In the Age of Sail, and even into the early portion of the ironclad age, sailing one's fleet into the opposing fleet and breaking their line (accepting that this would mean allowing your own T to be crossed on the run in) was a battle-winning tactic that could be _devastatingly_ effective (Four Days, the Saintes, Trafalgar, Lissa...). By the 20th century, however, sailing into an enemy battleline and allowing your T to be crossed had become a near-surefire way to get your _own_ fleet shredded unless you could rapidly and cleanly disengage (Tsushima, Jutland, Surigao Strait...). When did breaking the line cease to be a viable fleet battle tactic?
The Akagi and Kaga originally had multi flight deck plans when completed but later were refitted to have a single flight deck. Were there any plans to do something similar to the ships of the Courageous class. If not what design changes could the royal navy have done in a hypothetical refit to those ships.
At around 2:25, you show an image of constitution. I can't help but notice the strange strings/rope pieces dangling on the sails. I have seen those one many an age of sail ship's drawing or picture, what are they and what purpose do they serve?
I had a duel with Drach at 15 paces. It’s why next time you see him on camera, he’ll be wearing a pirate style eyepatch. I wish more SquareSpace ads actually showed actual functionality demos like this.
You too? That’s why if you see me on you tube I’m missing a leg. Dude used fire control and rangefinders and I joked how that was useless at 15 paces. I was in hospital for months after the amputation… I nearly died from getting septic. I was given medicine that was within the scope of the channel…
You were correct that fire control and range finders are useless at 15 paces as that is point blank range. He was just showing off. Sorry about the amputation - advise making friends with a salamander, they can show you how to grow another limb.
You can infinitely improve any ship by removing William Bainbridge from command (see his losing of the philadelphia to the barbary pirates) but yes putting in a competent officer like Stewart is always good
The story I remember being told of this battle was that the two British captains began arguing almost immediately once they were brought aboard USS Constitution. Captain Stewart told them if they chose he would be more than happy to return them their ships and crews to try again but assured both of them the outcome would remain the same. They chose not to take him up on his offer.
I wouldn’t be so sure, if I were you. The two British commanders had already revealed their best tricks, and what they could accomplish working in tandem. If a couple high school seniors wanted to fight me and I beat the hell out of them, they would be stupid to try me a second time.
Constitution hit the shot after the buzzer had sounded. I like how Captain Stewart was itching to get in one more battle, most men would have been happy to survive the war and collect their pension. Great narrative Drach!
In that period, if you kept your men happy and confident in their captain, they'd be thoroughly excited at the prospect of battle. I wouldn't be, but that's beside the point.
Consider the issue of prize money. When the war ended, these people would be unemployed sailors in a world now overflowing with such. But if they took one more good prize, maybe they'd get enough money out of it to make it through the lean years that'd inevitably follow...
I had the great pleasure and privilege of boarding the USS Constitution and touring her, during our bicentennial celebrations. She’s a proper cathedral of timber canvas and rope. Going aboard her and learning about her was my father‘s present to me; before that, it was just building models and ships in bottles. After that, my father started taking us on family vacations to places that had museum ships. Thank you, dad, I love you.
When I was a nub, I was assigned to USS Helena, SSN 725 while she was in drydock in PNSY in Maine. On a rare off weekend for unqualified submariners, my friends and I drove down to Boston on a rainy, gray day and took a tour. We were a year out of Boot, having done our A school and now were diligently working on our Ship's Qualification. Habits are hard to break, and ingrained training habits are harder. We kept saying "down ladder" when going down ladders. Our tour guide (a FN who had only been to Boot) heard us and stuck around for awhile and let us poke our noses into places not on the tour. As difficult as Submarining is (in any era), nothing about the Wooden Ships & Iron Men era could take me to sea. Those men were tough.
The Constitution is such a badass ship. The previous duels were great, but this 2 on 1, admittedly lopsided in terms of size, really cemented it. What a blunder by the British; just goes to show luck is as important as skill sometimes.
Very much liking the graphics you are using to explain the movements and positions of the ships. Much less confusing than the lines and arrows such as used in your older videos such as Jutland. One needs a magnifying glass to figure the movements and which side is which. Great job.
Thank you for clarifying the maneuvering and timing involved in this 2 on 1 action. Much of what I read about it was confusing and contradictory. Charles Stewart doesn't usually get the props he deserves, that Issac Hull received despite the fact that, IMHO Stewart's engagement was more challenging than Hull's. Both were master seamen and tacticians and were able to get the most out of Constitution and her crews. Frankly, I think part of the reasoning for this is the fact that both were IIRC "Preble's Boys," having learned valuable lessons while serving under Commodore Edward Preble's command off the Barbary Coast along with Stephen Decatur and several other bright, up and coming young officers. "HMS Constitution?" Bite your tongue Drach. 😄 Stay well sir! And a belated Happy American Independence Day!
All in all, the level of competence and seamanship on both sides was outstanding. Once again fate intervened several times to prevent one side or another from complete victory. I want to compliment the skill and bravery of the Captains and crews of HMS Cyane and Levant. They may have been able to pull off a Hornblower or Aubrey type maneuver and then boarded in the smoke after a devestating double raking with those carronades.
Hi, yup, it's me, former USS Constitution Museum employee here, yet again with a fun little side bit that was not in Drach's excellent presentation here. It's more about members of the Constution's crew as opposed to the ship herself, but it's a story I enjoyed when I discovered it. After the Levant was cornered and found herself under intense attack by both the fort and the British frigates, the tiny prize crew all fled below, into the hold, to avoid harm. Sensible, as the storm of shot was quite heavy. Here they waited to be captured. Well... almost all of them. A couple minutes of hiding below later they heard a distinct cannon shot from Levant's own battery. A head count by the senior man present revealed one man was missing. Specifically the second most senior NCO. He ran back up to the gun deck to find the missing man loading the cannon. A brief argument was had as the senior man tried to get his slightly crazed fellow NCO below as there was no point resisting such firepower and getting themselves killed for no good reason. The British would notice the lack of return fire eventually and come to claim their ship and prisoners. Shooting back would keep this from happening. He ultimately had to drag him below using physical force. Learned this from a letter dictated to a ghost writer by the senior NCO post war to the War Department when the other man needed a medical pension, as apparently they were good friends!
Captain Stuart: "I'm gonna hit the brakes to give a full broadside across the enemy's bow." Crew of U.S.S. Constitution: "You're gonna WHAT?!?!?" Funny that this video was published today as last night I began working on a model of the U.S.S. "Constitution" that I was gifted. When complete, the model is listed as being about 3ft. long. I posted a RU-vid short showing the model in its current pre-assembly state and will post an update once complete, (if anyone is interested in seeing the rather impressive sized and detailed model.)
Great series! I especially appreciate this one. It always seemed to me that this was the least "celebrated" of Constitution's actions. I always thought defeating and capturing two opponents must have been quite a feat; but never saw a decent anaylsis berfore this.
This opening tune makes me think of Drach removing his Oakley sun spectacles and gazing deep within my soul and finally asking me to watch naval historiography with him and I start crying and say “yes. Forever” then we skip along the teak deck into a salty sea water mist. Yea I dunno why. Mrs Drach puts up with it…
About to read "Six Frigates" on the building of Constitution and her sisters. I'm from Boston, she's a treasure to our folk. I remember her brig in the bow, painted all blood red. They say it made you sick to your stomache as an added punishment. She remains the worlds oldest commissioned warship.
I read an article about the Constitution’s victories. The article was quoting the Royal Navy’s inquiry to the American victory. One conclusion was the quality of the US naval officers & crew. The US sailors were chosen elites. That each officer was very competent. The British frigate had lesser officers & crew as the Royal Navy was so large the skills & abilities were watered down.
As would I. I first read that book several years ago as I was recovering in hospital from bowel cancer surgery. The nurses would ask me if I wanted the TV turned to some cable channel and I simply pointed to the book laying atop me and told them "I'm good, thanks!"
Do you think that when George III was told his forces were under attack by Charles Stewart he had a childhood flashback to the Jacobite rebellion of 1745?
Hell yeah. Constitution best warship all time. Absolutely love the frigate duels!!!! These videos are amazing every time Drach. I hope someday i can meet you! Found your vids when i was a sophmore in college (2019) love all your success!!!
Random thought, I wonder if in these times of sail-based communication, treaties signed and such were actually lost due to "enemy" action, or perchance a raiding ship captured a vessel, only to find out the war had ended, and the ship was carrying the documents. Edit: Ah, talked about 10 seconds after I paused the video. :D It does seem like a rather, bastardly move by the captain to go on raiding while the war is potentially already over. "We still have some time before we have stop killing people, better make the best of it..." A minor chuckle, Cyane making for Levant, well, that's a long trip...
I love the scene in Master and Commander when the British ship captain said there were no ships in the US fleet that were a match for his ship. The Constitution would have blown that frigate out of the water. They were still using the single sight pips on their guns etc. Also the British crew quality was one step lower than the American navy crew quality.
Question about your 1812 series; when you run out of frigate battles would you consider the gun boat/barge battle on lake borgne? Just before the battle of new Orleans
As an American, I think it is important to clearly admit that while the Constitution was 'called' a frigate, but Constitution was really a "cut-down 74" (lower freeboard rail to the water but built as strong as a 7...AND thus had more modest armament than a 'normal' 74 but better handling and faster too). British Navy arrogance and excessive confidence knew this but lusted to take vengeance on Constitution for its sinking of British frigates earlier (again attributable to BN overconfidence, etc.). Had Constitution taken on a 'real' BN 74 the fight would not have gone so well.
At the 5:00 minute mark, the painting shows Constitution having sails strung up like laundry between the fore mast and main, and main mast and mizzen, essentially inline with the keel. I do not recall having seen this before. Was this something unique to the Constitution or to American Heavy Frigates, or to that time period, or is it that I am ignorant of these sails, or that the artist took extreme liberties depicting the ship?
@@ryanaegis3544 rigs vary but additional fore-aft sails when all sails were set weren't unusual. Whether this is an exact representation to Constitution under full sail at the time though I am not immediately sure of, I'd need to dig up her sail plan.
Drach, I have an idea for a new series on your channel, not like you dont have ENOUGH to do..Profiles of ficticious naval ships in history ...i.e. the RN fictiotios ships in the "hornblower ", "bolitho" and "ramage" series and one offs like HMS Ulysses by Allistair Maclean and USS San Pablo in The Sand Pebbles.
Was it on Portuguese territory? If so, no. The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance is the oldest continuous Alliance in the world, and is still in effect. Britain and Portugal have been Allies since 1386.... And no that is not a typo, Britain and Portugal have indeed been allies for just shy of 640 years.... In fact the US benefited from it in WWII as Portugal allowed basing rights on I believe the Azores. Had it not been for that Alliance between the UK and Portugal the US likely would not have been allowed the bases. They also sent troops to fight on the Western Front in WWI. The only reason the Portuguese did not join the allies during WWII (they offered) was that Britain was (probably rightly) worried about Spain's reaction, and the threat to Gibraltar Spain swung towards the Axis. Gibraltar was simply too important strategically to risk in that manner so the British convinced the Portuguese not to join the allies... At least not overtly. As Spain supported Germany during the war, Portugal supported the Allies, but it was nothing 'official'....
One of the mysteries never resolved was why the British decided to chase the Levant and recapture her instead of the larger Cyane. Also, every time I see a video on the Battle of Coronel and how the British Navy was undefeated for the last 100 years, these commentators conveniently left the fact it was 1) the United States that inflicted the last defeat; 2) the United States was less than 50 years young; 3) the USN was at a severe numerical disadvantage; and 4) the score card for single action frigate is 5-2-0. Throw in the smaller corvettes/ sloops of war single action and the brig actions and the score continues to tilt in the US's favor. And if you include small scale squadron actions of Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, the US is 2-0. I raise the question whether Royal Navy's reputation post-1815 is as justified as British historians would argue.
Focussing on the frigate duals is what Americans do. Forgetting that the larger ship won on each occassion i think. As for the RN. Consider this ( from Smithsonian magazine)..... "Despite the best efforts of American privateers to harass British shipping, it was the U.S. merchant marine that suffered most. In 1813 only a third of American merchant ships got out to sea. The following year the figure would drop to one-twelfth. Nantucket became so desperate that it offered itself up to the Royal Navy as a neutral trading post. America’s oceanic trade went from $40 million in 1811 to $2.6 million in 1814. Custom revenues-which made up 90 percent of federal income-fell by 80 percent, leaving the administration virtually bankrupt. By 1814 it could neither raise money at home nor borrow from abroad."
@@johnfox6639 I am very aware of the economic aspects of the War of 1812 on the northeastern states. And you missed my point about the Royal Navy's vaunted reputation in popular history must be reconsidered.
For a moment I was worried the American were going to throw the British prisoners overboard, signal the British ships they had just returned their prisoners and they had better pick them up, as t hey fled the fight.
Why not? lots of ships so lots of names required. I believe Levant was an historic name for the Eastern Mediterranean? After all there was an HMS Pansy in WWI.
The British commanders were very competent during this action, had they had just a few minutes, they would have caused a lot of damage to old Iron Sides...
Americans are sailors. probably why they used to be British sailors. The Opium clipper ships. Hong Kong. The most Beautiful sailing ships that were ever conceived/ Built.
negotiations may have been ongoing, but until that treaty was signed and back in the United States, it wasn't in effect. it's similar to how the guns kept firing until the eleventh hour in the great war.
Don't forget The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the treaty was signed as well, and that was a full on British attack. In other words their own fault. Ships raiding before rumors are confirmed is reasonable.
Think about the time period. Communication was slow, and it wasn’t unusual for fighting to continue for months past the actual treaty getting signed no matter which war you are looking at.
Of course the biggest problem for the US frigates in 1814-15 was the presence of ships razeed from 64 and 74 gun ships of the line or indeed 74 gun ships,80 gun ships or even HMS Victory fast as a frigate and with 100 guns lying outside every major US port meaning that the remaining US heavy frigates were blockaded in port as effectively as the High Seas Fleet of WWI Germany was with frigates and sloops able to escort convoys against privateers. It is an often forgotten fact that the"immunity"the US had until 1941 was due to the RN. Remember to the British the war of 1812-15 was a mere side issue during the war against Napoleon and until the rise of the High Seas Fleet the RN had no rival realistic rival
It's not an often forgotten fact, because it's not a fact at all. At best, it's a hypothesis - one that doesn't survive critical examination. It's clear the British government was extremely wary of further conflicts with the US government after the war of 1812-1815, and even more wary after the US Civil War - which showed how quickly the US could build an enormous and skilled navy. Even if arguably not up to British standards, it was far superior to anything any other power could hope to throw across the ocean. The British hated US policies on tariffs - but were unwilling to go to war over them - unlike so often in the past when their commercial interests were threatened. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. No power other than Britain could hope to defeat a nation capable of building such a navy in so short a time - and it would have been logistically insane for another power to even make the attempt. While the British might have been able to do so, the potential cost was far higher than they were willing to pay and they wisely decided a third round of conflict was not in their interests. The British were so interested in peace they even paid compensation for the damages done by Confederate raiders secretly built in Britain, such as CSS Alabama. The Americans in turn were happy to sell the British lots of food products from the midwestern farms of the US (plus other farm products such as cotton for the mills of England), a very convenient thing given that Britain was rapidly reaching the point where she could no longer feed her own people except by foreign trade. Over the long term - until just before WW2 in fact - US tariff policies were quite unfortunate, and there would be a terrible price to pay for them down the road during the Great Depression, but at least the lesson was learned without a war. The 'immunity' the US had until 1941 was in part due to the Atlantic Ocean, and in part earned by the actions of the US people and government. Any role played by the RN was tertiary at best.
@@bluelemming5296 The width of Atlantic was no real immunity everyone from Irish monks to Norse to Spanish had crossed it; however the overwhelming strength of the RN was. The RN controlled the seas of the world even destroying the West African slave trade along with other slave trading hubs even forcing defeated nations including the USA to not only accede to their rules on oceanic slave transport but also to supply warships to police the trade
@@davidmcintyre8145 None of that has any relevance to my point. If every vessel in the Royal Navy had sunk at the end of the US Civil War, or was bought off or otherwise distracted or unavailable, that wouldn't change things in the slightest. No other nation was going to risk trying to invade a nation that had demonstrated the ability to build an enormous (and skilled) fleet in a very short time, had a large population, lots of resources, a demonstrated clear ability to wage war, and was across a large often-stormy ocean. The ability of small groups to cross the Atlantic has no relevance either - logistics is enormously more difficult for any group large enough to be a credible military threat than it is for a small group.
@@davidmcintyre8145 I suggest reading the following as a starting point in broadening your understanding of this topic: Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton by Martin van Creveld
