It would be cool to have a life boat that gives you about a 1 in 10 chance of making it to another ship. Kinda like Oliver Hazard Perry from the Battle of Lake Erie in the War of 1812. This is the battle that he uses the flag "Don't give up the ship" and kicks some serious but. Here's a picture of the flag hanging at Annapolis MD.:
I agree that being able to ?abandon ship? in a small boat (almost all warships by Enigma?s time carried at least ?some? motorized lifeboats) would be very cool? especially if friendly ships could come to your rescue and (in turn) allow you to man one of their guns.
To suggest that Perry ?kicked some serious butt? at Lake Erie, however, demands a very serious lack of understanding of what truly happened at that battle. For one, the British and American fleets did not meet on near-equal terms - the British, grossly under-funded in their defense of Canada (England?s main military focus was still then the ?real? threat of Napoleon - an American invasion of Canada being seen as a trivial, far-off colonial matter in comparison), were able to muster a ?fleet? but barely half the number which they would face sailing under Perry. Even ship-to-ship, the British suffered a very great disadvantage - their vessels lacking full compliments of cannon and being built of green, unseasoned timber (making their largest brigs - although comparable in weight class to Perry?s - dramatically inferior in their ability to resist puncture by solid iron shot).
What makes the events surrounding the Battle of Lake Erie so resonate in the American mindset, thus, is not the fact that the battle was ?won? (even then, there were few - even on the British side who considered ?possible? a strategic win for England - the most they hoped to achieve being a ?tactical victory? in which they would inflict greater losses than they received before withdrawing) but rather the manner in which Oliver Harvard Perry himself conducted it. Amongst the American people of today, Perry is considered a popular hero - enough so to have a class of frigate named after him. Yet, according to the (now) largely forgotten war conventions of the time, Perry had - in every sense of the word - to ?cheat? in order to achieve his victory.
It was no secret, before or after the battle, that Perry was a somewhat impulsive commander - and when British Commodore Robert Barclay, a talented strategist and a veteran of Trafalgar, laid a ?simple? crescent trap? Perry blundered wildly into it, orchestrating his fleet into something more like a cavalry charge, and allowing his flagship (the large brig ?Lawrence?, too far ahead of other American ships by that time to expect any support) to become riddled with shot and left a bloody, burning hulk almost right at the battle?s onset. Now, under the rules of war which existed at that time - any commander in Perry?s now prone and unrecoverable position (his masts toppled and his ship left a helpless, burning mass) was considered to bear the ?duty? of surrendering his ship in order to spare the common sailor the horror of a vain and bloody massacre (an enemy boarding).
Perry, however, had other plans - humiliated by the thought that, being the ?admiral?, surrendering himself meant surrendering his entire fleet (most of which had not yet even been ?touched? by enemy fire), Perry boarded a longboat and had himself rowed for the brig Niagara. It is ironic to consider that, in light of his own very deliberate betrayal of the standing rules of war, Perry survived this transfer to the Niagara only due to very strict adherence to that same code of conduct (which he had himself betrayed so readily) by the British. During the Napoleonic era, and throughout the previous centuries, it had been considered ?ill mannered? by the British to fire upon, with deliberate intent to kill, an enemy officer (or other member of the so-called ?gentry) - as the ?proper conduct of war? according to many such old world powers, ought to ?spare the nobility? (to them, war being almost a kind of gentleman?s ?sport?). Although Perry, and for that matter most American officers, were not true nobility by British standards - this did not register in the minds of the lieutenants and marine commanders in the British fleet whom, in spite of being well within range, directed neither musket volley nor cannon shot Perry?s way.
It is doubly ironic thus to consider that, given he was in no ?real? danger during his transfer to the Niagara (owing to British ?good manners?), Perry is nevertheless remembered as being ?heroic? for this very act. In reality, he had already ?lost? the battle according to the standards of war which had endured the centuries up until then and, in spite of the ?Perry? factor, would continue to endure for centuries after (England ?still? considers it immoral for a government to commit or support the direct assassination of other national leaders - most reminiscent of their reluctance to fire upon French and American officers during Napoleonic times - a courtesy which the French, too, abided by).
