Re: Re: U.S. Navy
- In a message dated 29/2/2000 8:47:41 AM, monga589@... writes:
<< Just because I like pain and after a 24 hour shift I want to smacked
around some more. I belive the US (Yes they were a better design than anyone
elses) 44 gun Frigate were really consitered a 3rd or 4th rate Ship of the
line by British standards. They go by the weight of shot and number of guns.
The USF Constitution had more like 54 24lbs as opposed to the RNs standard
18lb standard cannon (The RN never really go the idea of heavy guns even the
Prince of Wales had 14 inch when the rest of the world were using 15 inch and
up). I could dig up the rating system if anyone wants it.<<
Actually, the rating goes something like this:
(a ship had to have at least 64 guns to be considered a ship-of-the-line)
6th rater: (crew min of 195) apprx 22 - 28 guns
5th rater: about 30-44 guns. (min 250 crew)
4th rater: 50-56 guns. (min. 350 crew)
3rd rater: (ship of the line) 64-80 guns. (crew 490-720) At the time of
Trafalgar in 1805, 147 Brit ships were 3rd raters.
2nd rater: 90-98 guns.
1st rater: 100 or more guns. (875 crew) guns ranged from 12 to 32 pounders.
The Constitution was rated a 44 gunner, but actually carried 60 guns. The
Constellation rated as 38 but had 48. The United States rated as 44 but had
50. The chief reason for this was "enterprising captains" who demanded and
had installed after launching, more guns than the ships were originally
designed for. The drawback to this was though they had increased firepower,
they suffered in sailing ability.
>> And for what it is worth, everyone used priviateers. And It was the RNthat made the rule that no one Britsh Warship should attack a US 44 gun
Frigate. The Essex was a 32 gun frigate and the Chesapeke green. Let see if
I thought of everything..........Screw it I will wait for the responces to
So everyone used privateers. Two wrongs make a right? (or 3 or 15?)
I have not been able to pinpoint the order spoken of above, but I would bet
it was more along the lines of no *single* ship of like class or smaller was
to attack a US Frigate. If one has the ships (as Britain did) to maintain
such a precaution, why should there be anything wrong with doing so? (and
*pride* and *honour* is a bunch of hooey when one gets down to brass tacks.)
In fact here is an order the Admiralty *did* hand down, to John Barlese
Warren (who was in charge of Brit naval forces in the Atlantic and Caribbean,
in 1813: "...the naval force of the enemy should be quickly and completely
disposed of....to bring the naval war to a termination, either by the capture
of the American national vessels, or by blockading them in their own waters".
Does that sound like an order to *not* attack? US victories suddenly
dropped after 1812; could this be at all due to the RN increasing its force
in 1813 in US waters to 10 ships of the line, 38 frigates, and 52 smaller
Let's "not sell short" the Royal Navy either. Yes, the Chesapeake's crew was
"green" for the great majority when she met the Shannon, but her captain
(Lawrence) was certainly not, nor was the ship itself. The Chesapeake carried
50 guns, the Shannon 52. The major item about the Shannon, however, was that
her Captain, Philip Broke, drilled his crew in gunnery, unlike many other
Brit ships. One Brit officer wrote, "The Shannon's men were better trained,
and understood gunnery better, than any men I ever saw." As the Chesapeake
made sail, Broke ordered his escort, the Tenedos (38 guns) away, thereby
taking on the *honour* of a one on one joust. The Shannon's victory took only
15 minutes. But that was only because the Chesapeake was "green" - right?
And didn't the Brits (godforsaken heathen that they are) upon arrival in
Halifax with their prize, with 6 RN captains as pallbearers a band and 300
men of the 64th Reg't render Lawrence full honours as he was buried?
>>"There Seems to be Somthing Wrong with our Ships Today"Beatty at Jutland after 3 RN Battlecruisers blew up and sank.......DOH
Americas Friend >>
I don't quite see the relevance of a quip from a W.W.I battle, except to be
unsubtle in flinging an insult at the Brits. Sure the Brits lost more ships,
but it still resulted in a tactical victory for them.
All in good discussion-type-fun,
- In a message dated 3/1/00 10:10:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<< have a source which says that the Marine contingent on a 1st rate ship
(Admiral's flagship) consisted of 131 privates, 4 corporals, 4 sergants, 3
Lieutenants, a Captian, and 2 Drummers. Does this sound right?
>>Most Admirals flew their flags in 1st or sometimes on lesser stations, 2nd
rates. As marines were assigned to ships based on the number of guns, the
above figure does indeed sound right though the largest SOL was the 120 gun
HMS Caledonia. Most certainly a 1st rate had a Captain of Marines and 3
subalterns. An Admiral may well wish to have more than a normal contingent
of Marines around also. Before the mutinies of the Nore and Spithead,
marines made up approximately 1/6 (or 17%) of the entire ship's crew;
afterwards the Admiralty raised it to 1/5 (20%). Using that as a base, a
ship with a total crew of 750 would have 150 marines (officers, ncos and