Americans in Foreign Militaries

Hey, I was hoping that some of the guys here at the monestary can help me.
I'm gonna be doing a term paper soon and I was considering doing it on American's in foreign militaries. I know about some famous cases in the 20th century such as the the Lafayette Escadrille squadron in WWI, the American Sqaudreon (cannot spell the name) in the Russo-Polish war of 1919-1921, The Flying Tigers in the beginning of WWII and the Eagle Squadron of the RAF in the Battle of Britain. But my question is, is there a case of Americans serving in foreign miltaries outside the 20th century?
Im really hoping that you guys can help me.Any sources would be greatly appreaciated as well.

John Paul Jones went on to serve in the Russian navy after the Revolution.

There were coups in the 1880s and 1890s, where Americans lead several Latin American revolts.

Japan hired the best American pilots in WWII before, not after they attacked them. They formed a squad, which name I do not remember.

I'll just post o so uneloquently in no real order of what comes to my mind to help ya out!

Seems like you are focusing on American's flying in foreign air forces... I could only think of the Eagle Squadron during the Battle of Britain and the flying Tigers. American advisers in the early stages of the Vietnam Conflict/War when they went out on patrols and started fighting alongside their advisees. And the Americans that fought alongside Filipinos during the occupation of the Philippines during WWII. American pilots flying during WWI with the French (cannot remember if they fought with the Brits) before America officially entered the war. During the French and Indian War when American militias fought under the British against the French and their Indian allies.

There was an American company in the Spanish Civil War, cant remember their name though.

The Lincoln Brigade

There were two American battalions (Abraham Lincoln and George Washington), a Canadian-American battallion (Mackenzie-Papineau), an anti-aircraft battery (John Brown), and a field hospital.

Also the cause of the War of 1812 between America and Britain, in which English men-o-war were kidnapping American seamen and forcing them into service around the time of Napoleon.

We were only borrowing them to halt the spread of despotism, and for the buggery!

*Glances about, shiftily*

Happy Saint Patty's Day

Okay so its a couple days early, but the above link is for Saint Patrick's Battalion. These Americans were Irish immigrants who deserted the US army and joined the Mexicans during the Mexican-American War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decker

Also the cause of the War of 1812 between America and Britain, in which English men-o-war were kidnapping American seamen and forcing them into service around the time of Napoleon.

---

This was not, strictly, the only cause. America did have it's own territorial ambitions north of the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

This was not, strictly, the only cause. America did have it's own territorial ambitions north of the border.

---

Well we didn't necessarily want it bad enough.

There were also Yanks who joined the Canadian army in WW1. Before the US joined in 1917. Also US black battallions that were given to the French to fight for them. That's how show I was watching put it.

William Walker and his Immortals. Not exactly 'service' in a foreign military but still

Plenty of examples in the 20th's Century, but very few before then, simply because the US was largely isolationist and few Americans had many concerns with foreign affairs, especially outside North and South America. I read your qustion carefully, and you didn't specify whether the service had to be voluntary or not. As such, I do know of a major situation of American service in foreign militaries prior to the 20th Century: British impressment of American sailors during the Napoleonic Wars. The Brits would regularly board American merchant vessels and forcibly conscript their sailors to serve in the Royal Navy, due to manpower shortages. The number of conscripts varies by account, but it was certainly several thousand. These acts were one of the reasons the US gave for declaring war on Britain in 1812, though there were ulterior motives that went far beyond simple outrage at impressment.

For sources, simply look up anything on the origins of the War of 1812.

[edit] Just noticed that Decker already brought this up, albeit briefly. I think it would certainly qualify for the purposes of your term paper.

I don't know if they could be classed as Americans in the modern sense of the word, but I'd also include those men who returned to England, intent on fighting in the English Civil Wars, or the wider Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

take a look at some of these guys. Not quite serving in forigen milltarys but still the same vigleante additude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29

Mickey Marcus, the first man to be appointed to the highest rank of aluf (major general) by the State of Israel. One of the thousands of machal fighting alongside the Yishuv during the Israeli War of Independence. He was killed by a sabra who did not speak English or Yiddish (which were the only languages Marcus spoke) and consequently couldn't demand a password from him at a perimeter.

They made a movie about him in the '60s called Cast a Giant Shadow. For those not entirely happy with Israel in this present day and age, be warned -- it's strong on the Zionist romanticism (at least, I think it is; haven't seen it myself).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decker

Well we didn't necessarily want it bad enough.

---

America had a lot more troops than the colonial forces at the beginning of the war, and were defeated by Brock and Sheaffe. However, later in the war the battles went back and forth (the problem with Canadian teaching - from my experience, this was rarely taught in history classes - only the, admittedly major, victories at the beginning are). However, I'd argue that it was a stalemate in favour of Britain by the end of the war.

Anyways, that's neither here nor there. Wrong topic altogether, and I shouldn't have started that. My apologies. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

America had a lot more troops than the colonial forces at the beginning of the war, and were defeated by Brock and Sheaffe. However, later in the war the battles went back and forth (the problem with Canadian teaching - from my experience, this was rarely taught in history classes - only the, admittedly major, victories at the beginning are). However, I'd argue that it was a stalemate in favour of Britain by the end of the war.

Anyways, that's neither here nor there. Wrong topic altogether, and I shouldn't have started that. My apologies. :bow:

---

Really?? I thought the major fights took place early and then we just had some border skirmishes. Didn't really know about any other major battles.

Foreign advisors: Vietnam, Korea (the South Part), Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever else they might have been.

Thank you for all your help everyone. I had thought this topic long dead and had happened to stumble upon The story of the Abraham-Lincoln Brigade and have started my paper on them. but thanks for the response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decker

Really?? I thought the major fights took place early and then we just had some border skirmishes. Didn't really know about any other major battles.

---

By the beginning I mean 1812 alone, when the American offensives were defeated or at least driven back. What is the extent that this is taught in American schools? I was taught a portion of it in Canada, and I've always loved the topic - it's probably my favourite war to study not fought on European soil, and even then only behind the World Wars and Franco-/Austro-Prussian Wars.

Some of the big later battles:

1813

Battle of Stoney Creek - British Victory
Battle of Beaver Dams - British Victory (This is the "Laura Secord" battle)
Battle of Fort George - American Victory
Battle of York - American Victory (the value of which is questionable)

1814

Battle of Plattsburgh - American Victory
Second Battle of Lacolle Mills - British Victory (look at the troop ratios!)
Battle of Crysler's Farm - British Victory (see above)
Battle of Baltimore - American
Burning of Washington - British (do they teach this in American schools?)
Siege of Fort Erie - Technically American, but they evacuated
Battle of Chippawa - American
Battle of Lundy's Lane - I'd call in favour of the British (huge casualty rates)

1815

Battle of New Orleans - American Victory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

By the beginning I mean 1812 alone, when the American offensives were defeated or at least driven back. What is the extent that this is taught in American schools? I was taught a portion of it in Canada, and I've always loved the topic - it's probably my favourite war to study not fought on European soil, and even then only behind the World Wars and Franco-/Austro-Prussian Wars.

Some of the big later battles:

1813

Battle of Stoney Creek - British Victory
Battle of Beaver Dams - British Victory (This is the "Laura Secord" battle)
Battle of Fort George - American Victory
Battle of York - American Victory (the value of which is questionable)

1814

Battle of Plattsburgh - American Victory
Second Battle of Lacolle Mills - British Victory (look at the troop ratios!)
Battle of Crysler's Farm - British Victory (see above)
Battle of Baltimore - American
Burning of Washington - British (do they teach this in American schools?)
Siege of Fort Erie - Technically American, but they evacuated
Battle of Chippawa - American
Battle of Lundy's Lane - I'd call in favour of the British (huge casualty rates)

1815

Battle of New Orleans - American Victory

---

haha this has been taught, to my personal experience, very briefly with a brief talk about how we sucked at attacking Canada. Then Washington got burned and the President's wife was all heroic in saving some things from the White House, and then our smacking of the English at New Orleans.

From what I can barely remember is that, we had quite a few incompetent generals trying to invade or at least march towards and were all whipped. At least in one battle we had a rediculous amount of men vs a force that was woefully outnumbered! And then a couple harder fought battles followed by the sacking of Washington DC. Then accumulated in the "post war" battle at New Orleans. That and our Navy's excellent combat actions on the Great Lakes.

That's all I really know and remember from history class and from other sources...that I don't read up on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decker

From what I can barely remember is that, we had quite a few incompetent generals trying to invade or at least march towards and were all whipped.

---

You seem to have a good memory. William Hull, Stephen Van Rensselaer, and Henry Dearborn were all terrible generals. Canada/Britain had it's own share of cautious generals, but the above three were exceptionally cautious and not exactly wonderful tacticians.

Quote:

---

At least in one battle we had a rediculous amount of men vs a force that was woefully outnumbered!

---

:yes:

Out of the battles I mentioned, the British were outnumbered two to one in six, and by ten to one in at least one (Crysler's Farm). Then you have most of the action by the initial American offensives, such as the Battle of Fort Detroit (Brock convinced an American garrison, lead by William Hull - which outnumbered him almost 2-1 - to surrender) and the infamous (in Canada, at least) Battle of Queenston Heights, which lead to the death of General Brock and a victory by General Sheaffe, while the Americans under Van Rensselaer outnumbered the defenders about four, four and a half to one. Brock was one of only ten or fifteen deaths on the British side, killed leading a charge up a hill. He charged on foot, and had already been wounded once in the hand.

Quote:

---

That and our Navy's excellent combat actions on the Great Lakes.

---

The American Navy did do quite well on the Great Lakes for certain.

Quote:

---

That's all I really know and remember from history class and from other sources...that I don't read up on.

---

In Canada, what was taught when I was there was mainly about the Niagara and Detriot frontiers, with a quick mention of Washington. The Lake Champlain frontier was almost unmentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You seem to have a good memory. William Hull, Stephen Van Rensselaer, and Henry Dearborn were all terrible generals. Canada/Britain had it's own share of cautious generals, but the above three were exceptionally cautious and not exactly wonderful tacticians.:yes:

---

Thanks. Yea they really weren't. One thing I just remembered (literally while typing this out), was that the British didn't fart around this time and waged the war they should have during the American Revolution.

Quote:

---

Out of the battles I mentioned, the British were outnumbered two to one in six, and by ten to one in at least one (Crysler's Farm). Then you have most of the action by the initial American offensives, such as the Battle of Fort Detroit (Brock convinced an American garrison, lead by William Hull - which outnumbered him almost 2-1 - to surrender) and the infamous (in Canada, at least) Battle of Queenston Heights, which lead to the death of General Brock and a victory by General Sheaffe, while the Americans under Van Rensselaer outnumbered the defenders about four, four and a half to one. Brock was one of only ten or fifteen deaths on the British side, killed leading a charge up a hill. He charged on foot, and had already been wounded once in the hand.

---

Yea Crysler's Farm was the one I was talking about! Man talk about WHOOPS!
And Detroit ranks up there in blunders imo, one should never give up with a perfectly good force at hand imho. And can you go into a little more detail about Queenston? I was/am a bit confused by what you typed.

Quote:

---

The American Navy did do quite well on the Great Lakes for certain.

---

Surprising! Such a small navy against on the best a largest navies in the world. But then again, we did have homefied advantage, as I think on the open seas we would have been smeared by the heel of the Royal Navy.

Quote:

---

In Canada, what was taught when I was there was mainly about the Niagara and Detriot frontiers, with a quick mention of Washington. The Lake Champlain frontier was almost unmentioned.

---

Really? Well, part of the war took place NEAR Canada while the rest of it was down here in the States so that makes some sense I suppose.

Hmmm we never got that specific about the generals in the north, but we were taught that the American militias had no desire to enter Canada, thus making any invasion largely impossible. Were Canadian militias involved to a large extent? If so we may have been taught that they also were reluctant to leave their homes for long periods, thus making Canadian/British attacks on the Northern US largely futile.

We focused much more on the Southern part of the war, especially New Orleans and Washington.

The "Battle" at Fort Detriot is really interesting - Brock essentially bluffed his way through the whole thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decker

And can you go into a little more detail about Queenston? I was/am a bit confused by what you typed.

---

Alright.

General Sir Isaac Brock (actually a major-general, commander of forces in Upper Canada) had taken Detriot. Shortly afterward, Van Rensselaer was pressured into crossing the Niagara River to invade Upper Canada near the town of Queenston. He was a terrible general with mostly terrible troops. The crossing with boats began, and the British artillery was quite effective. The first group of Americans landed. Brock was at Fort George at this time. Van Rensselaer was hit by a musket ball as he landed, but survived, relatively unscathed. He was promptly hit five more times, and later had to withdraw due to loss of blood (he just wouldn't die). However, the Americans were at the bottom of a cliff, being raked by very accurate British fire. The second group of American boats crossing was almost completely destroyed.

At this time, Brock rode quickly to Queenston, thinking it may be a diversion. Brock arrived at a British gun, at about the same time the only good American descision of the battle was made when a Captain Wool charged up a fisherman's path and took the gun - Brock and the artillerymen still managed to spike it in time.

Realizing that this was the main attack, Brock sent a message to Roger Sheaffe, another Major-General, (American born, ironically) asking for reinforcements. Sheaffe was as slow and cautious as Brock was impetuous. This collided badly, as Sheaffe took his time with organizing reinforcements, and Brock led a charge up the hill to retake it from the Americans. He was wounded in the hand in the first charge, and ran right back up the hill, leading the second charge. The next musket ball hit him squarely, and he died.

The Americans begin to reform on the Heights, relatively ineffectively. Mowhawk natives had climbed to the top of the Heights, and began a brief attack before withdrawing, damaging American morale. Their warcries caused the Americans remaining on the other side of the river to refuse to cross, or even for the boatmen to rescue the now trapped Americans. This is when Sheaffe decides to show up. He takes two hours to reform his troops (yawn), and finally decides to advance. Upon hearing more war cries, the majority of the Americans run, leaving Winfield Scott and a few hundred men to meet the attack. He surrendered as quickly as he could.

Final Score:
American Casualties: Roughly a hundred dead, three hundred wounded, and nine hundred/nine hundred and fifty captured.
British Casualties: About fifteen dead, seventy or so wounded.

Quote:

---

Were Canadian militias involved to a large extent?

---

Canadian militia and natives were the key to the defense of Canada - there were barely enough British regulars cover Upper and Lower Canada, and certainly not enough to do anything alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Canadian militia and natives were the key to the defense of Canada - there were barely enough British regulars cover Upper and Lower Canada, and certainly not enough to do anything alone.

---

Okay, cool so I did remember correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decker

Surprising! Such a small navy against on the best a largest navies in the world. But then again, we did have homefied advantage, as I think on the open seas we would have been smeared by the heel of the Royal Navy.

---

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.

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?

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.

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 .

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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:

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.

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.

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)

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.

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 .

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:

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. ~;)