No, keep them real please.
And yet Jones never served a day in the US Navy, the words attributed to him on the qualifications of a naval officer were trite aphorisms bordering on tautology at best and fabricated in any sense, and in reality he was quite the unsavory character, both before and after his time in the Continental Navy (and probably during as well).
So I hardly think his service in any ship should help qualify that ship as “most important” for the US Navy, let alone for all navies of all time.
I thought the HMS Guerrière was a worthwhile opponent and the battle was a true slugfest between them.
I was thinking of the USS Wahoo, for being the sub whose bold and innovative commander revolutionized the way submarines operated in WWII.*
*also the first warship named after the wahoo, a sleek and tasty game fish.
In this category some war canoe from Fiji that fended off a raid that would otherwise have wiped out the founding colonists would surely beat both Constitution and Victory.
The thing is, Constitution’s importance is pretty much solely as a character in the founding mythology of the US. Her actual naval significance is pretty minimal. If she’d foundered and sunk on her maiden voyage, the War of 1812 would have played out in pretty much the same way, and some other heroic story from the war would have played a similar role in the founding mythology.
Victory on the other hand was one of the most dangerous vessels afloat, could have plausibly defeated any single enemy of the time in a ship-to-ship duel (even Santissima Trinidad, given the latter’s sailing qualities and crew training levels), and led Royal Navy fleets as flagship in a couple major battles including one of the single most decisive naval battles of all time. Now of course if Victory had foundered on her maiden voyage her place would just have been taken by some other RN 1st Rate, but Victory’s importance is not just in her place in British legend but in the naval significance of destroying the Franco-Spanish fleet and putting a decisive end to Napoleon’s naval ambitions. She did more than make her nation’s merchant shipping marginally safer from enemy privateers and boost morale back home.
The only way these two ships are comparable is in being the two oldest warships in existence. Points to Constitution for still being afloat instead of in permanent drydock, of course.
Agreed, but I think the Enterprise (CV-6) is #1 all time.
<< deleted by poster >>
Guerriere was one of the best RN frigates, but she was still undersized compared to the Constitution.
Constitution
1576 tons
30x 24lb long gun main armament
20x 32lb carronade secondary armament
2x 24lb bow chasers
Guerriere
1092 tons
30x 18lb long gun main armament
16x 32lb carronade secondary armament
2x 12lb bow chasers
Constitution weighed half again as much as Guerriere and was firing a heavier main armament. The fight was a slugfest, but it was not an equal contest. Not crazy lobsided - greater disparities had been overcome in the age of fighting sail by superior seamanship and gunnery drill, but still not equal. The closest thing to Constitution in the RN was probably razees like Indefatigable, which were 4th Rate Ships of the Line that had their top gundecks cut off (razed) converting them to single deck frigates with 24lber main armaments and much heavier hulls than typical frigates. To my knowledge no American frigates ever fought against a razee frigate.
Carronades, for the unaware, are short-barreled cannon that aren’t effective at range, but weigh significantly less than long guns of the same calibre and so can be carried higher up on a sailing vessel without rolling her over and sending her to the bottom a la the Vasa.
In fact, I specifically said any Navy in a later post. But real ships please.
Boy, if drawing a distinction between the US Navy and the Continental Navy isn’t splitting hairs, I don’t know what is.
My point is that while the Enterprise was highly decorated and did a lot of amazing stuff, it doesn’t even come close to being “the most important Navy ship of all time.”
You could say it played a outsize role in WWII. But that’s it. It didn’t singlehandedly win the war, the war would still have been won without it, and its exploits didn’t really go on to have any lasting effects beyond the war itself, except insofar as they named a second carrier after her. But that isn’t unique either; there have been many ships named “USS Hornet”, “USS Wasp”, “USS Bonhomme Richard”, etc…
At the very best, you could say that Enterprise performed well enough to take her place among those other ships like Hornet, Randolph, and the other early ships as an example of how the Navy should fight and conduct itself.
I’m giving credit to the ship that did the most in battles. If the Enterprise had sunk at Pearl Harbor*, the War would have been harder and longer. Quite probably by years. A good example is Midway probably would not have been won.
You seem to be leaning towards those that did the most to establish the US Navy. But weren’t actually all that important in any other way. I don’t think any of those ships shorten their wars by much.
I’ve seen a lot of other nominations for first of a major step forward in capability. A fair criteria.
We also have one for science and one for exploration. I didn’t even think along this way, but an interesting way to go.
* I mentioned she was delayed a day be weather.
ISTM establishing a nation as a naval power is more important that sinking a few more ships.
I can’t find stats for how many ships HMS Victory sank but she played a huge role in her time and, arguably, saved the British empire. (Anecdote: I was in Trafalgar Square and overheard a tour guide mentioning that Lord Nelson’s statue is higher than all the other statues of kings in the square signifying that the Brits consider Nelson of more import than the rest.)
The USS Constitution played an outsized role in forming the US as a naval power even if she didn’t sink the most ships.
I think that counts for more than simple numbers tell us.
But, if numbers are the thing, the best I could find is the USS Enterprise sunk more ships than any other ship.
As if that is no small thing? Point me to a ship with a more outsized role in an equal or greater conflict of greater consequence to human history, and you just might sell me. HMS Victory, for example, is a fine ship, but Nelson could have commanded from literally any other ship in the Royal Navy and done just fine: there were so many to choose from. Not so with Enterprise during the early stages of WWII…
BHR or Ranger? Frankly, I suspect that if the Continental Navy had not had a single ship, the war would have gone on basically as read, with no significant change to the course of history, or even the subsequent US Navy. It was already essentially a non-entity.
I suspect if you plucked the USS Enterprise out of WWII not much would have changed either as regards the outcome of the war.
(I am not minimizing the work and effort that ship did.)
Not true. No Enterprise and Japan would have got off to a much better start and the war and thus death toll would’ve been greater.
I think you are correct it is not true but I do not think it matters.
The US had X-assets to throw into the war. More assets means a better ability to prosecute the war and fewer US deaths.
By that rationale plucking a US aircraft carrier out of the war would mean less assets and more US soldiers dead. But this is true for almost anything and does not make the Enterprise particularly special. Other carriers would have gotten the job done (unless you want to claim the USS Enterprise won the war and without it the US would have lost).
You seem to be suggesting that if Nelson was on some other 100 gun ship (Royal Sovereign perhaps) the outcome at Trafalgar would have been different.
I am saying the results would have been the same no matter what ship he was on.
So Victory is just a stand in for the most important command/fleet? Not the ship itself?
No, the US would have won without the Enterprise, but she did the most to hold the line and slow down Japan. This bought the US time to bring its manufacturing might to bear.
I firmly believe she shortened the war by at least a year and maybe more.