The Cutty Sark appears to have gone up in flames

[Patroklos]

I have no bones about that, but it is hardly heroic. If you talk to some yanks they think it was some kind of gallant David vs Goliath effort fought against overwhelming odds.

So David walked up to Goliath and wrestled him, or did he take a cheap pot shot from across the battlefield?

I can't remember.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


And anyone who actually knows the history of the USS Constitution knows that it only fought against enemies it vastly outgunned, otherwise it turned and ran with its tail between its legs...

I don't know the history here but wouldn't that be just smart tactics for a single ship in a smaller navy. I looked her up and she mounted 52 guns. To take on a British 74 would likely be folly. Clear victory against that wwight of metal would be very unlikley

I do see she took out a British 38 in single ship combat though.

[Provost Harrison]

Yes, it is a great shame - Greenwich is pretty local to me and I do pop there on many a Sunday afternoon.

And although the damage looks horrendous, do bear in mind that a significant proportion of the ship wasn't even there, so the damage may not be as bad as at first appears.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Flubber


I don't know the history here but wouldn't that be just smart tactics for a single ship in a smaller navy. I looked her up and she mounted 52 guns. To take on a British 74 would likely be folly. Clear victory against that wwight of metal would be very unlikley

I do see she took out a British 38 in single ship combat though.

Actually, two of them (although HMS Java mounted 49 guns at the time of its engagement), but both nominally 12 pounder frigates, so their weight of metal was far less than the disparity in guns alone would indicate.

Under appropriate wind conditions and with the weather gage, Constitution could have engaged a single 74 with better than fair odds (Constitution mounted long 24's and 32 pounder carronades, vs. a typical 74's long 18's, long 9's and 32 pounder carronades.)

Outside the range of carronades, or if weather prevented use of the 74's lower gun deck, the Constitution had a slight advantage in weight of metal of its long guns. It also had a generally thicker hull than typical third rates it would have engaged, and equal or better sailing qualities, depending on point of sail.

The only problem is that 74's very rarely operated alone.

[Provost Harrison]

Is this becoming a "main battle frigate" thread?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The only problem is that 74's very rarely operated alone.

Well sure. They were afraid of the U.S.S. Constitution.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Maybe.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, two of them (although HMS Java mounted 49 guns at the time of its engagement), but both nominally 12 pounder frigates, so their weight of metal was far less than the disparity in guns alone would indicate.

Under appropriate wind conditions and with the weather gage, Constitution could have engaged a single 74 with better than fair odds (Constitution mounted long 24's and 32 pounder carronades, vs. a typical 74's long 18's, long 9's and 32 pounder carronades.)

Outside the range of carronades, or if weather prevented use of the 74's lower gun deck, the Constitution had a slight advantage in weight of metal of its long guns. It also had a generally thicker hull than typical third rates it would have engaged, and equal or better sailing qualities, depending on point of sail.

The only problem is that 74's very rarely operated alone.

ya I understood that the British liked their squadrons with a flagship , a few 74s and frigates and then a few sloops or cutters as scouts or for inshore duty.

AS to the rest I stand by the idea that a clear victory for the Constitution was unlikely against a British 74. Based on your analysis its just as likely that you would have two severely damaged ships. Heck even in the best conditions she was facing a tough opponent. Real nice to assume they get the favorable wind-- I believe there are many even much smaller, handier ships that could easily do well against a 74. They may not have the weight of metal to be able to go broadside to broadside but in the right wind were able to be harrassing pests without great danger to themselves. Thats probably the very reason that the Brits liked to have a mix of ships. (But then again the Brits got so confident that they regularly expected that their captains and crews could overcome a 3:2 rato in wight of metal against the Spanish and French crews


Also what would have had a bigger overall impact -- the sinking of a British 74 or the sinking of the Constitution?

Its like when the Bismark came out. The fact that she sunk the Hood was all well and good but Britain still had a formidable navy. But the sinking of the Bismark was HUGE to the Germans

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Flubber

But then again the Brits got so confident that they regularly expected that their captains and crews could overcome a 3:2 rato in wight of metal against the Spanish and French crews

The Spanish and French?? Heck. Nelson purposely crossed his own "T" against the Spanish and French and beat the snot out of them. We're talkin' real navies here.

[Cort Haus]

Gentlemen, please. This is a mourning thread.

[Zkribbler]

True.

I hoist my glass of Cutty Sark in greatest sorrow

[Zkribbler]

Oops. Double post -- or -- make it a double.

[The Mad Monk]

Did they ever figure out if it was arson?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Arson was ruled out. The culprit is thought to be electrical tools left switched on.

[FlameFlash]

I now have a strong urge to release a kraken...