[olePigeon]

So who do you think would win, assuming you got choose your ideal commander? Arguably it might just come down to who's commanding the ship. I have to say, though, the nerd in me votes for the HMS Victory.

Wikipedias on the Constitution and Victory. I'd love to visit both.

[JoshuaZ]

I'm voting for 'Old Iron Sides' in this battle.

Most certainly worth a visit when in Boston.

[ghporter]

I can't find anything on how thick Victory's hull is, nor what sort of wood it's made of. Constitution's exceptionally thick, oaken hull is what got her the name "old Ironsides," because canon balls bounced off of her, assisting her commanders considerably in their missions. If Victory was similarly made, and the oak was of similar quality, then it would indeed be a VERY close call and really depend on both the captains and the situations.

Fascinating question there Pigeon.

[Phileas]

From what I read in the wikipedia articles, the firepower of the Victory was about double that of the Constitution. I have no naval knowledge of any kind, would that make a difference?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

From what I read in the wikipedia articles, the firepower of the Victory was about double that of the Constitution. I have no naval knowledge of any kind, would that make a difference?

Yep. The Victory would hammer the Constitution in a matter of minutes. It's that simple.
The commander would take out the masts first (easy, with that much oompf) then take the rest apart at leisure.

[starman]

No contest.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. The Victory would hammer the Constitution in a matter of minutes. It's that simple.
The commander would take out the masts first (easy, with that much oompf) then take the rest apart at leisure.

Bah, that scow couldn't get along side to do anything, she waddles in the water like a pregnant duck. The Constitution is much more maneuverable/agile.


(I chose the 3rd option, the Constitution could win if she's handled properly.)

[LegendaryPinkOx]

H.M.S. Victory:

She was designed to carry at least 100 guns; in practice, her armament varied from 104 to 106 guns and carronades.

U.S.S. Constitution:

The Naval Act of 1794 provided for the construction of four ships carrying forty-four guns each, and two ships carrying thirty-six guns each.[6] Constitution was the third of the forty-four gun frigates to be completed

I'm with Doof. Though the Constitution would be a faster moving target at 13 knots to the Victory's 9. They'd have to really be trying for the Victory to miss anything with over 52 assorted 32, 24, and 12lb cannon shots flying in one broadside.

[mattyb]

HMS Victory all the way. Of course the Constitution could run away very fast

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Bah, that scow couldn't get along side to do anything, she waddles in the water like a pregnant duck. The Constitution is much more maneuverable/agile.


(I chose the 3rd option, the Constitution could win if she's handled properly.)

Word. Ironsides was supposed to be a lot more nimble than the Victory.

The REAL poll should be Victory vs. the Black Pearl

[Phileas]

Naval warfare at the time was pretty much attempting to get as many broadsides into the other ship as possible. I don't think being nimble was much of an advantage. The weather gage seems to have been far more important.

[ghporter]

What sort of range did the guns on the two ships have? Standing off from a distance either one could have fouled the other's sails and rendered her adversary immobile. If the Constitution had the longer range guns, Victory would have had very little chance, because Constitution could have maneuvered such that few of Victory's guns could bear on her and without masts or sails, Victory would be a sitting duck to the longer range guns on Constitution. Obviously the opposite is also possible.

Of course this all has more to do with how the ships' masters handled them and directed their gunnery, so it's really a "depends on the captain" answer...

[Doofy]

You guys don't appear to be getting it. The Victory is a first rate ship of the line of the most powerful sea-faring empire the world has ever known (at the time, obviously we're just an insignificant little craphole now). There's no way we got to that point without knowing how to seriously build and operate warships. You'd be hammered. Period.

[SpaceMonkey]

Plus you can't argue with the name.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You guys don't appear to be getting it. The Victory is a first rate ship of the line of the most powerful sea-faring empire the world has ever known (at the time, obviously we're just an insignificant little craphole now). There's no way we got to that point without knowing how to seriously build and operate warships. You'd be hammered. Period.

Full stop is better. Plus, Britain is a SIGNIFICANT little craphole actually.

Still, the Victory would PWN the Constitution. We have Ellen MacArthur you know.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There's no way we got to that point without knowing how to seriously build and operate warships. You'd be hammered. Period.

However, it's not as though the builders of the Constitution were some primitive natives on a tropical island - as former British subjects, they likely knew all the same building techniques.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

However, it's not as though the builders of the Constitution were some primitive natives on a tropical island - as former British subjects, they likely knew all the same building techniques.

Good point.

[olePigeon]

If the Constitution has a heavier armor and is faster, isn't it possible they could stay on the Victory's bow or stern without exposing the Constitution's broadside?

/ <-- Constitution
| <-- Vicotry

Just keep in front, and tack and shoot. If the Victory tries to make any sudden moves, keep ahead of them.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Plus you can't argue with the name.

The wiki link explains that there was some controversy about the name, because the previous Victory had been lost with all aboard some thirty years earlier...

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If the Constitution has a heavier armor and is faster, isn't it possible they could stay on the Victory's bow or stern without exposing the Constitution's broadside?

/ <-- Constitution
| <-- Vicotry

Just keep in front, and tack and shoot. If the Victory tries to make any sudden moves, keep ahead of them.

Disclaimer: everything I know about warfare in the age of sail came from here, as well as one other game on the PC whose title I can't remember.

I would think that under ideal conditions, you would be correct. But I can easily see the wind shifting in an unforseen direction, which would give the Victory an opening to turn on the Constitution before it could react. In general, I see the Constitution winning this match-up on paper, but with all the unpredictable elements of an actual sea battle I wouldn't be surprised if the Victory won.

[olePigeon]

Worked for me in Pirates! Gold.

[iM@k]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

HMS Victory all the way. Of course the Constitution could run away very fast

This is coming from a Frenchman!?

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Just keep in front, and tack and shoot. If the Victory tries to make any sudden moves, keep ahead of them.

These things were huge, and wind powered. Sudden moves were not something that came natural to them. Cannons were accurate only over very short distances, taking out a mast or sail was more luck than anything.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

These things were huge, and wind powered. Sudden moves were not something that came natural to them. Cannons were accurate only over very short distances, taking out a mast or sail was more luck than anything.

With canon that have enough range, you take out masts and rigging with what is effectively a big chain connected to a couple of smallish canon balls; it's like a flying chain saw. You don't need "accurate" when you're aiming for "the masts" because they are basically everything abovedeck. It's all about range, though; the canon need to be long enough and of a large enough caliber to be able to throw junk over a long enough distance to be effective.

I've asked what the ranges of the guns on the two ships were, but I can't find that information anywhere-not even "8 pounders" and the like (which ignores the length of the guns). That information would probably tell the tale for the whole engagement-if the ships' masters did their part, anyway.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by iM@k 

This is coming from a Frenchman!?

Ah, those of little intelligence always make themselves known.

2 passports actually : British and US

Now, you were in the middle of swapping feet, do continue when you have finished.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

With canon that have enough range, you take out masts and rigging with what is effectively a big chain connected to a couple of smallish canon balls

Canon balls, eh? Is that when the guns on one side of the ship fire, and then the guns on the other side of the ship start firing in the same way a bar or so later?

[Face Ache]

Interesting hypothetical.

<checks page 13 of the Star Trek Plot Holes thread>

Nope. Staying out of this one.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

With canon that have enough range, you take out masts and rigging with what is effectively a big chain connected to a couple of smallish canon balls; it's like a flying chain saw.

These were almost never used, partly because they were so inaccurate that they posed little real danger, partly because they had an effective range of about 50 yards, if you were lucky - and then only against much smaller vessels. If you look at a history of naval warfare you'll see that you don't just take out the mast of a ship of the line with a well aimed shot and then call it a day.

Immobilizing the other ship was typically a long, slow, bloody process as ships hammered each others with broadsides until one won the advantage. Captains tried to get as close as possible to the enemy, with the ships sometimes close to touching.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Canon balls, eh? Is that when the guns on one side of the ship fire, and then the guns on the other side of the ship start firing in the same way a bar or so later?

Cute. I'm a Pacelbel fan myself... Once again I manage to display that I'm not the bestest spellar in the wurld.

Fouling loads were always fired from a single gun, much like grape shot was used to cut down deck crews. Nasty stuff that. On a similar subject, I think the "oak shrapnel" issue is one that the boys on Myth Busters screwed up on. There was plenty of documentation of shattered oak causing horrendous injuries to sailors, so I think the boys just didn't think it out properly; a 20 year old ship, with a mast that had been exposed to sea air and sun for that long, would have LOTS of very dry, very hard oak just waiting to shatter and spray huge splinters all over the place...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

These were almost never used, partly because they were so inaccurate that they posed little real danger, partly because they had an effective range of about 50 yards, if you were lucky - and then only against much smaller vessels. If you look at a history of naval warfare you'll see that you don't just take out the mast of a ship of the line with a well aimed shot and then call it a day.

Immobilizing the other ship was typically a long, slow, bloody process as ships hammered each others with broadsides until one won the advantage. Captains tried to get as close as possible to the enemy, with the ships sometimes close to touching.

This really depended on the gun and the load, though for most of the sail era your description is accurate. Long guns with well designed fouling loads could hit rigging quite well at over 200 yards, but these were relatively late cannons and advanced loads. But they were in use in the early 19th century and could have been used as early as a theoretical Constitution/Victory engagement.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

would have LOTS of very dry, very hard oak just waiting to shatter and spray huge splinters all over the place...

From what I understand, this was one of the main sources of injury during battle. Being skewered by flying splinters doesn't sound like much fun.

[Oneota]

Originally Posted by starman 

No contest.

That was my first thought, also.

[gperks]

HMS Victory wins, with ease. They're not even in the same class, 1st rate vs perhaps 4th rate. Battle came down to firepower. A broadside from the Victory would massacre the Constitution.

The Constitution is noted for having thick tough sides. 21 inches! Good for a ship that size; Victory has 24" thick sides.

The Constitution, with 52 guns, defeated 5 British warships with gun counts ranging from 38 down to just 16. The toughest it took on were 5th rate frigates captured from the French navy.

HMS Victory has 104 guns and, should it come to boarding, twice the crew too. Victory was the command vessel in the Battle of Trafalgar, the greatest naval combat of all time. The entire French and Spanish navies were destroyed, preventing Napoleon's intended attack on Britain, and starting unopposed British dominance of the seas for the next 100 years, until World War 1.

Constitution is a fine vessel but is half the size of Victory with less than half of Victory's historical significance.

Two hundred years later the two countries fates have switched, resulting in this more modern naval comparison.

[iM@k]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Ah, those of little intelligence always make themselves known.

2 passports actually : British and US

Now, you were in the middle of swapping feet, do continue when you have finished.

What can I say, my last name is Beauchaine. I blame my father.