07-10-2003, 02:47 PM
Hi,
if Humphreys had submitted his designs to a competent Admiralty . . . , he would have been laughed out of the building.
Say rather "British Admiralty" than "competent". As an institution, the Admiralty has been extremely conservative over most of its history. Thus, during the Napoleonic wars (the period when the first US frigates were developed and built), the British designs had not changed much in two to three generations. The French (and to some extent the Spanish and Dutch) experimented with a number of changes, in rigging, hull, and armament. When the British captured ships with those innovations, they typically removed the innovations.
Comparing the technology of an early nineteenth century ship of the line with a John Company ship shows that many of the innovations developed in England were also not incorporated into the fighting fleet.
allowing the ships to be built longer (and hence faster) and with the heavier guns
Very much so. It has been said that the Constitution could outrun anything she couldn't outfight. Then again, the European navies were built around the principle (even after Nelson) of the line of battle. Speed was just not enough of an advantage in that type of encounter to be a major design consideration. Considering the rather short distances involved in most European conflicts, that made sense. Even a long chase (Nelson chasing Villeneuve all around the Atlantic) eventually resulted in a pitched battle. Had that ever been the case between the British and American navies of the time, I fear that the American frigates would have stood small chance against the British first and second raters. Fortunately for the Americans, the British were primarily occupied elsewhere.
--Pete
PS Nice intro to Trafalgar is at http://militaryhistory.about.combrary/w...y/aa101600a.htm
if Humphreys had submitted his designs to a competent Admiralty . . . , he would have been laughed out of the building.
Say rather "British Admiralty" than "competent". As an institution, the Admiralty has been extremely conservative over most of its history. Thus, during the Napoleonic wars (the period when the first US frigates were developed and built), the British designs had not changed much in two to three generations. The French (and to some extent the Spanish and Dutch) experimented with a number of changes, in rigging, hull, and armament. When the British captured ships with those innovations, they typically removed the innovations.
Comparing the technology of an early nineteenth century ship of the line with a John Company ship shows that many of the innovations developed in England were also not incorporated into the fighting fleet.
allowing the ships to be built longer (and hence faster) and with the heavier guns
Very much so. It has been said that the Constitution could outrun anything she couldn't outfight. Then again, the European navies were built around the principle (even after Nelson) of the line of battle. Speed was just not enough of an advantage in that type of encounter to be a major design consideration. Considering the rather short distances involved in most European conflicts, that made sense. Even a long chase (Nelson chasing Villeneuve all around the Atlantic) eventually resulted in a pitched battle. Had that ever been the case between the British and American navies of the time, I fear that the American frigates would have stood small chance against the British first and second raters. Fortunately for the Americans, the British were primarily occupied elsewhere.
--Pete
PS Nice intro to Trafalgar is at http://militaryhistory.about.combrary/w...y/aa101600a.htm
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?