Napoleonic Wars navies....

"USS Constitution was largest but not the only US Navy ship at sea in 1815. The sloops of war USS Peacock and Hornet, along with US Schooner Tom Bowline also had successful cruises .

USS Hornet captured HMS Penguin in March, 1815 and then, in what must be the most monumental ship identification error, attacked HMS Cornwallis, a 74, thinking she was a large merchantman! The Hornet got away by jettisoning boats, guns, stores etc.

USS Peacock captured the East India Company cruiser Nautilus in the final naval action of the War of 1812 near Selat Sunda. The British brig had gotten word that the war was over but the Americans hadn't. (Hunting was good in those waters, Peacock only took three prizes but they were big ones with valuable cargos).

USS Constitution and USS United States were by no means the only large US Navy ships remaining. There were also USS Constellation 38 blockaded at Norfolk, and USS Macedonian. The former RN frigate was holed up with her erstwhile captor, the USS United States, in the Thames ... the one in Connecticut."

I recognise your knowledge on the U.S side is greater than mine, but don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the U.S Navy was all closed in; it wasn't all over. But after the summer of 1813 the USN had few chances for a success with impact. Those large ships that remained were not in open ocean, and until they were - they were useless.

"What was needed to overcome the blockading force were battleships. USS Independence 74 was launched at Charlestown in 1814. Although not yet ready to sail, she had received her 32pdr long guns and shared harbor defense duties with USS Constitution.

Like their smaller cousins, the US 74's were more powerful than their Rate. Records are not precise but they may have been based on a 1799 design by none other than Joshua Humphreys. They were over 190ft long (longer than a Second Rate) and carried 30 32-pdr long guns in their lower gun deck, 32 medium 32-pdr in the middle gun deck and 20+ 42-pdr carronades on the upper deck. (Had to be said that the Independence had some problems due to ill-advised modifications that Commodore Bainbridge insisted on making during her construction).

USS Washington 74, was also launched in 1814 ... at Portsmouth Navy Yard (that's in NEW Hampshire). Had the war dragged on into the winter of 1815, there could have been simultaneous break out attempts by two US battleships, possibly during bad weather. Once at sea, the two supported by USS Constitution from Boston, would likely have forced the RN blockading force off their stations. That would, in turn, spring loose others including the new USS Guerrière in Philadelphia, USS Java from Baltimore, USS United States and Macdeonian from up the Thames, as well as possibly USS Constellation from Norfolk."

With all that it's getting into the realms of 'what if' - and then we can start bringing into the equation a loss of Napoleon and the Royal Navy shifting focus to the troublesome U.S. I think we all recognise the USN only had success because the Royal Navy had bigger fish to fry in Europe.

I'm sorry but the Constitution would have probably never made it to the annals of history if the Royal Navy had deployed ships of the line against the US. And if the war had continued the Royal Navy may have come over in force; in 1810 England had 152 ships of the line, the U.S had a small enough navy to be able to name every brig and sloop.

"Oh, BTW, HMS President has been described in UK accounts as a "precise copy" of the captured US frigate. As was pointed out earlier, almost all other copies of the period were merely adaptations based on the lines of the captured ship. (That would include HMS Endymion, "copied" based on the French Pomone) . However, HMS President was an exception and ... sincerest form of flattery to the American Master; Joshua Humphreys."

I'd like to know more about this; the only information I have on the HMS President is that it was just the USS President fitted to British standard and broken up in 1818. The next HMS President was launched in 1829 as a 52-gun fifth rate.

Enjoy your posts fer de lance. Plan D, It seems that the RN during the period we are discussing was always short of frigates.

Those large ships that remained were not in open ocean, and until they were - they were useless.

Click to expand...

Yes, precisely the point of the US Navy needing to build their own ships-of-the-line.

There is no doubt about the size of the Royal Navy battle fleet at the time AND their superior training and battle tactics. However, I am sure you can see the parallel with later events where a superior battle fleet was not able to deal effectively with commerce raiders.

While I indulged in a little "what-if" - that's exactly what staff officers and planners did and still do. There was a blockade and a navy had to plan to deal with it. The US Navy building program at the time was designed to break through the small number of RN ships on blockade station at the time.

So what-if there wasn't Napoleon to worry about in Europe? It wasn't practical for the US Navy to plan for battle fleet action at that time ... but they made a start in 1816.

Nevertheless, having a battle fleet at your doorstep probably wouldn't have made a difference with the Constitution. The same weather conditions that kept one ship-of-the-line off blockade would also have kept a battle fleet away, allowing the Constitution to get to sea. Once out at sea, it would have been futile to try and catch her with ships-of-the-line. (The RN got it about right with 2-3 frigates backed by a ship-of-the-line or a razee on blockade station - almost as effective and much more economical.)

What the RN needed and got were specialized ships - fast and armed with 24pdr like the 40-gun ships based on the Endymion and the 1,500t frigates e.g. Leander and Newcastle.

It is hard not to point out the parallel with commerce raiders of later periods. The answer to the German cruisers in WWI was not the Grand Fleet. It was the battle cruiser - out-gun the traditional cruiser while being fast enough to catch it.

Even more extreme would be the situation in WWII with the U-boat threat needing specialized ASW escorts, e.g. Flower class corvettes, Castle, Loch class frigates (and CVE) to effectively deal with it.

I'd like to know more about this; the only information I have on the HMS President is that it was just the USS President fitted to British standard and broken up in 1818. The next HMS President was launched in 1829 as a 52-gun fifth rate.

Click to expand...

Source: Robert Gardiner Editor (and author of Chapter "Capture of the President") in "The Naval War of 1812", publ. 1998, Chatham Publishing, ISBN 1 84067 3605

The HMS President launched in 1824 was referred to as a "precise" copy of the US frigate.

renrich said:

Enjoy your posts fer de lance. Plan D, It seems that the RN during the period we are discussing was always short of frigates.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

"Were I to die this moment, want of frigates would be found engraved on my heart!"

- Lord Nelson

If there were no Napoleon, I don't see the War of 1812 lasting as long. Britain would have had the weight of Wellingtons army and a much larger squadron in North America.

The Constitution would have been an irritant to the Royal Navy in North America. It's only obvious that an increased naval presence in the North American waters would have reduced the success of the United States Navy. I grant you that ships can be blown off station, close blockade is a very dangerous operation - but any escape attempt would be met by larger squadrons of frigates as well.

I don't know the Royal Navy North American station in 1812 - but in 1804 they had 1 fifty, 2 frigates and 2 sloops. In Newfoundland there was 1 fifty, 3 frigates, 1 sloop and 3 schooners.

Total frigates in comission in 1804 - 125.

Renrich, you couldn't be more correct. The Royal Navy never built enough frigates - when Nelson ( April 1798 ) hunted for the French fleet sailing from Toulon, he had three frigates and three ships-of-the-line to search the Med. In May he did get a reinforcement of ten ships of the line, but no frigates.

fer-de-lance's quote couldn't say it better.

plan_D said:

If there were no Napoleon, I don't see the War of 1812 lasting as long. Britain would have had the weight of Wellingtons army and a much larger squadron in North America.

Click to expand...

Sorry off topic - but isn't that the damn truth. You pricks were burning DC and beating us all over the place. Thank God you were actively engaged elsewhere.

Well, If there were no Napoleon, I don't see why there would be a War of 1812 in the first place; no Casus belli. Without the Napoleonic War, there would not have been British and French interference with U.S. merchant ships and the animosity leading to the Jefferson Embargo Act of 1807. With no French naval threat, the Royal Navy would not have been forced to press US sailors to fill their ranks ...

At the same time, without the threat of Napoleon in Europe keeping Britain occupied, "greedy pricks" on this side of the Atlantic wouldn't have been tempted to invade Canada ...

Actually, what I'd really like to know is, why one sporting a Crab squadron insignia i.e. XI(F) would be defending the Senior Service so vigorously ?

We were beating the U.S all over the place, but somehow it's managed to become a victory in the United States. It's like Britain calling Dunkirk a victory.

The burning of D.C was embarassment for the U.S; the Royal Navy sailed inland a distance equal to Antwerp and stayed in enemy terrority (with 5000 men) for nine days without worthwhile resistance. The troops even dined in the White House; a meal left behind by the fleeing Madison.

"Well, If there were no Napoleon, I don't see why there would be a War of 1812 in the first place; no Casus belli."

Of course, but if we're speaking 'what-ifs' you can make up a reason for war.

"would not have been British and French interference with U.S. merchant ships and the animosity leading to the Jefferson Embargo Act of 1807. With no French naval threat, the Royal Navy would not have been forced to press US sailors to fill their ranks ... "

That seems to be put forward as the major reason for the war of 1812 these days. All European naval practice was to reclaim their subjects from foreign vessels in times of war, Britain was following practice. The problem with the U.S was that American law stated nationality was gained by residence, not by birth as believed by Europeans. Who was American in U.S law, was British in British law.
The difficulty increased when Jefferson and Madison refused to issue citizenship documents and simply claimed all those serving in U.S ships were U.S citizens. This claim was unsustainable in both U.S and European laws.
Madison made it impossible for Britian to negociate, as nearly half the American deep-sea merchant fleet (about 9000 men) were British. The Royal Navy was only doing what Europe had been rightly doing for centuries.

The British Whig government was friendly to the U.S in 1807. And I believe an agreement was met but Jefferson never took it to congress. In total around 6,500 U.S 'citizens' are said to have been impressed with 3,800 being released. It seems for Madison the impressment was of little concern, it merely showed British reliance on the U.S at the time.

The Jefferson Embargo Act of 1807 did more to harm the New England merchants than the British economy. In fact, most of them just ignored it and sailed from Canada instead.

"At the same time, without the threat of Napoleon in Europe keeping Britain occupied, "greedy pricks" on this side of the Atlantic wouldn't have been tempted to invade Canada ..."

Taking Canada was the real reason, Jefferson and Madison believed they held a knife to the British throat and Canada could easily be overrun. Jefferson and Madison were both francophiles and believed that in 1812 Napoleon was on his way to a close victory; they simply wanted on the winning side.

'Providence has placed their richest and most defenceless possessions at our door,' - Jefferson.

"Actually, what I'd really like to know is, why one sporting a Crab squadron insignia i.e. XI(F) would be defending the Senior Service so vigorously ?"

Because there was no Royal Air Force in 1812.

My dad was in 11 Sqdn. with the Lightning.

Agreed with most of what you said in the nether part of your post but this ...

We were beating the U.S all over the place, but somehow it's managed to become a victory in the United States. It's like Britain calling Dunkirk a victory.

Click to expand...

Are we forgeting the Battles of Lake Erie and Lake Champlain? Champlain, also known as the Battle of Plattsburg Bay was pretty decisive both in terms of all British ships engaged being captured and in thwarting a counter invasion from Canada. Might be freshwater, but a naval action nonetheless.

It is always useful to remind our mule-minding brethren (and sisters) of who bailed them out of the pickle they got us into due to their bungled attempt to seize the "richest and most defenceless possessions at our door" ... Especially around this time of year ... (Army-Navy football match coming up ... eh, the gridiron kind.)

The battles in the Great Lakes were perhaps of greater strategic importance than the Washington-Baltimore campaign. The capture of Washington DC was more for prestige rather than strategic purposes. Baltimore was the important prize and, of course, we all knew how that ended ... Loss of the British commanding general (Robert Ross at the battle of North Point) and the gain of a National Anthem (poem written near Fort McHenry later set to the tune of an English drinking song).

Must be said that the Maryland militia acquited themselves rather well against the well-trained and disciplined British landing force (consisting of 4 foot regiments and Royal Marines). The 5th Maryland Regiment stood up to repeated assaults and bombardment by the British regulars, inflicting some 300 casualties before falling back to the Baltimore defensive works in good order. It was hit-and-run guerilla tactics leading up to the battle that resulted in the death of Gen. Ross, shot while on his horse. Some claimed it was sniper's rifle ball but others suggest that it was "buck and ball" from a militiaman's smoothbore musket. The "buck-and-ball" was originally promoted by George Washington himself. Adding buck shot to the ball in the load significantly increased the probability of achieving a damaging hit for each time the smoothbore musket is fired. As for the "hit-and-run", they were tried and true tactics from previous conflicts in America.

Far be it for me to deingrate the efforts of the U.S. Army ... it should be remembered that they had a final show down with Wellington's Pennisular Campaign veterans at New Orleans. The British orbat included regiments which had served in the Peninsular War, including the the 7th Royal Fusiliers, 27th, the 40th, 43rd, 44th, 85th Footand the 95th rifles. There was also the 93rd Sutherland Highlanders, veterans of fighting at the Cape of Good Hope.

Yet, these Peninsular War veterans came out second best at New Orleans with a very lob-sided butcher's bill. Perhaps the Iron Duke would have been a better match for Andrew Jackson but then we'd be in the realm of "what-if's" once again ...

Aggregate of the above is hardly a good parallel to "calling Dunkirk a victory" wouldn't you say?

As for lopsided victories in the war of 1812 lets not forget the crushing defeat of the US who although they outnumbered by the Brits and the Militia were beaten badly at Fort Detroit and Queenston Heights . I cannot understand how any army with numerical superiority could lose the heights which is 160 feet high and a very steep grade

Was it "Lundy's Lane" where the British commander cried, "Those are regulars, by God," referring to the American troops, or was it some other US victory?

pbfoot said:

As for lopsided victories in the war of 1812 lets not forget the crushing defeat of the US who although they outnumbered by the Brits and the Militia were beaten badly at Fort Detroit and Queenston Heights . I cannot understand how any army with numerical superiority could lose the heights which is 160 feet high and a very steep grade

Click to expand...

Lets try it again... just for old time sake! Lets see who wins Fort Detroit and Queenston Heights this time!

renrich said:

Was it "Lundy's Lane" where the British commander cried, "Those are regulars, by God," referring to the American troops, or was it some other US victory?

Click to expand...

Who held Lundys Lane after the battle

comiso90 said:

Lets try it again... just for old time sake! Lets see who wins Fort Detroit and Queenston Heights this time!

Click to expand...

same result we'll just use the new weapon Table dances and beer the same weapon still used every Fri and Sat night
I'm not sure if you guys are awre of this but in Erie Pa they have the USS Niagara Perrys ship it comes by every summer to make port calls , I've never stopped and looked as like everything it'll be back next year.
Its my understanding that some of the structure is of the original vessel
U.S. Brig Niagara

The same people who were routed by American riflemen at Black Rock and repulsed at Fort Erie.

You forgot Chippawa in reality though you were not very successful in your attempts to take Canada. There is a walking tour of the battlefield on Lundys Lane this Sunday if able i'll walk over and check it out.
The area is now starting to ready itself for the 200th aniversary of the war of 1812
The other pic is of Fort Erie

Here's the extent of my naval knowledge....

Yesterday was the 210th anniversary of the commissioning of the USS Constitution. Just had to throw that in this thread. I'll go away now.

War of 1812 was an interesting war but not as interesting to me as the French and Indian War, also known as the Seven Years War. No doubt the American Armies were not, on the whole, very effective or well led during the 1812 War. Not nearly as effective as our Navy. However our army became a little better trained and better led as the war progressed and when the war ended the US had some very good officers to rely on later and of course British arrogance alongside of Jackson's fiery leadership led to the debacle near New Orleans. I am getting my coaching from my 2 volume "West Point Atlas Of American Wars." This tome is not very complimentary of American generalship during the 1812 war.

Little bit of 7 years war happened Ft Niagara .If you can find it down south there are 2 books written by a gent called Pierre Berton one is called Flames Across the Border and the other is the Invasion Of Canada . One of his thoughts is that if there had been no war Canada would have become American good reads not at all dry

pbfoot said:

One of his thoughts is that if there had been no war Canada would have become American good reads not at all dry

Click to expand...

Then RUSH would be an American band!

.