"Britain's Abysmal Frigates?" Topic

A comment seen elsewhere on the wargaming 'net, regarding Britain's frigate force during the Napoleonic Wars:

"Britain had the best line-of-battle force, no question -- but the performance of their frigates, ships and crews, is average to downright abysmal"

Would you agree with this view?

Well its a bit of a one sided view. Surely the French, Spanish, Americans and etc had something to do with it?

Captains of frigates and smaller vessels are generally more aggressive and independent, have more opportunity for personal gain through daring, and are less straight jacketed by fear of "losing the war in a single day", than ship of the line captains.

Factoring the the aftermath of the French revolutionary upheaval, frigate captains only had to learn to fight and maneuver their ship while the line of battle commanders had a much steeper learning curve in fighting squadrons effectively.

Just my opinion of course.

With Frigate Captains like the Pellew brothers and Robert Reynolds taken into account the description is nonsense.
I cannot think of any other nations captains who put frigates up against a Ship of the Line and won.

Given the fact that in frigate vs frigate combat the Royal Navy inevitably won against everyone except the Americans (whose frigates were IIRC larger) I think it's a somewhat difficult view to maintain.

RN frigates often had vastly different jobs as well. The RN used frigates in scouting, communications and commerce protection roles that the French, Spanish and American frigates could often avoid because their strategic need was more on the raiding or commerce disruption side which allowed greater freedom of action and more scope for individual aggression. Certainly the captain, crew and vessel that was HMS Shannon was the equal of any sailing frigate on earth in their time and Nelson certainly felt confident enough in his frigates to use them in the line at Copenhagen.

British frigate crews and captains covered the entire spectrum. In general, the British crews and captains were superior to the French and Spanish, and equal to most Dutch early in the wars. The quality of the American crews and captains was a rude shock to the British. French and American ships were superior to the British in design and construction. The Spanish Cuban-built teak ships were old designs of superior construction to all but the American white oak, but they were wasted with Spanish crews.

After Trafalgar, the British faced only small French squadrons of untrained crews in superior quality frigates. They almost invariably defeated these forays, adding most of the ships to the RN list. Some of their advantage was due to their veteran crews and more ships, but the French were also hampered by Napoleon's orders to run away rather than stand and fight.

By 1809, many British frigate captains became complacent in their superiority. The British had been regularly defeating French 44 gun frigates for about a decade with smaller ships and thought the same would happen against the American 44s. The well-trained, well-led American crews in vastly superior ships extracted a high price for that complacency in 1812-14. The British lost all but 1 frigate to frigate action. The only time the British defeated an American 44 required an entire squadron of SOLs and frigates, at the price of 2 frigates severely mauled by a single previously-damaged American frigate.

I would not agree with the OP view quoted. I would whole-heartedly agree with Cold Steel. Well written.

I can but surmise that the comment which the OP
referenced was made by someone TOTALLY ignorant of
Naval warfare, 1795-1815 !

The source?

link

indeed :)

One word. Cochrane.

The RN certainly never had as many frigates as it needed – but even putting aside famous captains like Cochrane, Pellew, Smith, etc., the performance of the frigates they had was anything but abysmal. Their record of victories was unparalleled, with only their encounters with American "super frigates" ever inflicting any real losing streak.

I have to agree with Ed Mohrmann – that statement seems to show a complete ignorance of that period of naval history.

- Shawn.

It's not really fair to compare British Frigates to American ones, when the latter were really a more upgunned vessel, in a completely different class.

I'd recommend the original poster look up "Sloops And Brigs" and "The Frigates" by James Henderson – both packed with many fine examples of the "abysmal" performance of smaller Royal Navy vessels….

It's fair to say the Americans were a real wake-up call, but both their ships and their crews were more or less in a league of their own – oddly that's more easily achieved with a "fleet" of 8 frigates and no line of battle than with a conscript navy of 140,000 sailors manning 175 sail of the line and 400+ smaller ships…. Making the inference that "not as good as the Americans = abysmal" is rather a spectacular leap of logic….

I think we've pretty much put to rest the notion that British frigates were poorly handled. I would like to note though that things did not always go their way against the French. Even with the avoid combat orders, even with the doctrine to fire high (see first order) there are numerous cases where a French frigate, usually larger than the British one, dismasted or disabled their opponent but were then either taken by the next sail appearing over the horizon or ran out of fear of that happening. Left to their own devices its pretty clear that several actions would have been won by the French. That fear of another sail over the horizon influenced even the so-called super frigates pulled off and made repairs in case they needed to run before coming in to secure the prizes like the Guerriere and Macedonian. Having the largest navy in the world lets you get away with some extra aggression knowing support may be close at hand.

Considering that I'm pretty sure even the people of the time would consider an American 44 versus a 64-gun ship of the line an even fight, it's not really surprising that the Americans pounded the Brits at most engagements.

President and Endymion continued to England, arriving at Spithead on 28 March. President was commissioned into the Royal Navy under the name HMS President. Her initial rating was set at 50 guns, although she was at this stage armed with 60 guns—thirty 24-pounders (10.9 kg) on the upper deck, twenty-eight 42-pounder (19 kg) carronades on the spar deck, plus two more 24-pounder guns on the forecastle. In February 1817 she was again re-rated, this time to 60 guns.

Not bad for a '44-gun' Frigate.

But the British were not poor sailors. Chesapeake versus Shannon proved that, although I would argue that a crack crew versus a bunch of barely-trained isn't particularly indicative.

I agree, gents. Notice I called 'em "super frigates." ;)

- Shawn.

Of course after reading the account of the Battle of Grand Port one might easily come to the conclusion that the RN frigates were not all they are cracked up to be.

Cheers
David

Yeah, Grand Port is the black eye and illustrates that by that time during the Napoleonic Wars some officers thought the war a done deal, with little to do and had grown complascent and bored. Seamanship and spit and polish meant (much) more than gunnery practice and it resulted in such debacles.

But, these incidents were hiccups rather than real true indicators as there were still plenty of good ships and captains out there…as the Chesepeake, Essex, Lissa and the conclusion to Grand Port so illustrated.

Yes, 4 of the American frigates were so called super frigates, but they just serve to illustrate the lower quality of British designs. The American designs were well known for almost 2 decades. The British had tried several 44 gun super frigates with 24 lbs main batteries, but could not make the designs work. In 1794, they cut down 3 64 SOLs to rasees partly in response to the new American ships. They built 2 of the Endymion class (a copy of the captured French Pomone, 44) and 2 Acasta class original designs. Although the Endymion was a particularly fast ship and good sailer, they found all the designs prone to structural failures, particularly racking of the hull, and all were reduced to 18 lbs batteries. In 1813, desperate to match the Americans, the British cut down 3 small 74s to rasees, but they were too slow to catch their intended target, except in heavy weather. The later 40 gun pine-built frigates were an inadequate stop-gap and even the Admiralty did not think they could have stood ship to ship against an American 44.

When the Endymion was re-equipped with 24 lbs guns and faced the damaged President, the Endymion fired 2 raking broadsides before the President could respond. 2 hours later, the mauled Endymion probably would have been taken if the President hadn't continued to run from the British squadron. The Endymion was so heavily damaged, she was almost lost in a storm before reaching port.

I agree. The Endymion vs President is the closest thing to a fair fight. President had run aground and sprung her main mast. She was also running from a squadron of frigates and a Liner. One on one and in good condition with Decatur as captain, I don't think Endymion would have survived. But that all depends on who's account you read.

Myths like the American 44s were equal to a 64 were first perpetrated by the British writer William James in 1817 and have been treated as gospel by too many ever since. James is a great source for information on the Royal Navy, having direct access to the participants and original sources, but his hatred of all things American makes him useless for any facts about the Americans. The truth is the British had frigates larger than the American 44s, like the L'Egyptian, 44, and built a 50 gun class when the Admiralty realised their designs were inferior to the American and French.

Most ships of the period carried more guns than their rating. When the President, 44, was captured, she carried 54 guns of all types, while in the same engagement, the Endymion, 44, carried 52. The President vs. the Endymion was probably the closest to a perfect match between frigates in ship to ship combat during the entire Age of Sail. The US Navy started the War of 1812 with 3 44 gun frigates (the 4th was lost fighting the Barbary pirates) vs at least 11 British 44s that I can think of. The Americans also started with 3 36 gun frigates which were virtually identical to the 100+ British 36s.

The best work on the British vs American navies is still Teddy Roosevelt's The Naval War of 1812. Roosevelt goes into great detail about manpower, training, leadership, weaponry, even the weight of shot fired by each side with the same size gun. His analysis is so good, when the RN decided to write their official history, they invited Roosevelt to write the volume on the War of 1812.

Considering that the Brits rated the captured President as a 60-gun Ship-of-the-Line, and not a Frigate, that's not a reasonable comparison.

The 44s were essentially the one time the 'battlecruiser' doctrine actually worked. They were fast enough to outrun anything that could kill them, and tough enough to to kill anything that they could catch.

So, when facing the Americans one-on-one, who more or less cheated,** the British were generally outclassed. Against anyone else, they were better than their opponents.

** Live Oak is possibly the toughest wood known to man, and is definitely the toughest wood available in the western hemisphere.

Cold Steel, the Constitution wasn't even authorized until 1794, so I don't see how the razeed 64s were built in response. Constitution wasn't completed until 1797, and didn't see any action until 1798. Even though the 74s were razeed 15 years after the 44s entered service, there wasn't a lot of action that the Brits had seen versus the 44s. The Chesapeake-Leopard Affair gave them an unfortunate image of the Americans, which was only smashed during the War of 1812.

Someone correct me if I'm incorrect, but I believe a
ship's 'guns' (number of, as in 'USS Constitution, 44')
were her long guns only, and not carronades.

Of course some ships (HMS Glatton; USS Essex) might not
'fit' in such a scheme, however I believe that to have
been the case.

If that is the case, then one could indeed find '44s'
mounting 50 or 60 guns, which would include her carronades.

When I visited USS Constitution (1960), her armament was
explained as consisting of a total of 60 guns (War of 1812),
44 long guns and 16 carronades, in 4 groups of 4 each.

In theory yes, but to be honest it didn't really correspond to anything by Napoleonic times, especially for smaller vessels, which often used carronades in their main battery, not as "extras" like on a ship of the line.

The heavy frigates typically had 30-odd long guns and 20-odd carronades, so a 44 rating doesn't fit any kind of count. For the Constitution, in 1812 she had 30 long guns in her main battery, 4 chasers, and 22 carronades, so whatever you count, you won't get 44.

link

The 44s were essentially the one time the 'battlecruiser' doctrine actually worked.

*That* is a very good one-line summary….

This thread is really funny.

To recap: Eventhough RN frigates lost all but one engagement against US frigates, their performance was not "abysmal " because the US had superior ships.

Really?

Even if true isn't that a bit like claiming Sherman's performed well against Tigers? After all they only lost because the Tigers had better guns and armour. :)

Lion, I recommend you read Roosevelt's book. Each side had different ways of calculating ship classification and these changed over time. Based on the weight of broadside, Roosevelt calculated that the there was less than 7% difference between the President and Endynion, while Britain's smallest 74 would fire more than double the President's weight.

Yes, the Constitution was authorized in 1794, but the plans were developed and public knowledge before that. The Spanish, Russians, Danes and Dutch also had 50 and 60 gun frigates that the British faced in the late 18th Century. The British built a number of 44 gun frigates during the American Revolution. The HMS Acasta was launched in 1797. They captured the L'Eqyptienne, 40, (larger than the American 44s) in 1801 and mounted 46 guns on her. The British cut down 3 64s in 1794, including the HMS Indefatigable, so famously captained by Sir Edward Pellew, and 3 more in 1813. The British had also already captured the French Pomone 44, so there is no way the Americans "cheated;" that is just repeating one of James' excuses for their 1812 loses. The bottom line is the British knew all about the larger Spanish, Dutch, American and French designs, but failed to design a ship that was just as good.

This thread is really funny.

To recap: Eventhough RN frigates lost all but one engagement against US frigates, their performance was not "abysmal " because the US had superior ships.

Really?

An impressive mis-reading of the entire thread sir; I salute you….

To recap: even though RN frigates lost all but one engagement against US frigates, their performance was not "abysmal" because the US were at the time exceptional. "Abysmal" British frigates would've routinely been hammered by not just the Americans, but everybody. As it was, British frigates were largely indifferent in design and build*, and better crewed and captained than most nations.

The fact that they got a kicking from a handful of US frigates that were pretty much exceptional across the board (very well designed and built, and with few exceptions extremely well manned and commanded) doesn't detract from that – the US were better, but that doesn't mean the British were even "average" let alone "abysmal" – if you really think they were, run up a quick list of countries whose frigates performed better in that era; bonus marks for anyone who can keep a straight face while producing a list that has anything other than "USA" on it….

Dom.

* I'd say British naval architects never quite matched the quality of the Pomone, in spite of having her in hand to reverse engineer, let alone the US 44s, which were probably better still, while the mass-produced British classes were thoroughly inferior to most contemporary French and US designs – it's no coincidence that French prizes were considered prime commands. (Heck, the most-built British class (Leda class 38) was a rip-off of a 20 year old French capture – the British were themselves under no illusions about their design prowess….)

Salute returned Sir! : )

;-)

50-60 gun ships with 2 gun decks were considered 4th rate SOLs by the British in the mid 18th Century. Single gun deck ships were all considered 3d rate frigates. By the SYW, the RN no longer considered a 4th rate able to stand in line of battle and they allowed the design and rating to gradually die out. The Leander 50 at the Nile is a good example of this obsolete design. The British changed their rating system in Feb, 1817, to count all carronades. Prior that, they only counted carronades if they replaced a previously existing long gun, such as on the USS Essex. Under the 1817 system, frigates over 40 guns were reclassified as a 4th rate, but they were still not considered ships of the line.

In all seriousness the quote "average to abysmal " in the context of a comparison with the performance of the battle line, if I have understood the quote in the context provided by Cconnard's link, is not that out of line.

Of course there are mitigating factors and the terms used are entirely subjective but that is what makes it a swell Internet debating point :)

One more comment on British ship design: in 1829, 17 years after the capture of the President and 35+ years after her original design, the Admiralty ordered a new class of frigates that were an exact reproduction of the USS President because they still had not come up with a better design.

"Britain had the best line-of-battle force, no question -- but the performance of their frigates, ships and crews, is average to downright abysmal"

Any comment or statement taken out of context or without the supporting evidence and metrics is pointless to discuss.

"The Admiralty ordered a new class of frigates"

No, just the one in 1824, and the design was modified.

Well, I'm just glad ours were better dan dose of me older ancestors, or I'd be speakin' wif a funny accent…..

;-)

You already do……

In the 20 years after the French Revolution began, the British fought the French, Russians, Danes, Dutch, Spanish, Italians, and Turks. In about 100 single ship engagements where the 2 sides were approximately equal, the British sank or captured their opponent in all but 5. In 1812, the RN lost all 5 of the single ship frigate engagements against the Americans. The RN was pretty darn good. They just ran into someone who was better.

In the 20 years after the French Revolution began, the British fought the French, Russians, Danes, Dutch, Spanish, Italians, and Turks. In about 100 single ship engagements where the 2 sides were approximately equal, the British sank or captured their opponent in all but 5. In 1812, the RN lost all 5 of the single ship frigate engagements against the Americans.

Which rather solidly counters the claim that the British had 'abysmal' frigates. The British were better than everyone but the US.

The US simply had better frigates in design and more importantly construction. Notice that the HMS President was not a direct copy, and the Chesapeake was disowned by her designer for the changes made during construction.

What set the 44s apart from everyone else's ships was their southern live oak construction. Live oak is probably the best material to make a wooden warship from, and only the US had access to it.

The US also had an advantage in their crews, since they could hire sailors instead of having to impress them. Not that conscripts necessarily make bad crew, but volunteers make better crews.

To recap: Eventhough RN frigates lost all but one engagement against US frigates, their performance was not "abysmal " because the US had superior ships.

That's not an accurate re-cap. Closer to the question at hand would be, "RN frigates performed admirably throughout the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, only suffering any real set backs in a handful of engagements against US frigates."

Weigh that handful of losses against the hundreds of victories in the period discussed and they seem about as persuasive an argument for "abysmal performance" as, to use your analogy, saying that because a Sherman had killed a Tiger under a specific set of circumstances, all Shermans were better than Tigers.

Best,

Shawn.

Shawn that was a joke.

However…

Has anyone actually read the quote? "average to downright abysmal"…

Yet 80% or so of responses focus on "abysmal".

"Average or abysmal" as compared to what??

The responses seem to focus on battles. How many times were enemy fleets and ships lost track of?

How effective were the blockades in preventing blockade runners and privateers escaping/returning?

And again even considering the above points, compared to what?

EDIT: It is quite entirely fair to say that the performance of RN frigates was average compared to the performance of RN frigates!

Quite true on the US ship construction.

I recall reading that cannon balls just bounced off the sides of some of the ships.

Apparently, that is how "Old Ironsides" got her nickname.

M C LeSingeDew – Heh. That's what I get for reading posts an hour before I hit proper caffeine levels and an hour-and-a-half before my sense of humor clicks on. ;)

And I agree, the performance of RN frigates were definitely average compared to themselves. :D

- Shawn.

"In 1812, the RN lost all 5 of the single ship frigate engagements against the Americans. The RN was pretty darn good. They just ran into someone who was better."

and then the Chesapeake ran into the Shannon, which was even better … (which is where the thread that David is referring to actually started !).

Cold Steel may be referring to the Seringapatam class of frigates of the 1830s, which were indeed built to the lines of the President captured many years earlier. However this was the French ship President captured in 1806, not the Humphries 44. Apart from the double banked fir built frigates and some hasty raseeing, the big 44s did not cause a major shift in British naval design.

Best regards

Mark Barker
The Inshore Squadron

Mark, your info is different from mine. Have a reference? That's not a challenge, its just for this time period, just about everything needs to be doublechecked.

Frankly, I'm disagreeing with even the 'average' assessment. The British frigates were better than everyone but the Americans across the board. When the expectation is that *any* British 38-gun can take any other nation's frigate, regardless of size, that's based on something. The first time the British beat the Americans, the Yanks had a criminally-incompetent commander. The second time, the British captain had drilled his crew mercilessly in their gunnery.

Grimly amusing, it was the Chesapeake that was soundly defeated both times.

Have a reference? That's not a challenge, its just for this time period, just about everything needs to be doublechecked.

Sure Joe, no problem.

My favorite 1-volume source is David Lyon's "Sailing Navy List". It is hard to find these days, Rif Winfield's more recent volumes supplement David's work and cover specific periods in a bit more detail.

As a cross-check, Robert Gardiner's excellent "Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars" also makes the statement, with a copy of the ship draft of the Seringapatam comparing it in detail to the original form of the French President which was used as a prototype. The class was controversial, and later builds were substantially amended (and a copy of a plan from this version is also in the book).

There is also a plan of the USS President as taken in Gardiner's book. When surveyed it was decided that she needed a "great repair" – in effect a complete rebuild. The survey mostly notes the effect of the age of the ship although her grounding prior to capture can't have helped.

The British wanted to keep her in service for propaganda reasons (much as the US did with HMS Macedonian) but it was decided to break her up and build a replica.

In the case of the Chesapeake, her lines were taken (she was considered 'overbuilt' for her size and the overhanging stern drew criticism while at sea) and she was broken up and sold for construction. Many of her timbers were built into a flour mill (Chesapeake Mill) about 20 miles from where I live now where they can be plainly seen to this day.

Best wishes,

Mark Barker
The Inshore Squadron

This is a very OLD debate . .

how old? Oh so very old

Sirs, and Ladies as the case may be, may i present:

"Naval Occurrences of the War of 1812: A Full and Correct Account of the Naval War Between Great Britain and the United States of America, 1812-1815" by William James

While it would be rather dry to a non naval buff, if you enjoy such things it's worth dropping a few coins for, it's full of lots of stats like comparative shot weights between ships and the like

link

William James? yep
link

this little gem was published in 1817 (republished just recently by Conway marine press)

the book description?

"William James wrote his "Naval Occurrences of the War of 1812" to counter the bombastic, patriotic and false version of the war put forward by American authors. To free the war from 'American dross', James used his legal mind to pick through a wealth of evidence and came to the conclusion that 'no American ship of war has, after all, captured a British ship of the same force'. Many of his more controversial and vociferous passages were trimmed and toned down for his later, 6-volume epic work on the history of the Royal Navy. Only by reading this work can readers appreciate the full force of his argument."

SO . . . a few years down the road another naval historian (perhaps you've heard of him … Theodore Roosevelt?) as a young Harvard student in 1876-77, began work on a response from the American perspective. Published in 1882 as "The Naval War of 1812" He basically claimed that James research was shoddy and so on, although he never refuted the main point that James raised -that no American vessel of equal force ever captured a British ship.

But, as with all good arguments the fun is unlikely to stop at any suggestion of it's lunacy :) And as a game designer I've spent way too many hours thinking about just this sort of nonsense and so enjoy reading a classic revisted!

So carry on!
Brian Carnes
Designer, Sailpower
sailpowergame.com