Question regarding Royal Navy

He put forward as his defence the facts that the Guerriere was originally French-built, captured by the Royal Navy in 1806, and therefore not as sturdy as British-built ships, and more importantly, that the Guerriere was badly decayed and in fact on its way to refit in Halifax at the time, and the fall of the mizzen mast which crippled the Guerriere early in the fight had been due as much to rot as battle damage.[1
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution_vs_HMS_Guerriere

Dacres the captain stated that the ship was literally rotting yet was still in use.




Furthermore, a court martial later found that a number of British seamen had deserted their quarters during the action.[6]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Boxer_(1812)#section_3
This was the HMS Boxer her men weren't exactly reliable.

Anyway the navy was large and quite a few ships were in bad repair and ill crewed due to the sheer size and maintenance required. The USA's navy was better quality wise due to it's officers, well built ships due to money and time spent on them, full volunteer force, extensive gunnery and sailing drills. The British opted to simply have a quick rate of fire but the Americans were more accurate. America's navy was small because Jefferson had dismantled it in favor of gunboats. The navy had seen extensive action in the Barbary and Quasi French Wars. The Chesapeake versus Shannon battle is a bad comparisonr. Those men were newly recruited and had never been to sea in the ship! Stupidity on Lawrence's part primarily. Anyway at the end of the war the US had a few ships of the line. Her frigates could actually probably have taken on some of the smaller ones like the HMS Africa.

All ships needed to be maintained constantly-, harder in a larger fleet than a smaller one  but a few single ship actions prove that the RN was a poorly trained and manned force? but fleet actions of which the RN won most if not all throughout the period, which involve battle fleets and ships of the line (which in 1812 the Americans had none), often out numbered, plus the huge number of single ship actions the RN won-- again often at a disadvantage count for nothing!

Originally posted by pekau I know guys, but I asked if there were any other reasons.

Historians generally credit Henry the Eighth for pushing a modern (for the time) and powerful navy into existence to serve the needs of Britain. He realized that controlling the seas, especially the English Channel, was paramount to protecting his realm.

One Britain became the seat of the British Empire, a large and powerful navy was essential in order to protect trade and to project power to all of the far-flung colonies. For that matter, the navy was essential to obtaining those far-flung colonies in the first place.

Up until the onset of WWII, sea power was THE power, all over the world.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma You mistake me. Im simply saying the American's shattered the myth of British invincibility on the sea. Im also stating that she pressed quite a few of her sailors into the navy while the US was a full volunteer force. American ships were better due to volunteer crews, a smaller force to maintain, more practice, and better built ships due to time and mones available. Britain obviously ruled the seas yet the navy wasn't perfect or invincible. Technically the only fleet actions fought were won by the US in the Great Lakes. Im not snubbing Britain just showing the problems of having such a large navy, not enough manpower, maintenance happens far less frequently and merchant ships are pressed into service, ships must be quickly and cheaply built. As opposed to the US having plenty of volunteer seamen, and a smaller navy that they could build with more quality and use volunteer seamen.

Well...up to a point.  In fact, America used captured naval vessels to augment her fleet, and copied designs from other nations.  The French, especially, were noted for well-founded, fast sailing vessels.  John Paul Jones most famous vessel, the French built Bonholme Richard, was originally built as a French merchantman.

Also, a number of American "warships" were, in fact, privately built and operated privateers, rather than officially constructed by an American government naval yard for service to the nation itself.

I have never completely grasped the success of the Royal Navy under the incredibly harsh conditions of impressment and virtual slavery of the crews, but they made it work despite all of its drawbacks.

My points remain valid throughout the entire period.  You are comparing a government at work  - the Royal Navy - with a mostly private navy fielded by America.

The size of Britain's navy was not a drawback, but an advantage, as they had a system in place to handle the needs of large fleets and widely dispersed vessels.  America did not, having never needed such in the past.

However, since the battles in America were merely sideshows in the overall operations of the Royal Navy, the "myth of British invincibility" being destroyed was, itself, a "myth".  The American navy had enormous respect for the warships and fighting qualities of the Royal Navy, which America did not match or surpass until the Second World War.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma It was not a private navy. It was paid and mannned by the government and supervised by the government.

Actually, the American government commissioned and constructed very few warships at the time.  We did not become a national naval power until much later.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Originally posted by Mountain Man Originally posted by Delenda est Roma It was not a private navy. It was paid and mannned by the government and supervised by the government. Actually, the American government commissioned and constructed very few warships at the time.  We did not become a national naval power until much later. Red herring. I said the warships were government ships not private as you said. Don't throw random things out there that I never said.

No herrings, red or otherwise.

The Yankee Privateers with their fast trading ships took over 40 million dollars in prizes of ships and cargo from Great Britain during the War of 1812. A privateer is a privately owned ship that is issued letters of marque by a country's government, which authorized it to attack foreign shipping during war time. Many of the privateers that supplemented the United States Navy were fast, highly maneuverable clippers.

The American Congress authorized the construction of six frigates during the 1812 period, which hardly outnumbered the British; therefore, my statement that the American government built few warships is absolutely correct.  The bulk of the vessels were clippers turned privateers, as historical sources will validate.

However, the American frigates were considerably larger than British frigates of the period, mounting some twenty-four guns, which led the British to counter by commissioning five warships of 40 guns each, all cannon to be 24 pounders.


Edited by Mountain Man - 17-Aug-2012 at 20:07

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma No the United States navy was built primarily in the 1790's. As a result of the Quasi War with France and the Tripolian War. This was in all aspects a government navy. YOU are talking about privateers which aren't a navy but private vessels. The US at the time had no reason for a huge coatly navy so why should she build one?

Since you are the one claiming that America built a large navy, that would be a question for you to answer, would it not?

I'm the one pointing out that we didn't build a large navy, but rather employed privateers to boost our numbers and interfere with British shipping.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Originally posted by Mountain Man Originally posted by Delenda est Roma No the United States navy was built primarily in the 1790's. As a result of the Quasi War with France and the Tripolian War. This was in all aspects a government navy. YOU are talking about privateers which aren't a navy but private vessels. The US at the time had no reason for a huge coatly navy so why should she build one? Since you are the one claiming that America built a large navy, that would be a question for you to answer, would it not?I'm the one pointing out that we didn't build a large navy, but rather employed privateers to boost our numbers and interfere with British shipping. False. Please stop misquoting me right now. I never stated we had a large navy. I stated we had a smallish but qualitively better navy.

I didn't "misquote" you.  You might want to review your posts and arguments before submitting to unjustified anger or perceived afront.

During the War of 1812, the American Navy commissioned exactly six frigates, period.  That is historical fact and easily verified.

America relied primarily on civilian privateers to intercept British shipping. These privateers acted through Letters of Marque granted by the American government and formed a quasi-addition to the American navy, without which America would have required a much greater fleet of official naval vessels in order to intercept British shipping and conduct military operations against British warships.  That is also historical fact and easily verified.

As to the quality of the navy, our frigates were larger and more heavily armed, as I have previously stated, but the British had a larger fleet with heavier capitol ships overall; therefore, that argument can go either way, but cannot sustain a general claim of all American warships being qualitively better.  A frigate, no matter how powerful, is still not  a match for a first rate ship-of-the-line, nor even a second or third rate for that matter.  Once again, John Paul Jones claimed his most famous victory while fighting as captain of a French-built warship, the Bonhomme Richard.  Our best warship designs were taken from the French, literally.

Our primary advantage during our wars with Britain was the fact that Britain was busy defending an empire that stretched around the world, and regarded us as a minor war not worthy of major deployments.  The British were fighting the Peninsular War at this time, and that took up a lot more of their military capabilities than a war 3,000 miles from Great Britain. Again, historical, verifiable fact.

I have enjoyed discussing this era and event with you, and perhaps we will be able to discuss other subjects elsewhere in a more courteous and amiable fashion.  After all, this is history; it isn't personal.

 

Originally posted by Mountain Man ...................................................I have never completely grasped the success of the Royal Navy under the incredibly harsh conditions of impressment and virtual slavery of the crews, but they made it work despite all of its drawbacks.