US 74 gun Ships of the Line

A couple of other famous examples come to mind.

The U.S.S. Essex, commissioned in 1799, was authorized as a "32-gun frigate" and was referred to as such constistently throughout her career.  The original plans, drawn by the naval architect William Hackett (as reproduced in P.C.F. Smith's The Frigate Essex Papers:  Building the Salem Frigate, 1798-1799) show thirteen gunports per side on the maindeck and six per side on the quarterdeck.  (There's no bulwark on the forecastle, but the arrangement of stanchions supporting the forecastle rail suggests that two guns per side could be accommodated there.  It's entirely possible that the designer figured on one or more bow and/or stern chasers, pointing ahead and/or astern, as well.) 

A letter from her first commanding officer, Edward Preble, dated November 21, 1799 (a month before she was commissioned), establishes that at that time the Essex's armament consisted of twenty-six 12-pounders on the maindeck and ten 6-pounders on the quarterdeck.  (The context of the document implies that all were long guns.)  According to Mr. Silverstone's book, as of 1810 she was armed with forty 32-pounder carronades and six 12-pounder long guns.  (The idea of arming a frigate mainly with carronades was an experiment - and not a particularly successful one; the weakness of her long-range armament was certainly a factor in the loss of the Essex during the War of 1812.)  Figure the foremost maindeck port was a bridle port, leave out the carronades, do whatever you like.  I never took a math course beyond high school, and I admit I'm a product of the Old Math, but for the life of me I can't make any of those combinations add up to thirty-two.  It's pretty clear that, by the last decade of the eighteenth century (if not earlier), the terms "44-gun frigate," "38-gun frigate," "32-gun frigate," etc. were understood in the British and American navies to be indications of relative size, not actual armament.

Then there's the interesting case of H.M.S. Victory.  She's invariably referred to in official documents as a "100-gun ship."  There seems to be some disagreement about the armament she carried at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805; some sources say 102 guns, while others say 104.  (The discrepancy may have something to do with the question of whether she had those two elaborate entry ports on her middle gundeck at the time.  There's reason to think she didn't - in which case those two openings would have accommodated two more guns.  There's also some doubt about whether there were a pair of long guns firing through ports in the forecastle bulwarks - which aren't there today.)  It's fairly certain that two, and only two, of the guns she carried in 1805 were the 68-pounder carronades on the forecastle.  If the total was indeed 102, things work out fine:  a 100-gun ship carrying a hundred long guns plus two carronades that didn't count in the rating.  But if the total was in fact 104, things don't add up.  And that apparently didn't bother anybody.

I remember running across a bit of trivia vaguely related to this point when I was going through the Admiralty Board minutes for the period of the American Revolution.  (This is my notoriously inconsistent memory talking; I doubt the note card on which I wrote it down still exists.)  In the spring of 1780 H.M.S. London, a second-rate ship-of-the-line of 90 guns built in 1766, had just been assigned as the flagship of Adm. Thomas Graves, who was about to sail for North America to become second-in-command to Adm. Marriot Arbuthnot.  In the process of fitting out for the commission she was given eight additional guns.  The admiral passed on to the Admiralty Board a request from the ship's captain that she be assigned some additional men to operate the new weapons.  According to the minutes, he got a chilly response:  "Resolved, that he be acquainted that their Lordships cannot at this time agree to increase the establishment for ships of the second rate."  

Those old Admiralty Minutes contain some fascinating stuff - buried amid hundreds of pages  of distinctly unmemorable minutiae.  (I got thoroughly sick of reading:  "Midshipman So-and-So having represented to this Board that he lost the journal he kept from May 6, 1777 to July 10, 1779, and he having taken oath to the effect that he did keep a journal during the said period, Resolved, that the want thereof be dispensed with upon his making application to take the examination for Lieutenant."  Yawn...snore..."Bloody uncivilized American grad students....")  My favorite:  "Midshipman So-and-So having been convicted by a General Court-Martial of the murder of his Mother on board his Majesty's Ship Whatnot, Resolved, that Sir Thomas Pye [the port admiral at Portsmouth] be directed to hang him accordingly." 

Many thanks, guys.

For example, The USS Constitution was authorized by Congress as a 44-gun frigate, carrying 32 24Lb long guns, 10 12 lb long guns, and 2 additional 24 lb long guns as bow chasers.  That armament varied throughout her career, averaging something like 32 24 lb guns, 20 32 lb carronades, with 2 24 lb bow chasers (totalling 54 guns).  Armament often varied due to Commanding Officer preferences, condition of the ship, etc.  So, there is no easy answer other than that provided by JTilley and Chuck Fan.

Bill Morrison  

subfixer wrote:

Just a quick question, guys. When counting guns referred to being equipped on a "74" for instance; are carronades counted among the 74 guns or are just the long guns counted?

There is no universally applicable rule.   At the beginning of Revolutionary war, more often then not, if the ship has covered gun decks, then all carriage guns on covered decks count, regardless of whether they are carronades or long guns.  However, on the same ship only the long carriage guns on open decks usually count.  However if a ship has no covered gun decks then all carriage guns on open deck, carronades or not, counts.    Swivle guns usually don't count. 

The issue is further confused when, starting from about 1800 there are experiments to re-arm even large ships with mostly carronades.  This usually did not change the rating of the ship.   After about 1810 ships with high proportions of carronades increased.  Once that happened, there was increased willingness to count the carronades on open decks in a ship's rating.

Sometimes a ship's hull is pierced with more gun ports then the number of guns she was intended to carry, to provide for such contingencies as shifting guns to chase locations.   In this case the rating of the ship usually follow the number of guns originally intended, not the number of ports.   However this does not keep advocates from inflating the strength of their ships by noticing "Ahhh, but she has ports for X number of guns".   One example is the 120 gun USS Pennsylvania,  which advocates, including yours truly,  claim at various time to be 130, 136 or some similar rate, on account of her having more ports than guns.    But she remain officially rated for 120 guns.

 

 

 

Generally, and officially, true, but in practical terms it wasn't that simple.  The official rating applied to the design of the ship, and the ship (with some exceptions) could be expected to keep the rating throughout its existence.  But the number, and type, of guns it carried could - and frequently did - change, without the rate designation being altered.  In some cases the number of guns simply didn't add up to the rated number - whether the carronades were counted or not.  The rating did, however, determine such things as the size of the crew and the pay of the officers.

Only the long guns were counted on any rated ship.

For instance a 32 gun frigate could have over 40 guns if you included the carronades.

Cheers

Mike

Just a quick question, guys. When counting guns referred to being equipped on a "74" for instance; are carronades counted among the 74 guns or are just the long guns counted?

Joshua Humphreys, a well known shipwright in Philadelphia along with his cousin, John Wharton, also a shipwright, proposed a 74 gun "ship of the revolution" for the Continental Navy in 1775. The project was never completed, but a half model of the proposed ship was displayed in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. 

Very true John, as always. But to paraphrase, the Continentals did so much with so little. That period of history seems to be in a kind of limbo. The America was larger than the later Constitution and, when launched, was the largest warship produced in North America.

Agreed!  There was no "United States of America" until after 1783; therefore, there can be no "United States Ships" until after that year.

To me, the American ships-of-the-line are interesting as a "What might have been" issue in naval history.  Following the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars, the United States Navy was the only foreign navy respected by the British Royal Navy.  Had the age of sail not died out in the middle of the 19th century, would the USN have grown into a traditional battle line navy similar to the RN?  Or, would it have focused instead on frigates and the guerre de course type of warfare?  The strategic needs of the nation and the service may have evolved differently had the age of sail been prolonged.

Anyway, speculation is only that . . . guesswork.  The American ships-of-the-line did not have the opportunity to accomplish much (if anything) in this transitional period in naval history.

Bill Morrison

That was my thinking precisely.  I tend to take it for granted that the term "U.S. Navy" is only applicable from 1797 onward.  The Continental Navy really was a separate institution.  (Some casual writers put the term "U.S.S." in front of the names of American warships that fought in the Revolution.  "U.S.S." isn't really appropriate prior to 1797 either; it's better to refer to a warship of the Revolution as "Continental frigate...," "Continental sloop...," etc.)

Then there was the America, a 74 gun ship of the line authorized by congress in 1777 and launched in 1782 with John Paul Jones as the prospective commanding officer. But congress in its wisdom decided to give the vessel to France. So it never sailed under the US flag and probably does not really count. From the Navy history site. http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a8/america-i.htm

jtilley, thank you for that comprehensive accounting of the larger sailing ships the US Navy constructed during that period. The Pennsylvania must have been an impressive vessel with 120 guns even if it only served in that capacity for a brief time.

Maybe it would be useful to list the basic facts about this story.  It's a short one; the Silverstone book Schoonerbum mentioned covers it in less than four pages - including pictures.  The following information is condensed from that book.  The parenthetical weblinks are to the relevant entries in the online version of the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.  (I don't have a copy of Don Canney's book, but I suspect he doesn't have much more to say about American ships of the line - for the simple reason that there isn't a lot more to be said.)

If I've counted correctly, a grand total of ten sailing vessels that fit a reasonable definition of the term "ship of the line" flew the flag of the U.S. Navy - and three of those fit the definition only if it's stretched considerably.

In 1799, during the brief dominance of the Federalist party (and the Quasi-War with France), Congress authorized the construction of six ships of the line.  Only one had been laid down when, in the following year, the conflict with France cooled down and Congress canceled the program.  None of those ships was ever launched.

Two ships of the line, named Independence and Washington, were authorized, laid down, and launched during the War of 1812, but neither was commissioned before hostilities ceased.  Both had bad reputations in terms of sailing qualities. The Independence ( http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/i1/independence-ii.htm ) served as flagship of the Mediterranean and Home Squadrons for a few years before being laid up "in ordinary" from 1822 to 1836.  She was then "razeed" (i.e., converted more-or-less into a frigate by the removal of her upper gundeck), and had an active career on various stations around the world until she was assigned as a receiving ship (i.e., a floating barracks for newly-recruited sailors) in 1857.  She was decommissioned in 1912 and broken up the following year.  The Washington ( http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/w3/washington-iv.htm ) served for two years as flagship of the Mediterranean Squadron, went into reserve in 1820, and was broken up in 1845.

Two more ships of the line, the Franklin and Columbus, were authorized during the War of 1812 but not laid down until 1815, after the Treaty of Ghent.  The Franklin, like the Independence and Washington, was found to be a clumsy sailer, but saw active service in the Mediterranean and the Pacific until 1824 ( http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/f4/franklin-iii.htm ).  She was then laid up until 1843; in that year she was put back into service as a receiving ship.  She was finally decommissioned in 1843 and broken up ten years later.  (Some of her timbers may have made their way into a new steam-powered screw frigate of the same name, which was built with funds authorized for "rebuilding" the old ship.  It used to be thought that this process, which also was used in the breaking up of the 1797 frigate Constellation and the construction of a new corvette of the same name, was a form of deception perpetrated by the Navy on the Congress.  Recent research has established that it was, in fact, perfectly legal, and almost certainly understood for what it was by everybody concerned.)  The Columbus (http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c11/columbus-ii.htm ), though Silverstone describes her as being known as a "poor sea boat," had quite an active career until she was laid up in 1848.  She was burned to avoid capture at the Norfolk Navy Yard in 1861 (along with three other ships of the line; see below).

Right after the War of 1812 the Congress went on a modest military spending spree, which included the authorization, on April 29, 1816, of nine ships "to rate not less than 74 guns each."  Seven of these actually got built, but it took a while - and only three of them actually did the sort of service for which they had been designed. 

Six of the authorized nine were sister ships of 74 guns each.  Two of them ever served in their intended roles:

Delaware ( http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/d3/delaware-iii.htm ).  Laid down 1817, launched 1820, commissioned 1828. She had a more-or-less active career until 1844, when she was laid up at Norfolk; she was burned when the Navy Yard there was evacuated in 1861.

North Carolina ( http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/n6/north_carolina-i.htm ).  Laid down 1816, launched 1820, commissioned 1825.  Was in active service intermittently until 1840, when she became a receiving ship.  Sold in 1867.

Two other members of the class did get launched and commissioned, but never served their intended purposes: 

Alabama.  Laid down 1819; launched 1864 (after what surely must be some sort of record for time under construction).  In 1863, for obvious reasons, she had been renamed New Hampshire. ( http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/n4/new_hampshire-i.htm ). She was launched as a storeship, renamed Granite State in 1904, and sold in 1921.

Vermont (ex-Virginia, ex-Massachusetts) ( http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/v2/vermont-i.htm ).  Laid down 1818, launched 1848, commissioned 1862.  (Silverstone notes that she was "ready for launching in 1825 but only launched to clear slip in 1848.")  She was commissioned as a storeship for one of the Union blockading squadrons.  She was sold in 1902.

The other two were never launched:

New York.  Laid down in 1820 at Norfolk.  She was still under construction at the start of the Civil War, and shared the fate of the Columbus and Delaware. 

Virginia (ex-Vermont).  Laid down 1822.  Silverstone says she was "ready for launching, 1825 but never launched.  B[roken] U[p] on stocks, 1874."

Silverstone, perhaps a bit euphemistically, describes this class as "highly successful vessels.  [Well, maybe he's just talking about the Delaware and North Carolina.]  Alabama, New York, Vermont, and Virginia were completed ready to launch and kept in reserve until needed...."  Those must be the ones Chuck Fan mentioned - though they were authorized after, not during, the War of 1812.  (None of them was still under construction in the 1880s; all of them had been either launched or burned on the stocks by the end of the Civil War.  Only four - the razeed Indepencence, the Alabama/New Hampshire, the Virginia/Massachusetts/Vermont, and the Ohio - were still Navy property as of 1880.  I haven't encountered that story of a ship of the line being destroyed when a temporary barn fell down.  I suppose it could have happened to one of them after being decommissioned and sold.) 

Two of the other ships of the line authorized right after the War of 1812 were one-of-a-kind:

Ohio, 74 ( http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/o2/ohio-ii.htm ).  Laid down 1817, launched 1820, commissioned 1838.  She was considered a good sailer, and unusually fast for her size.  (The DANFS says she was reputed to have reached 12 knots.)  She was sold in 1883.

Pennsylvania, 120 ( http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/p4/pennsylvania-i.htm ).  The largest sailing warship ever built for the U.S. Navy, she had four full-length gundecks.  (Her designer, Samuel Humphreys, apparently consulted the plans of the famous Spanish ship of the line Santissima Trinidad; there's a copy of the latter vessel's hull lines in the U.S. National Archives.)  She saw no active service; she was made into a receiving ship at Norfolk shortly after she was commissioned, and was burned to prevent capture by the Confederates at the start of the Civil War.  That fire consumed four of the eleven ships of the line the U.S. Navy ever built - along with the steam frigate Merrimack, which had a brief but interesting second career thereafter.

Ship number nine of the 1816 authorization apparently died somewhere in the bureaucratic process.

So only seven American ships - the Independence, Washington, Franklin, Columbus, Delaware, North Carolina, and Ohio - ever did active service as ships of the line.  Three others - the Alabama/New Hampshire, Virginia/Massachusetts/Vermont, and Pennsylvania - were authorized and laid down as ships of the line, and were launched and placed in commission, but were never used for their original purpose.  Two more, the New York and Virginia, were laid down and almost finished as ships of the line, but were destroyed before they were launched.

The big factor that led to so many American sailing warships being under construction for so long was money.  Federal budgets in the nineteenth century were, by modern standards, incredibly small.  (There was no federal income tax in those days; most of the money had to come from import tariffs, excise taxes, and the sale of government bonds.)  The Navy (and the Army too, for that matter) got a low priority.  These were the days of the Monroe Doctrine, when the United States professed to have no military or naval interests beyond the western hemisphere.  For that matter, callling these vessels "ships of the line" could be said to be a slight misuse of the language; the U.S. Navy was never set up to form a line of battle in the traditional European sense.   

Over the years those ships have attracted a surprising amount of attention from model builders.  If I remember right, the Smithsonian used to have a nice model of one of them in its naval/military history gallery.  (Almost all the Smithsonian's warship models got left out of the new military gallery that opened a few years ago; that's one of my few criticisms of it.)  I've seen several other nice models of American ships of the line in various places.  Most recently, the visitor center on the pier beside the U.S.S. North Carolina, in Wilmington, N.C., commissioned a series of excellent models representing all the warships named North Carolina, including the old ship of the line.  Anybody wanting to see that one would be well advised to do so ASAP.  Sometime in the fairly near future the great battleship herself is slated to get towed up to Newport News for some major - and long overdue - repairs to her hull.

From all I have read, they spent very little time in commission, so there simply is very little 'history' to talk about regarding these ships.  What little info that is available indicates that they were not successful in comparison with foreign-built ships of similar size (the American ships were simply lousy sailers!).  Doubtless this was a result of lack of experience in building and operating ships of this size, whereas the Europeans had a LOT of experience in this regard (HMS Victory was particularly noted for fine sailing, and the reports on the sailing capabilities of 'Commerce De Marseilles' similarly remark on the fine sailing qualities of even the largest of ships of the line, if well designed. ). And of course, not all of the European ships of the line were good sailers, or were built particularly well either (the infamous 'Forty Thieves' British 74's are a good example!), but the simple fact that they built so many ships of the line over time that different sailing qualities could be emphasized and experimented with......

Thanks all for your replies. It seems they have an interesting if somewhat obscure history. While it's easy to find the histories of the famous frigates like Constitution, etal, the 74's and other similar ships histories remain virtually unknown. While I know they must have been cumbersome but I can't believe they would have been much less the same than HMS Victory. Perhapes we just started in the large gun sailing ships a little late in the game. I still think they must have been impressive ships none the less.

The Pennsilvania is a 130 gunner, I believe, not a 74.   The slow pace of the construction of many of 74s authorized during the war of 1812 was actually the result of following the then current French practice of not actually launching warships which would have gone immediately into reserve during peace time anyway.    Instead the warships would be completed up to a point just prior to launch, then then left in that state to await for mobilization needs.   The idea was to save natural wear and tear any woodenship experienced once in water.     Warships waiting on stocks are usually covered over with a temporary shed to reduce weather damage.    The last of the 1812 74 gunners sat unused and unlaunched, on the stocks until well into 1880s, if I recall, until eventually the temporary barn rotted and fell down.

jtilley wrote:

The problem is that, by most casual readers' standards, those ships' careers weren't very interesting.  They were authorized right after the War of 1812, when the Congress was in an unusually generous mood regarding funding for the Navy.  Under the American system of military appropriations the authorization for the construction of a ship and the funding for it are covered by separate pieces of legislation, and no military funding bill can cover a longer period than two years.  During the next several decades after those ships were authorized, the Congress lost its enthusiasm (there was, after all, no looming prospect of a naval war), and the ships got built extremely slowly as the money became available.  (One of them - a frigate, I believe - was under construction for more than twenty years.  I'd have to look up the name.)  By the time the ships of the line were actually commissioned they were, by most definitions, obsolescent at best.  None of them ever got into any serious combat; they served as flagships on foreign stations with the primary duty of carrying commodores around and showing the flag.  Most of them, as I recall, ended their days as "receiving ships" in the east coast seaports.  At least one of them, as I remember, spent much of the Civil War anchored off one of the Confederate ports serving as a supply vessel for a blockading squadron. I'm pretty sure all of their careers are covered in the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, which is available on line:  http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/index.html .  When I tried that site a few minutes ago it was acting sluggish, but it's normally quite easy to use.

Well, the ship of the line Pennsylvania was authorized in 1816, Laid down in 1821 and completed in 1837. The screw steamer Pennsylvania was laid down in 1863 and scrapped incomplete in 1884. On the other hand, USS Vermont was laid down in 1818, launched in 1848 and comission in 1862. Converted into a stores ship almost immediately. Sold in 1902. Finally, USS New Hampshire was laid down in 1819, and not completed until 1864 when she was launched as storeship, until burned, sunk, raised, burned again and sunk in 1922. 

Two more potential resources:

America's Line of Battle, Its Contruction and History by TD Shiflett ($11.04 at Amazon)

There is also an online message board devoted to US Navy ships of the line which is moderated by PC Coker:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usshipsoftheline/messages

 

Beyond Chapelle and DANFS, there are two other books that summarize American vessels under sail, including the ships of the line:

Sailing Warships of the US Navy, Donald L. Canney, Naval Institute Press, 2001

The Sailing Navy 1775-1854, Paul H. Silverstone, Naval Institute Press, 2001

Both books summarize information on the designs and service histories, but neither approaches the quality of Boudriot's, Lyon's or Lavery's corresponding works on European vessels.

My understanding is they were not particularly successful sailers either, being crank and top-heavy.  One thing that was a bit odd about them is that they intended to fit the same bore cannon on all decks (I think this was the case for a triple decker as well), the only difference was that the guns on the upper deck were shorter and lighter than those on the lower deck (an attempt to rationalize ammunition requirements).  I've seen some plans for them, and to my mind, they were pretty ugly too (no sheer, flush decks, round bow and stern), though I must admit I am not a big fan of any of the sailing warships built after the Napoleonic wars......

The problem is that, by most casual readers' standards, those ships' careers weren't very interesting.  They were authorized right after the War of 1812, when the Congress was in an unusually generous mood regarding funding for the Navy.  Under the American system of military appropriations the authorization for the construction of a ship and the funding for it are covered by separate pieces of legislation, and no military funding bill can cover a longer period than two years.  During the next several decades after those ships were authorized, the Congress lost its enthusiasm (there was, after all, no looming prospect of a naval war), and the ships got built extremely slowly as the money became available.  (One of them - a frigate, I believe - was under construction for more than twenty years.  I'd have to look up the name.)  By the time the ships of the line were actually commissioned they were, by most definitions, obsolescent at best.  None of them ever got into any serious combat; they served as flagships on foreign stations with the primary duty of carrying commodores around and showing the flag.  Most of them, as I recall, ended their days as "receiving ships" in the east coast seaports.  At least one of them, as I remember, spent much of the Civil War anchored off one of the Confederate ports serving as a supply vessel for a blockading squadron.

I'm pretty sure all of their careers are covered in the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, which is available on line:  http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/index.html .  When I tried that site a few minutes ago it was acting sluggish, but it's normally quite easy to use. 

There is a book titled The United States Navy from the Revolution to Date by F. J. Reynolds published by P. F. Collier & Son in 1916 that discusses these ships to a small degree. The book also provides very nice artwork depicting many of the American '74's.  You can find it occasionally on ebay.  I also have an extra copy if you are interested.

Bill Morrison