"Why were ships-of-the line not supposed to open fire ..." Topic

…on frigates during fleet actions?.

Quite interesting…

link

Amicalement
Armand

IIRC, it was considered to be rather unsporting.

Also, given reload times, I suspect you'd want to not be caught reloading then bigger, more imposing game is about.

IIRC its was considered OK to return fire, if a frigate dared to fire first.

You might have needed the frigate to pick you out of the water after the battleships had blasted each other to matchsticks.

Was conserving ammunition for the primary targets a consideration?

The Battle of the Nile, Aboukir Bay, August 1798:

"The third British ship into action was HMS Orion under Captain Sir James Saumarez, which rounded the engagement at the head of the battle line and passed between the French main line and the frigates that lay closer inshore.[87] As he did so, the frigate Sérieuse opened fire on Orion, wounding two men. The convention in naval warfare of the time was that ships of the line did not attack frigates when there were ships of equal size to engage, but in firing first French Captain Claude-Jean Martin had negated the rule. Saumarez waited until the frigate was at close range before replying.[88] Orion needed just one broadside to reduce the frigate to a wreck, and Martin's disabled ship drifted away over the shoal."

One of the key points of this is: 'where there were ships of equal size to engage'.

Good article though, it leaves out the issue of why such ships were included in the first place – scouts…

The Frigate's job was to find the enemy fleet before they found the friendly fleet – gauge it's strength and estimate the enemy's course and speed. Relaying this information back to the friendly fleet would allow the Admiral in charge to make informed choices before the action.

Once the battle started yes, the Frigate (or Sloop etc.) would stand back and allow the big boys to play. Then serve to relay signals, tow crippled ships, save sailors in the water etc…

Yep – the Nile is a good example of a Frigate Captain making the mistake of violating those unwritten rules!

I had no idea about that. Warfare was an odd duck back then. Seems only the "good" guys pay attention to unwritten rules nowadays, but to our detriment.

It certainly does seem unsportsmanlike for a ship of 80 guns to target a ship of 20!

Of course if you're playing Osprey's "Fighting Sail" a frigate can sink a ship of the line with a single broadside if the dice results in your favour. ;-)

"Of course if you're playing Osprey's "Fighting Sail" a frigate can sink a ship of the line with a single broadside if the dice results in your favour."

"Fighting Sail" is a joke.

- – -

Re frigates in fleet actions, it was true that frigates were provided a large degree of consideration in a fleet action – provided that they behaved themselves in a manner befitting their assumed roles as important non-combat ancillaries to their respective fleets. Admirals relied upon their frigates to perform numerous important responsibilities: scouting, signal repeating, tow vessels, carriage of dispatches, etc. That's why, in a fleet engagement, frigates of one side did not rush off to engage their counterparts in a separate side action; they were simply too valuable to risk.

A possibly more traditional reason may be that frigates were generally considered unfit to fight in the line of battle and were hence kept aside. Exceptions to the rule, of course, existed – the Dutch, for example, for lack of line-of-battle ships did put frigates in the line.

One last point, there is ample history of RN frigates choosing to engage (by harrying) line-of-battle ships – typically in pursuit actions or adding their firepower against an opposing enemy already engaged with a British liner. My sense is that most of this sort of behavior took place in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods which were fought under somewhat less gentile terms than previous wars.

My opinion, for what it's worth.

B

The fact that frigates were unfit to be the line of battle is EXACTLY why they performed the role they did in the big engagements. Captain Martin found that out the hard way at Aboukir Bay.

However, outside of the large engagements (Nile, St. Vincent, Trafalgar, etc) all bets were off. The RN was known for taking on larger foes – whether in number of sail or size of ship- if they thought they could win. And they often did. I don't have the numbers in front of me here at work, but the ratio of wins/losses just between the English and the French was ridiculous. The English far and away dominated the French in the Napoleonic era, and most of those victories were in frigate actions.

That winning ratio, btw, was why it was such a shock to the world when the American frigates starting winning with some regularity in the early 1800s. The English public got a bit too used being on the winning side.

But of note for the OP, the American 44s never had to face down a SoL…

+1 Blutarski

Once the battle was joined a frigates primary role was to repeat signals.

There is a good example of British frigates engaging French ships of the line in the aftermath of Trafalgar, The Battle of Cape Ortegal. The French van squadron was trying to escape when sighted by British frigates, Sir Richard Strachan ordered a chase and the 4 French SoL were caught first by 2 frigates who then exchanges fire with the rearmost French ship damaging her rigging. Once the SoL caught up the frigate stood out of the way of the main fight for the most part.

In an actual fleet battle between SOLs the frigates generally kept their distance. However, in running chases or off chance meetings it was shark vs prey. HMS Berwick 74, alone and already partially disabled by incompetence of her crew was caught and taken by three French frigates, and there were cases of English SOLs running down and taking French frigates. Prior to being engaged by Nelson's Agamemnon, the French Ca Ira (80) was harassed for about an hour by HMS Inconstant (36).

Droits de l'Homme was harassed and driven ashore by two frigates.

There is also the classical action with the Droits De L'Homme. Though the Indy was an ex SOL so I guess it was more ok for it to fight.

Happy you enjoyed the thread my friends!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Merci, Armand, for your activity on this board!

I have a metaphor that may address the question -- look at a large self-propelled gun from WWII, like a Hetzer, that had a big cannon mounted in its chassis, which could not rotate at all. You had to aim the gun by aiming the vehicle.

Given this rigidity, would you opportunistically shoot at a Jeep, or carefully line up a leading shot on a big, slow-moving tank? It's not just a matter of sportsmanship, but of the best way to aim a gun that you cannot easily re-aim.

Cursd Captain

Practical aspects aside, there appears to have been a moral element to the practice as well. Naval officers of the time may have viewed an unprovoked attack by a ship of the line on a frigate in the same way that land officers would have viewed deliberate sniping at drummer boys. Just not done by civilized people.

I think you're right about the moral element, but I also think the moral element may have been confined to fleet actions, where tactics were more formalized and there was a clear distinction between "the line" and "auxiliaries". I'm not sure SOLs escorting convoys or on a remote station alone or in small numbers (e.g. typical use for 2-deck 50s and 44s) had qualms about chasing off or even attacking enemy warships of any size.

A question I've been unable to answer is the extent to which frigates were allowed or even expected to participate in a late-battle mopping up phase, especially as regards truly belligerent tasks like assisting the capture and possession of prizes and chasing down wounded enemy SOLs limping out of the area. Gamers have no trouble dispatching frigates for such duties, but would a period admiral do so?

- Ix

I think the practice evolved when Frigates were armed with 9 & 12 pdrs which do not pose a significant threat to SOLs. Since the frigates could not do a lot of harm, they stayed out of harm's way (the battle line) and were in return, not harmed by the battle line.

When the 18 pdr frigates start showing up you start to see more interaction with SOLs.

> I had no idea about that. Warfare was an odd duck back then. Seems only the "good" guys pay attention to unwritten rules nowadays, but to our detriment.

This was warfare between armies – when fighting against rebels or such the rules went right out the window.

A votre service mon ami!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Fleets existed for a purpose, Fleet battles are meant to neutralize or destroy the enemy fleet to achieve a given purpose. Attacking frigates generally would dilute that purpose barring understandable exceptions above.

Outside of fleet actions there are ample examples of line of battle ships attacking smaller ships or vis a versa. Depends on why you are fighting.

There was a lot more than just courtesy governing who fired at whom.

Dynaman is right, and the statement applies to navies as well. The elaborate courtesies we read about were not applied as rigidly when fighting against privateers (who didn't have ships of the line, of course). When dealing with pirates all the rules go right over the side. ANY dirty trick is applicable then.
BWW

Dantheman's point needs to be emphasized. The convention of SOLs not usually firing at frigates was entirely confined to fleet actions, and even then was confined to frigates that "behaved themselves". Firing on / capturing a frigate or even smaller vessel in one-on-one encounters or even small groups of ships was fair game and routinely done. Usually the smaller vessel would strike once in range of the SOLs guns, and there was rarely any censure of the losing captain in such circumstances.

The distinction we're making here was a subject of discussion in the age of sail. The French saw the "guerre d'Escadres" and the "guerre de Corse" -- the war of formations, and the war of the chase or hunt, roughly -- as two different naval policies, for example in Vauban's "Mermoire sur la corse." Two different tactical situations, two different behavioral norms. It resembles the distinction you see in band societies between almost ritualized, even-sided battles, and completely opportunistic raids.

The point I tried to make earlier about limited fields of fire was meant suggest that the question, why didn't liners fire at frigates, implies that they had a choice. I don't think liners in the "formation" type of battle had a lot of "hunting" choice of targets; instead, big ships were forced toward each other by both physical limitations and the desire for a decisive result. The frigates were usually on the other side of the enemy's "wooden wall," relaying signals -- that's my impression.