@deathrider798 SS Great Eastern was an iron sailing steam ship designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and built by J Scott Russell & Co. at Millwall on the River Thames, London. She was by far the largest ship ever built at the time of her 1858 launch, and had the capacity to carry 4,000 passengers around the world without refuelling. Her length of 692 feet (211 m)
@deathrider798 actually iron clads were built by the French "La Gloire" 1858 then by Britain "HMS Warrior" 1860 followed by the US with "CSS Virginia" in 1861. None relevant to the Revolutionary War but relevant to the US Civil War.
I'm desinging a boar game based on the pirate era, can anyone name a website or a book that could suply me with information about a vast aray of different ships from different countrys between 1600 and 1800? thanks a lot!
just try to think of stanting on those decks a few paces away from a man o'war pouring her entire boardside at you, the splinters and the iron and the grape screaming all around you. Hundreds of men fought and died in this way. They were simply heroes, in an age where fighting was still a matter of honour.
I would love to see a full naval battle reenactment from this period! Are there any countries who do this? I am only hopeful, because unlike local civil war reenactments, the cost must be huge comparatively!
What we saw were simply pyrotechnic charges in pipes, The great ship can no longer carry the great weight of real guns, most are fiberglass reproductions. Still a good show and if you are ever in England she is well worth a side trip to see her. In addition you will be pleasantly surprised by the H.M.S Warrior, a sail/screw driven warship of the 1860's.
@619fatguy, It was indeed, but if you were serving aboard a French or Spanish 3rd rate during Trafalgar, this would not be your choice of words :D hhaa
actually there is a historic reference for a smaller frigate seriously damaging a first rate but the said first rate was dutch and the smaller frigate was english the first rate ship was caught alone on a return trip to amsterdam for resupplying when the frigate came upon them and managed to literally sail round the stern of the first rate firing a broadside thru the stern cabin area where all ships regardless of class are weakest then simply sailing away as the first rate opened up on them,wiki
An interesting bit of theatre. If the turkeys who make defence policy in the UK dish up another defence review like some of the rubbish we've had to put up with, we'll have to do up the Victory and send her back to sea. There won't be much else left. Unless they hit on a masterplan to de-construct her, ship her to Afghanistan, put her back together, mount her on wheels and have her trundle around as some kind of mobile fort. Daft? Wait and see what the retired generals come up with next.
@littmann03 Stop benefits for the workshy, stop foreign aid, build our new carriers and subs! The defense of the realm is THE most important job of our government!
@photonprojector You never know when Merkel could grow a moustache and decided to invade! How is a submarine going to defend you from an ICBM or a suicide bomber? Old crank.
Excellent video its a pity I wasn't there to see this.
Most of the cannons on board victory at trafalgar were made here in rotherham,about which im currently researching,sadly its all but forgotten about in rotherham itself,well at least Im trying to change that.
If anybody has any information that might be usefull let me know.
Gave me goosebumps to stand on the decks of this beautiful vessel and to see the plaque showing where Nelson fell. Hats off to the Brits for keeping her in such fine condition.
Hi. I'm just doing some research for a project. Was the wood for HMS Victory carved to shape on site at Chatham yard or was it carved elsewhere? Thanks.
Hi. I'm just doing some research for a project. Was the wood for HMS Victory carved to shape on site at Chatham yard or was it carved elsewhere? Thanks.
Damn thats a nasty broadside... I dont know whats worse ships capable of creating a nuclear holocaust from like 20 miles away... or having to fight in a wooden ship opposite that 50+ gun broadside.
Amazing and powerful, but this ship is capable of a lot more, imagine the sound of a FULL charge!
Quote: The Commanding Officer, Lt Cdr Oscar Whild said, What is particularly astounding, after watching the broadside today, is that the amount of gunpowder we have just used was less than the gunners onboard at Trafalgar would have used for a single shot!
@cbrusharmy Indeed, that is the most effective broadside. As your ship moves your starboard/port battery would consecutively bombard one area of the opposing ship/shore target, in effect causing more collateral damage to one area.
Sure, if they were all aiming for the same mast or something, but they weren't moving. I think they were just performing, like a fireworks display, and may also have been concerned about firing all the guns at once in an old ship.
@cbrusharmy If they weren't using canister/grapeshot rounds aimed at taking out personnel, then a full broadside all at once would be a glorious waste of powder and iron and time, Time above all being precious. A lot of people have been spoiled by Motion Pictures of old.
Perhaps. I dare say that it depends on the nation, the guns and gun crews level of trainning, the year in question, the shot being used (my previous allusion: chain), and the length of time available. People are certainly led astray my motion pictures, in all things historical, and not just ones of old. Everybody wants to see the raw power of a full broadside, but my point is that the ship likely couldn't take many more of those, despite constant maint. and using.. Idk..a 1/4 charge of powder?
@cbrusharmy I agree, however 1.5million pounds sterling is put into the upkeep of that ship, not to mention the naval offices, I am sure the ship can handle whatever its guns can dish out. However I believe firework charges were used. Notice the lack of recoil on the guns. I would attest as an Ironmonger myself that the brittleness of the Cannon is indeed in question.
I don't know what that kind specialized labour would cost, but I would hope that 1.5 million should cover it! I seem to remember the restoration of the movie prop "HMS" Bounty was in the millions,... of dollars atleast. At any rate, it's still fun to watch, and I hope to see it in person! Merry Christmas!
If you read the accounts of the time, you'll find that ships almost never fired a full broadside in one go as the recoil could have capsized them - the rolling broadside (which is being recreated here with pyrotechnics on what is, after all, a 250 year old ship) was the normal practice.
@stevethegecko Oh, so they disappeared over the other side the first time they were fired?. They were attached to the side of the ship by ropes which softened the recoil and allowed them to be run inboard for loading, then run out again through the porthole.
@Daedalus94 The Vasa (Or Wasa) was launched (and promptly sank) in 1626. At that time ships of war were practically floating castles, lumbering top heavy beasts. Ship design and technology had improved considerably by the time HMS Victory was launched in 1765.
Lets see 52x2=104. And a broadside would be all the guns on one side. So.....if it was 52 guns on one side then by definition it would be....a broadside.
Wouldn't it have been great if the HMS Warspite (03), the famous Queen Elizabeth class battleship, was preserved alongside the HMS Victory, then the Royal Navy could proudly display a historicaly significant ship of the 19th century Royal Navy alongside a historically significant ship of the 20th century Royal Navy.
Wouldn't that have been a better fate than to have had the Warspite scrapped?
Sorry, I can't find anything on the battle of Narvik; was that the battle where the Warspite set the record for the farthest recorded hit from a battleship?
DID YOU KNOW: At the Battle of Trafalgar, you would actually be wrong to say that the French fleet was destroyed. In fact, only one French ship was sunk that day in 1805, the rest of the fleet was captured.
The Reason: In that time period, it was more economical to capture enemy ships for your own than to build them from scratch (the industrial revolution wasn't in full swing at the time of trafalgar)
yes but that night a storm blew up and i believe that all the prizes were lost if not most of them were, yet all the british ships even heavily damaged and down on crew were brought back safely mainly because we saw them as mre important than the prizes
Anyone who hasn't seen the Victory, I strongly recommend to go. It is a rare piece of living history that embraces the times. It's a strange feeling to stand upon the actual decks that Nelson did, and even stranger to see where he fell. And it's all there, in front of you, as it would of been in 1805.
When I went to see HMS Victory many years ago I was struck by how many Americans were serving with the Royal Navy in the Battle of Trafalgar. For instance there were 33 on Victory alone, not to mention all the other ships.
lol, okay.. here we go. all of the comments by james are very accurate. all the american frigates at the time were 44 guns, apart from the cheseapeake (38) and the congress (36), as for the process at the time, the american frigates between them defeated the java (36) and gurriere (36) and 3 other british warships until the shannon (38) met the cheseapeake (38) off of cape ann and defeated her in 13 minutes.
1) HMS Victory would never fire all her guns at once, because it would do serious damage to her hull, she fired a staggered broadside, so this is accurate
2) The Constitution was a frigate, 5th rate, HMS Victory was a 1st rate. The rating system was there for a reason, Consitution would have been kindling if she came up against ANY 1st rater. Consitution manly defeated smaller RN ships
great video and damn good to hear she will continue to be looked after
im not saying she could take the victory in a slugging match. thats not how the US Navy fought back then. i am saying that the constitution could carry 100 guns. she didn't because, as ive said and welshwizard said, it slowed her down dramaticaly and she couldn't carry as many heavy guns. The frigates of the US Navy prefered to hit hard and get out fast. we may have had one ship by the end of 1812 that may have stood a chance. the only others i can think of are those made in the civil war.
That's what a fast frigate is made for...slash and dash, cut the enemy to pieces, one slice at a time. The Victory did not have the speed , or the maneuverability to match a fast frigate. If you can't manuever WITH your opponent, then you are a sitting duck that cannot put it's guns in the proper place to fire a broadside.
But its dangerous to slash and dash when you are depending on the wind who´s the same for everyone. And the speed-differences between a heavy frigate and a Ship-of the line was not so big in those times. Normaly a frigate never attacked a Ship of the line and a Ship of the line never attacked a frigate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Old Ironsides was NOT a "heavy frigate" she was classed as a "fast frigate". Her special hull timber bracing was what gave American shipbuilders and the fast frigates the advantage. Suggest you look at "Master & Commander" flick for further info.
Again , I will take speed and maneuverability , with superior American gunnery skills , ANY time. Dismast a ship of the line , it is a target that cannot move, while a fast frigate can pick her attacks while firing from the T position.
"Master & Commander" the french Acheron who was magicaly build in Boston because the filmmakers never had the guts of hunting down a US-Ship ?
As far as I know, there was an agreement at those times: A Frigate never shoot at a Ship of the line and a Ship of the line never shoot on a frigate. That was practised from the Glorious 1th of june to Trafalgar.
Sokra01 is correct. A ship-of-the-line may only fire on a frigate if fired upon first. It is unlikely the Constitution would choose to engage the Victory, and it is unlikely the Victory would be sailing alone. If such an engagement, however strange and unlikely were to occur, a single broadside from the Victory would be enough to shatter the frigate's hull. I managed to find an example of this during the Battle of the Nile, in which a British 74-gun ship sunk a French frigate with one broadside.
Again, whose rules of engagement are those ? BTW, it was the Brit Admiralty that declared the American Fast frigate were NOT to be engaged by anything LESS than a ship of the line after US frigates had beat the crap out of similar class Brit frigates.
Look up wikpedia listing for Constitutuion...12 Brit 34 ponder shot were imbedded in her hull after a point blank engagement, none penetrating.
One can only say about the French frigate..it was French ! That says it all !
Those rules were convention for the period. Yes, it is true that American frigates were considered too heavy for British frigates to engage. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The French had an excellent reputation for shipbuilding in the 18th century, making some of the fastest ship classes. I can assure you that no heavy frigate could engage a British 1st rate and survive, let alone win. Its firepower would be too great. As I said, no such engagement would ever occur.
the french had excellently made warships, but poor morale and training compared to the british fleet, however when the british met the american ships they had become complacent in winning all the time and didnt realise how powerful the american frigates were. it took a very motivated captaion philip broke of the shannon to prove we were still a world class navy
An engagement of that type would never occur anyways. A 1st rate would never sail alone. A ship like a British 1st rate, when alone, is extremely vulnerablet to a fast, well armed ship like an American Frigate. Broadside to broadside there is no comparison but in a ship to ship dual, a vessel like a 1st rate is at a severe disadvantage and is likely to be raked repeatedly.
And I still think English oak has a higher Density, also the British are renown for ship building, you can bet Victory was built to a higher standard than any other naval vessel (bar maybe a French ship of some kind).
And what we didn't have in brute force, we made up for with our extensive knowledge of the sea, we are an Island nation after all.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the constitutition could also be considered a 100 gun ship and was made of southern live oak which is a particurly dense wood and just as dense as english oak. she was also just as big as the victory but favored bigger guns. i think it be a intresting fight either way. she also ran off 2 british ships of the line HMS Cyane and HMS Levant.
The USS Constitution was a smaller, 44-gun frigate. Such frigate's hulls could be shattered by the force of a 3rd rate's broadside, so it's reasonable to assume the Constitution would not stand against a 1st rate. To say the Constitution favoured bigger guns than the Victory is also inaccurate, Victory carried long guns of up to 32 pounders, and 2 immense 68 pounder carronades. Cyane and Levant were both sixth-rate frigates of 34 and 21 guns respectively, not ships-of-the-line.
A fifth rate frigate could never carry 100 guns; 5th rates only have 2 decks. Physical limitations would absolutely preclude the addition of any more guns of any useful callibre (24 pounders, specifically).
The only way you could get more guns on to the Constitution would be to add carronades (extremely short range) to the upper deck. And even then, you'd only be looking at an extra 10/15 guns.
In the end, all you'd have is an overburdened frigate. You can't modify a frigate into a battleship.
Wonder no longer. H.M.S Victory is a 104 gun first rate ship-of-the-line and flagship. The U.S.S Constitution is 44 gun frigate.
There would never be a fight between these ships because the Constitution would flee as soon as she saw the Victory coming over the horizon.
One broadside from the Victory's lower deck 32-pounders would likely sink the Constitution, while the Consitition's 24-pounders would bounce of the Victory. It'd be like a main battle tank against a tricylce - no competition.
The Consititution may have come out on top of some obscure frigate one on ones but was never the victor in any substantial or strategic engagement. My point remains, a frigate such as the Constitution would never fight a ship of the line. It would be a massacre. All the frigate captain would achieve is the death of the entirety of his crew.
Again, no competition. Scout vessels such as frigates don't fight battle ships, hence the 'ship-of-the-line' distinction.
Welsh wizard you are completely right, there is no way any naval commander would engage a frigate into a battle with a ship of the line (unless for kamikaze purposes!) its like taking a juggernaught on in your mini lol
A frigate isn't a scout vessel. Most of the cruising and fighting in that era was done by frigates. And the HMS Guerrierre and HMS Java, both defeated by the USS Constitution before the first British naval victory of the war, were frigates as well, considered by their commanders to be near enough equal to the American frigates. That's why the English public was so shocked and discouraged by the Constitution's victories, until the HMS Shannon finally took the USS Chesapeake.
Calm down man, you can't re-write history, so stop bitching about it. "But the French was the only way you won!!!" True, but we still won. We just kept kicking you out of our country until you gave up. End of story. BTW, Victory is my second favorite ancient ship.
If I may comment, with an interesting historical fact. King George III didn't want to stop the war. However, parliament voted on the issue, and decided to end it. Whilst the War had its moments of tragedy, it taught valuable lessons to the younger officers of the British Army and Royal Navy, whom would go on to fight in the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars.
You Americans do realise you only won because France spent every penny they had to beat Britain right? They gave you everything from cannons to ships and men. Without France you wouldn't have your independance to bad after this the French monarchy was all killed in the French revolution for sending the Country into poverty =)
Yes, we do realize that, thanks. If your point was that a ragtag militia couldn't have beaten the most powerful military on Earth without some help and a few serious distractions, then well played, sir.
It's ridiculous to say that we woudn't have our independence without the French, though. Eventually, we'd have worn the British down, just as almost all of the Crown's other possessions did.
Lost New Orleans granted but kicked the good old US of A out of Canada halting United States expansionism. American frigates were exceptionally large and powerful for their class. Whereas the standard British frigate of the time was rated as a 38 gun ship, with its main battery consisting of 18-pounder guns, the USS Constitution, USS President, and USS United States were rated as 44-gun ships and were capable of carrying 56 guns, with a main battery of 24-pounders.
Perhaps the USS Constitution and her sisters were the very first "battlecruisers"...cruiser type ships that could OUTFIGHT/OUGUN similar ships of their size and run away from stuff they could not handle...US "super-frigates were also in additioon to being more rugged and larger than their French or British equivalents...also were 2-4 knots faster on average.....
New Orleans is the only counter Americans have when it comes to the War of 1812. Any war in which your president flees his home after promising to fight to the last, has his hats, clothes, valuables and love letters stolen for souvenirs by enemy troops, his dinner banquet eaten by said soldiers, and then suffers his house burned down is nothing less than a historical embarrassment to be mentioned as little as possible.
@beastatlay Well, nobodys perfect. LOL. It just seemed like the thing to do at the time. He wasn't aware that history would treat him so badly. This also sounds like some of our politicians of today--all wind and no rain.
@beastatlay So... you're proud of British pillagers, then? Odd. Anyway, as they say, it's not the battle but the war that counts. It's incredibly pathetic that you label New Orleans as "the only counter" (ignoring Plattsburgh and Baltimore, for a start), as if it's just some excuse. In any case, there's a longer war than that series of conflicts, a worldwide competition of a nature both violent and nonviolent, and Britain has hardly won that. And a still longer one rages even now, so grow up.
@beastatlay While the land war did not go particularly well, and Washington was indeed looted and burned, the American naval successes were exceptional...when they were allowed to fight. Of course there is that little incident with the Chesapeake and the Shannon...
@samdogdamndog2 Here we have someone who is prepared to admit the truth rather than foolishly deny historic facts in order to put down others! Many thanks.
@TheLiberalKnight I read...I study, and most of all, I do not allow personal feelings to enter into my discourse when discussing historical events...well, I usually don't. I think nationalism has no place in discussion of history. Facts are facts. I also refuse to judge previous cultures by our own current belief systems.
@eddybaby58 Exactly. I agree. You should always admit when your country has screwed up militarily. If someone fails to do this, they look like a fool. England for example suffered an embarrassing defeat when the Dutch set fire to practically the entire fleet in the river thames. It's fine to wave your flag, just so long as you don't twist the historic facts in your favour.
Yeah, maybe if you just hold the image of he white house in flames long enough, your little Euro problem will go away, and the queen will get her empire back and Diana will come out of hiding and tell us its all a laugh.
And we did utterly SMASH a trained British army....at New Orleans...granted peace had been signed already...but the news hadn't reached the NA front.....was attacking a fortified position via frontal assault..gee they're only Colonials......boy was that wrong....Do I hate ENGLAND? NO! England and America have been friends and allies for nearly a century and three quarters...
If there was ever one place you didn't want to be, it would be on the receiving end of a full broadside from a first-class ship of the British line. Cheers to Lord Nelson.
Now imagine receiving anything out fo these cannons all the long of your ship. Smoke where you can't even see what's beyond 3 meters. Nice chains, bar shots, grapeshots hurled towards your fellow comrades screaming in agony with a mast on top of them or horribly defigurated. Bits of steel sticking in wood, and then a good plain cannonball in front of your face which is the last thing you saw.
They didn't paint the decks red my good man. They painted the first deck below the water line red. Why? Red ochre was the cheapest form of waterproofing. The paint was water proof and it helped prevent leaks. Also if you look. The edges of the gunports were done in red too for the same reason. =)
hms victory at traflagar was 104 guns comprising of main deck 18 pdrs, 24 pdrs middle deck and 32 pdrs bottom deck and mixed 64 pdr carronades and 12 pdrs. the broadside was fired as it does in this video as if fired all together would tear the ship apart. :P
Imagine being on a ship like the Redoutable at Trafalgar with the Victory and Temeraire firing at you with that firepower after they had gone clean through the firing line
It is a tradition in the Royal Navy to fire a broadside sequentially. In the case of the Victory with its 102 guns, with their mixture of 12lbs, 24lbs and 32lbs weight of shot, usually doubled up for the first broadside - the shock and inertia would have been considerable. Even in the days of the Dreadnoughts, the same rule applied.
The broadside is too slow, but they probably did it slowly like that so it would have more of an impression. They should have fired all the guns more or less at once.
Keep in mind that not only is she 240 years old, but she is in dry dock. Water makes a good shock absorber, but a bunch of steel rails bolted to the hull do not.
On the Victory, a full broadside equates to more than 110 TONS of cannon recoiling at the SAME TIME. Even at partial charge with no shot, a full broadside would be very reckless and would most likely damage the ship in a myriad of ways.
all that metal and all the splinters...ouch!
blueray1969 2 weeks ago
Japs stuck it up them, One ship survived, the uss Pheonix, Conqueror got that piece of scrap.
greebo68 1 month ago
Greatest ship ever built!
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
vasa the ship build by gustav vasa of sweden the ship sank when it touched the water and many pople died.
pwn4fly 6 months ago
how did the americans win the revilution when the british had this ship?
MrRandomusername01 6 months ago
@MrRandomusername01 becuse amercians was the first to bring a steel ship in history
deathrider798 6 months ago
@deathrider798 SS Great Eastern was an iron sailing steam ship designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and built by J Scott Russell & Co. at Millwall on the River Thames, London. She was by far the largest ship ever built at the time of her 1858 launch, and had the capacity to carry 4,000 passengers around the world without refuelling. Her length of 692 feet (211 m)
Sorry, it was the English.
eddybaby58 6 months ago
Comment removed
MyKingdom13 5 months ago
@deathrider798 actually iron clads were built by the French "La Gloire" 1858 then by Britain "HMS Warrior" 1860 followed by the US with "CSS Virginia" in 1861. None relevant to the Revolutionary War but relevant to the US Civil War.
MyKingdom13 5 months ago
@MyKingdom13 oh ok my bad
deathrider798 5 months ago
Comment removed
MyKingdom13 5 months ago
@MrRandomusername01 because the British didnt send this ship and used it against the French instead in Europe.
MyKingdom13 5 months ago
Can you just imagine all that iron coming at you!
tkg2902 8 months ago
a ship like this fielded more guns than the average army in the day :D
Adrenolex 10 months ago 2
I'm desinging a boar game based on the pirate era, can anyone name a website or a book that could suply me with information about a vast aray of different ships from different countrys between 1600 and 1800? thanks a lot!
mesa069 10 months ago
Imagine being next to all those when they went off the whole deck crew must be def after that
psychedeliccheese 11 months ago
just try to think of stanting on those decks a few paces away from a man o'war pouring her entire boardside at you, the splinters and the iron and the grape screaming all around you. Hundreds of men fought and died in this way. They were simply heroes, in an age where fighting was still a matter of honour.
gabri104fagian 11 months ago
I'm a Royal Canadian Sea Cadet (able seam) and going on this ship in pril 2011
mrhumperdoodle 1 year ago
Visited this, unbelievable, sadly lost all the pictures I had on my phone :( Would go again in a moment. Warrior didn't compare for me.
XShinyDrumsX 1 year ago
that was so intense!
M4levolence 1 year ago
I would love to see a full naval battle reenactment from this period! Are there any countries who do this? I am only hopeful, because unlike local civil war reenactments, the cost must be huge comparatively!
Ralastar 1 year ago
What we saw were simply pyrotechnic charges in pipes, The great ship can no longer carry the great weight of real guns, most are fiberglass reproductions. Still a good show and if you are ever in England she is well worth a side trip to see her. In addition you will be pleasantly surprised by the H.M.S Warrior, a sail/screw driven warship of the 1860's.
memikell 1 year ago
that was awesome!!!!
619fatguy 1 year ago
@619fatguy, It was indeed, but if you were serving aboard a French or Spanish 3rd rate during Trafalgar, this would not be your choice of words :D hhaa
MrDeano324 1 year ago
actually there is a historic reference for a smaller frigate seriously damaging a first rate but the said first rate was dutch and the smaller frigate was english the first rate ship was caught alone on a return trip to amsterdam for resupplying when the frigate came upon them and managed to literally sail round the stern of the first rate firing a broadside thru the stern cabin area where all ships regardless of class are weakest then simply sailing away as the first rate opened up on them,wiki
silverfire337 1 year ago
thats awesome
Angerfist2 1 year ago
An interesting bit of theatre. If the turkeys who make defence policy in the UK dish up another defence review like some of the rubbish we've had to put up with, we'll have to do up the Victory and send her back to sea. There won't be much else left. Unless they hit on a masterplan to de-construct her, ship her to Afghanistan, put her back together, mount her on wheels and have her trundle around as some kind of mobile fort. Daft? Wait and see what the retired generals come up with next.
littmann03 1 year ago 2
@littmann03 Stop benefits for the workshy, stop foreign aid, build our new carriers and subs! The defense of the realm is THE most important job of our government!
photonprojector 1 year ago
@photonprojector You never know when Merkel could grow a moustache and decided to invade! How is a submarine going to defend you from an ICBM or a suicide bomber? Old crank.
ppitm 9 months ago
Listen to those 12, 24, & 32 pounders BEAUTIFUL
RuckusNoRelation87 1 year ago
a frenchman just shit himself
rainhamendgill 1 year ago 9
It's kind of funny to see a ship firing.. in dry dock.
was this for the 2005 bicentennial?
I'd would have loved to be there!
RinEditionB 1 year ago
speechless
0HippyHunter0 1 year ago
Maybe we could see a full broadside and nor a rolling one.
But i suspect they are worried it might damage the hull
AdurianJ 1 year ago
@AdurianJ that would be spectacular!
photonprojector 1 year ago
Excellent video its a pity I wasn't there to see this.
Most of the cannons on board victory at trafalgar were made here in rotherham,about which im currently researching,sadly its all but forgotten about in rotherham itself,well at least Im trying to change that.
If anybody has any information that might be usefull let me know.
mangletip 1 year ago
those 102 guns make nice sound xD
punditkitchenfailure 1 year ago
The French are surrendering as we speak from that sight. Nice job, Royal Navy :)
darkling9109 1 year ago
if they used real shots they would have laid waste to the whole town
CallicoJackracham 1 year ago
Gave me goosebumps to stand on the decks of this beautiful vessel and to see the plaque showing where Nelson fell. Hats off to the Brits for keeping her in such fine condition.
whoibuoy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi. I'm just doing some research for a project. Was the wood for HMS Victory carved to shape on site at Chatham yard or was it carved elsewhere? Thanks.
MrNayl0r 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi. I'm just doing some research for a project. Was the wood for HMS Victory carved to shape on site at Chatham yard or was it carved elsewhere? Thanks.
MrNayl0r 1 year ago
Only one word comes to mind.............POWER!
Thunderstorm316 1 year ago
Damn thats a nasty broadside... I dont know whats worse ships capable of creating a nuclear holocaust from like 20 miles away... or having to fight in a wooden ship opposite that 50+ gun broadside.
JahobesDaGreatest 1 year ago
@davidc2468 join the North Korean Navy. They still do.
PacificAirWarDotCom 1 year ago
i want to stand on the decks of this fine vessel as nelson once did
rainhamendgill 1 year ago
LOL your practically f*cked if your on it's broad side lol.
Hardlythecase2134 1 year ago
Amazing and powerful, but this ship is capable of a lot more, imagine the sound of a FULL charge!
Quote: The Commanding Officer, Lt Cdr Oscar Whild said, What is particularly astounding, after watching the broadside today, is that the amount of gunpowder we have just used was less than the gunners onboard at Trafalgar would have used for a single shot!
bennyboyc1 1 year ago
@davidc2468 you were alive then where you?
cokehead1969 1 year ago
Awesome, simply awesome!
shannon7733 1 year ago
That is the way to celebrate!
ZupaSC 1 year ago
@ZupaSC ,Coooooooorrrr, Music to my ears mate :O)
redsrfreaks 1 year ago
lol thats over 90 cannons fired i counted lol well 120 if you count the top
ilikeanime4ever 1 year ago
Ouch I dont wanna stand in that fire O.o :))) Victory is a masterpiece!
AnnabelLolita 2 years ago
nice!
gus23a 2 years ago
Not really a broadside, is it?
cbrusharmy 2 years ago
@cbrusharmy Indeed, that is the most effective broadside. As your ship moves your starboard/port battery would consecutively bombard one area of the opposing ship/shore target, in effect causing more collateral damage to one area.
northforge 2 years ago 3
Sure, if they were all aiming for the same mast or something, but they weren't moving. I think they were just performing, like a fireworks display, and may also have been concerned about firing all the guns at once in an old ship.
cbrusharmy 2 years ago
@cbrusharmy If they weren't using canister/grapeshot rounds aimed at taking out personnel, then a full broadside all at once would be a glorious waste of powder and iron and time, Time above all being precious. A lot of people have been spoiled by Motion Pictures of old.
northforge 2 years ago 2
Perhaps. I dare say that it depends on the nation, the guns and gun crews level of trainning, the year in question, the shot being used (my previous allusion: chain), and the length of time available. People are certainly led astray my motion pictures, in all things historical, and not just ones of old. Everybody wants to see the raw power of a full broadside, but my point is that the ship likely couldn't take many more of those, despite constant maint. and using.. Idk..a 1/4 charge of powder?
cbrusharmy 2 years ago
@cbrusharmy I agree, however 1.5million pounds sterling is put into the upkeep of that ship, not to mention the naval offices, I am sure the ship can handle whatever its guns can dish out. However I believe firework charges were used. Notice the lack of recoil on the guns. I would attest as an Ironmonger myself that the brittleness of the Cannon is indeed in question.
northforge 2 years ago
I don't know what that kind specialized labour would cost, but I would hope that 1.5 million should cover it! I seem to remember the restoration of the movie prop "HMS" Bounty was in the millions,... of dollars atleast. At any rate, it's still fun to watch, and I hope to see it in person! Merry Christmas!
cbrusharmy 2 years ago
cbrusharmy:
If you read the accounts of the time, you'll find that ships almost never fired a full broadside in one go as the recoil could have capsized them - the rolling broadside (which is being recreated here with pyrotechnics on what is, after all, a 250 year old ship) was the normal practice.
ghughesarch 1 year ago
hey, I wouldn't do it
cbrusharmy 1 year ago
@ghughesarch
the cannons were on wheels so they would take the recoil, not the ship.
stevethegecko 1 year ago
@stevethegecko Oh, so they disappeared over the other side the first time they were fired?. They were attached to the side of the ship by ropes which softened the recoil and allowed them to be run inboard for loading, then run out again through the porthole.
spentacle 10 months ago
@spentacle Kinda reminds me of the Swedish ship "Vasa." First turn and she capsized.
Daedalus94 10 months ago
@Daedalus94 The Vasa (Or Wasa) was launched (and promptly sank) in 1626. At that time ships of war were practically floating castles, lumbering top heavy beasts. Ship design and technology had improved considerably by the time HMS Victory was launched in 1765.
cameraguy38 6 months ago
Lets see 52x2=104. And a broadside would be all the guns on one side. So.....if it was 52 guns on one side then by definition it would be....a broadside.
hollywood1340 2 years ago 4
Don't be a jackass, read the entire feed.
cbrusharmy 2 years ago
are there alot of americans that visit the Victory? You see, im american and im just wondering...
redslownight 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
next time , line up the islamoterrorists as to not waste powder.
88Thyra 2 years ago 10
They gave you thumbs down. How dare you insult those wonderful terrorists!
sootheater 2 years ago
Wouldn't it have been great if the HMS Warspite (03), the famous Queen Elizabeth class battleship, was preserved alongside the HMS Victory, then the Royal Navy could proudly display a historicaly significant ship of the 19th century Royal Navy alongside a historically significant ship of the 20th century Royal Navy.
Wouldn't that have been a better fate than to have had the Warspite scrapped?
frankydman 2 years ago 5
what the Warspite did at the Battle of Narvik 1940 is like something out of Hollywood!
LordGeorgeRodney 2 years ago
Sorry, I can't find anything on the battle of Narvik; was that the battle where the Warspite set the record for the farthest recorded hit from a battleship?
frankydman 2 years ago
Second Naval Battle of Narvik 1940 April
amazingly there are still wrecks of German destroyers there from that battle..
notably 'Georg Thiele' which you can still see today...
LordGeorgeRodney 2 years ago
Thanks for the info, but I don't think you answered my question.
frankydman 2 years ago
yes it was it was one of the battles in the med,she wacked an Itailan heavy cruser
snakestomper 2 years ago
not sure about that...
HMS Warspite was an awesome ship!
LordGeorgeRodney 2 years ago
Warspite sailed into a fjord and engaged destroyers in the confined waters: entirely a move typical of the Royal Navy!
Warspite later scored the then longest ranged hit on the battleship Guilio Cesare at 26000 yards - very impressive!
spener89 2 years ago
Hello George, nice to see you like watching a quick recap on French view on naval warfare against the Royal navy LOL!
Hardlythecase2134 1 year ago
DID YOU KNOW: At the Battle of Trafalgar, you would actually be wrong to say that the French fleet was destroyed. In fact, only one French ship was sunk that day in 1805, the rest of the fleet was captured.
The Reason: In that time period, it was more economical to capture enemy ships for your own than to build them from scratch (the industrial revolution wasn't in full swing at the time of trafalgar)
frankydman 2 years ago
yes but that night a storm blew up and i believe that all the prizes were lost if not most of them were, yet all the british ships even heavily damaged and down on crew were brought back safely mainly because we saw them as mre important than the prizes
Ynot46589 2 years ago
Nelson, Collingwood and Thomas Hardy.
Everyone knows of Nelson is but we should never forget Collingwood and the Captain of the Victory - Hardy.
TK42138 2 years ago
Impressive...
No wonder she won ;-)
sorenslothe 2 years ago
Anyone who hasn't seen the Victory, I strongly recommend to go. It is a rare piece of living history that embraces the times. It's a strange feeling to stand upon the actual decks that Nelson did, and even stranger to see where he fell. And it's all there, in front of you, as it would of been in 1805.
polopain 2 years ago 10
When I went to see HMS Victory many years ago I was struck by how many Americans were serving with the Royal Navy in the Battle of Trafalgar. For instance there were 33 on Victory alone, not to mention all the other ships.
RedGadge 2 years ago
Cool
peacemtn 2 years ago
Wow, I dont want to be on the ship that meets that broadside!
anpe1001 2 years ago
LONG LIVE KING GEORGE !
krazyjordy 2 years ago 6
10*'s for that comment alone!
StueyLestrange 2 years ago
lol, okay.. here we go. all of the comments by james are very accurate. all the american frigates at the time were 44 guns, apart from the cheseapeake (38) and the congress (36), as for the process at the time, the american frigates between them defeated the java (36) and gurriere (36) and 3 other british warships until the shannon (38) met the cheseapeake (38) off of cape ann and defeated her in 13 minutes.
lee249087 2 years ago 2
christ you guys never let go do you
1) HMS Victory would never fire all her guns at once, because it would do serious damage to her hull, she fired a staggered broadside, so this is accurate
2) The Constitution was a frigate, 5th rate, HMS Victory was a 1st rate. The rating system was there for a reason, Consitution would have been kindling if she came up against ANY 1st rater. Consitution manly defeated smaller RN ships
great video and damn good to hear she will continue to be looked after
jamesrcooke 2 years ago 3
sailors were trained to fire a lot faster than that...
lowenjennings 2 years ago
if anyone can think of any other US ships name them.
BigMac014 2 years ago
United States , Constellation, Congress..all victorious fast frigates.
NamVetBuck 2 years ago
but weren't they all 40 to 44 gun ships? same as the constituition?
BigMac014 2 years ago
Yes, although I think the Congress was a 36 gunner.
NamVetBuck 2 years ago
im not saying she could take the victory in a slugging match. thats not how the US Navy fought back then. i am saying that the constitution could carry 100 guns. she didn't because, as ive said and welshwizard said, it slowed her down dramaticaly and she couldn't carry as many heavy guns. The frigates of the US Navy prefered to hit hard and get out fast. we may have had one ship by the end of 1812 that may have stood a chance. the only others i can think of are those made in the civil war.
BigMac014 2 years ago
The only chance of the Constitution would be a "Hit-and-run" tactic. In the moment when the Victory could aim the broadside, it would be over.
Sokra01 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That's what a fast frigate is made for...slash and dash, cut the enemy to pieces, one slice at a time. The Victory did not have the speed , or the maneuverability to match a fast frigate. If you can't manuever WITH your opponent, then you are a sitting duck that cannot put it's guns in the proper place to fire a broadside.
NamVetBuck 2 years ago
But its dangerous to slash and dash when you are depending on the wind who´s the same for everyone. And the speed-differences between a heavy frigate and a Ship-of the line was not so big in those times. Normaly a frigate never attacked a Ship of the line and a Ship of the line never attacked a frigate.
Sokra01 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Old Ironsides was NOT a "heavy frigate" she was classed as a "fast frigate". Her special hull timber bracing was what gave American shipbuilders and the fast frigates the advantage. Suggest you look at "Master & Commander" flick for further info.
Again , I will take speed and maneuverability , with superior American gunnery skills , ANY time. Dismast a ship of the line , it is a target that cannot move, while a fast frigate can pick her attacks while firing from the T position.
NamVetBuck 2 years ago
"Master & Commander" the french Acheron who was magicaly build in Boston because the filmmakers never had the guts of hunting down a US-Ship ?
As far as I know, there was an agreement at those times: A Frigate never shoot at a Ship of the line and a Ship of the line never shoot on a frigate. That was practised from the Glorious 1th of june to Trafalgar.
Sokra01 2 years ago
Sokra01 is correct. A ship-of-the-line may only fire on a frigate if fired upon first. It is unlikely the Constitution would choose to engage the Victory, and it is unlikely the Victory would be sailing alone. If such an engagement, however strange and unlikely were to occur, a single broadside from the Victory would be enough to shatter the frigate's hull. I managed to find an example of this during the Battle of the Nile, in which a British 74-gun ship sunk a French frigate with one broadside.
OfficerPotnky 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again, whose rules of engagement are those ? BTW, it was the Brit Admiralty that declared the American Fast frigate were NOT to be engaged by anything LESS than a ship of the line after US frigates had beat the crap out of similar class Brit frigates.
Look up wikpedia listing for Constitutuion...12 Brit 34 ponder shot were imbedded in her hull after a point blank engagement, none penetrating.
One can only say about the French frigate..it was French ! That says it all !
NamVetBuck 2 years ago
Those rules were convention for the period. Yes, it is true that American frigates were considered too heavy for British frigates to engage. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The French had an excellent reputation for shipbuilding in the 18th century, making some of the fastest ship classes. I can assure you that no heavy frigate could engage a British 1st rate and survive, let alone win. Its firepower would be too great. As I said, no such engagement would ever occur.
OfficerPotnky 2 years ago 21
the french had excellently made warships, but poor morale and training compared to the british fleet, however when the british met the american ships they had become complacent in winning all the time and didnt realise how powerful the american frigates were. it took a very motivated captaion philip broke of the shannon to prove we were still a world class navy
lee249087 2 years ago 4
@OfficerPotnky
An engagement of that type would never occur anyways. A 1st rate would never sail alone. A ship like a British 1st rate, when alone, is extremely vulnerablet to a fast, well armed ship like an American Frigate. Broadside to broadside there is no comparison but in a ship to ship dual, a vessel like a 1st rate is at a severe disadvantage and is likely to be raked repeatedly.
BamFor07 1 year ago
Comment removed
WelshWizard3 2 years ago
And I still think English oak has a higher Density, also the British are renown for ship building, you can bet Victory was built to a higher standard than any other naval vessel (bar maybe a French ship of some kind).
And what we didn't have in brute force, we made up for with our extensive knowledge of the sea, we are an Island nation after all.
happyfred3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i wonder how the USS Constition compares to the HMS Victory and who'd win in a fight.
BigMac014 2 years ago
The Victory is by far a much more solid beast due to the fact that it is built from English Oak than the average variety.
I would put my money on Victory for this fact alone!
happyfred3 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the constitutition could also be considered a 100 gun ship and was made of southern live oak which is a particurly dense wood and just as dense as english oak. she was also just as big as the victory but favored bigger guns. i think it be a intresting fight either way. she also ran off 2 british ships of the line HMS Cyane and HMS Levant.
BigMac014 2 years ago
The USS Constitution was a smaller, 44-gun frigate. Such frigate's hulls could be shattered by the force of a 3rd rate's broadside, so it's reasonable to assume the Constitution would not stand against a 1st rate. To say the Constitution favoured bigger guns than the Victory is also inaccurate, Victory carried long guns of up to 32 pounders, and 2 immense 68 pounder carronades. Cyane and Levant were both sixth-rate frigates of 34 and 21 guns respectively, not ships-of-the-line.
OfficerPotnky 2 years ago 8
What the fuck?
HMS Cyane was a 22 gun sixth rate - the lowest ship rated for a post captain, not much bigger than a sloop.
HMS Levant was even smaller and had 20 guns! Not even a bloody sixth rate!
Either you're a liar or are woefully misinformed. Whichever you are, rectify it please.
Also this:
"the constitutition could also be considered a 100 gun ship"
is the funniest fucking quote I've ever heard. She was a 44-gun frigate FFS; now learn your history or stfu.
WelshWizard3 2 years ago 4
ive talked with people who have served on the constitution. she could carry a 100 guns but that slowed her drasticaly so she only carried 40 guns.
BigMac014 2 years ago
A fifth rate frigate could never carry 100 guns; 5th rates only have 2 decks. Physical limitations would absolutely preclude the addition of any more guns of any useful callibre (24 pounders, specifically).
The only way you could get more guns on to the Constitution would be to add carronades (extremely short range) to the upper deck. And even then, you'd only be looking at an extra 10/15 guns.
In the end, all you'd have is an overburdened frigate. You can't modify a frigate into a battleship.
WelshWizard3 2 years ago 2
Wonder no longer. H.M.S Victory is a 104 gun first rate ship-of-the-line and flagship. The U.S.S Constitution is 44 gun frigate.
There would never be a fight between these ships because the Constitution would flee as soon as she saw the Victory coming over the horizon.
One broadside from the Victory's lower deck 32-pounders would likely sink the Constitution, while the Consitition's 24-pounders would bounce of the Victory. It'd be like a main battle tank against a tricylce - no competition.
WelshWizard3 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Flee ? Hardly , as the Brit opponents of Old Ironsides learned the hard way !
You don't have to hole the hull, sir , but double shot and chainshot on the riggings and masts would do what was needed to ANY size ship .
NamVetBuck 2 years ago
Excuse me?
The Consititution may have come out on top of some obscure frigate one on ones but was never the victor in any substantial or strategic engagement. My point remains, a frigate such as the Constitution would never fight a ship of the line. It would be a massacre. All the frigate captain would achieve is the death of the entirety of his crew.
Again, no competition. Scout vessels such as frigates don't fight battle ships, hence the 'ship-of-the-line' distinction.
WelshWizard3 2 years ago 5
Welsh wizard you are completely right, there is no way any naval commander would engage a frigate into a battle with a ship of the line (unless for kamikaze purposes!) its like taking a juggernaught on in your mini lol
Danny1981cool 2 years ago
@WelshWizard3
A frigate isn't a scout vessel. Most of the cruising and fighting in that era was done by frigates. And the HMS Guerrierre and HMS Java, both defeated by the USS Constitution before the first British naval victory of the war, were frigates as well, considered by their commanders to be near enough equal to the American frigates. That's why the English public was so shocked and discouraged by the Constitution's victories, until the HMS Shannon finally took the USS Chesapeake.
wgibso 3 months ago
how do you get the victory?
godfatherduck 2 years ago
And if France did beat Britain and Prussia, America would have no chance in hell of beating Napoleon.
ceafexftw 2 years ago
Calm down man, you can't re-write history, so stop bitching about it. "But the French was the only way you won!!!" True, but we still won. We just kept kicking you out of our country until you gave up. End of story. BTW, Victory is my second favorite ancient ship.
MrAmerica1995 2 years ago
If I may comment, with an interesting historical fact. King George III didn't want to stop the war. However, parliament voted on the issue, and decided to end it. Whilst the War had its moments of tragedy, it taught valuable lessons to the younger officers of the British Army and Royal Navy, whom would go on to fight in the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars.
OfficerPotnky 2 years ago
A hollow victory, but yes a victory none the less.
happyfred3 2 years ago
Exactly.
MrAmerica1995 2 years ago
Its not ancient :P
konnigkratz 2 years ago
You Americans do realise you only won because France spent every penny they had to beat Britain right? They gave you everything from cannons to ships and men. Without France you wouldn't have your independance to bad after this the French monarchy was all killed in the French revolution for sending the Country into poverty =)
ceafexftw 2 years ago 6
@ceafexftw
Yes, we do realize that, thanks. If your point was that a ragtag militia couldn't have beaten the most powerful military on Earth without some help and a few serious distractions, then well played, sir.
It's ridiculous to say that we woudn't have our independence without the French, though. Eventually, we'd have worn the British down, just as almost all of the Crown's other possessions did.
wgibso 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dude we owned the british at new orleans...LONG LIVE THE USA!!!
STRANGER12345678910 2 years ago
Lost New Orleans granted but kicked the good old US of A out of Canada halting United States expansionism. American frigates were exceptionally large and powerful for their class. Whereas the standard British frigate of the time was rated as a 38 gun ship, with its main battery consisting of 18-pounder guns, the USS Constitution, USS President, and USS United States were rated as 44-gun ships and were capable of carrying 56 guns, with a main battery of 24-pounders.
lostferwords 2 years ago 4
agreed it was stupid to go for canada any way, bad stratagy.
STRANGER12345678910 2 years ago
Perhaps the USS Constitution and her sisters were the very first "battlecruisers"...cruiser type ships that could OUTFIGHT/OUGUN similar ships of their size and run away from stuff they could not handle...US "super-frigates were also in additioon to being more rugged and larger than their French or British equivalents...also were 2-4 knots faster on average.....
biancademonet 2 years ago
@lostferwords
New Orleans is the only counter Americans have when it comes to the War of 1812. Any war in which your president flees his home after promising to fight to the last, has his hats, clothes, valuables and love letters stolen for souvenirs by enemy troops, his dinner banquet eaten by said soldiers, and then suffers his house burned down is nothing less than a historical embarrassment to be mentioned as little as possible.
beastatlay 1 year ago 22
@beastatlay Damn straight.
OriginalBlorath 1 year ago
@beastatlay Well, nobodys perfect. LOL. It just seemed like the thing to do at the time. He wasn't aware that history would treat him so badly. This also sounds like some of our politicians of today--all wind and no rain.
bgrobin66 1 year ago
@beastatlay So... you're proud of British pillagers, then? Odd. Anyway, as they say, it's not the battle but the war that counts. It's incredibly pathetic that you label New Orleans as "the only counter" (ignoring Plattsburgh and Baltimore, for a start), as if it's just some excuse. In any case, there's a longer war than that series of conflicts, a worldwide competition of a nature both violent and nonviolent, and Britain has hardly won that. And a still longer one rages even now, so grow up.
canofsand 9 months ago
@beastatlay
I blame the Canadians....America's secret enemy
rowdyrugby 8 months ago
@beastatlay While the land war did not go particularly well, and Washington was indeed looted and burned, the American naval successes were exceptional...when they were allowed to fight. Of course there is that little incident with the Chesapeake and the Shannon...
samdogdamndog2 8 months ago
@samdogdamndog2 Here we have someone who is prepared to admit the truth rather than foolishly deny historic facts in order to put down others! Many thanks.
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight I read...I study, and most of all, I do not allow personal feelings to enter into my discourse when discussing historical events...well, I usually don't. I think nationalism has no place in discussion of history. Facts are facts. I also refuse to judge previous cultures by our own current belief systems.
eddybaby58 6 months ago
@eddybaby58 Exactly. I agree. You should always admit when your country has screwed up militarily. If someone fails to do this, they look like a fool. England for example suffered an embarrassing defeat when the Dutch set fire to practically the entire fleet in the river thames. It's fine to wave your flag, just so long as you don't twist the historic facts in your favour.
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
@beastatlay
Yeah, maybe if you just hold the image of he white house in flames long enough, your little Euro problem will go away, and the queen will get her empire back and Diana will come out of hiding and tell us its all a laugh.
Then again, maybe not...
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 what are you going on about? lol
blueray1969 2 weeks ago
@blueray1969
You'll figure it out, sooner or later. ;)
tattat44 2 weeks ago
@tattat44 maybe when I was a child - but I'm an adult now and can't always work out childish rants :)
blueray1969 2 weeks ago
@blueray1969
Child of the seventies? You won't have to dig deep.
tattat44 2 weeks ago
i woldent like to be the eanamy
Phil1796 2 years ago
DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA.
God this is awesome. Fire and brimstone indeed.
HighPriestofApathy 2 years ago
And we did utterly SMASH a trained British army....at New Orleans...granted peace had been signed already...but the news hadn't reached the NA front.....was attacking a fortified position via frontal assault..gee they're only Colonials......boy was that wrong....Do I hate ENGLAND? NO! England and America have been friends and allies for nearly a century and three quarters...
biancademonet 2 years ago
During the Tall Ships Race here in Turku, Finland, this is one interesting video to come across.
Seeing a modern battleship fire a broadside just doesn't compare to the pomp of a good old ship of the line doing it.
tumppu1975 2 years ago
Santa Madre di Dio.0:37 > 0.40 the 64 pund carronades fires....
Claudio529 2 years ago
If there was ever one place you didn't want to be, it would be on the receiving end of a full broadside from a first-class ship of the British line. Cheers to Lord Nelson.
RandallParr 2 years ago 4
Now imagine receiving anything out fo these cannons all the long of your ship. Smoke where you can't even see what's beyond 3 meters. Nice chains, bar shots, grapeshots hurled towards your fellow comrades screaming in agony with a mast on top of them or horribly defigurated. Bits of steel sticking in wood, and then a good plain cannonball in front of your face which is the last thing you saw.
Welcome to 18nth 19nth century naval warfare.
Madmachine73 2 years ago
there's a reason they painted thier decks red
westhog 2 years ago
Because they have a good colour taste for ships? xD
Madmachine73 2 years ago
exactly. who wants a glorious death with a crappy
setting.
and red goes with both winter and summer fashions.
westhog 2 years ago
So true , so true... lol
Madmachine73 2 years ago
They didn't paint the decks red my good man. They painted the first deck below the water line red. Why? Red ochre was the cheapest form of waterproofing. The paint was water proof and it helped prevent leaks. Also if you look. The edges of the gunports were done in red too for the same reason. =)
Zanderguard 2 years ago
And that was the peak of firepower at the time. that was cool.
1Buttonmasher 2 years ago
hms victory at traflagar was 104 guns comprising of main deck 18 pdrs, 24 pdrs middle deck and 32 pdrs bottom deck and mixed 64 pdr carronades and 12 pdrs. the broadside was fired as it does in this video as if fired all together would tear the ship apart. :P
olivermarty 2 years ago
Nice, very impressive
EmperorofTerra 2 years ago
Imagine being on a ship like the Redoutable at Trafalgar with the Victory and Temeraire firing at you with that firepower after they had gone clean through the firing line
jsarkar339 2 years ago
Amazing, it sounds incredible when you turn your speakers up.
BritishBlue1 2 years ago
Wrong, she is a 104 as of Trafalgar, her original armament back in 1765 was 100 guns.
UFPAlexraptor 2 years ago
its a 100 gun ship, not a 104 gun ship
younameit34 2 years ago
It is a tradition in the Royal Navy to fire a broadside sequentially. In the case of the Victory with its 102 guns, with their mixture of 12lbs, 24lbs and 32lbs weight of shot, usually doubled up for the first broadside - the shock and inertia would have been considerable. Even in the days of the Dreadnoughts, the same rule applied.
ghbg00107 2 years ago
looks like a bunch of fireworks
Mysteriaperson 2 years ago
they should have shot them faster but that would mess any wooden ship up
combricl 2 years ago
The broadside is too slow, but they probably did it slowly like that so it would have more of an impression. They should have fired all the guns more or less at once.
magnocain 2 years ago
Keep in mind that not only is she 240 years old, but she is in dry dock. Water makes a good shock absorber, but a bunch of steel rails bolted to the hull do not.
On the Victory, a full broadside equates to more than 110 TONS of cannon recoiling at the SAME TIME. Even at partial charge with no shot, a full broadside would be very reckless and would most likely damage the ship in a myriad of ways.
Rotard12a 2 years ago