War of 1812 Prolonged

Let's not forget that England was rather tired after 25+ years of war and did not like the way the three conservative monarchies(Austria, Prussia and Russia) seemed to be making common cause so there was an argument against committing too much time and effort in North America.

Nor should we forget the shock of Napoleon's return. The British literally went from disbanding units and preparing for peace to suddenly finding that the war was back on. Recovering took a substantial fortune and more British dead in a single battle than the entire war of 1812, and if not for Blucher and errors on the part of Napoleon, Waterloo would have gone the other way and the British Army would, at best, have taken months to establish a similar force, and many top officers including the Duke of Wellington might be gone.



67th Tigers, technically Constitution and her sisters might have been third rates, the weakest SOLs, as they were specifically designed to be superior to frigates. Also, material is nice but if the shoddy American frigates are able to shell the still incomplete RN SOLs on the stocks...;)

As for New Orleans, it strikes me that a battle ending with so many top officers dead and one third of the 8000 British troops casualties can't be considered a good thing.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Actually, the following alignment took place in 1814, and it may very well have led to war.

Britain, Austria, Royalist France, and their allies

vs

Russia, Prussia and "Bonapartist France" (Napoleon II on the throne)
 
DAv said:
So it can't be used as a staging post for entreching on American teritory and expanding Britain's influence?

It could but only if the British were unopposed. Lets put it this way eastern Maine isn't a war winner or loser. If the British can extend into western Maine then the US has trouble.
 
If they tried to continue it, the British might wish they hadn't. They were so tired of war, that by 1815, it would be very difficult for them to marshal enough forces to gain ground against the Americans. But they might have been able to keep Maine.
 
Honestly their really wasn't much logic into continuing the war as after 1814 nothing was going to be gained by either side. Lake Ontario was going to be the only decisive theater, in which the British have more to lose than gain. If they win they secure Upper Canada and gain "an advantage" in Northern New York. If they lose they lose Upper Canada completely.
 
No it was a I don't know American frigates have an unmatched track record during the War of 1812. I'm sure you've heard of the USS Constitution
Two (Chesapeake and President) out of USN's original six sea-going frigates captured by the British? I hardly call that unmatched.:rolleyes:
Looking at all US frigates in existance during the war of 1812 we get an even bleaker picture (data culled from wikipedia):
Adams, scuttled to prevent capture, 1814
Boston, burned to prevent capture (laid up in Washington), 1814
Chesapeake, captured, 1813
Constellation, survived
Constitution, survived
Essex, captured, 1814
General Greene, burned to prevent capture (laid up in Washington, hulk), 1814
John Adams, survived
New York, burned after capture (laid up in Washington), 1814
President, captured, 1815

(Note: Several additional vessels were laid down in 1814 but not completed in time to see service during the war of 1812.)

So that gives three captured in battle; one captured in port (later burned); two burnt in port to prevent capture; one bottled up by the RN and scuttled to escape capture and three survived.

I dare say this makes that much vaunted track record look rather mediocre.
 
Cockroach, the US only had six frigates in service in 1812. You've tossed in hulks not in service and even runts like the Essex, which the British would have hesitated to classify as a sixth rate(frigates were fourth rates).

Boston, Greene and New York weren't in service. Indeed, Boston had been out of service since 1802 and been written off as not worth being returned to service. Greene had been out of service since 1805 and New York since 1803. Adams was a sloop of war.

President required three British frigates and a ship of the line to be brought down. Indeed, the Admiralty had specifically ordered that the three American super-frigates were only to be engaged by ships of the line or by no less than three British frigates en masse.

Comparing the size and firepower of the USN to the RN and the damage done by the USN to RN ships, the US Navy's reputation from this was is deserved, even ignoring that this was the RN at the most formidable point of British history.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Only three heavy frigates were built:

United States: took HMS Macedonian (Lively class, 38x 24pdrs), was chased into New London, CT and blockaded there for the duration
President: captured after being blockaded in NY for over a year
Constitution: Took 3 RN frigates, Guerrière and Java (both French built 18 pdr frigates, 38), and Cyane (4x 12 pdr and a bunch of carronades), and a sloop.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Cockroach, the US only had six frigates in service in 1812. You've tossed in hulks not in service and even runts like the Essex, which the British would have hesitated to classify as a sixth rate(frigates were fourth rates).

.

Frigates are 5th and 6th Rates, 4th Rates were typically Razees and the like.

The 3 heavies were at the very top end of the 4th Rate, and could even be considered very weak 3rd Rates. Not quite as fast as a proper frigate (although the RN deployed some very slow French built (uncoppered) frigates in the NA theatre), but much better armed.
 
So that gives three captured in battle; one captured in port (later burned); two burnt in port to prevent capture; one bottled up by the RN and scuttled to escape capture and three survived.

I dare say this makes that much vaunted track record look rather mediocre.

Counting vessels that were destroyed in port when they were effectively disarmed and unable to fight is a really lousy way of evaluating combat capability. By that token, every fighter airplane in the world is totally useless because if it is caught on the ground, without weapons or fuel, it is pretty easy to destroy. :rolleyes:
 
The US army had gotten better by the end of the war, but most American regiments were still not quite the equal of the British garrison regiments in open field battles, let alone the veterans from the Peninsula. The British at Baltimore were heavily outnumbered by entrenched US regulars and militia and withdrew after they failed to force the surrender of the main defending fort in the harbor. The major US victory at New Orleans was in a situation where the British had to advance over open ground straight at a strongly entrenched US position that was reinforced by heavy cannon taken from gunboats. A smaller British force overran poorly laid out and defended US positions on the other side of the Mississippi, and if the British had chosen to renew the attack, they could have placed cannon to enfilade the US position from across the river. It would not have been an easy victory for the British, especially since they had already suffered heavy casualties whereas US casualties had been pretty light, but it wasn't impossible.

In the north, the British land offensive along Lake Champlain might have succeeded if it had been more aggressively led, even with the US naval victory on Lake Champlain. If Britain had really been determined to keep attacking the USA, British forces almost certainly could have won further victories. On the other hand, it is questionable how much strategic value these victories would have had, or whether they would have been able to hold any gains against the larger forces that the USA would probably raise to try and push them back.

One important question is if a longer war would make New England even more likely to secede, or if they would be a patriotic "rally around the flag" response even in New England if British forces inflict more defeats on US forces.
 
Cockroach, the US only had six frigates in service in 1812. You've tossed in hulks not in service and even runts like the Essex, which the British would have hesitated to classify as a sixth rate(frigates were fourth rates).
Yeah, I may have been a little underhanded :D... Probably was unfair to include some of the more far gone hulks. As for the so called runt... well, the armourment of USS Essex was comparable to some of the older british vessels... discount her and you might as well also discount the similarly armed british vessel HMS Cyane captured by Constitution.
BTW, as others have pointed out frigates are genrally 5th and 6th rates (the classification is based on no# of guns, IIRC 3rd is 70-80... usually a two decker, 4th is 50-70, again usual a two decker).

Adams was a sloop of war.
Well, in british service at least the distinction between a moderatly puny 6th rate frigate and sloop of war was somewhat unclear... IIRC two vessels of the same class could have different classifications dependent on if the commanding officer held the rank of Commander or Captain.

Comparing the size and firepower of the USN to the RN and the damage done by the USN to RN ships, the US Navy's reputation from this was is deserved, even ignoring that this was the RN at the most formidable point of British history.
I'm certainly not saying that the USN doesn't deserve a formidable reputation... I was just pointing out to the derranged n00b that it's record wasn't quite as unmatched as he thought.
 
Cockroach, actually Essex was rather poorly armed, even for a ship of only 850 tons, almost entirely with carronades which had great power at short range and which left Essex practically helpless if any enemy ship had the poor taste not to throw itself on the barrels of the ship's guns.:D

The three 'super-frigates' could, under unusual circumstances, compete against third rates but really don't qualify as such. Those circumstances would have required poor weather forcing the SOL to shut the lower bank of cannon down due to heavy seas while the American ship of one deck could still use all the guns. Given the likelihood of this happening, and only three such American ships to begin with...reminds me of the naval battle where a badly outgunned American ship fought and moved brilliantly and had a British SOL actually worried...until the American ship suddenly exploded.:rolleyes:
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Yeah, I may have been a little underhanded :D... Probably was unfair to include some of the more far gone hulks. As for the so called runt... well, the armourment of USS Essex was comparable to some of the older british vessels... discount her and you might as well also discount the similarly armed british vessel HMS Cyane captured by Constitution.

The US heavy frigates had twice the displacement of a RN 38 (about 2,200 tons vs 1,100), and over 4 times Cyane's displacment (ca 500 tons).

BTW, as others have pointed out frigates are genrally 5th and 6th rates (the classification is based on no# of guns, IIRC 3rd is 70-80... usually a two decker, 4th is 50-70, again usual a two decker).

There were two parallel systems, based on guns and crew size. 1st rates were 3 deckers, 2nd and 3rd rates 2 deckers, 4th and 5th typically 1 deckers and 6th rates and sloops had no gun decks (the guns being on the weather deck). Constitution is a 4th rate by guns (exc/ carronades and the gunade), 3rd rate by crew. That helped a lot as a lot of boarding and hand to hand fighting were involved in her victories.

Rated ships had a captain, unrated ships (Sloops, Brigs etc.) had commanders

I'm certainly not saying that the USN doesn't deserve a formidable reputation... I was just pointing out to the derranged n00b that it's record wasn't quite as unmatched as he thought.

Indeed, the RN in American waters has definately the B team. The RN followed suit after some of the USN successes and razed several old SoL down to 4th rates and these were just arriving (ISTR) in the American Squadrons.
 
Top