Master & Commander

[Isolder74]

In the War of 1812, the only times British frigates were able to take out an American frigate was when they fought them with at a least a 2 to 1 numerical superiority. BTW it is still on the handbooks of the Royal navy to not engage American vessel unless you have at least a 2 to 1 numerical superiority.

Except for when Shannon took Chesapeake. Chesapeake wasn't one of the new designs of course.

The Chesapeake did not put up much of a fight as it was before the war broke out(it one of the primary causes) and since it was not a fire fight either didn't help much either. Naval battles of War of 1812: The Constitution vs the Guerriere--USA, Hornet vs Peacock--USA, Constitution vs Java--USA, Wasp vs Frolic--USA, United States vs Macedonian--USA, Essex vs Alberta--USA, Constitution vs Cyane, Levant--USA, Hornet vs Penguin--USA, Essex vs Phobe, Cherub--United Kingdom,

... the biggest criticism is the American 44 gun frigate, and Crowe's character choosing to do battle in the middle of a raging storm.

Perhaps the 44 gun ship should not have been in French hands, but they did build frigates like that (hence "Old Ironsides").

As for the storm, it may be stupid to fight there but there is precedent in O'Brien, specifically when Leapard sank that 74 in Desolation Island.

The French did not. most European Frigates had at max 38 cannon. A frigate by definition is a narrow and lightly armed raider. the grand 72 gun Ships of the Line were the Staple of the european navies. Since the design of the Frigate did not allow for the more than one gun deck to increase weapons load required lengthing the ship. too long and the ship's narrow kiel tended to snap or bend making the ship unusable. What the Americans did was work out a way for a frigate to mount not only more guns then European Frigates but to also mount Ship of the Line sized cannon and enough of them to give the Frigate the ability, if need be, to take on those Ships of the Line. The Americans included beams runn diagonally from the keil across the ship as well as the normal horozontal beams. These strengthened the ship enough to allow the ship to carry more weight and be longer ans still stay narrow which increases the potential speed of the vessel. This was because the United States could not afford to feild a force of Ships of the Line. So their solution, develop Frigates that can take on enemy Frigates and aslo have the capibility to face, in numbers, Ships of the Line. Since ships of the line were not fast manuverers they were very vernerable to fast highly manueverable ships.

This is really no different to Drake and his race built gallions vs the Spanish Armada. The British could not build or afford ships comparible in size and armament as the Spanish Gallion so they developed their Faster and lightly armed Race Built Gallions. Trully they were the first Frigates. Sadly they did not learn much in that once they had naval supremicy they started building a massive fleet of large Ships of the Line. Of course it was this fleet that defeated the French at Trafalgar

[Sea Skimmer]

the French did not defeat or capture any American Constitution style frigates. The Babary Pirates got one but only because the captian of the Philidelphia was stupid and left the blockade to be surronded by Pirate vessels and then surrender hit ship to them without a fight.

The vessel was only surrounded after it ran aground. Under such circumstances fighting really wouldn't have accomplished anything except to get a good chunk of the crew killed while the raking fire of the attackers couldn't be answered.

[phongn]

So their solution, develop Frigates that can take on enemy Frigates and aslo have the capibility to face, in numbers, Ships of the Line. Since ships of the line were not fast manuverers they were very vernerable to fast highly manueverable ships.

Yes, but if a ship like HMS Victory got off a good broadside, even a super-frigate like USS Constitution would be in a world of hurt. In addition, the US Navy never had the numbers to fully contest the Royal Navy.

[Isolder74]

So their solution, develop Frigates that can take on enemy Frigates and aslo have the capibility to face, in numbers, Ships of the Line. Since ships of the line were not fast manuverers they were very vernerable to fast highly manueverable ships.

Yes, but if a ship like HMS Victory got off a good broadside, even a super-frigate like USS Constitution would be in a world of hurt. In addition, the US Navy never had the numbers to fully contest the Royal Navy.

This is very true. The fact that the British could not commit their heavy ships because of the wars still going on with the French limited the War of 1812 to a Frigates war. Battles that clearly favored the better built US Frigate in almost every respect.

[Worlds Spanner]

Perhaps the 44 gun ship should not have been in French hands, but they did build frigates like that (hence "Old Ironsides").


The French did not.

I meant the Americans by 'they' which is very clear from the entire thread. Sorry.

Sadly they did not learn much in that once they had naval supremicy they started building a massive fleet of large Ships of the Line. Of course it was this fleet that defeated the French at Trafalgar

Didn't learn much? Perhaps, but why is that sad? The Royal Navy was the single most powerful force afloat as late as, what, 1939?

[Stormbringer]

Didn't learn much? Perhaps, but why is that sad? The Royal Navy was the single most powerful force afloat as late as, what, 1939?

Debateable at that time. They had a pretty good navy but it was out of date (as were all the western navies) in terms of carrier power and much of their power projection capability depended on their imperial possessions.

[Isolder74]

Perhaps the 44 gun ship should not have been in French hands, but they did build frigates like that (hence "Old Ironsides").


The French did not.

I meant the Americans by 'they' which is very clear from the entire thread. Sorry.

Sadly they did not learn much in that once they had naval supremicy they started building a massive fleet of large Ships of the Line. Of course it was this fleet that defeated the French at Trafalgar

Didn't learn much? Perhaps, but why is that sad? The Royal Navy was the single most powerful force afloat as late as, what, 1939?

Because they forsoock the faster ships that helped them defeat the Armarda for a force os ships almot the same

[Worlds Spanner]

Yeah, I understood that. But how did this hurt them?

[Isolder74]

Only that if they had more frigates then the War of 1812 might have turned out much differentally

[Frank Hipper]

Because they forsoock the faster ships that helped them defeat the Armarda for a force os ships almot the same

The First and Second Anglo-Dutch wars showed that lighter armed, more manouverable sailing ships were no match for the larger variety. All subsequent ships of the line are descendants of those 17th century ships, and until Rodney and Nelson, all battles at sea were fought to the principles established then.
Equating frigates with the English ships that fought the armada isn't a spot-on analogy, either. There were 23 royal warships in the English fleet, the largest of them displacing 1500 tons, somewhat larger than the biggest of the Portugese galleons in the Spanish fleet.
The English royal warships were also the ones that took the brunt of the fighting, leaving the 250 ton and smaller ships to subsidiary roles. And more importantly, it was English superiority in artillery that ran the Spaniards out of the channel. The obvious lesson there being the bigger the ship, the more guns it carries.
The sailing line-of-battle ship was the the logical end product of developments that began at the turn of 15th and 16th centuries, and to conclude that Britain forsook a heritage of lightweight warships for the ship of the line disregards not only naval developments, but most importantly, the NEEDS of the navy.
After all, only a fleet of ships of the line could stand and fight an opposite fleet of similar ships, and fleet engagements were what they were for.
Frigates were commerce raiders, foreign station cruisers, and fleet scouts. And with the exception of American developments, were not the premiere units in any navy.

[Stormbringer]

Only that if they had more frigates then the War of 1812 might have turned out much differentally

Not really, more likely they would simply have had more frigates on blockade duty.

[Worlds Spanner]

Only that if they had more frigates then the War of 1812 might have turned out much differentally

Didn't the British win all of their wars? Ah, 1812 I see. This is tricky. The Americans won at sea but never enough to dent the RN, meanwhile the British won every land battle, burned Washington, etc. The only thing the Americans won was New Orleans, which was AFTER the peace treaty.

For some reason Americans always seem to think that we won the war of 1812. In fact, it was settled by treaty long before there was a clear winner.

Furthermore, more firgates would not have helped the Brits. Then entire reason the Americans kept winning was that in Frigate vs Frigate fights the bigger, heavier American frigates always won. If there had been British ships of the line on he North American station, then it might have been different.

As for the Armada, the role of heavy ships has been pointed out by others, but I'd like to add the weather. Drake didn't destroy the armada, he forced it into a storm that destroyed it.

[CmdrWilkens]

Only that if they had more frigates then the War of 1812 might have turned out much differentally

Unlikely at best, the War of 1812 turned not on the naval battles but rather almost solely on land based actions. Significantly those at Baltimore (where the Star Spangled Banner was written, ooh-rah Maryland) and New Orleans. Minus the US's disastrous showing in Canada the war was essentially a stalemate when the peace was signed as both countries realized that fuirther hostilities were pointless (especially as Napolean was defeated and the brits no longer needed to impress American sailors). Victory at sea was unavhievable for the US as the Constitution-class Frigates were never numerous enough to actually harass the Royal Navy and the vessels transporting troops to Canada (and thus to the theater of war).

For all intents and purposes the Brits still won the battle on the seas as the USN never accomplished anything in the way of disrupting the SLOC for the Brits.

[HemlockGrey]

meanwhile the British won every land battle

Baltimore. New Orleans. Chalmette. Not to mention Harrison's successes.

I believe that Perry annhilated the British on the Great Lakes, as well.

[Isolder74]

meanwhile the British won every land battle

Baltimore. New Orleans. Chalmette. Not to mention Harrison's successes.

I believe that Perry annhilated the British on the Great Lakes, as well.

he did. in the war niether side made any serious gains. It turly was a stalemate. The American Navel victories meant that the Royal Navy could not effectivly make use og their blockade as they wanted. True they burned Washington but the batles that mattered the Americans won. If Ft. McHenry had fallen perhaps the United States would now be British Colonies as before. It was this war that force the British to reconize the US as a seperate nation.

[Worlds Spanner]

My mistake.

One way or the other, the star of the British Empire was ever rising in this period.

[Trytostaydead]

Just saw the movie.. BLOODY BRILLIANT! I loved the classical music that played and highlighted the scenary. Very reminiscient of those old black and white movies like the Bounty.

BTW, haven't they read the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner? How many bloody times must they be told.. don't shoot the albatross!! I saw there were quite a few quips, maybe intentional or otherwise to the classics.. I forget now what they were, but I was laughing (in a good way) when I recognized them.

[Stuart Mackey]

I was reading some comments on it by various naval history experts, from various naval historical societies over at SteelNavy.com, the biggest criticism is the American 44 gun frigate, and Crowe's character choosing to do battle in the middle of a raging storm.
snip

Glorious First of June!!!!

[zombie84]

Saw it last night--excellent film!!

As soon as the film begins you know its something special--just the atmosphere and attention to detail, and then that opening battle begins! Man, that was great!

I dont know much about its historical accuracies and i've never read the novels its based on but the film definitly seemed to be the most accurate depiction of naval life from that period.

Great directing, amazing acting and an excellent script. Theres a tremendous sense of realism, and the brief sequence on the Gallopogus Islands had a wonderful sense of adventure and discovery. I loved the leisurly pace--it showed the tedium and detail of everyday sea life, but it was always interesting and done with great character.

Some have called it boring and slow--this is not Pirates of the Caribbean. People with the attention span of a humming bird will not like the attention to character development and atmosphere.

And it is it just me or did anyone realize that Wrath of Khan was this exact same film, just set in space?

[fgalkin]

Saw it yesterday. Good movie.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Frank Hipper]

I was reading some comments on it by various naval history experts, from various naval historical societies over at SteelNavy.com, the biggest criticism is the American 44 gun frigate, and Crowe's character choosing to do battle in the middle of a raging storm.
snip

Glorious First of June!!!!

Four Day's Fight?
Really, neither of those were the ship-killer storms that are shown in the trailers I've seen.

[zombie84]

he never does battle in the storm. He's just following the Acheron.

[Colonel Olrik]

slightly off topic: For the fans of the genre, what are the must read novels/authors, besides Hornblower

[Trytostaydead]

Great directing, amazing acting and an excellent script. Theres a tremendous sense of realism, and the brief sequence on the Gallopogus Islands had a wonderful sense of adventure and discovery. I loved the leisurly pace--it showed the tedium and detail of everyday sea life, but it was always interesting and done with great character.

Some have called it boring and slow--this is not Pirates of the Caribbean. People with the attention span of a humming bird will not like the attention to character development and atmosphere.

Yes indeed, took a girl to see it. She said it was "good" but "slow" and "boring" and not enough action. I felt like giving her a black eye for the night

[HemlockGrey]

Brilliant movie. 'nuff said.