Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

USS Independence (1814) - 74+ gun 3rd rate


Booyaah

Recommended Posts

                                         U.S.S. Independence

 

I think this ship has been mentioned before a few times but there was never a thread made for her:

 

WmiaxHP.jpg

 

 

800px-USS_Independence_1815.jpg

 

 

In 1836 she was razee'd into a 54-gun frigate:

 

sol10.jpg

 

 

 

Originally I think she was closer to 90 guns, but they had to cut down on her armament some due to her weight and draft proportions *insert fat Murican joke*.  I'm still looking for the original 2nd/3rd rate plans, but am having trouble finding them so far in US Library of Congress, US National Archives, or DANFS mil site...  :(

  • Tonnage:  2243
  • Length:  190 ft 9 in (58.14 m)
  • Beam:  54 ft 7 in (16.64 m)
  • Draft:  21 ft 3 in (6.48 m)
  • Complement:  790 officers and enlisted
  • Armament:  90 × 32-pounder (15 kg) guns (**not sure about this)

Excerpt from here at least confirms her dimensions and armaments: http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/line/sotl.htm#inde

 

Independence was the first to launch and the first to make a foreign cruise of any ship-of-the-line of the U.S. Navy. She was one of "four ships to rate not less than 74 guns" authorized by Act of Congress 9 January 1813. Her sister ships were FranklinWashington, and Columbus. She launched 22 June 1814 in the Boston Navy Yard, immediately took on guns, and was stationed with the frigate USS Constitution to protect the approaches of Boston Harbor. Her design was identical to Franklin and Washington: Length, 190 feet 10 inches; extreme beam, 54 feet 71/2 inches; tonnage, 2,243; draft, 24 feet 4 inches; and a complement of 790 officers and men. Their original armament was 30 long 32-pounders of 0.55 hundredweight; 33 long 32-pounders of 0.50 hundredweiglht; and twenty-four 32-pounder carronades.

 

The lower deck gun ports of Independence came too near the water with all her armament, provisions and complement on board. Some of her heavy guns were exchanged for the lighter 24-pounders of the USS Constitution to help remedy her deep draft. After trials, it was necessary to further increase buoyancy by landing "a considerable weight of carronades, spars, provisions, water, and other articles of equipment."  

 

The Navy Commissioners ordered Independence not to sail with a view of converting her to a "razee" to improve her efficiency. Before the order reached Boston, she sailed 3 July 1815 under command of Capt. William M. Crane. She wore the broad pennant of Commodore William Bainbridge commanding the second squadron dispatched to deal with the renewed piratical acts of the Barbary ~States. Her lower deck ports were caulked in to overcome the problem of her deep draft in crossing the Atlantic.

 

Commodore Bainbridge deplored the proposal to razee Independence for "such a process would have spoiled one of the finest two deck ships in the world." "It is true," he wrote the Navy Commissioners, "the ship is built too shallow a depth for her other dimensions, which makes her lee guns in action rather low . . ." But Bainbridge continued: "You may sir, be assured of one fact; that there is not an officer or seaman on board the Independence who would not willingly engage in her (with all her faults) any ship of two deck that floats." He stated that Independence was a ship of superior stability who was able to outsail the fastest frigates of her squadron. Bainbridge proposed to raise her gun decks but would not be a party to altering one line of the design that might affect her superior speed, handling, and stability.

 

Peace with the Barbary States had been enforced by the squadron under Stephen Decatur by the time Independence entered the Mediterranean. But she led an impressive show of American naval might before Barbary ports that encouraged them to keep the peace treaties concluded. Having served adequate notice of rising U.S. seapower and added to the prestige of the Navy and the Nation, she returned to Newport 15 November 1815. Economy measures reduced her status to that of station flagship for Commodore Bainbridge until 29 November 1819. She then was station flagship of Commodore John Shaw until placed in ordinary at Boston in 1822.

 

The controversy continued as to whether Independence was capable of performing "services indispensible [sic] for a 74 at all times." Surveys were held with the warship carrying 5 months provisions, water for 700 men, stores, and her original heavy armament. Some of the scuppers of her lower gun deck ports sank beneath the water.

 

Naval constructor William Doughty reported that "Independence carries her guns too near the water to 'enable her to perform the services indispensible [sic] for a 74 at all times with certainty,'because, in blowing weather, she could not fight her lower lee guns and would therefore be liable to be captured by a ship of inferior force . . .". On the other hand, Oliver H. Perry wrote that "Commodore Chauncey, Captain Creighton and several other officers of rank and reputation, were clearly of opinion that no vessel could surpass the Washington and I see little or no difference between her and Independence."

 

 

US engineers just have high quality standards IMO  :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Surveys were held with the warship carrying 5 months provisions, water for 700 men, stores, and her original heavy armament. Some of the scuppers of her lower gun deck ports sank beneath the water.

Ehhrm...

 

Anyway, as was said in the other long thread about American SoLs, there is no point stretching the timeline to fit ships that are A) imbalanced, B] ugly as sin and C) never actually fought or sailed in the timeline of the game.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. A defining feature of early naval clashes between Britain and America was precisely this: the US had no ships of the line to speak of. It only made the defeat of JavaGuerriere and I forgot the other one more humiliating. Ships of similar guns went into a battle against a navy that didn't even have SoLs - imagine the thought - and lost.

 

But I digress. I'm really, really ehhh about American SoL's (and I sail as an American at present.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. A defining feature of early naval clashes between Britain and America was precisely this: the US had no ships of the line to speak of. It only made the defeat of JavaGuerriere and I forgot the other one more humiliating. Ships of similar guns went into a battle against a navy that didn't even have SoLs - imagine the thought - and lost.

 

But I digress. I'm really, really ehhh about American SoL's (and I sail as an American at present.)

Eh, if your entire navy is going to consist of a handful of 3rd rate sized frigates that cost more than the typical 1st rate they had better be more than a match for the average 5th rate... :P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehhrm...

 

Anyway, as was said in the other long thread about American SoLs, there is no point stretching the timeline to fit ships that are A) imbalanced, B] ugly as sin and C) never actually fought or sailed in the timeline of the game.

 

Well she is within the timeline.

 

She was launched 1814 and we have 2 ships launched later already in the game (Trincon 1817 and Mercery 1820)

 

I see no problem with having her in game.

 

Just make her the highest rank (same rank as First rates) and price her accordingly.

 

That would make her an interesting choice trading Nr of guns of a slightly smaller ship but with good hitting power and thats faster and more manuverable.

 

 

Id have no problem with USS Independance (1814) or any of her layouts before 1820.

 

or with USS Washington (1814) wich was launched soon after but as a 74.

 

Washington is neigh impossible though seeing as no plans of her has survived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem with her in numberus threads is that she is the ´murica version of the Trinidad except that she is worse.

we dont have something against her its just that she is so flawed that she would only be usable in clam waters as port defence nothing more.

 

in short: more daka is not best daka.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It not only is the launch date, it is the "level of modernity".

Trinco is a Leda class (1800/1802) that is based on the even older french Hebe (1781).

Mercury also does not feature such an advanced design as Independence does.

What's more, none of these in-period American SoLs actually sailed anywhere until long after launching.

 

That means that their visual appearance, deck arrangements and rig proportions are even more modern, and squarely out of period.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's more, none of these in-period American SoLs actually sailed anywhere until long after launching.

 

That means that their visual appearance, deck arrangements and rig proportions are even more modern, and squarely out of period.

Oh, I don't know about this argument Maturin. Its very simple, the way I see it. The game's time period extends to boats that set sail by 1820. This ship as well as a few others have. Thats all we really need to say. It fits the time contraints of the game. How far it sailed is irrelavent. Sail plans can be augmented to fit a more 1814ish rig style if you or anyone else could suggest what that is. Ultimately the game is a simple math problem and the look of the sails has no bearing on how the ship will perform in game.

 

It also can't be argued as in the case of the Pennsylvania that it would be an overpowered ship. Granted it is reported to handle great, having great stability and faster than the connie but its bottom deck was so close to the water its leeward guns wouldn't be able to fire in any but the best conditions. This can all be modeled in the game making it a ship that can only be fought effectively from downwind. It also had a deck of carronades. 20 if I remeber right which would be usless at longer range fights making it a rather specialized boat that would excel in a small squadron with frigates but not work so well in trafalgar type battles and moderate range line fights.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even know why you'd pick Independence over the Bucentaure if they were both ingame and modeled correctly...

 

Bucentaure is slightly larger and carries a heavier armament (39lb long guns vs 32lb long guns, 26lb long guns vs 32lb short guns, 13lb long guns and 39lb howitzers vs 32lb carronades, 86 total vs 82 total), yet significantly cheaper to build, sails as well (maybe slightly slower) and doesn't have any of the drawbacks. Plus the Bucentaure is absolutely gorgeous, and ships of this class took part in just about every major battle of the French Revolutionary and napoleonic wars, racking up an impressive combat history in the process.

 

Or you could have the plainest looking SoL ever built, which might sail well but can't carry it's designed armament, open it's lee gundeck ports (or even gundeck ports at all in any sort of wind) and has no combat record worth mentioning...  :P

 

There are any number of other SoL I'd rather see in Naval Action than the Independence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I am going to necro the living daylights out of this thread instead of making a new one.

I 100% support the USS Independence.

It fits the 1820 cutoff, and we now have ships that never saw combat in the game, so that argument is null and void.

Gotta love that 90 x 32 lb cannon array of death.... yes us Americans love our guns.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go with Independence, she was rather worthless as a SoL with the major design defect of being far too small for her armament. She couldn't use her lower deck armament in all but the calmest seas. As far as Washington, which was mentioned earlier in the thread, both of them were launched as "74s", but she was two feet longer than Independence and had a half-dozen less cannons (62 x 32-pdr + 20 x 32-pdr carronades) and was a bit more successful.

 

A more successful one is USS Columbus (1819), which was the Mediterranean Squadron flagship in 1820-21. Still a bad sailor, but easily the best of the war-built SoLs (Independence, Washington, Franklin, and Columbus). Unlike Washington and Independence (we only have a razee hull plan and a sail plan as a SoL of Indy), we do have Franklin and Columbus' plans. The only really successful American 74s were the four Delaware class that were finished (two in the 1820s and two in the 1860s), and Ohio, which was said to sail as good as a frigate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...