The Invincible Navy?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Early Modern & the Imperial Age
Forum Discription: World History from 1500 to the end of WW1
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14039
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 02:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Invincible Navy?
Posted By: gcle2003
Subject: The Invincible Navy?
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 06:23
| From the Seven Years war to 1815, was the Royal Navy as invincible as is frequently alleged? |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 07:41
|
Mostly yes, but it lost the most important battle of the American Revolution, the Battle of the Chesapeake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 08:33
|
Yes, Sparten, and let us not forget when a Scotsman by the name of John Paul Jones beat the British ship the Serapis with the American ship Bon Homme Richard. This American victory was on British seas, making it even more humiliating. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 15:26
|
it was superior, but of course not invincible. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 18:12
|
Second Temujin. Nothing is invincible, I am sure some ships were destroyed by everyone, some by natural causes. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 21:14
|
It did indeed appear very strong, but had invincibility been the case
the British should have had the ability to block the French from
assisting the American rebels.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 06:08
It's worth noting that at Flamborough Head, Jones had under his command five ships: Bonhomme Richard (42 guns), Alliance (32), Pallas (32), Vengeance (12) and Le Cerf (12).
The British had only two: Serapis (44) and Countess of Scarborough (22). That's a ratio of about 2:1 in guns, though since Vengeance and Le Cerf went after the merchantmen Jones was trying to capture, the actual battle was 'only' 106:66.
Even so, Jones nearly lost his ship, and the British ships saved the convoy he was trying to attack.
PS: Vengeance and Le Cerf may not have been ships, strictly speaking. I haven't been able to find out. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 09:35
|
Although they sound like ships, the number of guns makes me think they were rafts. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 09:24
 At the time, a 'first-rate' line-of-battle ship carried over 100 guns.
Ships were classified as
line-of-battle
first-rate 100 guns or over
second-rate 90..98 guns
third-rate 64..80
older ships, sometimes used in the line
fourth-rate 50..60
frigates
fifth-rate 30..48
sixth-rate 22..28
sloops 10..18
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 12:45
|
So if three cannons somehow got lost it was not anything, and it WAS a raft?
Very educating, gcle. Thanks for pointing it out. What ships had the most cannons?
Is it correct that 72 cannon ships were common? ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 15:12
|
this ratign existed only in England however and classification could vary in other countries.... ------------- |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 01:15
It was pretty much undefeated from the Seven Years War until the dreadnought races at the beginning of WWI, and they did pretty well at those, too. The English navy was always strong, since Alfred, but the 18th and 19th centuries were its high point. As for its loss in the American war, that was only because it was more bothered with France to care about the colonies  Had they been unencumbered with European wars, there is no doubt they would have crushed the American independence movement just as heartlessly as the Ottomans crushed Greece |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 05:24
In general, at least in the western European navies in 1750-1815 or so, the commonest line-of-battle ship was the two-decked 74-gun ship. (Why 74 was preferred to 72 or 76 I have no idea.)
The ship that carried the most guns in this period was Spain's Santissima Trinidad, which was the only four-decked[1] battle ship in the world, and carried either 130 or 136 guns (sources vary:she probably carried slightly different numbers at different times.
She was captured at Trafalgar, but sank in the storm that followed.
[1] I.e. four gun decks.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 05:27
|
The reason a two ecker was preferred was since it was cheaper than building a 100 gun ship. Also In a three decker the bottom deck would often be uselss in rough or even slighty turbulent seas. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 05:39
Agreed. However, I don't know why 74 guns were common and as far as I know 72-gun and 76-gun ships never existed.
I guess it has something to do with them all being built to the same plan, but why the original plan had 74 guns I can't guess. Just coincidence?
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 11:35
|
Maybe because 74 is the correct number for two decks and frontside cannons? If they had frontside cannons, which some had I think?
Weren't also two-deckers speedier than others? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 04:35
Rider, sorry, but I only just realised your comment was probably responding to my statement that, properly speaking, Jones' two smaller vessels may not have been 'ships'.
'Ship' properly refers to a three-masted square-rigged vessel. With only 12 guns each it seems likely that Vengeance and Le Cerf were probably 'brigs' - i.e. two-masted.
(There are other kinds of two-masted vessels apart from brigs but I won't go into all of them.) ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 05:48
Standardization?
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 07:11
Standardisation accounts for there being so many the same, but not for why the standard was 74.
I did a little reading, mainly in Rodger's Command of the Ocean, and it appears that the first two-deck 74s were in fact laid down in France when the comte de Maurepas was French naval minister. The British were so impressed with the Invincible which was captured at Finisterre in 1747 that an Admiralty committe was set up to introduce the design in Britain.
So the answer to the question 'why 74?' lies somewhere in France, not in Britain  .------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 10:40
Oh, very well. A brig then. Were such things as 'sloops' too use in warfare? If the English language uses the word sloop. Or yachts then? ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 14:49
|
Yes, small ships with few cannon are called "sloops" in English.
-------------
|
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 15:29
|
Sloops were the smallest ships commanded by captains. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 17:46
do you have information on the Russian Blagodat? it had the same number of guns as the Santissima Trinidad and i suspect it was a sister ship of the ST bought by the Czar from Spain or so. if not it is still the largest three-decker of the Nap Wars. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 05:46
No I don't know of her. Santissima Trinidad is always quoted as the most heavily gunned ship of her era, though she wasn't the biggest: there were some French first-rates with greater tonnage.
I doubt there was a sister ship. Santissima Trinidad was built as a three-decker (in Cuba by an Irish shipwright as it happens), and later had the fourth deck added by connecting her fore and after-castles. The idea didn't work too well from the point of view of her sailing qualities, so I don't think it was ever tried again.
What I mean there is I doubt the idea of converting a three-decker to a four-decker was tried again. Any subsequent ship of her size and guns wold probably have been designed that way from the start.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 05:52
Both correct. John Paul Jones' two small vessels may have been sloops (if three-masted, since they certainly weren't commanded by captains) or brigs (if two-masted). Or something else in the way of a small vessel since several of them would be capable of carrying 12 guns.
------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 07:15
They did exist, they were just not as common. It's probably just an arbitrary tradition thing. If someone builds one 74-gun ship, he's more likely to have the same amount of gun on his next ship.
|
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 18:40
Its not that simple. Ship effectiveness to its design is the factor of how many guns it has. The French 74 was a two deck ship that had very good balance between sailing abilities and firepower. It was a very large 2 decker that could carry 36 pounders, something only the taller 3 deckers could do in the past. Cannons arent something you can just add and take off without some sort of consequence. The 74 gun ship presented one of the best balanced ship design of its time without causing the wood to flex and sag over time. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2006 at 13:30
|
I think we agree with all that.
It's still odd - on the face of it - that 74 was so common (in all the western navies) rather than 76 or 72 which wouldn't have made much difference to the things you mention. After all, frigates come in just about every possible size from 24 to 44, maybe more.
I wonder sometimes if they weren't just generically referred to as '74s' even if that wasn't actually the number of (broadside) guns they carried.
------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2006 at 16:08
|
74 broadside. Twenty-eight 32- or 36-pound guns on the lower gun deck, thirty 18-pounders on the upper gun deck, and sixteen 9-pounders. Some spanish boats were like this 28 24-pound 30 18-pound, 8 12-pound, and 8 8-pound. I imagine every navy had different size guns depending on their budget. But the ship design was 74 guns. The french designed it and felt it was the best overall. Not 72, 76 or even 80. If you look at the ships you'll see they are jam packed with guns.
I missread your post. Yeah I bet there were times they would call it a 74 gun just because of design even if it had less then the maximum cannon on board. As to your topic I think there were some times that the French navy could stand up and have a chance to beat the British navy. There were however alot more other times when they couldnt even touch the British navy. Invincible is a bit heavy a word to use though. There was no question they were the best of its time. And sometimes very far ahead of its oponants. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2006 at 20:11
|
Not always the ships with bigger guns were victorious against smaller ships.
Sometimes frigates could have even win in combat with ship of the line with 74 canons. There were such events. When the waves were high the ships of line couldnt use its lower gun deck.
------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 02:59
|
I think that weather conditions are extremely important, like the wind, waves and such things. I bet the frigates were usually speedier and easier to manouver. ------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 15:18
One on One and fleet movements is something totally different. A frigate isnt much in a fleet formation compared to heavier gunned ships. Also a good captain in a one on one would know the limits of his ship and wouldnt play to any advantages of the other ship. Frigates wouldnt challenge a ship of the line unless the situation was perfect and even then it was risky. Even if it loses the bottom 30 guns it still has 44 guns and is a big ship and can take alot more damage.
 ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 05:39
The maximum speed of a ship depends on its waterline length, so a line-of-battle ship - with sufficient wind astern or on the quarter - was faster than a frigate.
However, yes a frigate would be more manouvrable, and probably better able to sail beating into the wind. The important determining meterological factor would usually be the strength of the wind and the 'wind gauge' - which ship was to windward - because a frigate to windward of a battle ship could usually escape, whereas a frigate to leeward would be in trouble.
Even more critical however was the rate and accuracy with which the guns were fired. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 09:37
So what was the rate apporximately? 1 and a half minutes between volleys? ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 17:51
The poor crew could fire twice in 6 minutes while good crew even 3 times in 5 minutes. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 22:46
I just finished "Ship of the Line" by Brian Lavery. The only recorded instance I could find was the 74 gun French Droite Du Homme sunk by Sir Edward Pellew the only case on record of a 74 being attacked and sunk by a frigate. Though I think this was in a specific timeframe basically most of the 18th century. I was kind of surprised to see only that one as I also read the British felt they could take on anything with up 50% more superior firepower with success. It was a good book and a little bit on the British biased of things but hey they were the masters of the sea so cant go wrong from their point of view to much. It also showed the skill of British naval architects and the fact they disliked using any foreign designs. Most of the French ships they captured were actually poorly maintained and usually had to be gunned down because the wear and tear on the haul was so bad. British designers seemed to be just another reason why the British were so dominant on the seas. They took alot of pride in there ships and in building them. I was kind of wrong with the 74 gun thing apparantly there was alot of bickering between the admiralty and architects. The admiralty wanted a 74 gun ship like the French had while the architects wanted to keep using the 80 gun triple deckers saying it was better. The comprimise was doing away with the 80 gun boats and the architects pretty much added 4 guns to 70 gun ship designs in progress to please the admiralty. Eventually later on they designed many different types of 74 gun ships under various British hull designs. 64 gun ships were quite frequent in the British and other European navies as well as they were quite cheaper then their 74 gun ship sisters. Thomas Slade kind of standardized British ship building with the main four 100,90,74,64gun ships being the standard builds for most ship of the lines during his time as naval surveyor. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Barbarroja
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 07:55
|
Powerful and strong but not invincible. For example in 1797 Nelson was defeated in Tenerife ( ------------- I'm sorry but my English is not very good. I'm from Vila-real (Valencia, Spain) |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 08:02
|
What would be the position of the Brit navy today ? Will they be able to beat the Chinese ? ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 09:14
|
I honestly don't know.
My guess would be that they still could at sea, but that wouldn't be true for much longer. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 09:33
That defeat however was of an expeditionary force on land.
That was also defeat in an assault on land. Moreover I deliberately chose the Seven Years War as the starting point because that was when the aura of invincibility started.
But I don't know where you get the 186 ships and the 'greatest navy ever' from.
In January 1741 Vernon had 15 third-rates, 19 fourth-rates, 9 frigates and 17 minor vessels, and when he left the Caribbean in October 1742 he handed over 19 ships of the line to his successor. Obviously there were other troop transports involved since the Cartagena operation involved an expeditionary force of 8,000 soldiers, and how many of those were used I don't know.
But 186 fighting ships is out of the question. The entire Royal Navy in 1741 had only 178 vessels of all types, most of them in home waters, and only 97 fifth-rates (frigates) and better. (Source for data, Schomberg's Naval Chronicle, 1802) ------------- |
Posted By: Barbarroja
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 12:00
|
I'd have to revise my sources but I found that date in somewhere.
Your point is right, British navy was defeated in a land asault but was also an asault by sea. A mix.
Well, i've found in
Revista Credencial Historia - a magazine
EDICIÓN 89 - MAYO 1997 - May 1997 VERNON EN CARTAGENA, 1741 Nuevos datos sobre su derrota - New dates about his defeat Gustavo Vargas Martínez I hope to translate right the kind of the ships.
8 three-mast, 28 of line, 12 frigates, 130 transport and some brulots.
9.000 men to disembarkation, 2000 Black Jamaican, 15000 sailors and 2763 angloamericans from Virginia, a total about 29000 men.
And some more information in the wikipedia (some in Spanish):
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitio_de_Cartagena_de_Indias_%281741%29 - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitio_de_Cartagena_de_Indias_%281741%29
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blas_de_Lezo - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blas_de_Lezo (also in English version)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Vernon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Vernon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins_Ear - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins_Ear
http://todoababor.webcindario.com/articulos/art_2.htm - http://todoababor.webcindario.com/articulos/art_2.htm (in Spanish, but in this very good site you can find more information about the Royal Spanish navy)
The wikipedia can be wrong, but, so many times?? ------------- I'm sorry but my English is not very good. I'm from Vila-real (Valencia, Spain) |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 12:37
No, according to online papers you can find. The Spanish did have a few ships but sank them in the bay opening to hinder the British entering. If you are talking about Vernon's assault of Cartagena that is.
On the note of 72 and 76-gun ships, among the escort of the 1711 Swedish military transport to Germany no less than 4 of 16 ships of the line were 72-gunners. There are also one 76-gun ship in the navy.
|
Posted By: Barbarroja
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 11:40
|
Well, OK. It was a siege by land but with suport by sea. We cannot consider a naval battle at 100 %. ------------- I'm sorry but my English is not very good. I'm from Vila-real (Valencia, Spain) |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 12:06
| 0%, rather. :) |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 08:04
That fits not badly with my numbers, if you count fourth-rates as 'of the line' and if a few larger sloops are classified as frigates, which sometimes happens. (I don't know what you mean by 'three-mast'. All ships are three-masted. I don't believe there were any three-deckers in the Caribbean under Vernon - there were only 9 3-deckers in the whole navy at the time, and they were in home waters.)
I said I didn't know how many troop transports were involved: I just don't think they should be called part of the 'fleet'. There certainly weren't 186 fighting ships.
I won't argue about the number of troops, since I only have a passing reference and my sources are more interested in the naval forces.
Thanks, that's interesting.
------------- |
Posted By: Barbarroja
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 06:34
|
Yes, They weren't 186 fighting ships, but the navy is not only to fight, in the Phililp II's "Armada invencible", not all ships were fighting ships. We can close this discusion about Cartagen because the topic is about naval battles, and i agree with you at the end. ------------- I'm sorry but my English is not very good. I'm from Vila-real (Valencia, Spain) |
Posted By: roscoe
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2015 at 08:16
Erm No! Pearson chose to forfeit his superior manoeverability to lock his ship against the Bonhomme Richard to allow the convoy he was protecting to escape. That convoy (41 ships) was carrying Scandanavian wood and masts to the various shipyards which then went on to build Nelson's Navy which defeated the combined Spanish/ french Navy at Trafalgar. The Bon Homme Richard became a crab hutch the day after battle. John Paul Jones captured the heavily damaged Serapis which the Royal Navy had previously captured from the French anyway. Jones only suceeded because 1 Jones' ship held the Serapis and couldn't manoever and 2 His other ship - The Alliance. pounded Pearson's ship from the other side from a distance and 3 Jones got lucky when a grenade thrown from the Bonhomme Richard went down several decks and ignited the Serapis' powder which killed most of the Serapis crew. The story that Jones' ship was out gunned by the Serapis is true - he had four fewer guns. Of course when you add the Alliance that pounded the locked Serapis from a distance Pearson was hopelessly out gunned. The phrase "I have not begun to fight" was probably true and understood as had he been captured he would certainly have been hanged as a traitor. he had no choice but to fight. Meanwhile Jones let 41 ships escape full of wood for the Royal Navy. In other words A FAILURE. Happy to put your view of history correct. Eric - The Filey Bay Initiative. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2015 at 14:17
|
As to mission objectives it was at best a draw tactically....strategically a failure in the commerce raiding and interdiction as you note...but the more important strategic qualifier 'morale' considering time and context...a victory for the fledgling Continental Navy.
Welcome aboard. A finale note: A slight edge 'tactical' argument can be made for the Americans... as they held the field and had gained a superior vessel (two if one counts the 'Alliance's' forcing the 'Countess's' surrender) upon completion of the engagement...coupled to the loss of one of their ships. More importantly however was the lessons learned....in facing a first rate British vessel and crew. Iow. gunnery at distance was inferior as a tactic; leading to maneuvering to board. Desperate but yet ntl viable. This would change eventually but at Flamborough Head, still a norm. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: roscoe
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2015 at 01:43
First of all thank you for the welcome. The Countess of Scarborough was a sloop and I understand that on firing its 10 guns at the Pallas the cannonballs were simply lodging in the woodwork, having no effect whatsoever. However by surrendering precious time was gained to allow the important merchant vessels to escape. Jones didn't capitalise on his success and took his prize to Dunkirk he should have hunted down the rest of the convoy. You could argue that the Royal Navy were lax in not defending such an important convoy with more armed vessels. It is clear though that in terms of morale boost it was an American victory. |
Posted By: roscoe
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2015 at 01:45
| Incidently they "may" have found the remains of the Bonhomme Richard. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2015 at 04:08
|
An astute response...and as to your last two points I concur.
As I recall he had some difficulties with his subordinates on what he-they should have done after the fight...but don't hold me to that. It's been a long time since I read his reports. That sort of dialogue 'disappeared' after the Articles of War firmly established the relationships between Commanders and subordinates. And if you find any links reference your above feel free to let us know the details. CV ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: roscoe
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2015 at 04:57
|
You may be interested in this site. I'm involved myself as a artist. I'm looking to paint another painting of the Battle of Flamborough Head. They have a magnificent model of the Bonhomme Richard in the Filey museum. Myself and my wife dined in Filey yesterday at the restaurant called: The John Paul Jones. |
Posted By: roscoe
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2015 at 04:58
| http://www.fileybay.com/hlfazlx1/hlftitle.htm |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2015 at 14:44
|
Quite an impressive effort. Hats off to them and hope to see your rendition on the forum soon. Well done.
See: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35762&PID=710792#710792 ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |