> One of the most interesting things I have found about the perception of
> US Navy of the period is how people never scratch past the surface, the
> navy frigates were at first glance better ships,
I'd say at second, third and fourth too. They were 4th-rate liners in
all but
name. Razee-50s* were closer to the USN 44s than were the standard Brit
32 gun frigate.
> but at that point the US
> their bases.
I beg to differ: remember that some of the USN ( as opposed to
letter-of-marque)
ships did things like sink Brit whalers off Indonesia, burn Scotch
distilleries in Scotland, etc.
> As a result their frigates carried more guns, so much so that
They were also BIGGER. A hell of a lot bigger. Made of superior, lightweight
materials. OK, so they didn't last as long. OK, in a strong gale, they'd be
hard pressed to keep afloat. OK ( insert long list of reasons why although
better
tactically, they were a dead-end in the long term ).
> The British on the other hand went on cruises lasting years and had to
Similarly with the US ships in the Pacific.
But the technology was only part of it. The point was that the USN of 1812 was
the only navy in the world whose personnel was even remotely as proficient as
that of the RN. The RN, being perfectly used to taking on larger, better ships
and winning hands-down due to sheer superior ability got wiped on
several occasions. Any RN Captain of a 32 or 36 frigate or even a 28 sloop
when confronted with an enemy "frigate" was expected to take it on and win, as
they always had done in the past. Hence the losing streak. It was only when
the captain of HMS Shannon
(with an above-average crew) took on a US below-average crew that odds
were in his favour.
> At 01:52 31/05/02 +1000, Alan wrote:
Never said they weren't:)
> The RN, being perfectly used to taking on larger, better ships
That's what happens when you give up all your advantages, close to point
blank range against a opponent who is the best in his squadron at close range
combat. The commander of the US ship Chesapeake ignored his orders in doing so
lost his ship and his life. But he did give the US Navy the immortal line
"don't give up the ship".
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
Wasn't Chesapeake the one armed with an overabundance of carronades at the
expense of long guns?
Engaging in the fight was may have been a questionable decision but once in
point blank range was the only option.
Bob
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 11:20 31/05/02 -0400, Bob wrote:
The Chesapeake had the long range advantage and was under orders to avoid
being dragged into action, it's mission was to get past the blockade and
harassing British shipping. Further to this the condition of the Chesapeake
was not so good, the ship had been suffering problems and it's morale was low.
Cheers
> --- Robert Minadeo <raminad@earthlink.net> wrote:
The Brit was aware of the armerment and remained outside range for the battle,
the correct tactic considering the situation.
Bye for now,
Just had a look see at: http://www.maritime-scotland.com/shannon.html ,
all but one of my books on the subject somewhere's down the basement.
It would seem that Chesapeake and Shannon were almost identically armed with
28-29 18 pounder long guns and another 16-20 32 pound carronades and
assorted smaller weapons. Shannon mounted 53 guns and Chesapeake 49, certainly
close enough.
"The Commodores" maintains that Chesapeake was a hard luck ship. Her crew
suffering from low morale and of whom "...Many were foreigners, to whom
appeals for allegiance were meaningless." It's a pity the author does not go
on to break the crew down by nationality;) Her three ranking officers,
although experienced, had only recently been assigned to the ship.
It would seem that her loss was due mainly to her captain's belief, based on
previous actions, that any American frigate could be expected to overcome any
British ship(s) not of the line.
Imagine the arrogance and victory disease that would lead to such an
unreasonable state of mind...Automatically assuming that your force is
superior to an enemy's is a recipe for disaster that RN frigate captains of
the time had been made all to well aware of.
Derek as I've only consulted two sources would you please clarify your
declaration that Chesapeake had the long range advantage? The difference in 18
pounders could not have been more than one or two in either ship's favor it
would seem.
Bob
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> "The Commodores" maintains that Chesapeake was a hard luck
Derek did mention that;)
> Derek as I've only consulted two sources would you please clarify your
Derek was working from memory (and probably should have noted as much). If you
wish to take this up with him though please contact him at
On Fri, 31 May 2002 15:46:39 +1000 Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> writes: <snip. The commander of the US ship
Chesapeake ignored his
> orders in
A great line but not one that has big appeal to me. He lost in a battle he
didn't have to fight.
> Cheers
Gracias,