Napoleonic Wars navies....

ren, yes, great experience!.. I bought a piece of "Constitution Oak" during the restoration.

Old Ironsides was never designed for taking on a ship of the line. That would be like the Bismark locking horns with the New Jersey.


Consider adding Vicksburg and Chalmette, LA to your list too.. very cool places..

side note... In Philly, the USS Olympia, Admiral Dewey's flagship resides. It represents a transition time between wooden vessels and modern battleships... A MUST SEE if you're on the East Coast

http://www.spanamwar.com/olympia.htm

.

Ships of the Line were large lumbering battleships built to ensure superiority of the sea. They were only really effective in large scale fleet operations, such as Trafalgar. However a nation could not attempt to destroy Britains superiority unless they defeated its fleet.

The majority of fighting was done by vessels such as frigates and they really were arguably the most important versatile vessels.

The "ships of the line" were meant to do exactly that, fight in the line of battle so the emphasis was on ruggedness and gun power. Some of the French 74s had pretty good sailing qualities though. None however could match the Constitution as far as sailing qualities and she was actually faster than some British 38 gun frigates that were smaller than she. The British were skeptical about whether the US could build quality warships believing they had no access to good materials. The Constitution's structure was built of live oak and she was sheated with white oak and the ship was immensely strong.

I can heartily recommend a book about this period if you're keen to read more

Amazon.co.uk: Billy Ruffian: The Bellerophon and the Downfall of Napoleon: Books: David Cordingly

It's a biography of a single ship that was at all the major battles vs. the French and the ship onto which Napoleon surrendered when he lost France.

Full of fascinating detail about the construction / maintenance of a '74, how the RN was organised run and the officers crew.

It's well-written too - read it many times.

The idea that French and Spanish ships were superior in design to their British counterparts was created in the 18th Century as an excuse by the British naval officers for a defeat. The idea of French supremacy in design also fitted the upper-class admiration of French prestige and glamour. France was, and still is, the fashionable country of world for the high class; which encompasses the officer class of the day. The officer class saw the superior design of French ships as a magnification of their courage and honour when they won, and as I said, an excuse when they lost. It also was a boost in price when they came to sell French and Spanish prizes. So the idea of French and Spanish superiority in design through maths and sciences, instead of tradition, has stuck.

In the century starting from 1714 the French lost more than half their ships (ships of the line and frigates) sunk or captured. From 1793 to 1815, the French built 133 ships of the line and 127 frigates; and lost 112 to enemy action and a further 126 to stress of weather. Hardly the sign of a superior design...

The French ship was not directly comparable to a British ship in any case. The French strategy was different to that of the British who aimed to control the oceans - the French were never aiming to confront the British in open battle. So it would be better to see how well each nations ships did their jobs...

The idea that only the French applied mathematics to their designs is also wrong. The British applied maths to their designs but not in a gentleman philosphers manner but in practical terms so is often ignored. The first French ships to be built solely by mathematics (Scipion, Hercule and Pluton) were useless as the maths was all wrong - they forgot the simple problem of skin friction in their hydrodynamic studies.

Another thing that throws the idea of British inferiority in ship design is the fact that every nation in Europe went to great lengths to spy on British designs. The master shipwright of Brest Blaise Ollivier admired and copied much of the British and Dutch designs... in 1727 the Admirality of Amstderdam hired three English shipwrights to design for them...in 1748 Ensenda of Spain sent Captain Jorge Juan to spy on English design with the words "His journey will be most useful to us...for in technical matters we are extremely ignorant, and what is worse, without realizing it," English shipwrights became the masters of Cadiz, Havana, Cartagena, Guarinizo and Ferrol.

The mention of the Danish brings up the idea that they were the technically superior of all European navies ... simply because they took the ideas off everyone else. The only nation that got little influence from outside was that inferior English nation. The major influence was the capture of the Spanish Princesa, 70, which took three British seventies six hours to capture and led to 1741 Establishment for heavier armament.

After the breakout of the Seven Years War, however, Britain turned to the French style of 74-gun two-deckers but were still smaller in tonnage and shorter. They were built for ocean going, built to last, built to cruise and built to fight. They more heavily timbered and fastened - British rig, masts, sails, cordage, blocks, pumps, cables, steering gear and fittings of every kind were superior (and cheaper) than that of the French.

The French ships were lightly built with poor quality timber and fastened with nails instead of trenails. They were quick off wind but suffered in high seas or high wind. The French ships being light were death traps in close action and due to the poor quality were expensive in maintenance which was a fact enhanced by the poor quality of French dockyards.

The idea that French ships were faster is wrong anyway; British ships captured French ships time and time again when the conditions favoured the French. It was the coppered and clean hulls of the British vessels that made speed not light weight and (within limits) hull form.

To credit the French, it was they with their introduction of the 'true' frigate in 1740 and its subsequent capture that overrule the politicians and began the building of British frigates (always overloaded mind you).

The Victory alone provides a point of proof of British technology being superior to French science - a ship that lasted more than fifty years, kept in constant repair and remaining one of the fastest three-deckers in the world. Nothing a French ship ever achieved...there's more on ships from 1813 onwards diagonal timbering allowing more length without loss of rigidity, knees being replaced with iron plates, vertical topsides instead of tumblehome (cheaper construction, more room and stability), teak built ships in Bombay (expensive, but immune to rot and strong). Chain cables, new anchors, iron water-tanks fitted to the hold to save space and make watering easier.

And then there's the simple matter of gun designs - the gunlock guns which enabled the fast firing of British ships, the carronade of the Carron Company not matched by the French for twenty years, the new cylinder gunpowder being more explosive reducing powder chargers, the rocket first in action at Boulogne 1806.

All these things make British ship design superior in my eyes...and next on to the USN !

Good information there PD

Thank you. And in answer to the initial question; the Royal Navy was the best in the world, in second was the Spanish and third the French. The United States Navy was only just entering the league tables - and it's an interesting time in history.

Oh, and when war was declared by Britain against France in May 1803 the Royal Navy was outnumbered. When Spain declared war on Britain in December 1804 the Royal Navy was outnumbered even more so - for those that believe numbers were Royal Navys winning factors.

Hi Plan D,

>In the century starting from 1714 the French lost more than half their ships (ships of the line and frigates) sunk or captured. From 1793 to 1815, the French built 133 ships of the line and 127 frigates; and lost 112 to enemy action and a further 126 to stress of weather. Hardly the sign of a superior design...

I'd say that by themselves, without any figures for other Navies, thse numbers don't really tell us much

However, even with comparison figures, it would be hard to conclude anything on the quality of the ships as the quality of the crews is just as important and, I'm afraid, quite inseperably mixed up with design quality in the statistics.

>The idea that only the French applied mathematics to their designs is also wrong. The British applied maths to their designs but not in a gentleman philosphers manner but in practical terms so is often ignored. The first French ships to be built solely by mathematics (Scipion, Hercule and Pluton) were useless as the maths was all wrong - they forgot the simple problem of skin friction in their hydrodynamic studies.

That's highly interesting - do you have anything on the actual math that was used at the time? The (few) books I've read on Napoleonic navies hardly had any detail on this topic :-/

>Another thing that throws the idea of British inferiority in ship design is the fact that every nation in Europe went to great lengths to spy on British designs.

Hm, Hollland 1727 or Spain 1748 might be a different affair than France 1800 - but by saying that, I'm just commenting on the logics of the argument, I certainly lack the background knowledge to offer any opinion of my own.

>The mention of the Danish brings up the idea that they were the technically superior of all European navies ... simply because they took the ideas off everyone else.

Does it matters where you get the technology from if you end up with the best technology of them all?

>The French ships being light were death traps in close action and due to the poor quality were expensive in maintenance which was a fact enhanced by the poor quality of French dockyards.

I remember reading about captured French ships being favoured by British captains over British ships. Would you consider this a myth?

(My area of expertise actually is WW2 aviation, and the typical myth-to-fact ratio in most books on that topic is about 3:1. I would not be surprised if you'd tell me it's similar for other areas of military history, and that my limited knowledge on the era very likely consists of myths, too

>the carronade of the Carron Company not matched by the French for twenty years

I remember despairing about the etymology of the term "carronade" ... it's not Latin, it's not Greek, what can it be?! You can't imagine how glad I was when I finally found a book mentioning the Carron foundry!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

plan_D said:

Thank you. And in answer to the initial question; the Royal Navy was the best in the world, in second was the Spanish and third the French. The United States Navy was only just entering the league tables - and it's an interesting time in history.
.

Click to expand...

Yes good info PD.. I believe your assessment is indisputable.

Some interesting "What ifs":
Russia would have been more motivated in Alaska and California. With the right leader, the could have colonized as extensively as the Spanish.

China's maritime capability was developed further... they had the greatest Navy 400-1500 AD.(estimate) and would have had helluva momentum

.

Cosimo, I've been to both Constitution in Boston and USS Olympia in my backyard. Took some photos and will try to post. On the Olympia what impressed me was how small the quarters were!

The RN had the best ships and commanders during that time. Sir Alfred would be proud.

NJ..

please post them...
Olympia was like something out of a Jules Verne story... elaborate fixtures like brass lamps, door handles and furniture that border on the ornate. I've been on the New Jersey and Missouri too.. they are austere, utilitarian battle wagons. The Olympia by comparison seems more like a over sized yaught. Very cool!

.

I'll dig them out and scan them. Cosimo, you've got something on the West coast thats similar to whats at Penn's Landing in Philly. When I was in SF near Fisherman's Wharf I went on a sub and I believe a clipper ship that was anchored and open for tours. Cool stuff.

Yeah the sub is very nice USS Pampanito.
Maritime Park Association - USS Pampanito Home Page

The west coast has a few significant naval vessels but the east has us beat!

The west: Aircraft carriers in Alamedia(Hornet) and San Diego(Midway), Queen Mary, a couple subs, liberty ships and a couple clipper ships

U have the nautilus, Hunley, Olympia, Constitution, Wydah museum, USS North Carolina, USS saratoga, and a ton of others


this is a very interesting site.. Historic Naval Ships Visitors Guide

,

I know what you mean. A relative of mine invented the sub, Simon Lake, and its up at the sub museum in Mystic, Conn. Must be a few good ones on your side, what with Wash and Ore. having major seaports.

We are pretty sparse for warships up north I've got a Tribal Class destroyer about 30 miles away HMCS Haida last year. I went looking for it one day and being a great nav decided why would I need to consult a map but found out today I was on the wrong side of the bay

Hey PbFoot you class the Spanish Navy ahead of the French Navy and the Russian Navy. It is obvious that the Royal Navy is miles ahead of everyone else. The stats on the Spanish Navy tell a different story to its actual capabilities and so do the French to a lesser extent.

I agree with your summary on ship designs.

Watanbe said:

Hey PbFoot you class the Spanish Navy ahead of the French Navy and the Russian Navy. It is obvious that the Royal Navy is miles ahead of everyone else. The stats on the Spanish Navy tell a different story to its actual capabilities and so do the French to a lesser extent.

I agree with your summary on ship designs.

Click to expand...

I think you meant Plan d my knowledge of things in the water is pretty much limited to the canoe

HoHun;

"I'd say that by themselves, without any figures for other Navies, thse numbers don't really tell us much

However, even with comparison figures, it would be hard to conclude anything on the quality of the ships as the quality of the crews is just as important and, I'm afraid, quite inseperably mixed up with design quality in the statistics."

The numbers show us that the French design wasn't as supreme as some histories like to point out. The abilities of a navy as a whole do not rest in ship design, especially not in the 18th Century, you are right.

For a navy, and ships, to be successful it would need an administration, logistical support, good dockyards, good health, good crew, good leadership then good ships. During Napoleons reign, the French Navy had none of that.

"That's highly interesting - do you have anything on the actual math that was used at the time? The (few) books I've read on Napoleonic navies hardly had any detail on this topic"

The information I have is mostly on the split between pure maths and mixed maths. Pure maths was the 'philosophers' maths or gentleman maths; it was calculus, algebra and geometry for those that had no trade. Those that practised these methods were considered far superior to those that practised 'mixed' maths which was that of the tradesman. Mixed maths was practical maths discovered with experience.
The French had the Académie Royale des Sciences which was filled with philosphers and gentlemen which were 'obviously' always in their right to correct the errors of a mere shipwright. The French also studied hydrodynamics and hydrostatics; the hydrodynamic studies ignored skin friction as I said before making the studies useless.

That's practically all I've got. I must correct an earlier statement, the initial maths designed ships were actually inadequate because of the stability calculations made.

"Hm, Hollland 1727 or Spain 1748 might be a different affair than France 1800 - but by saying that, I'm just commenting on the logics of the argument, I certainly lack the background knowledge to offer any opinion of my own."

I did mention a France spying mission also; Blaise Ollivier the master shipwright of Brest. He was very impressed with British design methods and copied many. In any case, Amsterdam (It was not Holland, don't make that mistake) 1727 and Spain 1748 were just examples.

"Does it matters where you get the technology from if you end up with the best technology of them all?"

No, it certainly does not. I wasn't attacking Denmark because it acquired its information from other nations. I believe it was Osander that stated the greatest leaders learn from others.

"I remember reading about captured French ships being favoured by British captains over British ships. Would you consider this a myth?"

The Royal Navy was made up of many prizes from France; it was a sign of victory to be using your opponents ships against him. Even today there are vessels in the Royal Navy with the name Louis XIV.

You must be aware that once the Royal Navy acquired its prizes it completely changed them to British standards. They were re-fitted and strengthed so essentially were no longer French ships.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was simple misinterpretation of British admirals prefering to fight under a French prize simply because of the 'victory' status.

Watanbe;

The Spanish ship design and crew training was superior to that of the French for the job that Spain was trying to achieve. Their numbers were similar in 1790 while Spanish numbers fell down as the Great Wars went on. The geographical situation was more favourable for France in a war against Britain though.

Russias numbers alone make them incomparable to the Spanish and French navies - and the battles in the Baltic Sea were quite a different story from the Atlantic, Caribbean and Indian Ocean. But I have to admit my information on the Russian Navy is not a mass, at best.

War of 1812

There's a thread dedicated to this war so I'll just keep this to naval matters.

When war was declared in June the British believed it was a mistake and all British officers was ordered on to the defensive. When Sir John Warren was sent to the North American he was told to negociate and blockade with the few ships that Britain would spare from the 'real' war against Napoleon. When he arrived he didn't see the need to interuppt the American trade as most of it was trading on British account anyway, the grain was still going from the U.S to Wellingtons army in Portugal. President Madison attempted to stop this by putting an embargo on U.S trade to Britain but the trade just became smuggling and the United States lost out on the Custom revenues.

The Royal Navy simply stayed on station and put no effort against New England which was supplying the Royal Navy and Canadian port of Halifax with everything they needed. Madison seemed to believe victory would be had in Canada but this proved to be wrong when Hull surrendered to the British on 16th August at Detroit. On the 19th August the Constitution captured the British 18-pounder Guerriére. By the end of the year two more 18-pounders had been captured the Macedonian by the United States and the Java by the Constitution.

The actions of 1812 caused shock in the admirality. However, it's hardly surprising that 24-pounders were defeating 18-pounders in one on one combat. The British strategy of combat (and thus high in training) was to close with the enemy and use heavy fire to destroy their opponent. However, when meeting a stronger opponent the Royal Navy instructed captains to either run or fire from long-range to disable masts and sails to enable an escape. The Macedonian and Guerriére attempted this but as it was against British tradition it seemed to be a clumsy action; added to the fact that the Ordnance Board no longer issued dismantling shot which would have been vital in a long-range gunnery match. The US Navy still used dismantling shot to great effect.

In 1813, the U.S victories at sea continued with minor brig-sloop actions in the West Indies. The victory of the US ship-sloop Hornet over the British brig-sloop Peacock is said to have been down to the wild firing of the Peacock because of a lack of practice. As the West Indies had not seen much action by 1812 it seems reasonable to assume that the British men-of-war had lost their talent in gunnery. As all practically equal one-on-one actions though it's down to individual skill and luck rather than the ability of the navy as a whole.

The captain of the Shannon was one British officer who saw the need for long-range gunnery drill against the United States Navy. His victory over the USS Chesapeake in June 1813 was fought at close range, however...which made it vital to keep crews trained at all distances. The U.S became confident (maybe over-confident) because of their victories in 1812 and 1813, but in fact these victories had little affect on the war or the Royal Navy as a whole. Nevertheless Britain found a need to revise their strategy for war against the U.S in 1813.

The US ship design was not superior to the British as it was much the same. The British and French had similar ships to the three large U.S frigates which were design to defeat the 18-pounders of Algiers. To counteract the successes of the U.S the British cut-down seventy-fours to become 'super-frigates' with 36-pounder main batteries and 42-pounder carronades, the first being the Majestic which entered U.S waters in 1814 and captured President soon afterwards.

I'll continue later...

No doubt the RN had the best battleline - but the US Navy had the best frigates ... albeit just three of them.

The US Navy had Joshua Humphreys to thank for its excellent Constitution class "frigate" (pocket battleship) design. The design philosophy was to have a ship that could out-run everything it can't fight and out-fight everything it cannot out-run.

To out-gun contemporary 18 pdr gun frigates, the Constitution mounted 24 pdr. Her hull was built to ship of the line specifications but had the hull lines (length-to-beam ratio) of a fast frigate. But, there were serious technical challenges to overcome in order make such a design work.

Length of the hull for ships of the period was limited by the longitudinal strength of the keel. Ships-of-the-line have beamier hulls and multiple decks that increases strength, thus reducing the tendency for the keel to bend and cause "hogging". However, beamier hull adds drag and extra decks add weight - all conspiring against a higher sailing speed.

Humphreys borrowed an idea from the barn roof designs of the Pennsylvania Dutch to spread the loads along the keel. (Takes a keen eye and prepared mind to notice the similarities between the long roof and ship's hull ... ) That led to the "diagonal riders" fitted to the keel of the Constitution class which played a significant role in making their keels strong enough to do what it needed to do.

Interestingly, over the years, the USS Constitution her diagonal riders had rotted and had to be removed. Since that time, even though she no longer carried the same load and did not have to endure the pitching and pounding of head seas, the Constitution's keel progressively developed, ... yes, you guessed it ..., "hogging".

The solution?

Restoring the "diagonal riders" which are retained to this day ...

Joshua Humphreys would have been proud ...

Humphreys also had the benefit of better materials in the form of "Live Oak" (Quercus virginiana; 881 kg/m^3) which had significantly higher density than the English white oak (Quercus alba; 737 kg/m^3) but that's another story ...