Template:DANFS talk

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ships B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Military history: Maritime / African / North America / United States Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force African military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force United States: Massachusetts / Boston This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. National Register of Historic Places B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

âAn event mentioned in this article is a July 21 selected anniversary

As I understand it, the wooden keel of the ship is the only piece of the original Constitution remaining; all the rest of the ship has been replaced. Supposedly, when the keel is replaced, the ship will be considered to be a replica and not the actual Constitution. (I remember being told this when I took a tour of the ship some 15-20 years ago...)

That's crap. Consider: most of the molecules in your body are replaced over the years. Are you still the same person as the day you were born? Yes, of course. Identity comes not from actual skin or blood, not from replaceable planks and nails, but from the continuity of history. The Constitution has survived more than two centuries just because no single part is irreplaceable.

—Herbee 10:21, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

What?! My mother works on the Constitution. Having just mentioned this to her, she says that it's untrue. The Constitution has been repaired, yes, but most of the original ship is still there.Klassykittychick 00:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere I read that the Argo was preserved by the ancient Greeks for many centuries and continuously repaired, and that the philosophers argued about whether it was still the same ship or not. So maybe it's not a new discussion. :-) Stan 13:41, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it was the ship of Theseus, as reported by Plutarch: "The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same." Google "Argo puzzler" to see an amusing mail thread among classical scholars on all this... Stan 13:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

...and once again our restaurant's cuisine is good enough for us to eat here instead of going out for lunch; see Ship of Theseus. Stan 14:16, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some estimates of how much is original from around the 1997 restoration are in this document. They estimate that that only the parts that remain in contact with the sea and therefore soaked, would resist rot. And of that part of the hull, perhaps 10% is original, including, but not limited to, the keel.--J Clear 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an intresting point philosophically, but I think it's pedantic. After any significant fight, I'd guess that a wooden warship required the replacement of several parts - as I recall, Constitution swiped Java's wheel after their fight, for instance. Storms also did their share of damage. I don't think anyone ever seriously considered the ships that emerged from repairs to be anything else than the ships that went in for repairs, now repaired. I think that the key point is that the ship has existed continuously since uh - 1797?; though parts have been replaced, they have always been removed and replaced on Constituion, rather than starting a new ship from scratch. Finally, these ships were designed and built to sail out, blast each other to splinters, be repaired and sail again. Replacement of parts is part of the natural and expected life of a wooden warship. --Badger151 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the Constitution at Baltimore in 2005, and the universal opinion of the books being sold in the bookshop - and the line that was in both the brochures and told by the crew - was that the present ship was new built in 1835, using some timber from the original vessel. Even the proportion of older timber was thought to be relatively small. The view given was clearly that this was a new vessel which was different in many respects from the original and that beyond the inclusion of some timber from the earlier vessel, she was at that time a new (not rebuilt) vessel. The re-use of timber from an older ship was commonplace at the time. I suspect that the confusion arises simply because for sentimental reasons, the name Constitution was kept in continuous use for two consecutive vessels. BTW, a member of the crew with whom I had a long conversation was unaware that HMS Victory had been in continuous commission for much longer than the Constitution! Whatever, she is a lovely old lady, if perhaps not quite as old as some people would have her.--APRCooper 09:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would have visited the USS Constellation (1854) in Baltimore.Pjbflynn 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the Constitution is currently berthed in Boston Harbor, and has been for a while now.--Raguleader 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To: N328KF. You mention that United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not the same article as United Kingdom. Yes, that is true. The two articles duplicate the relevant facts. Linking the phrase United Kingdom to either will tell the reader what they need to know. The only difference is that one article is more universal.
Bobblewik 16:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not editin ship articles right now, but does anyone care to knead this into the dough? http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/constitution/sail200b.html

it's about the USS Constitution's birthday party... and if you really love her, try the lottery and win a chance to be aboard next July 4 for her turnaround cruise: http://ussconstitutionlottery.com/ every person in your household can enter once.Pedant 01:56, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

I don't mean to troll, but I find I think it may be a bit of a leap to claim the victory over the Java gave the US the "rank of a world-class naval power". It still only had a few frigates (admittedly very good ones), and no ships of the line. Perhaps "established the US Navy as a force to be reckoned with" or words to that effect?

3mta3 11:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It's not so much the victory over the Java as it is victory over Great Brittain; remeber that the United Kingdom had been in the buisness of naval combat a lot longer than the United States had; additionally, they were still the world's largest superpower, so the fact that our ship won (and won dramatically) made us able to compete with Great Brittian for control of the seas, thus establishing America with the "rank of a world class naval power". TomStar81 05:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It's often pointed out by my friends across the pond that the Americans won their actions by heavier weight of broadside--but that begs the point. (The RN was huge in numbers and not to be beaten as a body by any Navy in the world) The USN won seven of eight sloop actions against the greatest navy in the world in one-to-one combat in addition to the 50-50 results in frigate actions. Those victories engenedered prestige on the world stage and induced Congress to expand the size of the USN. IMHO it is not a stretch to state the USN advanced to a world power--its ships roamed the world executing American foreign policy. Buckboard 09:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As you point out "IMHO", in other words it is POV! The US Navy never attempted to take on the Royal Navy in the same way that the French and Spanish did. They would have been mad to try. Despite the strength of the Constitution and other large frigates, in a pitched battle with a first, second or even third rate ship of the line, they would not have lasted long. But that is not what frigates are for. They are for attacking commerce, and destroying smaller and equal ships.

In modern terms, the US Navy is a world super power, its ships can defeat any other navy. The Royal Navy is a world class navy and could probably defeat any other navy except the USN. However, there are a lot of other navies out there which while not being able to challenge the more powerful ones directly, can project naval power worldwide provided the more powerful ones do not interfere. This was the situation for the USN in 1815. They could not take on the Royal Navy directly, but they could act worldwide provided the RN did not actively oppose them with maximum force. Does this make them a world power? Depends on your definitions. Dabbler 13:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add any information about a replica of Constitution? All I know is that a sea-going replica of USS Constitution was built for the filming of James Cruze's film Old Ironsides (1926) with assistance from the US Navy Department. Any further knowledge? --mervyn 12:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Tiny tidbit here about the ship being used in later films.--J Clear 16:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information on Victory is in the intro and need not be repeated later in the text. Jinian 14:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I keep thinking the information on Victory needs to be further down.--J Clear 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking of the Victory, I'm re-arranging that part of the intro for better flow.--Raguleader 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more in terms of moving any mention of Victory out of the intro. Put the Victory exlaination down in the history section. I don't mean to ignore it, just having parenthetical info in the intro dilutes the intro. Look where the Victory article mentions the Constitution--J Clear 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made my change. We have sufficient qualifiers in the intro, and Victory is not ignored. I added emphasis on afloat in the intro. Does anyone know if we need to change ship to warship in the oldest commissioned afloat claim? Are there older non-naval ships in commission?--J Clear 00:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google reveals nothing that beats Constitution's record, so we might as well leave it as it is for now unless someone comes up with something to contradict it.--Raguleader 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added a few paragraphs about the HMS Victory towards the bottom of the page. While informative, it wasn't relevant to the article about USS Constitution, so I removed it. --Unsigned

I just reverted a change that put HMS Victory back in the intro. The relation to Victory is adequately explained in the body of the article and there is no such mention of the Constitution in the Victory intro. Both articles make the correct claim and explain it in their body. I'm for keeping that symmetric arrangement unless someone has a persuasive reason to do otherwise.--J Clear 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was looking at this article, and the information listed on the right has a "Don't Tread on Me" flag. Is this the flag of the USS Constitution, or of some larger political body? The image page itself didn't mention. (Image:Dtomjack large.png) Could that be added to a caption, or to a text description on the image page? -- Creidieki 03:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See First Navy Jack. Jinian 10:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, thanks. I see that the image page has been edited to include a link to the article, which I appreciate. -- Creidieki 14:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you look at the Various Nimitz class and USS Enterprise (CVN 65) carriers you will see that they also sank enemy gunboats, missile boats and other surface ships with their aircraft. Aircraft are one of the many weapons a Carrier has on board. Now with direct missile or gunfire, I would say the statement is correct which is that the USS Constitution and USS Simpson are the only two ships to had sank enemy ships with Direct Gunfire or Direct Missile Fire.Magnum Serpentine 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well after making sure I was logged in before writting the above, I totally forgot to sign my post. I totally apologizeMagnum Serpentine 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution herself is a ship of the line in the sense that she is a...4th Rate Ship Of The Line, IIRC. Not sure what this sentence adds (Though I wouldn't add in mention of 4th Rate as its a British measuring system, and I am sure carries negative connotation...just feel that this line is misleading). Would first rates be appropiate in this sentence, such as 'She was considered by many to be a capable opponent, even for First Rate Ships of the Line'? If so...how can we prove this? Britain deployed no first rate ships AFAIK to the Americas during the war of 1812, so isn't this just opinion, similar to someone putting 'Beckham beats the pants off Brazilian footballers' in a football article? --Narson 00:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my extensive research in the works of Forester, O'Brian, Kent, et. al., a frigate is not a "ship of the line". I believe over on HMS Victory, Nelson or the Battle of Trafalgar article, they mention "ship of the line" is only used with 1st through 3rd rates. Admitedly IX-21 was a "heavy" frigate, but had the US ever assembled a real sailing line of battle, she would have likely been out on the flanks like RN frigates of the era.

Frigates did not generally go one on one with better gunned "ships of the line", they were fast enough to escape them, so did. Had the Constitution been forced to slug it out with even a 3rd rate, we probably wouldn't have had her around to brag about. Think of Old Ironsides in boxing terms as the lightweight champion of the world for her day. You would not put her in the ring against a decent heavyweight boxer.

Was Old Ironsides the fastest and best gunned 4th rate of her day? Reminds me a bit of the Iowa's--J Clear 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall reading that she (and the other 5 American frigates built in that run) was faster and more heavily armed than her British opponents, and that this was a combination of engineering (she had a new style of structural support which made her sturdier than other ships of her size) and maintinance (most of the battles happened far from England and the British ships were suffering the various effects of long times at sea without refitting, while the American ships needed only to slip past a British blockade around their base to get into the theatre of battle)--Raguleader 22:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution and her sisters were heavier than the typical frigate of the day, and carried heavier weapons, too, which may be more to the point. I understand that the typical frigate of the time might have had 30 or 36 guns, which might have thrown 12 or 18lb balls. Constitution mounted 44 guns throwing 24lb shot. I think that the Americans also had much more timber and other raw materials available to them, enabling them to invest more of those materials into each individual ship. --Badger151 05:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution was rated a 44, but frequently that meant more than 44 guns were installed (present web site shows 54). Also all her guns are not 24 pounders. Most of the spar deck guns are 32 lb. carronades. ISTR reading the use of Live Oak in her construction was unusual, and contributed to her great strength ("iron sides"). I always wondered if Live Oak was simply not available to European boat builders.--J Clear 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Constitution was rated a 44 and nominally carried primarily 24 pound cannons and 32 pound carronades, I understand that during the War of 1812, she typically carried around 60 guns of various types and calibres, rating from 12 pounds up to 32, and they also briefly experimented with mounting a howitzer on the quarterdeck, but found it to be impractical. Also, I'm not sure what was typical for a British frigate, but most of the ones I've read about being involved in engagements with American frigates tended to carry 28 guns at most.--Raguleader 22:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some looking around (admittedly, not an exhaustive search, nor anything like it,) but this site states that Royal Navy frigates during the Napoleanic war carried between 20 and 44 guns, throwing balls weighing up to 18 lbs each (I'm looking at the cannon, not the carronades). Unfortunately, it doesn't list its sources. I do remember Patrick O'Brian mentioning that Jack Aubrey's 28 gun Surprise, carrying either 9 or 12 lb cannon, was heavily outclassed by modern frigates. I forget exactly when Aubrey makes the remark, but it would have had to have been before 1820. Also, the in-house articles on the Guerriere and Java state that each carried 38 guns. HMS Shannon, who took the Chesapeake, also carried 38 guns.

Crew:

    -back then-

540 men: 53 marines 30 young boys 20-30 officers

    -Now-

50-80 dedicated men

Speed:13+ knots

    boats onboard

1 long boat 36 ft. 2 cutters 30 ft. 2 whaleboats 28 ft. 1 Gig 28 ft. 1 Jolly 22 ft. 1 punt 14 ft.

-Fan of constitution-

Admittedly, O'Brian's novel is a work of fiction, but I think that he's always very carful about research and historical accuracy - in the author's note he states that the only liberty he has taken with regards to the action is to place his characters aboard. Comparing O'Brian's account with the report of Java's senior Lieutenant and Master, as reprinted in Dean King's A Sea of Words shows this clearly. To call the account fictionalised therefor seems to describe it as less than it is: a carefully researched depiction of the actual action. This is why I have rephrased the entery regarding O'Brian's Fortune of War. --Badger151 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any information on Lucy Brewer's three-year-stint on the Constituion back in 1812 to add to this? All I have is a one-sentence entry in my computer's encyclopedia which states that this woman disguised herself as a man named Nicolas Baker and served as a crew member of the Constitution. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the NEVERSINK was referenced to the frigate USS UNITED STATES and not the frigate CONSTITUTION. Melville served on board the frigate USS UNITED STATES 1842-1844. The American frigate he refers to is the USS UNITED STATES. Melville served as an Ordinary Seaman and his station was in the foretop. I am: Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr.; Founder & President; USS UNITED STATES Foundation: USSUNITEDSTATES@Yahoo.com

I'm about to take out a poorly formatted link to a model maker that was added recently. If a decently formatted link is to go back in, I'd like some discussion here first. Thanks.--J Clear 00:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link wasn't even to an Old Ironsides model, but to home page of model supply vendor.--J Clear 00:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article presently states she is made of "2000 live oak trees". I think I read that it was about 2000 trees total, but it was far from 100% live oak. For instance "the original materials for deck, ceiling, and deck beams were specified to be "best heart pitch pine", today Douglas Fir is used" (from "Materials on USS Constitution".). I'll do some more digging, but am going to slightly edit that portion of the article to split up the 2000 from live oak. Some reading for those interested in the restoration.--J Clear 01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navy's historical timeline on official web site lists it as 2000 trees. Also makes a point of the fact that materials came from all over the fledgling US. If I add the other states, the overly detailed Georgia info is going to stand out. Can the Georgia sentence be shortened? Something like the equivalent paragraph in the Navy's tour handout. I'll let the idea soak a bit in discussion. I'm from PA, which isn't mentioned, so I don't think I have POV here.--J Clear 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single piece of original wood in this ship today or 100% has been replaced gradually?

See the section at the top labeled Original, and please try to remember to sign your comments.--J Clear 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is an obvious question — but what is a turnaround cruise? Based on the name I assume it is a cruise where the ship leaves port and then turns around and comes back, but is there more to it than that? —ptk✰fgs 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost literally what it sounds like. To make sure the ship weathers evenly, they periodically tow it out into Boston Harbor, parade her around for a few hours then redock her with the other side toward the pier. They always do it every 4th of July. And it seems like they do it more often. For the 4th, there is a lottery for the limited number of passager slots on board for the cruise (see the Navy's web site to apply), not sure about the other cruises. The local tug boat company actually has a special short tug boat that you can't see over the Constitution so those on shore get nice photos. Once every few hundred years they put up the sails, drop the tow ropes, and let her sail a bit.--J Clear 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can aid this one. I'm the Public Affairs Officer aboard CONSTITUTION. A turnaround cruise is generally regarded as the time in which the ship makes her annual turnaround cruise -- as stated previously, to "weather her evenly" against the sun and other elements and aid in accessibility for maintenance projects. The traditional ocurrence of this is on July 4 each year. However, CONSTITUTION gets underway in Boston Harbor several times each year, for different occasions; the actual switch of her berth orientation usually happens on the first underway period of the year (typically in June). The term "turnaround cruise," however, is used to refer to almost underway period the ship conducts. The ship is always technically under power of tug boat, even during the end of the season when the crew sets the sails aboard the ship while underway.

In 1997, CONSTITUTION set sail for the first time under her own sail power (no tug boats) in 116 years.

Since Constitution has been in commission for so long, I briefly considered adding additional "<WAR X> naval ships" categories. But while it may be technically correct, I figured it didn't really add much value before doing so. Although the Civil War might be worth it.--J Clear 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a category for warships or military ships? --Sugarcaddy 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of categories for warships. The one you're looking for is Category:Naval ships, however ship articles are usually put in the most specific categories available, like Category:World War II destroyers of the United States. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships would be a good place to look around and then ask on its talk page if you have further questions.--J Clear 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put it in, but for what it's worth, I was there when admiral Grace Hopper, the mother of Cobol and inventor of the first compiler visited the ship. Probably worth a mention somewhere in a trivia section, certainly as notable as a GI Joe episode. --Sugarcaddy 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to dispute the relative notability of Grace Hopper and GI Joe, but how many other notable people visited Constitution? I think I recall Queen Elizabeth II (perhaps from the article). And was Grace making an official visit as an Admiral, or just showed up like any of the rest of us? The GI Joe bit reminds me of a editorial cartoon back in the 80's, when news of the stealth fighter leaked out. Navy claims to already have a stealthy ship with excellent fuel economy, second panel shows USS Constitution.--J Clear 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain the relevance of the Space Shuttle Enterprise to this article?!? Pjbflynn 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the original craft (the Enterprise) used for flight tests, was originally going to be called the Constitution. until a bunch of star trek fans did a letter campaign to get it named Enterprise.

From what I understand, the armament of the USS Constitution varied greatly depending on which period of her service she was in (something that was particularly easy to change based on needs and resources back when all the cannons were tied to the deck, rather than being part of the ship). Is there any particular point in history when her armament is known to be what it is listed in the article? If so, it might be worth it to put a mention of that somewhere.--Raguleader 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the recent addition of the Star of India comparison adds to this article. Nobody is claiming Constitution is very active in the setting sail sense. One could argue that since Constitution leaves the dock more often than once a year, perhaps she is more active than Star. There is also the fact that some of the other west coast sailing ships contest Star's claim to be active. I believe the mention of HMS Victory is appropriate as Constitution is more of a contemporary of Victory, both being wooden hulled 18th century naval vessels.

I think we probably need a page like First flying machine to consolidate such items. Anyway I thought I'd put my reasons for commenting it out here. --J Clear 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Status: Active, in commission, as of March 2007". I'm changing that to: "Status: Active, in commission" There is no need to have an "as of" date since all information indicates that the Constitution will remain "active, in commission" as long as the ship and the United States Navy exist. Fanra 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]