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.
Stats for Victory and Constitution?
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.
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
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.
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.Originally Posted by Popsical
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)because it was tougher than metal.
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.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.
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.
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.
I guess so. I see things differently because maritime survivability and armouring of ships is a large part of my day job
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.
Thank you Jonas, that, I feel, are the only reasons for the stats.
I was in the air force and then Saab Military Aircraft... Survivability, but not much armour on a fighter...I guess so. I see things differently because maritime survivability and armouring of ships is a large part of my day job
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
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.
Ah, the WARTHOG! Saved me and my team more than once in the sandbox!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
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.
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."
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.
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
Beware of Wiki (unless its Wikileaks then its all true
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!
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!
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
Last edited by TexaS; 05-19-2015 at 00:49.
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. :(
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.
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.
I worked on ECM systems on A-10s. I really respect that aircraft.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
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...
You guys make me wish id joined the forces when i was a young un'.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.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
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.
All shall bow before the Holy BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT. >:)
Try 9000fps, or just about twice the velocity of a APFSDS round fired from a LeoII or M1's 120mm smoothbore
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
(they quote 3000 m/s in the video)
And then some! :Dmushroomed the ball, at least a little.
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
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?
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.
I'm sorry you missed out...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
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.
I didn't watch the whole thing, but if they were claiming that it doesn't bode well for the rest of the documentary
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"?
Since the US was and never has been under threat of foreign rule since before the Constitution was built.....
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.
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.Since the US was and never has been under threat of foreign rule since before the Constitution was built.....
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.... >:)
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/p...kent-the-royal
Very cool video, Jonas. Thanks.
It's nice to see companies support such research.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks