Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilesGregarius
The US Navy put up a spirited fight against the Royal Navy, so much so that the Admiralty forbade the large USN frigates from being engaged by anything short of a ship-of-the-line or unless their frigates had numbers on their side. Admittedly, Britain's main concern at the time was fighting the Corsican Ogre, but she still had more than enough resources to smack down the upstart Yanks.
The USN had excellent frigates that outclassed the British. Also, unlike France and Spain, who lacked the nautical tradition of the UK, the US was a premier seafaring nation in its own right, her merchantmen and particularly her whalers roaming as far or farther than Britain's own. American captains and crews were perhaps the only equals the RN had.
USS Constitution's exploits (vs. HMS Guerriere, vs. HMS Java, vs. HMS Cyane and HM Sloop Levant) should be known well enough. USS Essex, though eventually captured, single-handedly terrorized the British whaling fleet in the Pacific (apparantly providing the inspiration for the enemy ship in the movie Master and Commander; in Patrick O'Brian's novel, The Far Side of the World, Aubrey's quarry was a US frigate, the Norfolk, not a French one).
In the end, the USN was too small to prevent or break the British blockade of American ports, but it punched well above its weight, giving the Brits much more of a fight than they wanted.
Wow great post! Thanks.
Sorry if my posts come across as a bit immaturish, but I'm honestly saying what I know about the war.
So about the USN at the time of the start of the war... what did it have in its arsenal?
And in what ways did the USN's frigates outclass the RN's? And I never heard of the fact that the UK had told its fleet to not engage US Frigates unless their own had numbers or there were ships-of-the-line taking part. Very interesting.
Also what is the Corsican Orge?
Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
Wow great post! Thanks.
Sorry if my posts come across as a bit immaturish, but I'm honestly saying what I know about the war.
No worries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
So about the USN at the time of the start of the war... what did it have in its arsenal?
The USN had around 20 ships or so, the biggest being frigates plus sloops, brigs, cutters and the like. No ships-of-the-line. Britain had somewhere upwards of 80 warships in North American waters, though I have no idea what their composition was, and I doubt any ships-of-the-line were deployed in the area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
And in what ways did the USN's frigates outclass the RN's? And I never heard of the fact that the UK had told its fleet to not engage US Frigates unless their own had numbers or there were ships-of-the-line taking part. Very interesting.
US frigates were larger, usually mounting 44 guns to the British standard 38, and the guns mounted on US frigates were of a heavier caliber, 24-pounders as opposed to the RN's usual 18-pounders. Also, the hulls of US frigates were designed both to be faster and more damage resistant than the standard European variety. USS Constitution got its nickname, Old Ironsides, from her fight with HMS Guerriere after the British crew watched their cannonballs apparently bounce off Constitution's hull. USN 44-gun frigates would actually equal RN 4th Rate ships-of-the-line; Britain's own frigates were 38-gun 5th Rates, so it's understandable why, after early defeats, the Admiralty forbade British 5th Rates from trying to slug it out with ships that clearly outclassed them.
Incidentally, the Constitution is still on active service, the oldest commisioned ship in the USN. As of 1997, she's been refitted and is now seaworthy again after 100 plus years tied to a dock. If you're ever in Boston, check her out.
If you're interested in the period, you may want to check out Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy by Ian Toll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
Also what is the Corsican Orge?
Napoleon Bonaparte to his many detractors.
Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
Quote:
And in what ways did the USN's frigates outclass the RN's?
To add to what Miles said about armament and construction (to which should be added that the structure of the American 44s was the equivalent of the British 74s) there was also the manpower consideration , Britians ships were short of crew and moreover short of experienced mariners whereas America , due to the trade war , had a massive pool unemployed sailors to pick from .
Quote:
And I never heard of the fact that the UK had told its fleet to not engage US Frigates unless their own had numbers or there were ships-of-the-line taking part. Very interesting.
When the ships were of equal force the results could go either way , like the Shannon taking the Chesapeake (both 38s)
Quote:
The USN had around 20 ships or so
Only 12 (apart from the lakes and gunboats) were servicable at the start of the war
Quote:
Britain had somewhere upwards of 80 warships in North American waters, though I have no idea what their composition was, and I doubt any ships-of-the-line were deployed in the area.
Africa(64)was the flag on the Halifax station ,though once the blockade was started they put six 74s on the atlantic coastline then added a rasee once the blockade extended to Boston .
Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilesGregarius
No worries.
Cool:2thumbsup:
Quote:
The USN had around 20 ships or so, the biggest being frigates plus sloops, brigs, cutters and the like. No ships-of-the-line. Britain had somewhere upwards of 80 warships in North American waters, though I have no idea what their composition was, and I doubt any ships-of-the-line were deployed in the area.
Did the US frigates act as independent ships with a few other smaller craft in tow or were they ever in action as a whole unit. As it seems there were quite a few independent actions between them and RN ships.
And by the end of the War of 1812, what was the status of the US Navy? And that of the RN?
Quote:
US frigates were larger, usually mounting 44 guns to the British standard 38, and the guns mounted on US frigates were of a heavier caliber, 24-pounders as opposed to the RN's usual 18-pounders. Also, the hulls of US frigates were designed both to be faster and more damage resistant than the standard European variety.
USS Constitution got its nickname,
Old Ironsides, from her fight with HMS
Guerriere after the British crew watched their cannonballs apparently bounce off
Constitution's hull. USN 44-gun frigates would actually equal RN
4th Rate ships-of-the-line; Britain's own frigates were 38-gun
5th Rates, so it's understandable why, after early defeats, the Admiralty forbade British 5th Rates from trying to slug it out with ships that clearly outclassed them.
That's interesting about the frigates. And thanks for the links about the 4th and 5th rate ships, was just about to ask about those.
Quote:
Incidentally, the Constitution is still on active service, the oldest commisioned ship in the USN. As of 1997, she's been refitted and is now seaworthy again after 100 plus years tied to a dock. If you're ever in Boston, check her out.
Yea I heard about that. Pretty cool. Eh, I'm on the other side of the country, it's gonna be a bit before I make my way over but it is a very nice look ship.
I almost bought that book. Tho I have a lot of other books to read~:(
Quote:
Napoleon Bonaparte to his many detractors.
O...haha, thought it was a campaign or something lol:clown:
Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
To add to what Miles said about armament and construction (to which should be added that the structure of the American 44s was the equivalent of the British 74s) there was also the manpower consideration , Britain's ships were short of crew and moreover short of experienced mariners whereas America , due to the trade war , had a massive pool unemployed sailors to pick from.
Alright, so what made the US frigates that good or better than their British counterparts?
Quote:
Only 12 (apart from the lakes and gunboats) were serviceable at the start of the war
The gun boats put up real good fights here and there from what I remember.
Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
The gun boats put up real good fights here and there from what I remember.
American gun boats and schooners were more plentiful than the British on Lake Ontario. In the Battle of Lake Erie, on the other hand, both sides had lots of schooners and brigs - six and five total, respectively.
Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
Quote:
Alright, so what made the US frigates that good or better than their British counterparts?
Because they were entirely different ships , even compared to the large British frigates that were consructed along similar lines they were still 300-400 tons bigger , the size made them more stable gun platforms , the heavier construction (as I said equivalent to the British 74s) made them less vulnerable to battle damage(well the hulls anyway) , the guns fired heavier rounds and had longer range , the crews were bigger and all volunteer .
A better comparrison for the American frigates would be the 3 British cut down 74s since they retained a full upper deck , or to go further on the 2 spar decked 40s and the two 50s , but by the time they were built and in service the US navy was largely blockaded in port .
Quote:
The gun boats put up real good fights here and there from what I remember.
Apart from their contribution on the lakes they were largely ineffective , the idea was to emulate the success of the Dutch and Danish with their use of gunboats on coastal traffic , but the situation simply wasn't the same .
Quote:
Did the US frigates act as independent ships with a few other smaller craft in tow or were they ever in action as a whole unit. As it seems there were quite a few independent actions between them and RN ships.
They were intended to act as squadrons , for example Rogers had President , United States , Congress , Hornet and Wasp (Constitution was also supposed to go but was delayed)for his first cruise , but that cruise was not very succesful (7 merchant ships in total) , after that they switched (in theory )to 3 ship squadrons though it never worked , then down to two ship .
By mid-late 1813 with the blockade in place and the convoy system in operation the US navy was pretty much neutralised (as were the US privateers)
Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Because they were entirely different ships , even compared to the large British frigates that were constructed along similar lines they were still 300-400 tons bigger , the size made them more stable gun platforms , the heavier construction (as I said equivalent to the British 74s) made them less vulnerable to battle damage(well the hulls anyway) , the guns fired heavier rounds and had longer range , the crews were bigger and all volunteer .
A better comparison for the American frigates would be the 3 British cut down 74s since they retained a full upper deck , or to go further on the 2 spar decked 40s and the two 50s , but by the time they were built and in service the US navy was largely blockaded in port.
Ahh, thanks, that clears quite a bit up for me.
Quote:
Apart from their contribution on the lakes they were largely ineffective , the idea was to emulate the success of the Dutch and Danish with their use of gunboats on coastal traffic , but the situation simply wasn't the same.
I thought that they were built for emergency and also to control the major river lines by Canada and the Great Lakes and not with that kind of thought in place about what the Danes did. Never heard of that. Guess I spend too much time in the 40's lol.
Quote:
They were intended to act as squadrons , for example Rogers had President , United States , Congress , Hornet and Wasp (Constitution was also supposed to go but was delayed)for his first cruise , but that cruise was not very successful (7 merchant ships in total) , after that they switched (in theory )to 3 ship squadrons though it never worked , then down to two ship .
By mid-late 1813 with the blockade in place and the convoy system in operation the US navy was pretty much neutralized (as were the US privateers)
Huh... How did the blockade work? As it seems the majority of the major actions were on the lakes.
Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
Quote:
Huh... How did the blockade work?
The blockade worked by stopping trade (some cities lost over 80% of their merchant fleet) and preventing the navy from getting out to sea .
Quote:
As it seems the majority of the major actions were on the lakes.
It is best to look at it as 2 or even 3 seperate theatres .
The Lakes
The sea(or the US coastal waters and the open sea)
Quote:
thought that they were built for emergency and also to control the major river lines by Canada and the Great Lakes and not with that kind of thought in place about what the Danes did. Never heard of that.
No its the result of two directions of policy , one camp thought that a brown water navy was what was needed , the other that a blue water navy was needed .
The Jeffersonian gunboats were a result of the former .
The big frigates were result of the latter , in combination with the idea that the US couldn't compete on pure numbers terms but could build a few far superior ships instead .
Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
My impression of the War of 1812 was that a bunch of uppity U.S. governors tried to attack Canada, but were smacked around. It's understandable how numbers were not necessarily reflections of capabilities, since the U.S. forces were mostly militia. The U.S. standing army was always small up until post-Civil War, then it grew but ballooned after WW2.
There are some victories for the U.S. forces, but those were primarily against :indian_chief: tribes (Red Sticks, Creek, Seminole), and those troops joined with the Americans at New Orleans. Winfield Scott also whipped some U.S. troops and militia into a respectable unit (Lundy's Lane). Now if we had some French drill sergeants, we could've whipped the Brits up to Hudson Bay :hmg:
Re: Americans in Foreign Militaries
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
It's understandable how numbers were not necessarily reflections of capabilities, since the U.S. forces were mostly militia.
The large victories at the beginning of the war by the British were won in a good part by Canadian militias and native tribes.
Quote:
Winfield Scott also whipped some U.S. troops and militia into a respectable unit (Lundy's Lane).:
A draw, as it happens. ~;)
