[roter]

There is also the theory that the British just had more practice at gunnery and sailhandling while blockading the French/Spanish in the various ports.

[IAmBroom]

Which leads to the theory of why the USS Constitution was so superior to British ships.

The Americans drilled daily with live cannon, while the British drilled less often, and without live fire (presumably to conserve powder and balls).

As an unsurprising result, American crews were more experienced at reloading under the duress of cannonade. The sound on the gun decks was so great it would burst eardrums. The smoke made it too hard to see anything a few feet from the portals.

If you've never been near a gunpowder cannon fire, it's hard to comprehend the surreal rupture of reality it causes in your perception. I was to the side, but in front, of one. My world went black, then lightening values of gray. Sound returned. Then people appeared in the fog, moving with their arms out trying to get away blindly from the threat they perceived (that was already over).

Without proper training, new sailors will stumble badly in their first firefight, and each man on the gundeck is crucial to a team. The officers were outside the deck, so they could receive orders. If you can't load your cannon while blind and deaf, your cannon sits quiet a long time.

[OxfordOutlander]

This may have been a contributing factor, but the reason the American frigates were successful in the War of 1812 was because they were significantly larger and more powerful ships, with more powerful cannons. They had material advantages in size (100% heavier), crew (50% more numerous), and firepower (30-50% more weight of shot). The crews were well trained (and included many former British navy able seamen, pressed from American merchantmen) but it was the material advantages that swayed these combats.

It was curious how effectively the American naval establishment gamed the European 'honor' system of naval warfare - they knew that if they kept these warships technically rated as 'frigates' (even though they were the largest and most powerful frigates ever built, similar in size to smaller ships of the line), the British would still try to fight them one on one with their frigates.

[kayodelycaon]

The USS Constitution and her sister ships were “super frigates” armed with ~50 guns of 24lb cannons and 36lb carronades. Most British frigates they went up against had fewer guns and used 18 lb cannons. The USS Constitution also had thicker hulls.

The British had to start using cut down ships of the line against them.

In WW2 terms, they were battle cruisers taking on heavy and light cruisers.

The battle cruiser example is especially apt because a 24lb cannon could pierce any ship of the line’s hull.

[nkrisc]

When I visited Oslo we went to Akershus festning, where we heard this enormous blast that sounded like a bomb going off, it really startled us as we weren't expecting it. After recovering, we realized they were firing off some cannons there, I don't know if it's a regular thing or not. I was expecting some massive cannon based on the blast, but it really didn't seem all that large. I can't even imagine what it must have been like on the gun deck of a large warship with 30 or more cannons.

[sklargh]

My first time hearing 5.56 fire when I incidentally had ear pro off was shocking. Cannot imagine what a gun deck was like in the age of sail.

[christkv]

UK was also busy with the Napoleonic war which caused attrition of skilled crew men and ships. 1812 was a secondary campaign.

[vintagedave]

> Then people appeared in the fog, moving with their arms out trying to get away blindly from the threat they perceived (that was already over).

With an actual threat, it sounds like it was a genuine cannon firefight -- though surely not these days. May I ask what this was?

[EdwardDiego]

I shoot .308, and have noticed that the position where you were (to the side, but ahead), receives far more noise than when you're behind the barrel shooting. Like phenomenally more.

[simonbarker87]

The rest is history podcast have a three parter on the battle of Trafalgar, they cover a lot of the lead up and essentially it sounds like the Royal Navy professionalised in a way that the the French and Spanish didn’t. Portsmouth was very industrialised to constantly develop and churn out naval assets and improvements. Coupled with the kings use of new financial methods and that 25% of the country’s GDP was spent on the navy you had basically an unbeatable force by the time Trafalgar happened.

[stnmtn]

It was well-known during that period that French shipwrights could built better ships - the problem was that the Royal Navy had better seamanship and would win most naval actions, and commandeer the better-built french ships and integrate them into the Royal Navy. So the british had the advantage of their own ships, and many of the better-built french ships.

[kridsdale3]

25%!

If the modern US did that, we'd have Gundams and Super Star Destroyers.

[wagwangbosy]

The french navy had been super formidable throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. I don't really get how they folded so quickly to the UK.

[bell-cot]

France ditched most of its senior naval officers late in the 18th century, for the "crime" of being loyal to the prior regime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

[nradov]

After the French revolution, their government executed or dismissed many of their best officers. They often came from the aristocracy or had royalist loyalties and were thus politically suspect. Replacement officers were often appointed purely based on revolutionary ideology with little attention paid to experience or competence. At times the government was also just short of cash and supplies needed to keep the navy running.