budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (06/10/89)
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) The description of carronades as short barreled, short range weapons is accurate. The British favored them while the French leaned more heavily on long guns. Correspondingly the French had lighter, faster ships and favored the leeward line of battle so they could keep the British within their long gun range but stay out of carronade range. The British, on the other hand, built stouter ships and favored the weather line of battle so they could descend downwind onto the French and Spanish, get a good melee going toe to toe. Thus came one of Nelson's aphorisms -- definitely rooted in the weapons and tactics of the time -- about his captains could do little better than heaving alongside the enemy and blowing the ____ out of him. As history shows, the British tactics generally were superior. About the only strategically significant battle where they didn't work was at Virginia Capes. Rex Buddenberg
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (06/14/89)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
In article <7338@cbnews.ATT.COM>, Rex A. Buddenberg writes:
=The British, on the other hand, built stouter ships and favored
=the weather line of battle so they could descend downwind onto
=the French and Spanish, get a good melee going toe to toe.
=Thus came one of Nelson's aphorisms -- definitely rooted in
=the weapons and tactics of the time -- about his captains could
=do little better than heaving alongside the enemy and blowing
=the ____ out of him.
=As history shows, the British tactics generally were superior.
=About the only strategically significant battle where they didn't
=work was at Virginia Capes.
the British tactics were very effective until they encountered the
fledging US Navy in single-ship actions, at which point the superior
gunnery training of the US crews changed the balance completely.
it seems that the British emphasis was on volume of fire, with
relatively little concern for minor details like aiming first.
it also seems that the British considered the tendency of US
crews to train at the guns daily to be a waste of time and powder,
and so when British ships encountered Constellation and Constitution
on the high seas, they were invariably cut to ribbons.
(note that i am talking about the war of 1812 here, and not about
the revolutionary war and the continental navy, which was a whole
different kettle of fish)
richard
--
richard welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com welty@algol.crd.ge.com
518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
``but officer, i was only speeding so i'd get home before i ran out of gas''stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) (06/20/89)
From: stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) In article <7441@cbnews.ATT.COM> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: >crews to train at the guns daily to be a waste of time and powder, >and so when British ships encountered Constellation and Constitution >on the high seas, they were invariably cut to ribbons. > The only thing I have to add is that the nick-name for the Constitution was/is "Old Ironsides." As I recall, it had 12 inch thick oak planking for it's hull. It seems that it really didn't matter how good the British gunners were. They may have been able to significantly damage the sheets of the ship, and her rigging, but they couldn't put a hole is the hull, so the ship was really never in danger of foundering. Not a bad advantage to have ;-) Steve Wilson