder material". I was also used in various specialist applications rather than general planking (and it wasn't confined to US ships either)


Maybe, but a volley of cannonballs flying through softer, splintering wood of lower decks taking out deck braces, effectively collapsing those decks upon the crew, would render a tall hulled ship ineffective in a hurry. Kind of like a sandwich someone stepped on.

Dreadful if that was what happened. However, the degree of structural redundancy in warships of the time meant this didn't happen, even in the most shot-to-pieces of 'liners.

TexaS
05-18-2015, 05:58
Burden isn't just armour, but also total number of crew (from the boarding rules) and size (collision rules) so I think Constitution got well handled.

David Manley
05-18-2015, 09:01
Burden isn't just armour, but also total number of crew (from the boarding rules) and size (collision rules) so I think Constitution got well handled.

And worth noting that ships of the period weren't armoured, although they did achieve certain degrees of battleworthiness by virtue of the inherent strength of their hull structure.

TexaS
05-18-2015, 09:13
Well, armour or toughness... In games they are more or less the same usually.

Interestingly enough the wood continued to send splinters at the crew even when iron were applied and not penetrated by a shot.

David Manley
05-18-2015, 09:39
I guess so. I see things differently because maritime survivability and armouring of ships is a large part of my day job :happy:

Mark Kaiser
05-18-2015, 14:23
Alas it wasn't. It was good, but it wasn't a "wonder material". I was also used in various specialist applications rather than general planking (and it wasn't confined to US ships either)



Dreadful if that was what happened. However, the degree of structural redundancy in warships of the time meant this didn't happen, even in the most shot-to-pieces of 'liners.
What I meant, was the wood was extremely pliable, yet dense, (I'm assuming like ironwood) and therefore stronger than many metals ie copper plating, high carbon steels (shatter or stress crack), even today the wood is highly prized and protected. The British staged commando raids to acquire it and send back to their shipyards, causing a heck of a hullaballoo, because of it's remote location (swamps), and for good reason, it was structurally almost rot proof, and resisted ship worm. I'm sure the people of the day considered it 'wonder material', if not simply for the fact that lives were put in harm's way and lost to attain it. The CONSTITUTION was made with a great deal of Live Oak with softer buffer woods to lighten it's hull weight, but even then it had a hard time on it's maiden launch, as the weight sunk the launch rails. Though built for speed, thus the uber corvette design, she was also tough as they come, both in bracing and hull integrity. She was made to be a 'Frigate Buster' but could of easily held her own against a SOL with proper handling and tactics.

Mark Kaiser
05-18-2015, 14:26
Burden isn't just armour, but also total number of crew (from the boarding rules) and size (collision rules) so I think Constitution got well handled.
Thank you Jonas, that, I feel, are the only reasons for the stats.

TexaS
05-18-2015, 15:19
I guess so. I see things differently because maritime survivability and armouring of ships is a large part of my day job :happy:

I was in the air force and then Saab Military Aircraft... Survivability, but not much armour on a fighter...

David Manley
05-18-2015, 16:09
...but not much armour on a fighter...

Not a lot, vulnerability reduction based more on system layout than hardening (although not entirely, and there are of course extremes in some ground attack aircraft such as the A-10 and Su-25 :happy:

David Manley
05-18-2015, 16:19
She was made to be a 'Frigate Buster' but could of easily held her own against a SOL with proper handling and tactics.

Possibly, as could a number of frigates, in terms of survival and evasion. More than that, unlikely. Looking at the details of the 44's various encounters with lesser British frigates shows that they were capable of being hurt by them or worse, an encounter with a SOL would have been a rather more perilous affair.

Live oak was somewhat akin to the more "interesting" steels used in some areas of modern warship construction - providing good local strength where needed, possibly allowing lighter structures, but not necessarily enhancing the global ability of the vessel to withstand damage.

Mark Kaiser
05-18-2015, 20:19
Not a lot, vulnerability reduction based more on system layout than hardening (although not entirely, and there are of course extremes in some ground attack aircraft such as the A-10 and Su-25 :happy:
Ah, the WARTHOG! Saved me and my team more than once in the sandbox!

Mark Kaiser
05-18-2015, 20:54
Possibly, as could a number of frigates, in terms of survival and evasion. More than that, unlikely. Looking at the details of the 44's various encounters with lesser British frigates shows that they were capable of being hurt by them or worse, an encounter with a SOL would have been a rather more perilous affair.

Live oak was somewhat akin to the more "interesting" steels used in some areas of modern warship construction - providing good local strength where needed, possibly allowing lighter structures, but not necessarily enhancing the global ability of the vessel to withstand damage.
True, not with modern munitions with teflon coated armor piercing shells filled with an explosive charge, but unrifled big bore cannons slinging a heavy lead ball... She not only could take, but did so, and remained seaworthy and tactically fit, to not only continue engagement (while being pounded both Port and Starboard side simultaneously), but win the engagement. Comparing ammo used would be like comparing a .50 blackpowder musket ball to a .50 cal BMG round, no comparison. Youtube has a video of properly charged authentic cannons firing into correct hull specs of both types of ships, and regular oak was not only bored through, but sent butcher knife size splinters flying for the crew to enjoy, whereas the Constitutions makeup sent the cannonball flying back at the shooters, leaving a circular indent about 3 to 4 inches deep. With the opposite side unharmed, like someone knocked on a steel door with a sledge and left. Quite impressive, also after 210 years and still commisioned and fighting fit, with a special duty full time naval captain and crew assigned her, I think she could take a SOL, if pressed, maybe more.

Mark Kaiser
05-18-2015, 21:56
Possibly, as could a number of frigates, in terms of survival and evasion. More than that, unlikely. Looking at the details of the 44's various encounters with lesser British frigates shows that they were capable of being hurt by them or worse, an encounter with a SOL would have been a rather more perilous affair.

Live oak was somewhat akin to the more "interesting" steels used in some areas of modern warship construction - providing good local strength where needed, possibly allowing lighter structures, but not necessarily enhancing the global ability of the vessel to withstand damage. According to wiki on 'Constitution', "upon closer inspection, it was later discovered she had 12, 32 pound cannonballs wedged in her hull, with no significant damage outside or inside."

David Manley
05-18-2015, 22:46
I think you missed the point of the analogy (or more that I didn't explain it as well as I could have). Obviously the detailed effect of modern weapons against modern construction is different. I was talking more in generalities.

The video you mentioned sounds interesting. There are a few cannon vs. hull videos on Youtube, I've not come across that one and it would be handy for my ship survivability lectures. Do you have a link?

In terms of hull penetration - another fascinating subject. Finding cannonballs embedded in ships sides was a pretty routine occurrence (I think the largest number I've come across was over a hundred in the side of a SOL during the so called "Crimean War" in 1854; it would be interesting to see if anyone did an analysis of such hits at Trafalgar and other fleet actions, although time and circumstance (and hidebound traditionalism) worked against the kind of forensic level investigations that we do today on weapon effects). Interesting here that 32pdr shot on this occasion didn't penetrate, 24pdr on others did. And this could be for a whole host of reasons from powder quality and charge size through barrel design, impact angles, hit location specifics etc. Oh for a generous research budget to recreate some of this stuff properly!

Constitution vs. a SOL? I wouldn't put it past her. Frigates did on occasions get the better of SOLS after all. That said, one needs to be wary of the "Bismarck effect" - I've heard some call the 44s the "Bismarcks of their time", which is a bit unfair in my view as the 44s were actually very well designed, but the effect is there in terms of creating an aura of invincibility (or some other superlative aspect) without a critical appreciation of why things happened the way they did, or why events were written up the way they were.

Mark Kaiser
05-18-2015, 23:22
Absolutely agree, on all accounts. I didn't think much of the whole topic, until I Wiki'ed up the USS CONSTITUTION and read about her accolades, and that of her crew and legendary Captains. As a proud American and ex-member of our Armys' elite special operations soldiers, i'm ashamed of myself for not knowing such a rich piece of our history involving this fine beauty. Especially since my Grandfather was a navy man at Pearl and Midway, and a step away from gold braid before he had to quit to support his family. I think COOG (Bobby) posted the video on one of his threads, I will try to find it and get back here with it. :D -Mark

David Manley
05-18-2015, 23:46
Beware of Wiki (unless its Wikileaks then its all true :happy:). Lots of good stuff there, but also lots of stuff that, being polite, is not quite as well researched or balanced as it could be. I'm generally happy using it as a jumping off point to more reliable sources if its something I'm particularly interested in. But some pages have turned into real battlegrounds of opinion (often throwing fact to the winds as contributors fight endlessly through revision and counter revision), and the "talk" pages of many make for extremely entertaining reading :happy: And I've come across the "cult of wiki" a few times, where an event or fact "obviously hasn't happened" because its not on wikipedia - one of my chums had fun with a particularly vehement proponent of this who shouted him down over the main armament of a ship because wiki said it had 15" guns so it MUST be right - despite plenty or reputable sources saying 16", so my friend amended the page temporarily to say that the ship sported a pink paint scheme with purple spots and tweaked the other guys tail about how Wiki said it so it must be true :thumbsup:

Anyway, summing up, I'm with Jonas on this one, I reckon they got the stats about right, within the stat range limits of the system - but that's another story!

Mark Kaiser
05-18-2015, 23:59
Found it, it's on Youtube, it's MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE TRUE STORY, by Discovery. About 6 minutes in they start getting to the CONSTITUTION and her capabilities, very interesting!

TexaS
05-19-2015, 00:44
Not a lot, vulnerability reduction based more on system layout than hardening...:

And composite materials keeping structural integrity after damage. If you've seen the video of the early prototype of Gripen (Griffin) crashing I'd say we were pretty successful on that part, but that was back in -89 when I was in the air force. Not a happy day.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vgTQ3eDkCn0

Mark Kaiser
05-19-2015, 01:20
Though I don't own either special ship package, the CONSTITUTION or the VICTORY, they are on my priority list come payday. Wednesday will order CONSTITUTION, and maybe VICTORY as well, must haves now! Also, I noticed supplies from all sites on these two are dwindling. :(

TexaS
05-19-2015, 01:36
They are a little more detailed than the other ships and I think they are worth the few extra dollars.

The packaging and captain cards makes them feel very special when you open them.

And if we buy them all quickly, Ares might even make more of these in the future. I'm hoping for at least Santissima Trinidad and perhaps an official HMS Indefatigable.

Kentop
05-19-2015, 08:11
Superlatives were the order of the day back in the 19th century. Telling the crew that the USS Constitution was much better that British ships because of the type of wood used in her hull gave the crew confidence. You hear all kinds of stories about how strong American oak was, but face it, All oak wood falls within narrow hardness parameters for that type of wood. Also, American live oak was used only for structural parts of the hull, but not for planking. Planking was usually red or white oak. Europeans also grew and used live oak in their ships. As far as how many cannonballs were found, that begs the question, "How many got through?" I'm guessing the ratio doesn't differ between european and american ships. If the observation that French ships fired broadsides much farther away than the point-blank British volleys, the I would expect more holes punched through the French ships and less to the British ships. But to say that "American Oak" is superior to "European Oak" to the point that it actually makes a real difference is specious. Red oak grown in Europe has a slightly longer growing season and thus a narrower grain than red oak grown in America, making european red oak actually a little harder than american red oak, but the difference is negligible, it's still the same species of oak and has the same characteristics regardless of where it's grown.

7eat51
05-19-2015, 08:16
and there are of course extremes in some ground attack aircraft such as the A-10 and Su-25

I worked on ECM systems on A-10s. I really respect that aircraft.

Kentop
05-19-2015, 11:17
We've got a bunch of them here in Tucson, at Davis-Monthan AFB (I think the total was around 80). They're on the chopping block, though. Right now, they are taking the ground crews for these aircraft and retraining them for the F-35. The A-10s days are definitely numbered. Last month, the Air Force grounded 18 of them, half of them from Davis Monthan. The Air Force doesn't want them anymore, the Army wants their own aircraft for ground support, and congress is playing games with closing bases. You should see all of the A-10s sitting mothballed out in the boneyard right now. Every time I drive by them, I count, 11million, 22million, 33milion, 44million...

Popsical
05-19-2015, 11:34
You guys make me wish id joined the forces when i was a young un'. :salute:

Mark Kaiser
05-19-2015, 12:30
Superlatives were the order of the day back in the 19th century. Telling the crew that the USS Constitution was much better that British ships because of the type of wood used in her hull gave the crew confidence. You hear all kinds of stories about how strong American oak was, but face it, All oak wood falls within narrow hardness parameters for that type of wood. Also, American live oak was used only for structural parts of the hull, but not for planking. Planking was usually red or white oak. Europeans also grew and used live oak in their ships. As far as how many cannonballs were found, that begs the question, "How many got through?" I'm guessing the ratio doesn't differ between european and american ships. If the observation that French ships fired broadsides much farther away than the point-blank British volleys, the I would expect more holes punched through the French ships and less to the British ships. But to say that "American Oak" is superior to "European Oak" to the point that it actually makes a real difference is specious. Red oak grown in Europe has a slightly longer growing season and thus a narrower grain than red oak grown in America, making european red oak actually a little harder than american red oak, but the difference is negligible, it's still the same species of oak and has the same characteristics regardless of where it's grown.

Upon watching the doc again, I see that indeed the live oak was used internally between the planking, which was white oak. Three layers consisted the hull, white oak, live oak, white oak. What essentially made the difference was the fact that the live oak could handle 40 percent more PSI of stress before cracking, so in turn, they used thicker planking of white oak, coupled with the flexibility and strength of the live oak, the CONSTITUTION could be run harder,faster, and take more dynamic shock. That's what made her a very spcecial vessel, along with rot resistence due to live oak growing in swampy regions and it's burled grain.

Mark Kaiser
05-19-2015, 12:48
We've got a bunch of them here in Tucson, at Davis-Monthan AFB (I think the total was around 80). They're on the chopping block, though. Right now, they are taking the ground crews for these aircraft and retraining them for the F-35. The A-10s days are definitely numbered. Last month, the Air Force grounded 18 of them, half of them from Davis Monthan. The Air Force doesn't want them anymore, the Army wants their own aircraft for ground support, and congress is playing games with closing bases. You should see all of the A-10s sitting mothballed out in the boneyard right now. Every time I drive by them, I count, 11million, 22million, 33milion, 44million...
I was leaving the Army at the time, when I was told we were phasing out the A-10's. My first reaction was shock, with a "Why?", behind that. Working on a Special Operations team in Syria, and Northern Iraq against Saddams Iraqi Republican Guard, and helping the Kurds, things could dicey. We were greatly outnumbered if anything went wrong, and the Army pilots could do "Red Baron" stuff with those WARTHOGS. It was impressive when they did a fly over while we were on a 'snoop and poop' patrol, and then opened up with her Vulcan gatling, sending a constant stream of flame 15 feet from the nose. BRRRRRRRP, well there just went 10 grand worth of ammo!

David Manley
05-19-2015, 12:59
Found it, it's on Youtube, it's MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE TRUE STORY, by Discovery. About 6 minutes in they start getting to the CONSTITUTION and her capabilities, very interesting!

Just found it. interesting indeed, not necessarily for the right reasons though (I don't think they deployed hypersonic rounds in the 1800s). As a demo it was pretty good, but you could drive a coach and horses through it from a validity perspective :happy:

Diamondback
05-19-2015, 13:08
I would also venture that Victory's stats and deck differ a little from the other First Rates in light of her unique* design--other First Rates were built along preexisting design principles as floating fortresses, while Victory was basically an Invincible-family 74 (see almost all Slade 74s) pumped up on anabolic steroids, and Invincible and her Royal Navy progeny were if memory serves above-average performers for their time and size.
*Well, until copied for 1810 Boyne and 1811 Union--both of which I would say should use the same deck and stats, just maybe a slight Gunnery downgrade and some crew reduction in keeping with their lower rating as Second Rate 98's.

Mark Kaiser
05-19-2015, 13:23
Just found it. interesting indeed, not necessarily for the right reasons though (I don't think they deployed hypersonic rounds in the 1800s). As a demo it was pretty good, but you could drive a coach and horses through it from a validity perspective :happy:
Yeah, I found the cannonballs velocity claims to be questionable as well, around 4000 fps?, I do know the energy in ft./lbs. would be teriffic, also the ball, being smaller would justify higher velocity and better penetration, but that velocity would have mushroomed the ball, at least a little.

Mark Kaiser
05-19-2015, 13:43
I do however, stand behind the live oak design and structuring unerringly. I relate it to hitting an ironwood tree with a sledgehammer, the shock force returned will rattle your eyeballs, although it's hypothetical, and on a greater scale, the principle is the same.

csadn
05-19-2015, 17:35
Ah, the WARTHOG! Saved me and my team more than once in the sandbox!

All shall bow before the Holy BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT. >:)

David Manley
05-19-2015, 22:51
Yeah, I found the cannonballs velocity claims to be questionable as well, around 4000 fps?, I do know the energy in ft./lbs. would be teriffic, also the ball, being smaller would justify higher velocity and better penetration, but that velocity would have mushroomed the ball, at least a little.

Try 9000fps, or just about twice the velocity of a APFSDS round fired from a LeoII or M1's 120mm smoothbore :happy:

if they could do that with a smoothbore gunpowder charged weapon from 1812 in a grassy field somewhere in the UK I'd have signed them up to carry out my ballistic testing programme years ago :thumbsup:

(they quote 3000 m/s in the video)


mushroomed the ball, at least a little.

And then some! :D

David Manley
05-19-2015, 23:17
I do however, stand behind the live oak design and structuring unerringly. I relate it to hitting an ironwood tree with a sledgehammer, the shock force returned will rattle your eyeballs, although it's hypothetical, and on a greater scale, the principle is the same.

Well obviously, since the effect was observed in wooden ships 200 years ago (and probably well before that). We know that the structure stood up well to 32pdr carronade rounds, we also know it didn't against 24pdr long gun rounds - not surprising given the difference in velocities and hence kinetic energies. Looking at it in more detail this would make a very interesting research project to develop the kind of ballistic penetration tables that we enjoy today for current rounds, fragments and structural/ballistic protection materials. Ideal for someone with a decent instrumented range, access to a variety of naval ordnance of the time, shipwrights well versed in the art of construction techniques of the late 1700s and early 1800s, some decent FE analysis and a shedload of money. If anyone can sort out the last of those I'm there with the rest :happy:

Popsical
05-20-2015, 01:07
I wonder what could be done nowadays using the same hull materials to make a ship of the line? I mean knowing what we know regarding armour spacing and layering to absorb cannon balls?

David Manley
05-20-2015, 06:36
There's probably quite a bit that could be done - if one were happy to accept some increase in dimensions and displacement. For example, layered side protection against balls and splinters, additional transverse bulkheads in particular at each ends of the gun decks, modified stern arangements to dispense with vulnerabilities there (especially rudders), in-hull protection for lower reaches of masts, better fire protectin, etc.

TexaS
05-20-2015, 12:29
Looking at it in more detail this would make a very interesting research project to develop the kind of ballistic penetration tables that we enjoy today for current rounds, fragments and structural/ballistic protection materials. Ideal for someone with a decent instrumented range, access to a variety of naval ordnance of the time, shipwrights well versed in the art of construction techniques of the late 1700s and early 1800s, some decent FE analysis and a shedload of money. If anyone can sort out the last of those I'm there with the rest :happy:
I'm sorry you missed out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNiy_6WyEdg

Mark Kaiser
05-20-2015, 15:08
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but I thought it interesting that they pretty much credited the CONSTITUTION with keeping the U.S. from foriegn rule. The naval brass from other countries were afraid of her and her capabilities. I'm sure the same holds true of the HMS VICTORY though, and yeah, on a different note, 9000 FPS would turn the cannonball into a flaming plasma ball.

David Manley
05-20-2015, 15:20
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but I thought it interesting that they pretty much credited the CONSTITUTION with keeping the U.S. from foriegn rule.

I didn't watch the whole thing, but if they were claiming that it doesn't bode well for the rest of the documentary :happy:

Diamondback
05-20-2015, 16:02
Constitution herself, an exaggeration--the threat that having three of her kind, and potential to crank out more, presented on the other hand... "If these are their idea of '44-gun frigates,' let's not find out what they'd put up against us if they decided to actually build a real Battle Line." It is telling to note that the first USN 74's, Independence and Washington, are very similar in dimensions to Victory albeit with one less gun deck. "Go Big or Go Home" thinking even then, or just a naval version of the locker-room "Mine's Bigger Than Yours"?

David Manley
05-20-2015, 16:12
Since the US was and never has been under threat of foreign rule since before the Constitution was built..... :happy:

Mark Kaiser
05-20-2015, 16:23
Constitution herself, an exaggeration--the threat that having three of her kind, and potential to crank out more, presented on the other hand... "If these are their idea of '44-gun frigates,' let's not find out what they'd put up against us if they decided to actually build a real Battle Line." It is telling to note that the first USN 74's, Independence and Washington, are very similar in dimensions to Victory albeit with one less gun deck. "Go Big or Go Home" thinking even then, or just a naval version of the locker-room "Mine's Bigger Than Yours"?

Affirmative, this added to the apprehension of sailing U.S. coastal waters with bad intentions or otherwise, The CONSTITUTION, just stood out in actions, even if caught by surprise, she pulled through.

Mark Kaiser
05-20-2015, 16:45
Since the US was and never has been under threat of foreign rule since before the Constitution was built..... :happy:

Those were fragile times, any opportunities of land grabs for foothold for larger invasions were seized, the Battle Of Mackinaw was particularly interesting to me since i've been all over that island numerous times since I was a kid. My daughter found a bone from a horse on a rock there, it has teeth marks on it, so we took it home. This was just a couple years ago, and the island is essentially a historic family theme park with taffy houses,trinket stores, and even spook houses. Very clean and kept, so it was an amazing find. Upon further research, I found out that supplies to the British troops stationed there were cut off, so they were starving and cut to half rations, the Indian collaborators were forced to eat their horses! Also, one of the vessels commandeered there was renamed HMS SURPRISE. Pretty cool.

csadn
05-20-2015, 17:01
"Go Big or Go Home" thinking even then, or just a naval version of the locker-room "Mine's Bigger Than Yours"?

More "we don't have the people to staff three different sizes of ship -- hell, we barely have the people to staff *one*; so we need to build ships which may not be 'jack-of-all-trades', but are at least capable of performing more than one task if needed".

As to "the US never being under threat of foreign rule": No, but there were other problems -- like neighbors who wanted to keep the US out of certain bodies of water by creating Indian "buffer states", and using tactics later seen in Laos and Cambodia to do so.... >:)

Nightmoss
05-20-2015, 18:05
As previously posted, one of Great Britain's own versions of "Go Big or Go Home" was the Duke of Kent. Never built, but with 170 guns and 1,200 men to man them it would have been one impressive ship.

http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/73243971528/historical-trivia-hms-duke-of-kent-the-royal

7eat51
05-20-2015, 19:15
Very cool video, Jonas. Thanks.

It's nice to see companies support such research.

Mark Kaiser
05-20-2015, 22:57
As previously posted, one of Great Britain's own versions of "Go Big or Go Home" was the Duke of Kent. Never built, but with 170 guns and 1,200 men to man them it would have been one impressive ship.

http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/73243971528/historical-trivia-hms-duke-of-kent-the-royal

Now that would have been a sight to behold!

TexaS
05-21-2015, 00:51
Very cool video, Jonas. Thanks.

It's nice to see companies support such research.

Glad to provide!

It's almost two centuries too early for our time frame, but I still find it interesting.

7eat51
05-21-2015, 08:25
Glad to provide!

It's almost two centuries too early for our time frame, but I still find it interesting.

I think the recoil and the splintering are very informative for folks like us - gives us a bit of feel for what the seamen of the time experienced.

Nightmoss
05-21-2015, 10:07
In addition to the stats comparisons has anyone commented on the scale accuracy of the USS Constitution? Specifically, is the ship really in scale to any of the Hebe class SGN 105 ships? Putting them side by side, the Constitution absolutely dwarfs any of them. The 'footprint' of this ship looks more like a SOL than a frigate on the SoG bases.

Mark Kaiser
05-21-2015, 10:58
In addition to the stats comparisons has anyone commented on the scale accuracy of the USS Constitution? Specifically, is the ship really in scale to any of the Hebe class SGN 105 ships? Putting them side by side, the Constitution absolutely dwarfs any of them. The 'footprint' of this ship looks more like a SOL than a frigate on the SoG bases.

Awww man! Now I really want this ship!!!

Coog
05-21-2015, 11:30
In addition to the stats comparisons has anyone commented on the scale accuracy of the USS Constitution? Specifically, is the ship really in scale to any of the Hebe class SGN 105 ships? Putting them side by side, the Constitution absolutely dwarfs any of them. The 'footprint' of this ship looks more like a SOL than a frigate on the SoG bases.

The scale is fairly accurate. USS Constitution does dwarf a Hébé class frigate. The stats on Constitution's size make her considerably larger than the Hébé class frigate. I have the 1/1200 GHQ models of Shannon, which is basically the same as Hébé class, and Constitution and the same difference in size is evident.

Mark Kaiser
05-21-2015, 11:35
Would have really loved to have been there for her Boston sail. Stowaway, perhaps?

fredmiracle
05-21-2015, 11:35
In addition to the stats comparisons has anyone commented on the scale accuracy of the USS Constitution? Specifically, is the ship really in scale to any of the Hebe class SGN 105 ships? Putting them side by side, the Constitution absolutely dwarfs any of them. The 'footprint' of this ship looks more like a SOL than a frigate on the SoG bases.

I haven't looked at it closely, but based on a cursory examination of wiki (and acknowledging all its weaknesses, as well as the variation in how these ships were measured) it seems in the general ballpark of accuracy at least...

HMS Terpsichore (32) - 682 tons, 126' ("overall") x 35'
HMS Leda (38) - 1071 tons, 150' ("gundeck") x 40'
HMS Bellerophon (74) - 1612 tons, 168' ("gundeck") x 46'
USS Constitution (44) - 2200 tons, 207' ("head to taffrail") x 43'

Popsical
05-21-2015, 11:43
Bigger than Bellerophon 74, what were the two ships shot weights like, compared?

Coog
05-21-2015, 11:55
Bigger than Bellerophon 74, what were the two ships shot weights like, compared?

The American 44s, although longer than the 74s, were designed as frigates. They were not designed to have multiple gun decks packed with guns. The 74 still threw a much heavier broadside. The 44s were designed to be fast, able to out run SOLs but not out gun them, while being better armed and tougher than most other frigates of the day.

Popsical
05-21-2015, 12:26
Did the US build any SoL's?

Nightmoss
05-21-2015, 12:36
Thanks for the replies (Bobby, Fred, etc.). What prompted my question was the discussion somewhere on the forums about using a Hebe class frigate as a standin for either HMS Java or HMS Guerriere? I've not set up a solo game with either the Constitution or Victory, but when I pulled out HMS Sybille and set it beside the USS Constitution I was really surprised at the size differential. None of the 'historical' paintings I've seen shows the Constitution as being drastically larger than the Java or Guerriere, but the difference in the SoG models is readily apparent.

Nightmoss
05-21-2015, 12:44
Did the US build any SoL's?

Yes, we did, but they'll never show up in Sails of Glory as they materialized after the cut off date that Ares is using to define their gaming time frame.

Some photos and lithos here on a kitbash I did for the USS Pennsylvania.

http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?2868-USS-Pennsylvania-(1837)-Kitbash-WIP&highlight=uss+ohio

Coog
05-21-2015, 12:56
There were American 74s being built during the War of 1812. USS Independence was completed during the war but was blockaded in port. She did see service in the Second Barbary War in 1815. USS Washington was also being built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Independence_(1814)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Washington_(1814)

The U. S. built other SOLs after the War of 1812 like Jim shows.

Diamondback
05-21-2015, 13:05
Actually three that hit water before End of Game: America (gifted to the French after AWI to replace a brand-new French 74 lost running aground in one of our harbors, soon found a White Elephant), and the two super-74s Independence and Washington (both launched 1814, but not fully fitted out or deployed in combat before Cutoff--in this game, since we frequently don't have access to "completion" or "fit-out" dates we usually go by date launched).

Constitution's BSW once upgraded to her peak in August 1812, which I assume to be the 1812 stat-set, comes surprisingly close to the throw weight of a 74--it's like 600-some-odd pounds as opposed to 781 for a British "standard load", and more than a typical 64.

If memory serves I was the one who spoke up about the Hebe as Guerriere and Java--HMS Java was built as a French Pallas-class if memory serves, which was an evolution of the basic Hebe design, and Guerriere was very close dimensionally--I have reservations about her as a "sculpt stretch" still, but I've moved it into the "recommend proceeding with caution, but might work" column of the Reprint Candidates doc I maintain for Ares while I try to find draughts of her to compare to her contemporaries. (So far, no joy anywhere. :( )

Popsical
05-21-2015, 13:29
So nothing like the Victory or Orient then?

Coog
05-21-2015, 13:51
So nothing like the Victory or Orient then?

Just USS Pennsylvania, 140 guns, was ever built.

This list sums it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_line_of_the_United_States_Navy

Diamondback
05-21-2015, 13:52
Steve, Independence and Washington probably could have gone toe-to-toe with Victory or Orient--I wouldn't have wanted to be on *either* side of such a fight because it probably would have been Mutual Assured Destruction.

Comparison Table--note, Independence armament data is sketchy, the early USN was nowhere near as assiduous about doccumenting things as the Royal Navy; while nominally rated a 74, she carried a total of ninety guns, all 32# of various types; Victory data is her 1783 heaviest documented load

ShipLengthBeamLower GDMiddle GDUpper GDQuarterdeckForecastleBSW #
1814 US Independence190' 10" GD54' 7"?x32#n/a?x32# Columbiad16x32#crde8x32#crde1440
1765 UK Victory184'51' 7.5"30x42#28x24#30x12#10x12#
2x24#crde (roundhouse)
6x18#crde (roundhouse)2x32#crde
2x12#1328



The blank row is for an Ocean--once I recheck my notes for the heaviest Potentially In Game of the class, I'll add that data later.

Nightmoss
05-21-2015, 14:05
Actually three that hit water before End of Game: America (gifted to the French after AWI to replace a brand-new French 74 lost running aground in one of our harbors, soon found a White Elephant), and the two super-74s Independence and Washington (both launched 1814, but not fully fitted out or deployed in combat before Cutoff--in this game, since we frequently don't have access to "completion" or "fit-out" dates we usually go by date launched).

Constitution's BSW once upgraded to her peak in August 1812, which I assume to be the 1812 stat-set, comes surprisingly close to the throw weight of a 74--it's like 600-some-odd pounds as opposed to 781 for a British "standard load", and more than a typical 64.

If memory serves I was the one who spoke up about the Hebe as Guerriere and Java--HMS Java was built as a French Pallas-class if memory serves, which was an evolution of the basic Hebe design, and Guerriere was very close dimensionally--I have reservations about her as a "sculpt stretch" still, but I've moved it into the "recommend proceeding with caution, but might work" column of the Reprint Candidates doc I maintain for Ares while I try to find draughts of her to compare to her contemporaries. (So far, no joy anywhere. :( )

Yes DB, I'm sure you're the one who answered my original query. So, do you still think I can put HMS Sybille against the USS Constitution as a Java vs. Constitution or Guerriere vs. Constitution substitute, statistically speaking?

Diamondback
05-21-2015, 14:09
As Java, I'd have no hesitation whatsoever--as Guerriere, my reservations are "visual" rather than "statistical", but given French practices of the time I'm probably just being overconservative. Purely for playing it out, you'd be fine.

Coog
05-21-2015, 14:29
Given the low numbers used to represent firepower, allowing very little variance for minor differences, HMS Sybille can pretty much be used as a stand in for most 18 pounder frigates with 32 pound carronades of the period.

fredmiracle
05-21-2015, 14:53
None of the 'historical' paintings I've seen shows the Constitution as being drastically larger than the Java or Guerriere, but the difference in the SoG models is readily apparent.

I was giving that a bit of thought also. Presumably from the waterline the difference is not as clear, and of course the apparent sizes would also vary immensely depending on relative positioning.

I wonder if you FELT like your ship was way bigger when you were on the quarterdeck of Constitution, or it was impossible to sense that...?

csadn
05-21-2015, 15:28
http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/73243971528/historical-trivia-hms-duke-of-kent-the-royal

"Welcome aboard HMS _Compensating For Something_...."

7eat51
05-21-2015, 15:33
Has it ever been documented if painters embellished or positioned ships in their paintings as ways of making statements - similar to how some world maps have been drawn?

Nightmoss
05-21-2015, 15:55
Again, thanks all for the feedback. Artistic license must be part of the equation as I've found few paintings or images of the Constitution appearing overly large against these two opponents. Perhaps scale in paintings is not the same as in miniatures?

USS Constitution vs. HMS Java (My current PC wallpaper)

14459

USS Constitution vs. HMS Guerriere (I think the artist got the wrong British ensign on this one?)

14460

Nightmoss
05-21-2015, 15:57
Has it ever been documented if painters embellished or positioned ships in their paintings as ways of making statements - similar to how some world maps have been drawn?

Based on what I've seen I think it's quite likely.

Popsical
05-22-2015, 00:51
"Welcome aboard HMS _Compensating For Something_...."

Oi! Its not us Limey's that build everything bigger. :takecover:

Mark Kaiser
05-22-2015, 01:04
Oi! Its not us Limey's that build everything bigger. :takecover:

HA! HA!, Some are just born that way! :)

NimitsTexan
05-24-2015, 00:20
Bigger than Bellerophon 74, what were the two ships shot weights like, compared?

It is quite normal for a ship designed for speed to be longer than a ship designed for "hitting." Consider, for example, the British or Japanese WWI era battlecruisers (Repulse and Kongo). Despite carrying 14" guns and quite a bit less armor, they were significantly longer than either the Japanese Nagato, American Standard, or British Queen Elizabeth type battleships.\

As paintings are all we have to go off of, but also generally do not show relative scale that well (and as American painters originally might not have been interested in showing or may even have been unaware that the Constitution had a significant size advantage on the British 38s), I would wager a lot of people do not realize how big (for a frigate) the Constitution really was.

Diamondback
05-24-2015, 23:43
I think we all can agree that in those early years the star-spangled upstarts did have something to prove on the world stage, though.

csadn
05-26-2015, 16:36
Has it ever been documented if painters embellished or positioned ships in their paintings as ways of making statements - similar to how some world maps have been drawn?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/The_Battle_of_Trafalgar_by_William_Clarkson_Stanfield.jpg -- look closely at _Victory_'s hull [the ship just right of center]; there is a broken mast-and-spar section covering part of the hull; the artist put that there to indicate the part of _Victory_ where Nelson died....

7eat51
05-26-2015, 18:28
That's an interesting observation, Chris - not exactly embellishment but definitely purposeful painting to convey meaning. I think it highlights the importance of reading art properly.

csadn
05-27-2015, 15:52
That's an interesting observation, Chris - not exactly embellishment but definitely purposeful painting to convey meaning. I think it highlights the importance of reading art properly.

[nod] There's a lot more "symbolism" in old artwork than most people realize; but since it's not "our" symbolism, it can be hard to recognize.

Nightmoss
05-29-2015, 23:36
Folks may want to check their HMS Victory maneuver decks as someone on BoardGame Geek is reporting an error on the No. 2 and No. 8 cards. Full sails is showing the shortest movement distance while backing sails is showing the longest distance. Too late to check mine but I'll see what's up tomorrow.

fredmiracle
05-29-2015, 23:59
Yup that is the case. Real attention to detail by whoever spotted it...

TexaS
05-30-2015, 08:27
Yes. Mine too.

I'd guess all have the same misprint.

Nightmoss
05-30-2015, 09:15
Agreed. Looks to be a complete misprint run on the Victory decks.

Comte de Brueys
05-30-2015, 12:26
Good news comrades. :hmmm:

The deck should be playable at all.



Ordered the HMS Victory today morning. (Couldn't resist with the anouncement of Santa Ana) :moneygone:

NimitsTexan
05-30-2015, 14:57
Do any other first rates use the "I" deck, or is that unique to Victory?

TexaS
05-30-2015, 15:12
So far it's unique, as is L for Constitution.

Diamondback
05-30-2015, 21:36
So, what are J and K gonna be?

fredmiracle
05-30-2015, 21:41
So, what are J and K gonna be?

You tell us, inside man!

I've been wondering this for a while. When they first showed pics of the bases that revealed the deck ID's it sure made me think the 2 different variants of each ship would have their own deck [I/J victory and K/L constitution]. That didn't happen, leaving me scratching my head...

Diamondback
05-30-2015, 21:52
I woulda made 'em I and J, myself... Ares has a strange history of leaving holes for things, like WGF101-104 being left vacant for the Series 1 reprint. (Me, I'da set aside the first 1xx and 2xx blocks for Series1-4 complete and 301 for a hypothetical balloon reprint.)

USS Declaration
06-16-2015, 13:55
Beware of Wiki (unless its Wikileaks then its all true :happy:). Lots of good stuff there, but also lots of stuff that, being polite, is not quite as well researched or balanced as it could be. I'm generally happy using it as a jumping off point to more reliable sources if its something I'm particularly interested in. But some pages have turned into real battlegrounds of opinion (often throwing fact to the winds as contributors fight endlessly through revision and counter revision), and the "talk" pages of many make for extremely entertaining reading :happy:

On that note: the wikipedia pages for the Bucentaure (French 80) vs the Constitution are staggering to look at. The Bucentaure displaced 1600+ tones whereas the Constitution displaced over 2000!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Bucentaure_(1803)

Connie was just a bigger ship unless someone got something wrong... I'm truly curious if those stats for Connie are accurate, because it just looks wrong to me

Diamondback
06-16-2015, 14:42
The other thing is, whose ton is it: Short Imperial, Long Imperial, French Royal, Metric? It's similar to other dimensions when people only say X Feet while a Spanish codo, Spanish Burgos foot, French pied du roi and British Imperial foot will all give dramatically different length while at the same number.

This is part of why when I'm doing research for Ares, I usually just convert everything to metrics...