The French navy had all the gear, no idea #warship #napoleon #napoleonbonaparte #history #militaryhistory #navy #royalnavy #armada #ship #18thcentury #19thcentury #nelson #ships #mountandblade #totalwar #frenchrevolution
Considering the British also ended up living up to their naval doctrine of having a navy larger than the second and third largest navies combined, it's no wonder they dominated on the open seas. With well trained crews, and a quantitive advantage that no other nation on the planet would be able to surpass until WW2… Is there ever any wonder they say "Rule Britania, Britania rules the waves!"
The quality of french naval personnel dropped quite rapidly and staggeringly after the Revolution as far as I remember as well – whereas the Royal French Navy was just about as capable and well trained as the British Royal Navy, the revolutionary Navy of France, having culled huge swathes of the very royalist-leaning naval corps, was left with a significant trained personnel deficit, which plagued them to the end of the war.
If their smaller ship shoots at a speed that puts out the same ammo as your larger ship, they’re literally just your ship that is harder to hit, much faster and manoeuvrable.
Scurvy was the scourge of sailors with an estimated two million deaths in the centuries following Columbus's voyage. The Royal Navy instituted citrus fruits & juice from 1794, although there had been many captains using different sources of vitamin C before this. The effect was that by the time of Trafalgar, there had been 110 scurvy deaths in a two year period, whilst in the French fleet there had been up to 300 deaths in a three month period.
It did not help that the French monarchy considered putting the navy to sea to be an extraordinary expense whereas the British considered it part of the ordinary operating cost of the navy.
British ships were not overloaded with guns, unlike some other navies. The greater space between guns greatly helped with servicing the guns. Which in turn increased the rate of fire. Add that to the relentless gunnery drills, and you have the war winning combo of the Royal navy.
In the Napoleonic wars, the French Navy was crippled by…. Napoleon.
He ranted and raged about his Navies poor performance against the British and ordered more and more ships to be built. As indicated in the post, Excellent ships, Very well designed, often true representations of the very best of the shipwrights arts… and in the opinion of most at the time, (including Royal Navy officers) were both fractionally faster And more manoeuvrable than their own.
Captured French ships turned to British service was a prized command.
So why did they Consistently come off worse against the Royal Navy, and why was Napoleon in particular responsible for this?
Training.
Britain had no land borders requiring vast armies to defend. This allowed her to Lavish funding on the Royal Navy, in everything from new ships continuously being laid down, to (something of a novelty at the time) regular live fire exercise. Few Navies could afford to waste expensive powder and shot on something so "frivolous" as regular live firing. Some French and Spanish guns crews never actually fired their gun until called upon to do so in anger.
Now, granted that Isn't actually as Much of a detriment as it sounds… as whether the gun was fired or not, the gun crews were still drilled in the backbreaking labour of going through the Motions of doing so, to build familiarity.
But even then, whether actually live firing (which had it's own benefits, especially to accuracy… there's only so much you can learn from theory) Or "going through the motions" the Royal Navy just did it More than anyone else. A Lot more. It was a point of pride that the Royal Navy shot better, faster, and more than anywhere else… A pride that saw squadrons enjoy (somewhat) friendly rivalry over their gunnery with others…saw individual Ships in those squadrons have rivalries with others over their gunnery… and even individual gun crews on a ship have rivalries with others over who were the better gunners. For sailors living under the brutal, often Draconian lash of the Royal Navy, with poor food, tough living conditions, the ever present possibility of accident leading to crippling injury or even death (nevermind being wounded or killed in battle) and harsh punishments handed out for the smallest infringements… This "pride" was something they could focus on. Something to feel accomplished in, and so they faced the backbreaking constant drilling many other nationalities sailors simply wouldn't have tolerated, with the knowledge that it was making them Better, and that being Better would save their lives, and overawe their enemies.
This Confidence in gunnery allowed Royal Navy captains to take risks most wouldn't. To be Daring, and trust to their gunners expertise to make the best of it/get them out of it. To use tactics few others would even consider. . In contrast? The French Navy had the (arguably) better ships… but for the Artillerist Napoleon, the Army always came first. (and second and third… with the Navy a poor fourth) French ships were rarely lavished with enough powder and shot to "waste" in training. French ships were often undermanned, due to the demands of the army taking even sailors and fishermen being taken and put in uniform, who's talents would have been far better suited for the Navy… The French army having an insatiable need for new men at Every point in the wars. . But… Worst of all, was gunnery. It would take Months to take a raw gun crew and drill them to the point they would be reliably competent in battle. Months of backbreaking labour, building skills. Months where they might even get to fire in anger. And at the end of those months, the ship was as formidable as it possibly could be, with all it's weapons at their fullest destructive capability because to the built up skills of her gun teams. . And there? Again and Again and Again Napoleon crippled his own navy. . As an artilerist himself, he knew big guns win battles. So he Invested Staggering amounts on artillery. But… Who to man them? If he was going on campaign Now, he didn't have the time to fanny about waiting for recruits to gain the skills to competantly use those Very expensive guns he'd commissioned. Not with the Austrians, or the Prussians, or the…. Whoever pouring over the borders towards him. So what was his solution? Strip the fleet of "experienced" gun crews and draft them into the army.
Again and Again, French Ships, (hell Whole French Squadrons) would lose their gun crews, Just at the point they became good. Just at the point the ship was at it's best performance. And would have to start the whole month's long process of training up replacements Again. Even when a naval action was Planned it didn't stop Napoleon doing this! He just sent soldiers, raw recruits usually (but still with Zero gunnery training) to replace the gun teams he took. . So, practically every time the French and British clashed the French greatly underperformed. Their tactics were more conservative, more predictable, because their gunnery never got the chance to become anything Like as competent as "expert" as their British counterparts routinely were.
It's amazing learning of this, and then having a thought process of the tanks in the second world war. The Cromwell, and the Valentine, and the CHURCHILL and SHERMAN. Sometimes, you need a Tank. Sometimes, you need a TANK. Yet, while it's nice to always have TANK, you must make Tank to win in the long game, for not all is won in the single battle. The wider war, too, demands a cost.
The Brits' drive for fast gunnery is part of what made the Hood blow up… the gun crews were breaking safety rules and staging powder and projectiles so they can get them to the guns faster. But they were where a flash could ignite them easier. Oops. I think it was the Hood.
Britain actually built a lot of 1st rates even up towards the end of the age of sail with the Caledonia class and its derivatives. Around 10 if I’m not mistaken
26 Comments
Completely subjective argument
"British women were so good looking that they made the best sailors in the world". (Forget who)
Yeah buddy and we still whupped you guys all up and down our eastern seaboard with ships 10x smaller back in the 1700s lol
“They may not be very clever at fighting or sailing ‘em, but God love us, they do know how to build.” – Lt. Tom Pullings, HMS Worcester
The only thing better than a British ship was, unfortunately, an American one.
GUNBOAT, LOAD THE GUN AND FIRE AS SHE PASSES! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Yeah but admiral Deroiter 🇱🇺kicked their buts 😂
Considering the British also ended up living up to their naval doctrine of having a navy larger than the second and third largest navies combined, it's no wonder they dominated on the open seas. With well trained crews, and a quantitive advantage that no other nation on the planet would be able to surpass until WW2… Is there ever any wonder they say "Rule Britania, Britania rules the waves!"
You should care more of the countless boats and ships sailing right now to your islands that those of 350 years ago my little British friend
The quality of french naval personnel dropped quite rapidly and staggeringly after the Revolution as far as I remember as well – whereas the Royal French Navy was just about as capable and well trained as the British Royal Navy, the revolutionary Navy of France, having culled huge swathes of the very royalist-leaning naval corps, was left with a significant trained personnel deficit, which plagued them to the end of the war.
If their smaller ship shoots at a speed that puts out the same ammo as your larger ship, they’re literally just your ship that is harder to hit, much faster and manoeuvrable.
Scurvy was the scourge of sailors with an estimated two million deaths in the centuries following Columbus's voyage. The Royal Navy instituted citrus fruits & juice from 1794, although there had been many captains using different sources of vitamin C before this. The effect was that by the time of Trafalgar, there had been 110 scurvy deaths in a two year period, whilst in the French fleet there had been up to 300 deaths in a three month period.
It did not help that the French monarchy considered putting the navy to sea to be an extraordinary expense whereas the British considered it part of the ordinary operating cost of the navy.
British ships were not overloaded with guns, unlike some other navies. The greater space between guns greatly helped with servicing the guns. Which in turn increased the rate of fire. Add that to the relentless gunnery drills, and you have the war winning combo of the Royal navy.
In the Napoleonic wars, the French Navy was crippled by…. Napoleon.
He ranted and raged about his Navies poor performance against the British and ordered more and more ships to be built.
As indicated in the post, Excellent ships, Very well designed, often true representations of the very best of the shipwrights arts… and in the opinion of most at the time, (including Royal Navy officers) were both fractionally faster And more manoeuvrable than their own.
Captured French ships turned to British service was a prized command.
So why did they Consistently come off worse against the Royal Navy, and why was Napoleon in particular responsible for this?
Training.
Britain had no land borders requiring vast armies to defend.
This allowed her to Lavish funding on the Royal Navy, in everything from new ships continuously being laid down, to (something of a novelty at the time) regular live fire exercise.
Few Navies could afford to waste expensive powder and shot on something so "frivolous" as regular live firing.
Some French and Spanish guns crews never actually fired their gun until called upon to do so in anger.
Now, granted that Isn't actually as Much of a detriment as it sounds… as whether the gun was fired or not, the gun crews were still drilled in the backbreaking labour of going through the Motions of doing so, to build familiarity.
But even then, whether actually live firing (which had it's own benefits, especially to accuracy… there's only so much you can learn from theory) Or "going through the motions" the Royal Navy just did it More than anyone else. A Lot more.
It was a point of pride that the Royal Navy shot better, faster, and more than anywhere else… A pride that saw squadrons enjoy (somewhat) friendly rivalry over their gunnery with others…saw individual Ships in those squadrons have rivalries with others over their gunnery… and even individual gun crews on a ship have rivalries with others over who were the better gunners.
For sailors living under the brutal, often Draconian lash of the Royal Navy, with poor food, tough living conditions, the ever present possibility of accident leading to crippling injury or even death (nevermind being wounded or killed in battle) and harsh punishments handed out for the smallest infringements… This "pride" was something they could focus on. Something to feel accomplished in, and so they faced the backbreaking constant drilling many other nationalities sailors simply wouldn't have tolerated, with the knowledge that it was making them Better, and that being Better would save their lives, and overawe their enemies.
This Confidence in gunnery allowed Royal Navy captains to take risks most wouldn't.
To be Daring, and trust to their gunners expertise to make the best of it/get them out of it.
To use tactics few others would even consider.
.
In contrast? The French Navy had the (arguably) better ships… but for the Artillerist Napoleon, the Army always came first. (and second and third… with the Navy a poor fourth)
French ships were rarely lavished with enough powder and shot to "waste" in training.
French ships were often undermanned, due to the demands of the army taking even sailors and fishermen being taken and put in uniform, who's talents would have been far better suited for the Navy… The French army having an insatiable need for new men at Every point in the wars.
.
But… Worst of all, was gunnery.
It would take Months to take a raw gun crew and drill them to the point they would be reliably competent in battle.
Months of backbreaking labour, building skills.
Months where they might even get to fire in anger.
And at the end of those months, the ship was as formidable as it possibly could be, with all it's weapons at their fullest destructive capability because to the built up skills of her gun teams.
.
And there? Again and Again and Again Napoleon crippled his own navy.
.
As an artilerist himself, he knew big guns win battles.
So he Invested Staggering amounts on artillery.
But… Who to man them? If he was going on campaign Now, he didn't have the time to fanny about waiting for recruits to gain the skills to competantly use those Very expensive guns he'd commissioned. Not with the Austrians, or the Prussians, or the…. Whoever pouring over the borders towards him.
So what was his solution?
Strip the fleet of "experienced" gun crews and draft them into the army.
Again and Again, French Ships, (hell Whole French Squadrons) would lose their gun crews, Just at the point they became good.
Just at the point the ship was at it's best performance.
And would have to start the whole month's long process of training up replacements Again.
Even when a naval action was Planned it didn't stop Napoleon doing this! He just sent soldiers, raw recruits usually (but still with Zero gunnery training) to replace the gun teams he took.
.
So, practically every time the French and British clashed the French greatly underperformed.
Their tactics were more conservative, more predictable, because their gunnery never got the chance to become anything Like as competent as "expert" as their British counterparts routinely were.
It's amazing learning of this, and then having a thought process of the tanks in the second world war.
The Cromwell, and the Valentine, and the CHURCHILL and SHERMAN.
Sometimes, you need a Tank. Sometimes, you need a TANK. Yet, while it's nice to always have TANK, you must make Tank to win in the long game, for not all is won in the single battle. The wider war, too, demands a cost.
while france litteraly used only 74 ships……….
The other thing the British did, was to shoot at the Masts and spars to make the enemy unmanageable…then place themselves to rake the enemy ship
It’s not the size of your gun that matters is how you use it.
interesting how they then did the opposite with the dreadnaught effect during ww2
THEY HIT HER MAGAZINE ABANDON SHIP 🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
The Brits' drive for fast gunnery is part of what made the Hood blow up… the gun crews were breaking safety rules and staging powder and projectiles so they can get them to the guns faster. But they were where a flash could ignite them easier. Oops.
I think it was the Hood.
Royal Navy Captain: That's a nice ship. Think we'll nick it.
So when L'Orient blew up, it was a tragedy for both sides: the French lost a warship and the British lost a potential warship 😂
Britain actually built a lot of 1st rates even up towards the end of the age of sail with the Caledonia class and its derivatives. Around 10 if I’m not mistaken
Generalitys, you're forgetting Charley boys 'Golden Devil, 'The Soverign of the Seas'