Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Holden McGroin on June 07, 2005, 12:09:59 PM
-
I just was emailed this, and with a quick check on the web, it seems to be true.
The U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) as a combat vessel carried 48,600 gallons of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men. This was sufficient to last six months of sustained operations at sea. She carried no fresh water distillers.
However, let it be noted that according to her log, "On July 27, 1798, the U.S.S. Constitution sailed from Boston with a full complement of 475 officers and men, 48,600 gallons of freshwater, 7,400 cannon shot, 11,600 pounds of black powder and 79,400 gallons of rum."
Her mission: "To destroy and harass English shipping."
Making Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300 gallons of rum.
Then she headed for the Azores, arriving there 12 November. She provisioned with 550 pounds of beef and 64,300 gallons of Portuguese wine. On 18 November, she set sail for England.
In the ensuing days she defeated five British men-of-war and captured and scuttled 12 English merchantmen, salvaging only the rum aboard each.
By 26 January, her powder and shot were exhausted.
Nevertheless, and though unarmed, she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde in Scotland. Her landing party captured a whiskey distillery and transferred 40,000 gallons of single malt Scotch aboard by dawn.
Then she headed home.
The U.S.S. Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February 1799, with no cannon shot, No food, No powder, NO rum, NO wine, NO whiskey and 38,600 gallons of stagnant water.
-
Awsome.
-
HaaaaaaR.....
:aok
-
Harr indeed, this be a bit of a sea story, me matey. When it originally made the rounds, it had the ship sailing in 1779, her wee bairns a flappin' some decades before her commissioning, yarrrrr....
-
Harrrrrrrrr matey!
those sailing boys sure can drink ; )
fromt that account it is 252,000 gallons LMFAO
thats 1200 gallons per day or 2.5 gallons PER DAY per man
-
Ane the problem with that story is....?
-
Baloney. During 1798-1801 the USS Constitution cruised in the West Indies, "during the "Quasi-War" with France, protecting U.S. merchant shipping from French privateers. The U.S.S. CONSTITUTION did not engage in battle with any warship, but did capture/recapture several privateers and victims of privateers."
-
Thanks for clearing that up Rob
-
Holden, thank you for this valuable reminder as it teaches us that the insatiable US desire for capitalist gain through imperialistic aggression existed long before the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Apparently, evil bumbler President John Adams sent the so-called USS "Consitution" (note the appeal to patriotism) out to raid the peace-loving British without any legal declaration of hostilities in a thinly veiled "War for Booze,"[/i] which would no doubt be of direct benefit only to his Boston cronies like Sam Adams and the burgeoning "Tavern Industry."
To be sure, the media were co-opted to camoflage the transfer of the liquid gold to Adamsburton Inns Co. via the dissemination of the ridiculous story that "The officers and sailors of the U.S.S. Constitution drank well over 252,000 gallons of alcohol in a 7 month period" or approximately 1200 gallons a day or approximately 2.5 gallons of booze each per day (approximately 20 pints each day, 7 days a week).
I have no doubt that the night crew of the Constitution also engaged in ritual abuse of the over 2400 prisoners taken on board from the 12 scuttled merchantmen by forcing them to do salty sea-dog jigs wearing bloomers over their heads. I know because I have a blury picture of this carved on a piece of scrimshaw.
It's already been 200 years! When, O when, will there be a congressional inquiry into these abuses, where is the outrage in "Ye Washinton Poste" now!
- SEAGOON
-
You're taking this a bit too seriously Seagoon...
Originallly, I looked at only a few websites for verification, but now that I have some more time, it appears this is an urban legend, humorous, but looks like it is myth rather than history.
-
I still don't get it :confused:
Everyone knows sailors don't wash so the amount of water they came back with sounds about right to me
-
Sorry Holden, been reading too many of the political threads on the board of late. Just kidding around. Forgot to include the ;)
- SEAGOON
-
Note--I am well aware of the joking nature of the initial post
475 seems kind of high for the crew of a Frigate, even an American one. I would expect the actual crew to number around 350 or so.
J_A_B
-
Yeah, if Star Trek taught me anything, it's that a crew of 475 is more appropriate for a Heavy Cruiser (like the Constitution Class starship USS Enterprise).
Quite CLEARLY a Frigate (like the Miranda Class USS Reliant) would have a much smaller crew (Helloooo, they were all marooned on Ceti Alpha V, obviously there weren't that many of them, duh).
Geez, some people!
-
...the only thing worse than a sea-lawyer is issa kilngon sea-lawyer.
-
i liked it, read well holden.
mocking torture, extreme for a man of the cloth there sea.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Yeah, if Star Trek taught me anything, it's that a crew of 475 is more appropriate for a Heavy Cruiser (like the Constitution Class starship USS Enterprise).
Quite CLEARLY a Frigate (like the Miranda Class USS Reliant) would have a much smaller crew (Helloooo, they were all marooned on Ceti Alpha V, obviously there weren't that many of them, duh).
Geez, some people!
Star trek ships have like 30 people on board, other then the 10 command crew who are always on duty, all of them Officers.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Star trek ships have like 30 people on board, other then the 10 command crew who are always on duty, all of them Officers.
Well, I can tell that SOMEONE hasn't been reading his 'Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise' lately. Maybe you should take your head out of the AUXILARY TORPEDO ROOM and spend some more time in the ATRIUM ON LEVEL 5.
heh heh
No kill I!
-
I don't know much about Star Trek ships, but I do have a passing knowledge of sailing ships. A Frigate is a fairly light warship with 1 main gun deck--they aren't built to slug it out in close combat with the real heavy-hitters. Look up HMS Victory if you want to see an example of such a ship-of-the-line. The Frigates of that era are comparable to modern-day cruisers. The 1797 American frigates "cheated" in that they were more heavily armed than typical frigates of the day. You could think of USS Constitution as fairly similar to something like the german "pocket battleships" of WW2--able to defeat any like-sized ship in the world, but overmatched if they ran into a "real" ship-of-the-line. Most Frigates at the time typically carried 30-40 guns, and Constitution was known to sail with 50 or more at times.
J_A_B
-
Not quite. American Frigates were larger, more stoutly planked, normally carried a rig plan equivelant to a Britsh Ship of the Line, and as such they were faster. British Frigates normally carried either long 18lbrs or carronades, total of 32 guns, whereas the American 'frigates' carried no less than 30 24lb long guns, plus 14 18lb long guns and carronades, making the weight of iron tossed in a broadside hugely in the Americans favor. American guns were normally equipped with sights and had matchlock firing systems.. most British ship guns had no sights, and used conventional 'touchhole' firing.
So.. here we've got the beginings of 'American Thinking' applied to the way we make warships and planes.. larger, faster, stronger & more firepower than anything it's expected to fight.
Despite the massive advantage, towards the end of the War of 1812, the British Frigate Shannon issued a challenge for a single combat with the American Chesespeke. Boke, in command of Shannon kicked Captin Lawrence's bellybutton soundly in sight of Boston Harbor, Chesepeke struck her colors and was captured by the smaller British Frigate in a classsic duel Frigate Duel. Data point.. when our 'a' team finally met their 'a' team, their experience, training and determination made the difference.. in their day, nothing on the seas could beat a well armed, well fought British Man o'War.
Patrick O'Brien wrote it up and included the battle, shot by shot in one of his books.. can't remember which one; but I've got it here somewhere... was a real good read.
-
The Fortune of War
-
The American frigates did so well against larger British ships for the simple fact that the British never considered a smaller a ship a threat. Ships-of-the-line were actually quite vulnerable by themselves, but when amassed into a firing line (the style of the time) they had no need to maneuver for the simple fact that there were so many of them protecting one another. The Americans had no ships-of-the-line at the time and had no chance against the British in a 'traditional' naval engagement. American clipper ships (small, fast, heavily armed) could sail circles around most anything the British had (which usually meant a large, slow, sluggish, and heavily armed ship), leaving the Americans in prime firing position and the British grasping for straws. As for the Shannon v. Chesapeake...well, this is what happens when pride goes to your head.
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
The American frigates did so well against larger British ships for the simple fact that the British never considered a smaller a ship a threat.
American Frigates were larger than their British counterparts.
Ships-of-the-line were actually quite vulnerable by themselves, but when amassed into a firing line (the style of the time) they had no need to maneuver for the simple fact that there were so many of them protecting one another.
Ships of the Line were useless against commerce raiders or enemy Frigates alone because they could not sail as close to the wind as a Frigate.. however, if a Ship of The line was upwind, and it was a downwind chase, then there was little hope of outrunning one.. downwind they were quite fast and could run down a frigate or anthing else running free before the wind. However, usually Ships of the Line operated as command ships of a squadron or flotilla; usually with several sloops, a brig and a frigate or two sailing in company to deal with anything 'nimble'.
The Americans had no ships-of-the-line at the time and had no chance against the British in a 'traditional' naval engagement. American clipper ships (small, fast, heavily armed) could sail circles around most anything the British had (which usually meant a large, slow, sluggish, and heavily armed ship), leaving the Americans in prime firing position and the British grasping for straws.
The 'Clipper Ship' didn't come into being untill the 1830's.. and then they were cargo haulers; not warships. Perhaps you are refering to a class of small 'sloops' (in the venacular of the day; actually hermrprodite brigs) developed on the Chesepeke about the time of the revolution.. while often armed lightly as commerce raiders and privateers, they were reletivly sharp lined, had a deep draft and the rig had a characteristic rake. Quick and nimble unarmed, not much of an adversary against a British Sloop of War and cetainaly no match for any Frigate. In most cases, when a 'Baltimore Clipper' was faced with an equal adversary or better, she yanked her skirts up and flew, often tossing her guns and water over the side to regain her speed adavantage.
As for the Shannon v. Chesapeake...well, this is what happens when pride goes to your head.
By all accounts the majority of british losses to american adversaries were kinda lopsided.. usually the british ships and crews on the american blockade were poorly worked up and officered 3rd rates, over age worn out and poorly armed and crewed. The British were fighting the French.. their 'A' team stayed on the other side of the Atlantic and in the Med to combat Napoleon.
Thanks to some rather well publicised victories by the american upstarts, the Admirality dispatched some 'a' team captains and ships to the American coast.. and Shannon vs Chesepeke is the result. Bear in mind that Shannon had a foul bottom, her crew on 1/2 rations, short grog... yet her mostly pressed crew desired to stay till the americans came out.. an interesting case of all aboard wanting to teach the arrogant american puppies a lesson.
Had the british been inclined to do so earlier, the results for the fledgling american navy would likely have been a whole lot different.
-
The British fleet ended its battle with the Spanish Armada because they ran out of beer. That's right, ran out of beer and the battle's over.
Well, that wasn't going to happen to Old Ironsides, that's for sure!!! The Constitution could easily carry the amounts described. Besides, 2.5 gallons per man per day doesn't sound far fetched considering the rum was mixed with water and diluted (probably added to make the water palatable.)
Water probably went bad quickly in those days and rum was safer to drink. May have not been as high a proof as today's rum either, who knows? Comparable to wine?
Anyway, those guys were acclimated to both drinking and hard work and didn't get drunk like we would. Even if they did, mostly being young and in good shape, they could keep on working unphased. I see nothing that amazing concerning the rum/wine/water ratio.
Old Ironsides has a very interesting history. I hadn't heard about it sailing up the Firth of Clyde and "liberating" a whisky distillery. S. Decatur was captain on Constellation (sister ship to Constitution) when Barbary pirates took over the ship at port of Tripoli. He burned it to the waterline rather than let them have it. It wouldn't be hard to imagine Decatur, as captain of USS Constitution having the stuff to take her after that whisky. He was completely fearless and lived for a fight all the time.
Les
-
Some of the crew on the USS Constitution were actually PAID in rum, not currency.