Thread: HMS Victory vs. USS Constitution

C'mon Gunnut what's with the versus thread? You know we frown on those.

Besides, you're comparing a ship of the line to a frigate.

A super frigate that took on all comers and left them in shambles, but a frigate nonetheless. One good broadside from Victory's heaviest and Constitution is in a moderate amount of trouble.
(those thick sides not withstanding...and they are THICK)

Are you forgetting....

On August 2, 1812, the Constitution, under the command of Captain Isaac Hull, put to sea out of Boston with orders to raid British shipping along the east coast of Canada. After taking a number of British merchant ships in the area off Cape Race, Hull turned his ship southward, sighting the English frigate HMS Guerrière on August 9. Initially, the Guerrière's captain, James Dacres, had the upper hand. Twice he managed to place his ship broadside to the Constitution's bow, where he could bring all Guerrière's cannons into action, while Hull was only able to fire two cannons mounted at the bow.
Captain Isaac Hull. From the collections of The Mariners' Museum.
Following this heavy "raking," Hull maneuvered the Constitution to bring her alongside the Guerrière. For nearly half an hour the two ships pounded one another with broadside after broadside, until the Guerrière's mizzenmast was shot away. As the British vessel lost speed and maneuverability, Hull pulled his ship ahead of the Guerrière and fired a heavy broadside into her bow. Soon the Guerrière lost her two remaining masts, and Captain Dacres struck his colors to Hull. The Guerrière was so badly damaged that Hull burned her at sea.

Upon his return to Boston on August 30, 1812, Hull and the crew of the Constitution--the first Americans to defeat a frigate of the Royal Navy in combat--were greeted as the first heroes of the War of 1812.

Bring it on limy!

Old Ironsides!

P.S. Gun I love the last entry into the pole.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

C'mon Gunnut what's with the versus thread? You know we frown on those.

Besides, you're comparing a ship of the line to a frigate.

A super frigate that took on all comers and left them in shambles, but a frigate nonetheless. One good broadside from Victory's heaviest and Constitution is in a moderate amount of trouble.
(those thick sides not withstanding...and they are THICK)

Now calm down, you blasted colonials! You don't want a contest between HMS Victory and the USS Constitution as they are of different classes and sizes, is that right? Hmm. Yet you crow about a contest between USS Constitution and HMS Guerriere where the former with a crew of 476 men, in home waters, had an armament of 24 x 32prs, 30 x 24prs and 2 x 18prs beat her adversary of 244 men (and 19 boys) armed with 38 x 18prs. Yes, seems like a pretty evenly matched fight to me.

In a light to medium breeze, the Constitution.

Not that I encourage vs threads TH

Originally Posted by glyn

Now calm down, you blasted colonials! You don't want a contest between HMS Victory and the USS Constitution as they are of different classes and sizes, is that right? Hmm. Yet you crow about a contest between USS Constitution and HMS Guerriere where the former with a crew of 476 men, in home waters, had an armament of 24 x 32prs, 30 x 24prs and 2 x 18prs beat her adversary of 244 men (and 19 boys) armed with 38 x 18prs. Yes, seems like a pretty evenly matched fight to me.

No, I don't want to crow about that kind of contest. You notice I said that one good broadside from Victory would put Constitution in trouble...and surely Victory's magazines can sustain more than one broadside, no?

And you beat me to the punch in comparing the smaller Guerriere.

For that matter, most of the frigate vs. frigate actions where the U.S. won were against somewhat inferior RN frigates.

However, what that doesn't change is the fact that the undisputed masters of frigate combat (the RN) were humbled repeatedly by a mere infant navy still in diapers and the morale of both nations were deeply affected accordingly.

The Constitution had the next generation of hull, it was faster and had a couple of points upwind. It also had a better crew. If both captains were determined on a fight I'd give the Constitution the edge in anything other than heavy wind.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

However, what that doesn't change is the fact that the undisputed masters of frigate combat (the RN) were humbled repeatedly by a mere infant navy still in diapers and the morale of both nations were deeply affected accordingly.

This is a bit misleading. The shipwrights and the crews were predominantly English, and in the crews case were the best the Royal Navy could provide.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

This is a bit misleading. The shipwrights and the crews were predominantly English, and in the crews case were the best the Royal Navy could provide.

True, the raw materials were first class.

But there's more to making an effective fighting ship - much less a navy - than even top of the line raw materials.

And the good subjects of Great Britain certainly didn't consider them to be anything but a mob of upstart colonials, certainly nothing their beloved Royal Navy should have been able to handle without a sweat.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

And the good subjects of Great Britain certainly didn't consider them to be anything but a mob of upstart colonials, certainly nothing their beloved Royal Navy should have been able to handle without a sweat.

I don't know how true that statement is. The subjects had largely had high hopes for the Americas. Many of the settlers were British. The works of Payne et al were widely read in the UK and the public were not clamouring for war.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

True, the raw materials were first class.

But there's more to making an effective fighting ship - much less a navy - than even top of the line raw materials.

And the good subjects of Great Britain certainly didn't consider them to be anything but a mob of upstart colonials, certainly nothing their beloved Royal Navy should have been able to handle without a sweat.

Oh agreed, what I'm saying though is that from the Peace of Amiens, a lot of pressed sailors, shipwrights and even officers used the opportunity of being thrown up on the hard to go where the work was, ie America. Thus while the USN was fledgling, her shipbuilding skills and crew skills weren't. The American crews had the added incentive of if they were captured, many of them would have been hung as deserters, being still officially on the RN register.

Originally Posted by glyn

I don't know how true that statement is. The subjects had largely had high hopes for the Americas. Many of the settlers were British. The works of Payne et al were widely read in the UK and the public were not clamouring for war.

I should have put that better, my apologies.

There was certainly no popular clamouring for war in 1812 as you said. Indeed, the United States was Great Britain's single largest customer of manufactured goods, some 25% of Britain's industrial output was bought by Americans.

Certainly as the war wore on, costing the British some ₤10 million a year (the entire enlisted payroll of the RN was only ₤3 million a year) there was definitely a clamouring to end the war, particularly with old Boney still a threat.


What I was referring to was the relative public opinion of the "home team" versus the "junior league".

If you'd have told the average passerby in London or Plymouth circa 1811 that the Royal Navy was going to lose several frigate vs. frigate engagements with the United States Navy, they would have laughed uproariously.

If you'd have told the same tale to a Royal Navy officer, they might have taken it as a gross insult.

The point is, there were few, if any, people who would have taken the American Navy seriously...if at all.

One encouraging sign so far is that no one has picked the 4th option yet.

You had to make me do it.