Ships with Sails
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Reminder that the USS Constitution is the only active commissioned ship in the US Navy that has sunk an enemy vessel after they decommissioned the last Oliver Hazard Perry. LCS a shit.
Post bo ats.
>>29388332
>the only active commissioned ship in the US Navy that has sunk an enemy vessel
Should have kept one of the Iowas active. "Too expensive" is a bullshit excuse. We still have money for Tyesha and Paco to get food stamps, we have money enough to feed the big sixteens.
>>29388332
Sails ships best ships
Ass Creed 4 the only good ass creed.
>>29388367
Calm down there, Skeeter.
>>29388367
I think it was a cost vs performance thing.
And for the most part, a Burke can do anything an Iowa can do for the most part.
The only thing Iowa's really excel at is naval artillery. We have no better artillery platforms than the Iowa's.
They can dump like 2 million pounds on a target in an hour. They can really BTFO coastal positions better than bombers.
>>29388367
Feeding Tyesha and Paco is actually a better use of tax money than keeping an Iowa active.
The USS Constitution is so badass.
We should have sent it in during the Gulf War for the lulz.
>>29388499
>Capt. Blackbeard laying down danger close on some durkies like its 1777
>>29388499
It wasn't even badass back when it was relevant. It's just a medium-sized raider.
>>29388464
I don't see how.
>>29388464
What if we crew an Iowa with Tyesha & Paco and the best of the rest of the welfare lot?
>>29388528
>mfw no sqaure rigged galleon to glass the middle east with
>>29388549
There's a minute chance that feeding Paco will lead to him becoming a productive citizen. There is zero chance of the Iowa being anything less than shit.
>>29388430
>They can dump like 2 million pounds on a target in an hour.
Is that something she'd actually do, or was it just to point out the rate of fire? If you were to rain down 500,000lbs of ordnance on something in 15 minuites, it's probably as dead as it's ever going to be. Like, there wouldn't be anything left to actually shoot at. 2,000,000lbs seems a bit like overkill.
>Admiral "See this point on the map? I want to go fishing right there".
>Commander "Err.. that's a mountain sir. I don't think fish go up mountains very often".
>Admiral "It's fine, I'll just send the Iowa, they'll turn it in to a lake by lunchtime".
>captcha: select all bodies of water, such as lakes or oceans
it's a sign from above.
>>29388332
I say we outfit her with rail guns and Lazer systems and send her back into battle.
>>29388332
>step aside plebs
Been on the Constitution and the Victory. Both were cool but the Victory was cooler.
>>29388796
Was waiting for this one. The Victory is cool but I've always preferred smaller ships, frigates and such. I've yet to visit the Victory but the Constitution was pretty awesome.
>>29388825
I thought the Victory was more of a historical experience whereas the Constitution was more like
>here, weve got an old boat, check it out
pic related is a cute little bastard I've sailed the great lakes on. I also sailed on another reproduction tall ship, trying to dig up some pictures of it.
>>29388796
Should have used that to patrol the Gulf like >>29388499 said.
those camel fuckers would lose their shit if they saw a three deck broadside coming straight at them
>>29388825
also sailed on this one, HMAS Welcome
not sure what the status is of the welcome anymore, last I heard they had no funding to take care of it.
>>29388891
kek. I picture Royal Marines in Napoleonic era uniforms but wielding L85's
>>29388825
>>29388894
More of the Welcome.
Sailing the Great Lakes in wooden ships with weak backup motors can be scary as fuck.
>>29388464
What a bleeding heart you have there. You should get that checked out.
Someone mention the Great Lakes?
>>29388922
What shitty reading comprehension you have there.
>>29388464
Why do they not feed themselves?
>>29388914
>>29388894
>>29388858
By "sail" do you mean you were on the boat or you were commandeering it? Either way, I'm jealous.
HMS Rose aka the ship from Master and Commander (HMS Surprise) is mighty handsome.
Also a great film detailing military life and sailing from the era. Obviously the story is fiction, but the uniforms, vernacular, etc are quite historically accurate.
>>29388936
>Brig
one canon round and that ship i fucked.
>>29388978
I reenact, so I was able to hang out on the boat and talk to tourist types when we'd make port, minimal sailor stuff though
>>29388998
Brigs were pretty common on the great lakes during the era, so they would have typically only fought similarly sized/armed vessels.
what about an Iowa with nuclear shells?
>>29389010
Ah, cool.
>>29388990
I'm actually watching that film right now. Part of the reason I made the thread
>this thread
>mfw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB37CvARO24
early to mid 1700's ships are my fucking fetish
>>29389108
Late Napoleonic era ships are the best though
>>29389121
that entire century was amazing in terms of Nautical vessels
>>29389102
One of my all time favorite films.
>>29389108
LOWWWWW LAAAAAANDS
LOW LANDS AWAY
SAFE AND SOUND AT HOME AGAIN
LET THE WATERS ROAR JACK
>>29388998
>not knowing brigs are made to duke it out with other ships
You must be joking
>>29389169
LONG WEVE TOSSED ON THE ROLLING MAIN, NOW WERE SAFE ASHORE JAAAACK
>>29388619
kek
>>29388464
Keeping an Iowa active, ~20m/year, makes people smile
Feeding Tyeshas and Pacos, ~20b/year, no societal benefit
>>29389221
>>29388922
>>29388952
>>29388589
>>29388571
>>29388464
>>29388367
For fucks sake, leave it to /pol/ retards to derail a thread about sail boats.
>>>/pol/
fuck off
>When you realise a small as fuck republic dominated the seas of world with these beauties
>>29389221
>makes people smile
Finally Iowafags admit that there is zero military benefit to their shitboat.
>>29388528
Oh please. It fucked with British capitol ships to the point where the order was issued not to attack any American frigate unless it was out numbered 3 to 1.
>>29389274
Coastal Raider II and Supply promotion OP as fuck
>>29389294
>It fucked with British capitol ships to the point where the order was issued not to attack any American frigate unless it was out numbered 3 to 1.
I'd ask for sauce if your spelling-ability made it abundantly clear that you are in middle school at best.
>>29389312
Theres plenty sauce of it blasting the dick out of British ships. Just use google you fucking mouth breathing teanigger
You're forgetting the USS Greenville
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision
Got those fuckers good.
>>29389312
http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-08/british-view-naval-war-1812
Slow your horses I mean capital I'm on my phone so let's not use ad hominems so early into discussion.
>The British frigates Guerriere and Java fell victim to the Constitution , and a third Royal Navy frigate, the Macedonian , to the USS United States . With 24-pounder cannon, the American ships were more heavily gunned than the British vessels with their 18-pounders.
>The American successes in the 1812 frigate clashes caused a furor in Britain, with much public soul-searching about fighting quality. On 18 February 1813, George Canning, a former treasurer of the navy and foreign secretary, told the House of Commons that "the sacred spell of the invincibility of the British Navy was broken." 6 John Croker, the influential secretary to the Admiralty, thought it necessary to publish the "Letter on the Subject of the Naval War with America" in defense of the government. In response to a sense of crisis, the Admiralty both built up its Halifax-based squadron and issued an order that it had not felt obliged to promulgate in the case of the conflict with the French. On 10 July 1813, Croker informed station commanders-in-chief that the Admiralty "did not conceive that any of His Majesty's frigates should attempt to engage, single handed, the large class of American ships; which though they may be called frigates, are of a size, complement and weight of metal much beyond that class, and more resembling line of battle ships.
Anyway I exaggerated. However, American Frigates in that war had a terrific record of causing panic in the British Navy and were feared for their speed and power. If any ships deserve to be commended, it's the speedy, ironsided, well-gunned, and brilliantly crewed frigates of the American Navy.
>>29389476
>frigates
>capital ships
Get a load of this idiot.
>Anyway I exaggerated.
No you made up some delusional shit then greentexted something that totally disproved your assertion in the hopes that it will somehow validate your post.
>>29388499
What a mindfuck that would be
>looking out at the gulf
>tomahawks being launched, grey USN ships everywhere
>suddenly an ancient sail ship appears out of the smoke
>lets loose a broadside at retreating Iraqi forces
>all you could do is just stand there agape
>ship disappears back into the smoke
>faintly heard as it does, a fife and drum playing yankee doodle
>>29389476
[x] told
>>29389514
>still asshurt 200 years later
>>29389514
See the comment following the article.
>The British frigates were
not under-gunned; they were just smaller, lighter and armed with fewer guns of
lower calibre than the three Humphreys-designed US 'superfrigates' USS United
States, President and Constitution (British 18-pounder 38-pounder-armed frigates
against US 24-pdr 44s - rated so, anyway, though all of both sides carried more
when including their full carronade armament).
Their manning (that of the British ships) was however ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel’ in many
cases by 1812, after 19 years of almost continuous war against the new French
Republic and then the Empire under Napoléon Bonaparte. A life-or-death
struggle, a world war in reality. The manpower requirements for a fleet of the
size of Britain’s were enormous – in 1810 over half the warships in the navies
of the whole world were British, the only time in history, before or since,
that any country’s navy has reached that level of predominance. US sailors were
overall of higher quality and volunteers.
The truth is simple and you should accept it. American super-frigates dealt a huge blow to British morale and American sailors out classed them during the war which if you ask me is indeed badass. Further more I have substantiated the claim that British ships were ordered not to engage in single combat with American superfrigates and the position that the USS. Constitution was a "medium sized raider" is patently false.
>>29389628
>not under-gunned; they were just smaller, lighter and armed with fewer guns of
lower calibre
Are you some kind of a shitposting AI? A badly programmed one at that.
>>29388936
"Full_Sail"
The course sails on the main and foremast is furled. clearly not full sail.
>>29389628
Anon...
>not under-gunned; undergunned
Rest of it is ok
>>29388990
>>29388471
I have been on the rose ,the constitution and the lynx I have to say the constitution was by far the coolest just cause its a real historical ship but the rose will let you pretty much go anywhere on the ship
>>29389514
At the end of the day, the Constitution was essentially what you'd get if you purpose-built a razee instead of chopping the weather deck off a rated ship of the line. Her scantlings were pretty much the equal of a British 74. She also carried gun-deck cannons just as heavy as the British 64s and some 74s of the time. Except for possibly the British Endymion class frigates, there wasn't a British frigate capable of going toe to toe with her.
>>29389530
man that would spook me just watching that from the deck of a us navy ship
>>29389828
I also saw the hermione in NY harbor
>>29388528
You saying shit about raiders!?
>>29388779
Even better, reinforce the hull with buckypaper on the interior. Keep the outer hull oak for the lulz.
Should she be operate on sails alone or with mechanical assistance? That right there is the million dollar question.
>>29388779
Well, they did fit 40mm cannons into her gunports for ceremonial salutes... Hm....
And with the hippies pining for more wind and solar energy... Hm......
>>29389530
>Durka fires an RPG and sinks it
>>29391113
I wonder if one RPG could sink it. It would probably start a fire and rip apart one of the gun decks.
>>29391113
>implying
An RPG would punch a hole in it and do some interior damage but it wouldn't sink it.
See: Somali pirates.
>>29391113
not an issue if you stay >500 meters offshore
>>29391239
RPGs are effective up to 950 meters.
They could purposely stay 950m away and airburst the ship.
>>29391559
iirc muzzleloading cannons have an effective range of 1.5 miles so...
>>29389906
Yeah, if you didn't know, you'd have to think you were going nuts, or seeing ghosts, or both.
>>29391615
Constitution's gun range is about 1100 meters
https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/constitution-resources/the-captain-speaks/the-guns-of-constitution/
>>29389294
it fucked with british frigates to the point where they were ordered no to engage without a advantage.
the constitution and her sisters were frigates but not conventional ones, conventional european frigates were designed to act as scouts and raiders, and tended to be lightly built for warships and tended to have 28-32 guns.
the constitution and the others of her class were conceptually somewhat more similar to battlecruisers, designed to be fast and handy compared to a true ship of the line, but more heavily built and gunned than a frigate mounting 44 guns and with thicker planking to see off the lighter design of frigates.
the american frigates however were not designed to be capable of engaging a true capital ship but were inteded to run from anything heavier than themselves, had any british 74 (a third rate) been engaged by the constitution such a engagement could only have ended with the sinking or capture of the constitution, and a 100 gunner like HMS victory would have found that the only challenge in sinking the USS constitution would be bringing her into range.
incidently US lost the naval part of the war of 1812, being unable to inflict serious enough casualties on the british navy or merchant marine while the RN devastated the us merchant marine and captured or sank 1/3rd of the US navies frigates.
>>29389628
>British morale and American sailors out classed them during the war which if you ask me is indeed badass
the one time american and british ships of closely matched size, gunpower and manpower met was a complete victory for the british, with all due respect the USN cannot be regarded as having superior sailors or commanders, simply better ships, or more accurately better ships in theatre the RN having to cover substantially more ocean
>>29388796
Poor Victory: the sea is always just in view, yet she can never sail again. Such a bittersweet faith: I wish that someday Victory and Constitution could meet.
>>29388367
or we spend that money to build a few modernized montana class battleships and go reinforce the SCS.
speaking of, how big of a sailship would be needed to mount one big sixteen turret that could fire without blowing the thing apart?
and if that's possible, how do we get the navy to build it?
>>29393085
Yeah, they should do what they did with the Constitution and make her seaworthy again. Would love to see her sail under her own power again.
>>29393085
she could if the money were forthcoming, sail again, the keel and frame are sound, the planking is being repaired and masts and sails are on order as part of the current restoration
>>29392888
Mind sharing the engagement that led you to this conclusion? I really hope you aren't talking USS President vs HMS Endymion.
>>29393229
cheasapeake and shannon, both 38 gun frigates, they engaged off boston on the 1st of june 1813, the chesapeake, was captured after a short but decisive engagement.
the cheaspeake actually had a slight advantage in manpower with 379 men to the shannons 330 and the engagement was a fair fight coming several days after the shannons captain had begun cruising off boston and had sent a message into the harbour challenging any US ship to come and fight him, he included in the message a description of his ship, guns and manpower
As the Chesapeake appears now ready for sea, I request you will do me the favour to meet the Shannon with her, ship to ship, to try the fortune of our respective flags. The Shannon mounts twenty-four guns upon her broadside and one light boat-gun; 18 pounders upon her maindeck, and 32-pounder carronades upon her quarterdeck and forecastle; and is manned with a complement of 300 men and boys, beside thirty seamen, boys, and passengers, who were taken out of recaptured vessels lately. I entreat you, sir, not to imagine that I am urged by mere personal vanity to the wish of meeting the Chesapeake, or that I depend only upon your personal ambition for your acceding to this invitation. We have both noble motives. You will feel it as a compliment if I say that the result of our meeting may be the most grateful service I can render to my country; and I doubt not that you, equally confident of success, will feel convinced that it is only by repeated triumphs in even combats that your little navy can now hope to console your country for the loss of that trade it can no longer protect. Favour me with a speedy reply. We are short of provisions and water, and cannot stay long here.
—Philip Broke, original message
Broke was obviously something of a badass, but he backed up his words
>>29393353
Yes, he burned most of his prizes to keep a large well trained crew on blockade.
>>29393557
and still had less men, and slightly fewer guns than the chesapeake.
you cannot state that the USN had superior crew, if they are then beaten in a straight fight by inferior numbers of british sailors, especially not if the british ship has slightly fewer guns (chesapeake had the same number of 18pounders but 4 more carronades) and has been on station for a long time 56 days just off boston plus her sucessful cruise, and in point of fact had already sent two prizes off with prize crews and had kep enough men to fight the ship but not a heavy crew.
>>29393644
Chesapeake vs Shannon was an for several reasons. First, Broke was a much more competent officer than many of the other British captains serving off the US coast, both in his own ability to command and in the training and environment he created on the Shannon. For example, weather permitting, the crew trained daily in both gunnery and the use of swords, boarding pikes, and muskets. Twice a week his crew practiced live fire with both the ship's guns and muskets. Compared to most other ships in the Royal Navy, most crews never fired the guns until they actually engaged in combat. Furthermore, as >>29393557 mentioned, he did not dilute the crew he had to send prize ships home.
For the Chesapeake, captain Lawrence had just been promoted and assumed command. The Chesapeake was his first command larger than a sloop-of-war. A handful of his crew were were old hands from the Constitution, but most landsmen who were so new that their hammocks and belongings were still in the Chesapeake's boats when she was captured. For Chesapeake's officers, her first lieutenant was experienced but both the third and fourth lieutenants were acting midshipmen. In addition, one of Lawrence's lieutenants was left ashore ill when the Chesapeake sailed.
tl;dr the ships were evenly matched but the battle was essentially pitting the most experienced and well drilled frigate crew in the RN against the greenest frigate crew the USN had to offer.
>>29394067
*was an outlier
>>29394067
broke was good, but not exceptionally so, the RN at this point had largely killed or shuffled off most of its not good commanders, his crew would have been considered v good by RN standards but only that.
and none of this says anything other than that the RN had better crews leading them to have better than even chances of winning if the ships were equal.
to be fair the americans faired far better than the franco-spanish fleet at trafalgar that not only had a advantage in sheer numbers but actually had a larger advantage in gunpower and manpower as many of their ships were larger than the british.
the british were simply on another level as far as the average crew training was concerned
>Compared to most other ships in the Royal Navy, most crews never fired the guns until they actually engaged in combat
that statement is simply bollocks, one of the reasons the royal navy was so superior to its opponents in the napoleonic wars was that its crews were so well drilled, particularly in gunnery, weekly drills were essentially the minimum standard and twice weekly not uncommon
>>29394194
From William James, the single best writer on British naval history at the time, most British crews fired their cannons in training once a year if that. See page 96, paragraph 2 for the full quote and reason behind it.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fywOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA96#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>29393135
>One big 16 turret
Get a load of this guy, he wouldn't make or apparently doesn't want a giant ship of the line that could give a broadside of 16s.
