‘Old Ironsides’ Now Ready for Virtual Touring

[Sailor]

America’s oldest warship afloat is headed into dry dock next month at the Charlestown Navy Yard in Boston, but Google Maps and the U.S. Navy have made it possible for everyone to digitally visit the USS Constitution.

Just as Google made it possible to zip virtually up and down city streets almost anywhere in the world, it can now put you on and below deck of “Old Ironsides,” the still-commissioned Navy warship that made a name for itself in campaigns against the French, North African pirates and the British.

Cmdr. Sean Kearns, commander of the historic ship, called the timing of Google’s mapping ideal because preparation for the Constitution’s restoration had not yet begun.

“It enabled Google to photograph the ship pierside in her normal fully-rigged configuration before we down-rig the ship and move her into dry dock for restoration work,” Kearns said in a Navy announcement last month. The ship’s captain and crew all are Navy officers, sailors and Marines.

The ambitious restoration project includes replacing the vessel’s copper siding and making major restorations to the hull, interior and stern, the Navy said.


Read more: defensetech.org/2015/02/06/old-ironsides-now-ready-for-virtual-touring/#ixzz3RU2Lia2E
Defense.org

And here is a link to the tour:

www.google.com/maps/views/streetview/us-highlights?gl=us#!view/streetview/us-highlights/uss-constitution-deck/Jjoh75kl7doAAAQZN_qRbA?heading=116&pitch=95&fovy=75

I've probably told this story before, but during a port visit to Portsmouth England USS Nassau tied up just around the corner from HMS Victory. While Victory was some 60 years old when Constitution first entered the water the technology hadn't changed much. Victory was what we today call a Battleship (Ship of the Line or Line of Battle Ship) of about twice the tonnage and about 3 times the firepower of the Frigate Constitution. As the Brit Chief who ran our tour said when one of my young idiots asked, Victory could have blown Old Ironsides out of the water with 2 or 3 broadsides.

There's no shame in admitting that, Constitution wasn't designed to fight battleships. Mr Humphreys designed her to be able to overpower other frigates but also with the speed to outrun ships of the line. Consider her as a heavy or very heavy cruiser, not as a battleship. In their day, there was absolutely no shame in a frigate (even Old Ironsides) evading or running from a ship of the line.

[warrior1972]

Of course, USS Constitution was no match for HMS Victory. She wasn't built to be. She was powerful enough to destroy anything in her class, as she proved in combat time and again agaist British frigates, and fast enough to outrun anything else.

A superb balance of speed and power.

As for Constitution against Victory, how about

Graf Spee against HMS KGV? (We saw the result of such a confrontation when the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst was sunk by the HMS Duke of York, a KGV-class battleship, using radar-controlled 14-inch guns, and Scharnhorst was more powerful than Graf Spee.)

HMS Dorsetshire one-on-one with the Bismarck (BEFORE she was reduced to a smoking hulk by most of the Britsh Navy in the Atlantic)?

Anything except an Iowa-class against Yamato?

What's the point of such comparisons?

As you pointed out, only a child would make them.


HMS Victory was a naval engineering masterpiece that took part in some of history's greatest naval battles as part of the greatest navy the world has ever seen (with all due respect, how many centuries did Britannia rule the waves, again?)

USS Constitution established that although she was no match for HMS Victory, and the U.S. Navy of the time was no match for the Royal Navy, we made some damned fine wooden ships, and the iron men to man them.

And, although Sugar Ray Leonard wouldn't have been a match for Mohammed Ali, he was still one hell of a fighter.

[Sailor]

I wish I could deliver that reply to my young seaman's question that the Royal Navy Chief gave in the same droll tone of voice, very "British" is the best way I can think of to describe it. Your comparison between Dorsetshire and Bismarck would be about right.

In his book "Age of Fighting Sail" the author (and naval historian) C.S.Forrester paid a good deal of attention to the War of 1812 at sea and the Constitution class ships in particular. He observed that Nelson once postulated that in his opinion, properly handled, 3 frigates could take down a ship of the line as there would be no way the bigger ship could prevent one or another of the 3 from crossing her stern with its big, vulnerable windows. When cleared for action the gun decks of warships of the era were open from the stern windows all the way to the bows. Even the "popguns" of the smallest ships could do a lot of damage.

However, Mr Forrester noted the big American 44 gun ships, being more heavily armed than European frigates as well as better protected would be able to stand longer in a fight and if well handled 2 might match a European 74 gun ship, the most common class of battleship. Out of the 120 or so battleships the Royal Navy might have in commission at any given time during the Napoleonic Wars fewer than a dozen were 3 decked ships like Victory.

Some of those battleships actually were even smaller than the common 74. HMS Africa, flagship on the North American Station at Halifax was rated as a 64 and "elderly," Mr Forrester thought it possible that even a single USN 44 could take her. I think he might be right.

Constitution and President carried (usually) 24 pounders on the gun deck and 32 pounder carronades on the spardeck, United States during the war was a bit more heavily armed with 42 pounder carronades on the spardeck. Africa's side timbers were no heavier than a Constitution class ship, her heaviest guns were 24s, and because of her small size her lower gundeck was very low, in a heavy sea she might not be able to open those gunports without risking flooding the ship. With only her upper deck 12 or 18 pounders for defense she could have been disabled and captured if caught by one of the 44s cruising alone as she sometimes did between Halifax and Bermuda.

" in the handling of those trans-Atlantic ships a nucleus of trouble for the navy of Great Britain." - Lord Horatio Nelson after sighting USS Constitution from HMS Victory off the coast of Spain.

[warrior1972]

Agreed.

Still, as naval comparisons go, there's a part of me that wishes an Iowa-class could have squared off against Yamato.

To my knowledge, neither one ever traded blows with another battleship.

What a waste. Man, what a battle watching those two heavyweights go toe-to-toe.


P.S. Yamato was bigger, with the biggest guns and most armor ever on a battleship, but I'd give the advantage to the Iowa-class due to their superb fire-control system, which, working in conjunction with her radar, was as state of the art as it got in 1944.

[Sailor]

Very true, it would have been a slugfest. Yamato had heavier armament but the Japanese had problems face hardening the armor according to various naval historians, it was supposedly somewhat brittle. I don't know that anyone has recovered samples from the wrecks of Yamato, Musashi or the Shinano (Yamato class completed as a carrier and sunk on her maiden voyage by submarine torpedo) during the various expeditions to document the wrecks.

Besides her radar fire control Iowa also had an advantage in main armament rate of fire, her crews could load and fire her 16" nearly twice as fast as Yamato could her 18.1", that's one hell of an advantage especially if Iowa was firing the "super-heavy" 2700 pound armor piercing rounds newly developed. Using this munition the Iowa class became only the second US battleships unable to stand up to their own main armament.

I'm not certain that older USN battlewagons armed with the older 16"/45 caliber weapons could utilize it. The cancelled Montana class would have been able to utilize and stand up to the weapon in that ship's final design.

The Iowa was faster by 3 to 5 knots, not certain but I think Yamato had the edge in manuverability, Iowa's long and fine hull works against her there.

IMO it would be about as close a match as you could find for BB v BB in the Pacific. The 14" armed IJN Kirishima was no match for the 16" armed USS Washington any more than KM Scharnhorst was against HMS Duke of York for the same reasons.

Another interesting matchup IMO would have been USS Washington v KM Tirpitz.

Washington spent some time stationed at Scapa Flow with the Brit Home Fleet and deployed to defend Murmansk convoys against Tirpitz. The Krupp 15.1" in Tirpitz (and Bismarck) hit nearly as hard as the Washington Gun Factory 16"/45 and had a good rate of fire. But Washington was only armored against 14" rounds, as designed the North Carolina class was intended to mount the same 14" rifles as the old California class in compliance with the Washington Treaty (hence Iowa being the 2nd USN BB unable to stand up to her own main armament.) Washington's 16" could penetrate Tirpitz's armor with vice versa being just as true. Tirpitz (IIRC) had a slight edge in speed, Washington in manuverability. Both had excellent fire control. I think it might well have come down to crew quality and damage control capability to decide the issue. Like Iowa v Yamato the two ships might have beaten each other into burning wrecks, again IMHO.

I think the NCs were to mount 12 rifles in 3 Quad turrets similar to the KGV class but were changed to 16" in triples at the very last minute possible AFTER the ships had been laid down. Delivery of the 2 ships was delayed as a result.

Early in the war Tirpitz or Bismarck vs a KGV class ship with their 14" armament mounted in their breakdown prone quad turrets would have seen the Brit sent to the bottom. At one point during the gun duel against Bismarck KGV had only 1 operable turret due to jams in the turret ammo handling machinery in the quads.

The majority of heavy damage by gun to Bismarck was done by HMS Rodney's 16" armament, that ship's 2700 lb projectiles were the inspiration for the Washington Gun Factory 2700 lb shells. Rodney blew major holes in Bismarck's armored citadel and gun turrets, the heaviest armor in that ship. Even though she wasn't hit a majority of naval historians think Rodney would have stood up relatively well to Bismarck's shells.

Besides being an amateur naval historian I'm an avid wargamer and played some of these match-ups.

BTW, did you know it was possible for the USN to win at Midway without sinking any Japanese carriers, in theory at least? Destroy the assault force troop transports without getting your own carriers blown out of the water and the purpose for the battle becomes moot. After Midway the same factors that won the Pacific War would still apply though it might take a bit longer for the USN to win since Japan would still have their 4 carriers and air wings.

I wrote "in theory" because against a commander of Nagumo or Yamamoto's caliber it would be all but impossible.

[warrior1972]

I think the NCs were to mount 12 rifles in 3 Quad turrets similar to the KGV class but were changed to 16" in triples at the very last minute possible AFTER the ships had been laid down. Delivery of the 2 ships was delayed as a result.


That's one I didn't know.

Early in the war Tirpitz or Bismarck vs a KGV class ship with their 14" armament mounted in their breakdown prone quad turrets would have seen the Brit sent to the bottom. At one point during the gun duel against Bismarck KGV had only 1 operable turret due to jams in the turret ammo handling machinery in the quads.


Right, and Prince of Wales(the KGV class ship) and Hood came into Bismarck bow on, which prevented them from using their full broadsides.

Bismarck's fire was accurate as hell, though, sinking Hood and disabling Prince of Wales. Even Prinz Eugen managed to score hits on te British when the ships closed. Bismarck left the engagement flood forward and listing towards her bow, a hit attributed to Prince of Wales in accounts that I have read.

The majority of heavy damage by gun to Bismarck was done by HMS Rodney's 16" armament, that ship's 2700 lb projectiles were the inspiration for the Washington Gun Factory 2700 lb shells. Rodney blew major holes in Bismarck's armored citadel and gun turrets, the heaviest armor in that ship. Even though she wasn't hit a majority of naval historians think Rodney would have stood up relatively well to Bismarck's shells.

Another point about Bismarck.

She engaged the battlecruiser Hood, battleships Prince of Wales, King George V, and Rodney, heavy cruisers Norfolk, Suffolk, and Dorsetshire, and aircraft from Ark Royal and Victorious (one torpedo disabled her rudder which was why the Birish were able to enaged her in the end with Rodney and KGV) as well as various destroyers.

FOUR battlecruisers and battleships, at least THREE heavy cruisers, TWO aircraft carriers, and God knows how many destroyers.

She had no air cover, and only one escort vessel, which abandoned her early on before the end came.

And amidst all of that, she managed to sink the pride of the Royal Navy and disable one of their newest battleships (although as you mentioned P of W was not fully functional. She actually still had civilian works still aboard wehn she went into action.)

An extremely short but impressive record, to say the least.



Besides being an amateur naval historian I'm an avid wargamer and played some of these match-ups.


So do I!

BTW, did you know it was possible for the USN to win at Midway without sinking any Japanese carriers, in theory at least? Destroy the assault force troop transports without getting your own carriers blown out of the water and the purpose for the battle becomes moot. After Midway the same factors that won the Pacific War would still apply though it might take a bit longer for the USN to win since Japan would still have their 4 carriers and air wings.

I wrote "in theory" because against a commander of Nagumo or Yamamoto's caliber it would be all but impossible.[/quote]


Right on all counts. Another excellent "What if".



But what if the Japanese had occupied Pearl Harbor as part of their attack? Do you think it was feasable, or was the distance to Hawaii too great?


I always take the Japanese in WWII war games, and the first thing I do is occupy Pearl Harbor. It pushes the United States all the way back to San Francisco and San Diego, buys me time to consolIdate, and gives my German allies time to perfect their wonder weapons such as the ME-262 and V-2.

Things go on past 1945, at the very least.

In one scenario, I actaully furnished Japanese naval support for a German invasion of Britain.

.

I truly do believe that the largest of Hitler's colossal errors (with declaring war on the United States an extremely close number 2) was attacking Russia. Stalin wanted no parts of him. With the Soviet Union providing a neutral buffer to their rear, the Japanese and the Germans were far more formidable.

And the "What If" I'll always wonder about:


What if the U.S. hadn't broken the Japanese naval code, and known Japan's order of battle prior to Midway?

[Sailor]

But what if the Japanese had occupied Pearl Harbor as part of their attack? Do you think it was feasable, or was the distance to Hawaii too great?

It really wasn't feasible in December 41, the Japanese had barely enough tankers available to fuel the Pearl strike force as it was and those were left near French Frigate Shoals to meet up with the carrier force after the strike for refueling. The carriers were intended only to move in quickly, smash the Oahu military infrastructure and shipping and then split quickly.

Besides, the Japanese had enough else on their plate that they couldn't spare the transport capacity, they were preparing for amphib ops against the Philippines and Indochina (those troops would eventually take Singapore.) Invading Hawaii was never seriously consider by ADM Yamamoto.

What if the U.S. hadn't broken the Japanese naval code, and known Japan's order of battle prior to Midway?

Then Midway would have been taken and I doubt Nimitz would have committed his 3 remaining carriers. The only real reason he deployed Fletcher and Spruance as he did was because of the intelligence he was getting. Commander Rochfort and his codebreakers were worth another 3 carriers to Nimitz at that point in the war.

I usually ended up playing the Brit in WWII scenarios or campaigns. In one, Germany's military overthrew Hitler and hanged his sorry ass. The US partnered up with Japan and my Brits allied with Germany quickly seizing France, Italy and most of Europe including the USSR west of the Urals.

It got interesting real quick and I P.O.ed the US player by knocking out the Panama Canal using carriers and shore based Lancasters out of South America, and mining or knocking out most major US East Coast naval bases.

The game broke up shortly after that as a number of our players, including me, were transferred out of area.

[101ABN]

I'm reading his thread with interest for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the wargaming discussion.

At one time, I had quite a collection of simulation board games.

I know there are more open platforms as well.

What platforms do you guys use for your wargaming?

Should we make a separate thread?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Sailor]

I occasionally indulge in various (and boring) Facebook games. I've been invited to try World of Tanks but usually now I play some of the Sid Myer "Civilization" games though not on-line.

I haven't gotten into a board type since retiring from the service. While on staff at Great Lakes NTC I got involved in sand table games, WWII and Modern. Some of our guys were active Army staff at the Skokie National Guard center, learned a lot from them.

[warrior1972]

Feb 16, 2015 10:10:55 GMT -8 101ABN said:

I'm reading his thread with interest for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the wargaming discussion.

At one time, I had quite a collection of simulation board games.

I know there are more open platforms as well.

What platforms do you guys use for your wargaming?

Should we make a separate thread?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I think such a thread is a great idea, as well as some discussions about military history. I'm an amateur military history buff myself, and can't think of anyone I would rather discuss such things with.

Old Sailor: I thought you'd say that about Pearl. But there are times when one takes advantage of the things that wargaming rules don't cover, ya know?

[tankcommander]

Feb 16, 2015 12:25:03 GMT -8 Sailor said:

I've been invited to try World of Tanks

I've been playing WOT for about a year.

Check it out..... We can platoon, and teach those kids a lesson.

Warrior mentioned Scharnhorst, and Graf Spee .

Do you know about the battle of Coronel, off the coast of Chili, in 1914?

German Admiral Graf Von Spee, with his armored cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau routed a British cruiser squadron, and sank the armored cruisers HMS Good Hope, and HMS Monmouth with all hands.

www.britishbattles.com/battle-of-coronel/

Von Spee, and his ships met their end about a month later when he decided to bombard the British wireless station on the Falkland Islands, and found the British battle cruisers HMS Invincible, and HMS Inflexible waiting for him.

www.britishbattles.com/battle-of-the-falkland-islands/

I love those smokey old coal burners with their huge reciprocating steam engines, and their forward raked bows.

[101ABN]

Say but the word...

rexbo47.proboards.com/board/32/war-games

[warrior1972]

Feb 16, 2015 16:52:27 GMT -8 tankcommander said:

Feb 16, 2015 12:25:03 GMT -8 Sailor said:

I've been invited to try World of Tanks

I've been playing WOT for about a year.

Check it out..... We can platoon, and teach those kids a lesson.

Warrior mentioned Scharnhorst, and Graf Spee .

Do you know about the battle of Coronel, off the coast of Chili, in 1914?

German Admiral Graf Von Spee, with his armored cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau routed a British cruiser squadron, and sank the armored cruisers HMS Good Hope, and HMS Monmouth with all hands.

www.britishbattles.com/battle-of-coronel/

Von Spee, and his ships met their end about a month later when he decided to bombard the British wireless station on the Falkland Islands, and found the British battle cruisers HMS Invincible, and HMS Inflexible waiting for him.

www.britishbattles.com/battle-of-the-falkland-islands/

I love those smokey old coal burners with their huge reciprocating steam engines, and their forward raked bows.

So THAT'S where the WWII German battlecruisers got their names! Thanks!

Lord, the British Battlecruisers paid a heavy price at Jutland, though.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(1907)


www.google.com/search?q=HMS+invincible+explosion&rlz=1T4NDKB_enUS574&biw=1142&bih=837&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=96biVKrLGM7coASR94KQCw&ved=0CC0QsAQ#imgdii=_&imgrc=1c-KhezKlNkmWM%253A%3BiFFatAFxExHBhM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fen%252Ff%252Ff9%252FInvincibleBlowingUpJutland1916.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FHMS_Invincible_(1907)%3B2080%3B1134

I always loved the concept of speed and firepower. I suppose the fast battleships of World War II were the ultimate melding of it.

As for the older ships, I loved everything from the ironclads of the Civil War and there were a LOT of them) on up.

There's a REAL interesting conversation, you know?

P.S. we surely did NOT have the first ironclads.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloire-class_ironclad

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warrior_(1860)

[Sailor]

HMS Warrior wasn't really an Ironclad you know. She was the first iron hulled warship in history.



The old girl never used her guns in anger and became outmoded relatively quickly. It's surprising that she's survived, the Brits weren't really into preserving old and historic ships until fairly recently, Victory was the only one for decades. For decades Warrior was used as a floating jetty and was nearly scrapped until someone recognized her and began a campaign to take her over and restore her. They did a damned good job.

[warrior1972]

From the wikipedia article(second sentence):

"HMS Warrior was the name ship of her class of two 40-gun steam-powered armoured frigates[Note 1] built for the Royal Navy in 1859–61. She and her sister ship HMS Black Prince were the first armour-plated, iron-hulled warships, and were built in response to France's launching in 1859 of the first ocean-going ironclad warship, the wooden-hulled Gloire."

Also:

"The Royal Navy had not been keen to sacrifice its advantage in steam ships of the line, but was determined that the first British ironclad would outmatch the French ships in every respect, particularly speed. A fast ship would have the advantage of being able to choose a range of engagement which could make her invulnerable to enemy fire. The British specification was more a large, powerful [[frigate]] than a ship-of-the-line. The requirement for speed meant a very long vessel, which had to be built from iron. The result was the construction of two {{sclass-|Warrior|ironclad|2}}s; {{HMS|Warrior|1860|6}} and {{HMS|Black Prince|1861|6}}. The ships had a successful design, though there were necessarily compromises between 'sea-keeping', strategic range and armour protection; their weapons were more effective than that of ''Gloire'', and with the largest set of steam engines yet fitted to a ship they could steam at 14.3 knots (26.5 km/h).<ref name = "Iron"/> Yet the ''Gloire'' and her sisters had full iron-armour protection along the waterline and the battery itself. ''Warrior'' and ''Black Prince'' (but also the smaller ''Defence'' and ''Resistance'') were obliged to concentrate their armour in a central 'citadel' or 'armoured box', leaving many main deck guns and the fore and aft sections of the vessel unprotected. The use of iron in the construction of ''Warrior ''also came with some drawbacks; iron hulls required more regular and intensive repairs than wooden hulls, and iron was more susceptible to fouling by marine life."


en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ironclad_warship&action=edit


My point was, however, that either of these ships could have crossed the Atlantic and sunk U.S. Navy wooden warships until they ran out of ammunition.

Name: HMS Warrior
Ordered: 11 May 1859
Builder: Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co., Blackwall, London
Cost: £377,292
Laid down: About August 1859
Launched: 29 December 1860
Commissioned: 1 August 1861


"The Battle of Hampton Roads, often referred to as either the Battle of the Monitor and Merrimack (or Virginia) or the Battle of Ironclads, was the most noted and arguably most important naval battle of the American Civil War from the standpoint of the development of navies. It was fought over two days, March 8–9, 1862, in Hampton Roads, a roadstead in Virginia where the Elizabeth and Nansemond Rivers meet the James River just before it enters Chesapeake Bay adjacent to the city of Norfolk. The battle was a part of the effort of the Confederacy to break the Union blockade, which had cut off Virginia's largest cities, Norfolk and Richmond, from international trade."


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hampton_Roads

March 8-9 1862


And I also think those European ships were one of the primary reasons we built this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Ironsides