Jump to content
tanknet.org

US versus European Powers in the 1800s?


Recommended Posts

The Brits tried three last times to teach the US a lesson. Invasion from Canada called back after supply lines couldn't be secured. Capture of Baltimore fizzled out. New Orleans, Post treaty, launched a future presidency. So how again did the Brits win when they failed in their last three major exploits of the war?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 251
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Brits tried three last times to teach the US a lesson. Invasion from Canada called back after supply lines couldn't be secured. Capture of Baltimore fizzled out. New Orleans, Post treaty, launched a future presidency. So how again did the Brits win when they failed in their last three major exploits of the war?

On the other hand, US maritime trade was shut down except when licensed by the RN, Washington DC was captured, the British showed that they could perform desants almost unopposed all along the American coast.

 

Is Canada part of the United States? Did the British change their impressment policy due to American demands? Did the US stop the blockade of France or get the UK to agree not to conduct such a blockade again?

 

The British succeeded in thwarting those US goals and as I said before, were working towards nothing more when the US declared war. In 1814, the UK had everything they had before the war, adn the people who stared hostilities gained none of the things for which they fought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, US maritime trade was shut down except when licensed by the RN, Washington DC was captured, the British showed that they could perform desants almost unopposed all along the American coast.

 

Is Canada part of the United States? Did the British change their impressment policy due to American demands? Did the US stop the blockade of France or get the UK to agree not to conduct such a blockade again?

 

The British succeeded in thwarting those US goals and as I said before, were working towards nothing more when the US declared war. In 1814, the UK had everything they had before the war, adn the people who stared hostilities gained none of the things for which they fought.

 

It was a draw, a victory for no one. Only the warhawks had territorial aims in Canada and even then they were not very serious just the bravado of prewar rhetoric. DC was not the aim, Baltimore was the aim. Once again was Baltimore captured, was a sustained push from Canada mounted?

 

Did Britain wind up recognizing the issues of what it considered an annoying pipsqueak, yes.

 

The war was a draw grow up already and admit it. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is Canada part of the United States? Did the British change their impressment policy due to American demands? Did the US stop the blockade of France or get the UK to agree not to conduct such a blockade again?

 

 

They didn't officially change it but the practiced stopped. American ships were no longer stopped at sea and searched.

The war was a draw . Nobody won , nobody lost and some unofficial conditions were put into affect.

The British no longer kept their unofficial anchorage near Hampton Roads which created the ship jumping conditions for many Brit sailors.

Edited by Old Tanker
Link to post
Share on other sites
War of 1812

 

There was no such thing as "impressment", the RN chased deserters onto civilian ships and took them (and paid compensation when they took off non-deserters). The practice was stopped 3 weeks before the the US declaration of war. The British had no designs of the sort ascribed to them above.

In fact, nearly any British born seaman could be impressed,. even if serving on a foreign fladgged vesel and even if a naturalized US citizen. Nor were RN captains always scrupulous abut accepting the protestations or paperwork of natural-born US citizens. At the time war was declared, Congress did not know the British had changed policy. The US certainly had a grievance. Going to war to resolve it was counterproductive, however. Any American sailor, not just presumed British citizens, then became liable to becoming a POW under rather worse conditions than serving as an Able Seaman in His Majesty's Navy.

 

1812-14, though, was not 1860-1899. For one thing, an American Army much larger than any British forces could field could be easily deployed to the Canadian borders. This was due to the rail; canal, and road nets that had been built in the half century since Queenston Heights and Crysler's Farm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They didn't officially change it but the practiced stopped. American ships were no longer stopped at sea and searched.

Stopping US ships and impressing or capturing members of their crews was a wartime only measure. The UK had been at war with the French Empire almost continuously since 1792. Once that war and the one the US began stopped, those things stopped too, and not just for US ships but for all other countries. If anything, the US war extended this treatment for Americans by several months as the French had surrendered in March 1814.

 

Notably, the next times the British thought extensive, distant blockades were required again, in 1914 and 1939, they did not hesitate to re-impose them and stop US ships. By then, they had switched to a more modern enlistment system and also had no serious desertion problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DC was not the aim, Baltimore was the aim. Once again was Baltimore captured, was a sustained push from Canada mounted?

Ah yes, the historic pre-war British cry for the restoration of fabled Baltimore to British rule.

 

Not buying it. The US started it, they failed to gain any of their objectives. That was pretty much all the UK really cared about. Had they done better, there would have been mission creep, and indeed there was until Lake Champlain and Baltimore.

Did Britain wind up recognizing the issues of what it considered an annoying pipsqueak, yes.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. Relations with the US were so far down the priority list it's a bit hard to say. It may well have brought home some geopolitical facts. Then again, that assumes that future British administrations would not be able to do the cost-benefit analysis for themselves. As King has said, later British studies of war with the US showed that the UK would probably lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexandria

 

Some major reaching occurring here. Alexandria's defences were utterly smashed, even with the fact that many shells didn't explode (because they were Armour Piercing Shells designed to be detonated by the friction of piercing armour). What the shells didn't destroy the landing parties finished.

 

Well, you are correct about one thing in that nonsense posted above: my copies of Dreadnought and Send a Gunboat: The Victorian Navy and Supremacy At Sea are a major reach from my computer chair here in my office, considering they're sitting on a bookshelf on the other side of the room.

 

BTW, the landing parties didn't come ashore until 48 hours after the bombardment ceased (Which sinks your "The British smashed the forts in a single day," which is a change in tune from your statement quoted above; I wonder why?) and within a week the fort was declared operational again (Which sinks the fact that the landing parties "finished" anything, much less the fact the Royal Navy actually destroyed the forts at all.)

 

I hate when the facts get in the way of a good delusion.

Edited by FlyingCanOpener
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah yes, the historic pre-war British cry for the restoration of fabled Baltimore to British rule.

 

Not buying it. The US started it, they failed to gain any of their objectives. That was pretty much all the UK really cared about. Had they done better, there would have been mission creep, and indeed there was until Lake Champlain and Baltimore.

 

Perhaps, and perhaps not. Relations with the US were so far down the priority list it's a bit hard to say. It may well have brought home some geopolitical facts. Then again, that assumes that future British administrations would not be able to do the cost-benefit analysis for themselves. As King has said, later British studies of war with the US showed that the UK would probably lose.

 

Another admission to US paramouncy in the Western Atlantic/North America/Carribean was that by around 1900-1905 the garrisons in Bermuda,Port Royal, Port Castries,and even Halifax were practically nill while the security of Esquimalt raised concerns during some turbulent times with Russia in the late 1800's due to it having basically no garrison. . The Biritsh seemed to think the US could seize all of their(the RN's) bases in the Western Atlantic anytime it wished to do so, at least in the era of 1900 & thereafter . In essence the RN once the US siezed these bases figured there wasn't much that could be done since they needed bases to re-capture the above mentioned bases.

Now this being said the US being the 800 lb. gorilla in North America, the Carribean,Western Atlantic ,North-Eastern Pacific and perhaps as good part of South America is far different then being a Power Projector world wide. All in all IMHO the US can resist any country(or maybe even 2) in it's own backyard around the period of 1875 and quite possibly be a match for any 2-3 countries there in the era around 1910-1920 however the US can't seriously threaten anybody in their own home turf.

Edited by ickysdad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Post ACW Anglo-America strife would have done wonders for Bismarck and possible alignment of America with Germany vice our historical association with the UK. Would have made WWI much more interesting. At the very least, would have done wonders for Von Spee :)

 

I still doubt the Brits(or anyone else) had shit that was resistant to 440lb 15" Rodman fire at 1700fps until the use of steel vice cast iron. S/F....Ken M

Link to post
Share on other sites
Post ACW Anglo-America strife would have done wonders for Bismarck and possible alignment of America with Germany vice our historical association with the UK. Would have made WWI much more interesting. At the very least, would have done wonders for Von Spee :)

 

I still doubt the Brits(or anyone else) had shit that was resistant to 440lb 15" Rodman fire at 1700fps until the use of steel vice cast iron. S/F....Ken M

 

Not so sure, Bismarck didn't give a s***t about the US, he cared about the new German empire and securing its position in Yurrop at the expense of France, and neutralising Russia, just in case. Getting in a bind with the UK wouldn't fit in his plans as it would push the Brits to align themselves with France, a big no-no. I suspect Germany would have supported the UK with Bismarck at the helm. With Willie, all bets are off and he could just as well support the UK, the US or the Martians...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things happened post ACW that changed the geo-political climate of the N.A. continent.

* The Crown started Canada down the road to self rule which all but buried U.S. hardazz interest in taking over Canada and setup the great relationship the 2 countries have established and maintained.

* Next , without a shot being fired , the U.S. got Alaska. A glance at any N.A. map would convince anyone that Alaska should be a continuation of Canadian territory. But the Russians preferred a American housewife seeing Russia from her kitchen window and not a British Canadian . Just think of Sarah Palin as a candidate for Canadian P.M. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I still doubt the Brits(or anyone else) had shit that was resistant to 440lb 15" Rodman fire at 1700fps until the use of steel vice cast iron. S/F....Ken M

 

At combat ranges the 15" Rodman wouldn't pierce Warrior's 4.5", let alone later vessels.

 

As BG Wright (Chief Engineer) said of the coastal defences in 1880*; "we can make but a feeble defence". (Ranson, E., Military Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Summer, 1967), pp. 74-84)

 

Many have stated that Alexandria was somehow different, and Alexandria wasn't Calais or Portsmouth to be sure, but the forts were similar to those in the US, but had been requipped with a number of modern rifled guns. Even of the smoothbores, 10 were 500 pdrs (i.e. heavier than a 15" Rodman), and the British were in possession of them at 5pm of the day of battle (Brown, Warrior to Dreadnought). They didn't land a battalion of Marines to take possession of the city for another two days to be sure, but we're not discussing that. Alexandria was in a better state of defence than New York, even if the defences paled compared to those of France or Britain's main ports.

 

 

 

* Incidently, the US Army in 1880 only consisted of 25 single battalion Infantry Regiments, 5 Artillery Regiments, acting as infantry (bar 2 companies per Regiment, one of which was equipped as field artillery, the other was a depot of instruction) and 10 Cavalry Regiments, who again generally acted as (sometimes mounted) infantry. Regiments averaged 5-600 men each. It wasn't until 1887 that it was decided to train elements of the artillery to man the coastal guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
At combat ranges the 15" Rodman wouldn't pierce Warrior's 4.5", let alone later vessels.

 

As BG Wright (Chief Engineer) said of the coastal defences in 1880*; "we can make but a feeble defence". (Ranson, E., Military Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Summer, 1967), pp. 74-84)

 

Many have stated that Alexandria was somehow different, and Alexandria wasn't Calais or Portsmouth to be sure, but the forts were similar to those in the US, but had been requipped with a number of modern rifled guns. Even of the smoothbores, 10 were 500 pdrs (i.e. heavier than a 15" Rodman), and the British were in possession of them at 5pm of the day of battle (Brown, Warrior to Dreadnought). They didn't land a battalion of Marines to take possession of the city for another two days to be sure, but we're not discussing that. Alexandria was in a better state of defence than New York, even if the defences paled compared to those of France or Britain's main ports.

* Incidently, the US Army in 1880 only consisted of 25 single battalion Infantry Regiments, 5 Artillery Regiments, acting as infantry (bar 2 companies per Regiment, one of which was equipped as field artillery, the other was a depot of instruction) and 10 Cavalry Regiments, who again generally acted as (sometimes mounted) infantry. Regiments averaged 5-600 men each. It wasn't until 1887 that it was decided to train elements of the artillery to man the coastal guns.

 

Read a "Treatsie on Ordinance" . This has been discussed many times on both warships1.com and here in "Breaking the Blockade" thread to the effect that a gun could penetrate at least half it's bore furthermore Rich provided some documentation that around this period that a 15" Rodman penetrated 10" plates at around a 1,000 yards. According to David A. Clary's "Fortress Amrica : The Corps of Engineers, Hampton Roads,and United States Coastal defence" that statement was issued to secure more funding.

Edited by ickysdad
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not so sure, Bismarck didn't give a s***t about the US, he cared about the new German empire and securing its position in Yurrop at the expense of France, and neutralising Russia, just in case. Getting in a bind with the UK wouldn't fit in his plans as it would push the Brits to align themselves with France, a big no-no. I suspect Germany would have supported the UK with Bismarck at the helm. With Willie, all bets are off and he could just as well support the UK, the US or the Martians...

 

Well don't know about that entirely about that according to Herbert Herwig's "Politics of Frustration: The US In German Foriegn Policy 1889-1941" the Germans seemed pretty concious of US actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Read a "Treatsie on Ordinance" . This has been discussed many times on both warships1.com and here in "Breaking the Blockade" thread to the effect that a gun could penetrate at least half it's bore furthermore Rich provided some documentation that around this period that a 15" Rodman penetrated 10" plates at around a 1,000 yards.

 

Read that and a lot more besides. The finding still stands, the 15" was ineffective against the Warrior target except as previously described.

 

Unless I'm very blind there is no such reference in the Breaking the Blockade thread. Can I please have a link?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many have stated that Alexandria was somehow different, and Alexandria wasn't Calais or Portsmouth to be sure, but the forts were similar to those in the US, but had been requipped with a number of modern rifled guns. Even of the smoothbores, 10 were 500 pdrs (i.e. heavier than a 15" Rodman), and the British were in possession of them at 5pm of the day of battle (Brown, Warrior to Dreadnought). They didn't land a battalion of Marines to take possession of the city for another two days to be sure, but we're not discussing that. Alexandria was in a better state of defence than New York, even if the defences paled compared to those of France or Britain's main ports.

 

1. Was Alexandria's defenses crewed by their own experienced garrison or rabble from the revolution?

2. Did Alexandria fire in its own defense?

3. Was Alexandria's defense solely in her fortresses or, like American fortresses, were there local ships and mines also?

 

As for Rodman's penetration, period accounts indicate that with a 100 pound charge it would be capable of penetrating Warrior and old rule of thumb formulas indicate it would do so so long as shot velocity remained above 300fps.

Edited by Mote
Link to post
Share on other sites
Read that and a lot more besides. The finding still stands, the 15" was ineffective against the Warrior target except as previously described.

 

Unless I'm very blind there is no such reference in the Breaking the Blockade thread. Can I please have a link?

Here's the links to the relevant page in "Breaking the Blockade" thread and I'm pretty sure it was discussed for a few pages before & after the one I linked to.

 

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?sho...17231&st=60

 

Here's a link to the penetration tests I mentioned earlier.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/fowa/mammoth.htm

Edited by ickysdad
Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Was Alexandria's defenses crewed by their own experienced garrison or rabble from the revolution?

2. Did Alexandria fire in its own defense?

3. Was Alexandria's defense solely in her fortresses or, like American fortresses, were there local ships and mines also?

 

(1) Rabble from the Revolution

(2) Yes. She scored a couple of hits on British ships, though none were damaged severely. IIRC most rounds landed past their targets. According to Fisher's after action report, he pointed out the fact that had the defences had more experienced gunners, they would have been in severe trouble.

(3) Fortresses only

Link to post
Share on other sites
(1) Rabble from the Revolution

(2) Yes. She scored a couple of hits on British ships, though none were damaged severely. IIRC most rounds landed past their targets. According to Fisher's after action report, he pointed out the fact that had the defences had more experienced gunners, they would have been in severe trouble.

(3) Fortresses only

 

What I find interesting is that the RN used U.S. mfg'd Gatling guns at Alexandria in 1882.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Two things happened post ACW that changed the geo-political climate of the N.A. continent.

* The Crown started Canada down the road to self rule which all but buried U.S. hardazz interest in taking over Canada and setup the great relationship the 2 countries have established and maintained.

* Next , without a shot being fired , the U.S. got Alaska. A glance at any N.A. map would convince anyone that Alaska should be a continuation of Canadian territory. But the Russians preferred a American housewife seeing Russia from her kitchen window and not a British Canadian . Just think of Sarah Palin as a candidate for Canadian P.M. :lol:

 

 

Ron, the big reason for the 1812 War Hawks (mostly western guys) fixation on taking Canada was to get rid of the Hudson Bay Company fur agents supplying and stirring up the indians. Once the indians were eliminated in the fur trapping regions, HBC lost interest. After that, the only US-Brit difficulties were ocean commerce issues. When there were no indians stirring up things, US-Canadian border disputes were solved quite easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Was Alexandria's defenses crewed by their own experienced garrison or rabble from the revolution?

2. Did Alexandria fire in its own defense?

3. Was Alexandria's defense solely in her fortresses or, like American fortresses, were there local ships and mines also?

 

Since the attacking RN squadron took a lot of hits (60 to HMS Alexandria alone) it is clear that they did fire back and fought their guns well. Torpedoes were laid in the harbour by most accounts, but were swept in the days before the attack.

 

As for Rodman's penetration, period accounts indicate that with a 100 pound charge it would be capable of penetrating Warrior and old rule of thumb formulas indicate it would do so so long as shot velocity remained above 300fps.

 

The service charge of the 15" Rodman was 35lbs. They could endure larger charges for short times, the most ever used was by Manhattan vs Tennessee (fired 1 shell, 35lb charge, 2 cored shot, 50lb charge and 3 common shot, 60lb charge), only one of those rounds achieved even a partial penetration of Tennessee's, causing one of the guns to dismount in the process. Like Wiard, I regard claims the 15" gun could take a 100lb charge in battle as suspicious at best. Notably, Tennessee's 5" of laminated Shelby iron did defeat 15" shot propelled by 60 lbs of powder at 50 feet for at least one of the impacts....

Link to post
Share on other sites
The service charge of the 15" Rodman was 35lbs. They could endure larger charges for short times, the most ever used was by Manhattan vs Tennessee (fired 1 shell, 35lb charge, 2 cored shot, 50lb charge and 3 common shot, 60lb charge), only one of those rounds achieved even a partial penetration of Tennessee's, causing one of the guns to dismount in the process. Like Wiard, I regard claims the 15" gun could take a 100lb charge in battle as suspicious at best. Notably, Tennessee's 5" of laminated Shelby iron did defeat 15" shot propelled by 60 lbs of powder at 50 feet for at least one of the impacts....

 

Here we go with Tigger Fantasy World™ again. :rolleyes:

 

The service charge of the XV-inch Dahlgren (the piece actually used on the Manhattan) was 35 lbs for shell. The service charge for cored shot was 50 lbs, and the service charge for shot was 60 lbs. The 15" Rodman, as he has been told numerous times, was a different piece entirely. It utilized a 450-lb solid shot and a 330-lb common shell, AFAIK it did not utilize a cored shot. The maximum service charge for the shot was up to 125-lbs of hexagonal powder, although it was originally proofed with a 50-lb charge, and 100-lbs was standard. In proof tests shell was fired with 50 lbs of powder at a Mv of 1,735 fps, but I have not found a Mv for the shot with the full service charge, which was 60-lbs.

 

The rounds fired by Manhattan in the Tennessee engagment were actually one shell, two solid shot, and three cored shot.

 

The "partial penetration" of Tennessee actually cleanly penetrated the two two-inch plates, the one-inch iron plate, the four-inch oak backing, the 5 1/2-inch yellow pine planking, shattered the 13-inch yellow pine beams, and penetrated the 2 1/2-inch interior planking, but then rebounded into the water. It seems likely it was solid shot, but that is not certain.

 

The second shot that struck hit in the same area, but higher, and glanced over the Tennessee, a result that could be expected from a round shot striking an inclined plate at high obliquity, which that evidently was.

 

The third shot struck the stern and her two-inch horizontal deck armor, tearing it up, destroying her steering gear, and then struck the five-inch casemate still with sufficient force to crush the armor and drive the wooden backing (four-inch oak backing, 5 1/2-inch yellow pine planking, 13-inch yellow pine beams, and 2 1/2-inch interior planking) with enough energy to drive it into the casemate, but again without a complete penetration.

 

Note that one or both of the second or third shots had to be cored shot (if so, the amount of damage they did is that much more interesting) and that four of the six rounds fired actually hit.

 

Nor, of course :rolleyes: , were either of Manhattan's guns "dismounted", which is typical Tigger hyperbole. Nicholson reported the port XV-inch "temporarily" disabled by recoil that "carried away" (broke) six bolts in the carriage "composition plates". It may be presumed that the damge occurred during the engagement with Tennessee, but Nicholson never explicitly stated that and it may have occurred when the three shell, one cored shot, and one shot were fired at Fort Morgan.

 

For those interested in fact rather than fantasy, Manhattan's reports begin on page 493 of Series I, Volume 21 of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to look at each European Power and see what could get it into conflict with the US ????? This might be far more interesting then the usually debated UK-US conflict. What about the US and Germany actually getting into it over the Samoa's? Or Germany somehow getting involved in the Spanish American War?? Or Dewey's force getting into a battle with German ships at Manilla? It seems at times that during this period Germany & the US were within a heartbeat of war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here we go with Tigger Fantasy World™ again. :rolleyes:

 

The purile insults are unnecessary and unbecoming.

 

The "partial penetration" of Tennessee actually cleanly penetrated the two two-inch plates, the one-inch iron plate, the four-inch oak backing, the 5 1/2-inch yellow pine planking, shattered the 13-inch yellow pine beams, and penetrated the 2 1/2-inch interior planking, but then rebounded into the water. It seems likely it was solid shot, but that is not certain.

The round did not penetrate, it broke up the plates and drove in the backing. The failure mode was probably plugging. From the description of the damage it is clear the 15" MV was below the navy ballistic limit for that armour.

 

Note that one or both of the second or third shots had to be cored shot (if so, the amount of damage they did is that much more interesting) and that four of the six rounds fired actually hit.

 

As a matter of interest, what do you think "cored shot" is?

 

For those interested in fact rather than fantasy, Manhattan's reports begin on page 493 of Series I, Volume 21 of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies.

 

Of more importance is the description of the Tennessee several pages later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...