"Naval Warfare Tactics: .British vs. French vs. Americans" Topic

Short but accurate article to understand the differences in action on those Fleets at Napoleon Era.

"As a general rule the French felt that the best way to disable an enemy ship was to destroy his means of manoeuvering. They therefore concentrated their fire on the masts and rigging, launching their broadsides on the upward roll of their ships. This fire policy often crippled the British ships, preventing them from pressing home their attack, but was less deadly to the crew.

The British used the opposite tactic firing on the down roll into the enemy hulls, causing a storm of flying splinters that killed and maimed the enemy gun crews. These tactics were accentuated by the fact that the British tended to chose the weather gauge and the French the lee, so the tendancy was for the French guns to be pointing high and the British low as their ships heeled in the wind.

Although only a very general rule this contrast in tactics goes some way to explaining the difference in casualty figures between the British and enemy sailors. The British percentage of killed to total casualties was just over 25%, i.e. three wounded for every one killed. But for the enemy the percentage was 55%, i.e. for every four wounded five were killed.

The speed with which the guns were loaded and fired by the Royal Navy gun crews was also higher than the French and Spanish, also a factor in the higher casualty figures for the enemy fleets.

The destruction of the enemy ship by gunfire was one of three elements that could lead to death in battle; the other two were fire, and the sea. No British ship was sunk or burnt in any of the great battles, in fact only 8 ships of the line were burnt or blown up throughout the whole war, 17 were wrecked and 3 foundered. The French suffered some major tragedies, such as the Orient at the Battle of The Nile and the Indomitable at Trafalgar, which lost 1250 men from a crew and troops numbering 1400.

To put the French losses in perspective we can look at the casualty figures suffered by the British Navy in the American War of 1812. Here the British ships came up against well trained and perhaps better motivated seaman than any of the other navies they were engaged against. The Americans trained with live ammunition more often than their British counterparts; the British, spending long periods at sea, tended to reserve their supplies of powder and shot for actual engagements. They also signed on for a set number of years, as opposed to the British who were signed on indefinitely, and they were paid as well or better than a skilled workman could earn ashore. They aimed their guns directly into the enemy ships like the British, as well as at the masts.

When the USS Constitution with a crew of 456 defeated HMS Guerrierre, crew 302, The Constitution suffered 14 casualties to the Guerrierre's 78. The American Frigates fired faster and more accurately than the British thanks to training, the use of a new powder charge encased in lead not cloth, (no need to swab out the gun), and gunsights, an innovation not utilised by the British. Till this point the British captains had relied on getting their ships close to the enemies, a tactic that meant rate of fire was more important than accuracy at longer ranges.

The odds were in favour of the larger Amercan ships in the ship to ship engagements that happened during the War of 1812, but the British were used to taking on larger opponents and it must have been a shock to the Admiralty to start losing such engagements so comprehensively"
From
thedearsurprise.com/?p=779

Hope you enjoy!.

Amicalement
Armand

"the use of a new powder charge encased in lead not cloth" never heard that before. Doesn't that leave a lump of lead stuck down the barrel?

I would like to hear more about that powder charge, too. Never heard of that, thought I am not much of a student on naval warfare.

One element not accounted for was the wood that the Americans used for their frigates, which was extraordinarily strong. The American ships were also new, and incredibly strongly built, whereas most RN ships would have been rotting since they went into service, and were relatively elderly.

By Tousard's American Artillerist's Companion, naval powder cartridges were made of paper or parchment.

A lead encased powder cartridge would melt in the gun tube upon firing and it would be very difficult for the cartridge to be punched open through the touchhole with the pricker to prime to piece.

I'd like to see a period reference that states that American powder cartridges were made of a lead casing.

That would not, in my opinion, delete the need to swab between rounds. Modern artillery still has to be swabbed and current powder bags are made of a cloth-like material.

Seems to me the article is incorrect.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'whereas most RN ships would have been rotting since they went into service, and were relatively elderly.'

Do you have a source for this? The USS Constitution was built in the late 1790s, so she wasn't a new ship in 1812 and was on her third war…

Sincerely,
K

In terms of Americans vs Brits: The biggest naval threat to England was economic- Privateering. In the end the British campaign against them was quite successful, and most ended up in Dartmoor, excepting a dozen or so outstanding American examples.

The First rate British navy was deployed against the French and elsewhere in the world for the most part, and most of the American victories came over older, outgunned ships. Not that the Americans were second rate- the best American ships, captains and crews were easily on a par with the best British ones, but they were far fewer in total.

The Constitution was an excellent ship- an apogee of shipbuilding from a materials standpoint-and had been refitted-still, she won her engagements with the weight of guns in her favour, didn't she? I may be mistaken about this….
R

The American ships were also new, and incredibly strongly built,

I believe at least one of the American "super" frigates was laid down to be a 74 but ended up being built as a frigate. She was not a razee in the traditional sense (like HMS Indefatigable); she was a purpose built one gun deck "ship-of-the-line".

I can't remember, off the top of my head, which one she was, but subsequent super frigates were all built on the same lines / scale. I've been on USS Constitution (having visited Boston specifically to do so) and she is, like Emma Hamilton, and in the parlance of the day, "…..indeed, a whopper".

Strongly built, yes.

New, no !

As said earlier Constitution was launched in 1797 and was a frigate design from Day 1.

She is often said to have "the scantlings (i.e. the dimensions) of a 74" and in this she was both longer and with thicker sides than a standard European frigate, a class of ships she was designed to be superior to.

When you only have to find the materials to build a dozen or so ships you can afford to go to town on the materials.

… and the US Navy had problems of their own with rot, Congress had to be docked as a result in 1814 of it and when President was captured she was found to be a condition that meant she was condemned – even though the RN were desparate to have her as a prize for political capital as the US did with the Macedonian.

President's material state was not helped with her having grounded on a bar immediately before capture, in the end she was broken up and her measurements used to build a copy !

Mark Barker
The Inshore Squadron