From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.china,soc.history
Subject: Re: US Ironclads (Was: Re: US colonializing )
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:38:12 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1992Sep2.053823.28489@anasaz>, briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep1.145046.5533@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@nano.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
|> >I hope you'll consider this as a friendly correction, but didn't the
|> >British and French pioneer ironclads?  The Monitor was, I believe, the
|> >first "modern" warship designed with absolutely no provision for sails,
|> >but was thoroughly impractical for oceanic operations.  In any case,
|> >within ten years after the Civil War, the U.S. Navy was hopelessly
|> >antiquated.
|> 
|> I don't have my reference at hand, but the US built large number of
|> ironclads during the civil war, a whole squadron of which were specifically
|> designed as ocean going.  When one of them visited London it caused quite a
|> stir on the continent.
|> 
|> Also, at the start of the war of 1812, the British publicly stated one of
|> their vessels could take on and defeat 2 equivalent enemy vessels.

	Kindly reference this.  If you mean the popular press said
	this I can accept it, but it is irrelevant. I do not believe
	that any responsible naval figure made this claim. Very few of the
	british victories were made at two to one odds (e.g. 27 british vs
	33 allies at trafalgar).  Perhaps cape St. Vincent is the
	closest example to a 2-1 fight (27 spanish vs 15 british).

	Nelson's advice to his frigate captains was that if two british
	frigates were to meet two spanish, they should both endeavour to
	cripple one of the spaniards, and only then try for the second.
	Nelson would never have given this advice if he thought each of
	the frigates could defeat both spaniards single handed.


  Many a
|> French vessel lay at the bottom of the ocean 

	Very few, actually.  Ships were usually captured and added
	to the British navy (e.g. the Constitution's first victim, the
	Gurrieur (sp?)).

as testament to this fact.
|> However, by the end of the war, no British ship was to engage a like
|> American vessel unless their was at LEAST a 2-1 superiority.


	Reference this as well.  Chesapeake-Shannon seems to
	refute this.  By the end of the war the American coast was
	blockaded, so any ship venturing forth (e.g. the President)
	was likely to soon be involved in an unequal battle.  But this
	was not because of orders, as you imply.

	Also the captains of the Cyane and Levant (all carronade sloops)
	were imbecile enough to tackle the Constitution in 1815.


  This owed to
|> the overgunning on American vessels giving them about 40% more firepower
|> than their counterparts in the British navy.  Ships with equivelant
|> firepower were too slow to keep up with smaller American vessels.
|> 
|> My point is, during the 19th century the US Navy was, in fits and starts,
|> leap-frogging the British in technology, and exhibiting themselves as the
|> heir-apparent to British dominance of the world's oceans.

	The american navy in 1812 was a small professional navy, with
	an all volunteer crew and a high expenditure per ship.  The british
	navy was a huge, largely conscript, navy in which expenses had
	to be kept to a minimum. For example, american ships could use
	lead cartridges in cannon, which increased the rate of fire 20%.
	The british simply could not afford this.  Comparing the two fleets
	is pointless, as they had different objectives.

	As for ship design, large frigates of the Constitution type
	did exist in europe but they were not built in large numbers
	because they were uneconomical.  They cost almost as much as
	a ship of the line in the type
	of war the dominant sea power has to make they were not
	terribly useful.  They were too weak for the line of battle
	but far too expensive to use as a scout or a convoy escort.

	They made decent commerce raiders, but two smaller frigates
	would probably have done better.  For example the Essex was
	very successful in raiding british commerce in the pacific,
	probably more so than any of the large frigates, but it was
	a more or less normal sized frigate, though for some reason
	armed entirely with carronades (Incidently Farragut was an ensign
	in the battle in which the Essex was lost).

	And as the war of 1812 showed, they were useless at breaking a
	blockade established by smaller vessels backed by ships of
	the line.  In 1814, the blockade of the american coast was
	complete.  Everything had to be shipped by land and prices
	were skyrocketing.

	Your point is not made.  The next major advance in wooden ships
	was diagonal bracing, an advance made by the british.


|> "... For I have sworn upon the alter of god, eternal hostility against
|> every form of tyranny over the mind of man."  Thomas Jefferson

	Evidently a much smarter man than Madison.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac