Happy Birthday Uncle Sam

[Hornblower]

Perhaps we should open another thread for those non-men of iron..
That being said.
JWE we must have favored the same book stores (naval institute press to name one)  I have amongst others Tracy’s “naval warfare in the age of sail” ; Harland’s “Seamenship” – good book; Lavery’s “ship of the line 1&2” and “Nelson’s navy” to name 3.  And a good number of Gardiner’s.

Now Mynok “Better” is harder to define in the Age of Sail when compared to WW2.  There are more attributes that need to be accounted for.  In fact ships of the same “class” could have certain traits that would make one better or worse then the others..   (For instance the USS United States, in the same “class” as old iron sides was known as the covered wagon because she wasn’t as swift as the president or the constitution.)

Also the performance of a ship could and was influenced by how there stores were placed in the hold, the number, weight, and position of her guns.  For instance if the guns were to far forward, the bow would tend to bury into the sea.  And if there was to much weight forward she would tend to act like a weather vain and come into the wind.. Not good.  The arrangement of rigging also had its effect.

Regarding the French Ships vrs British – GENERALLY SPEAKING and using Frigates as an example..  French ships tended to perform better in light winds, the British performed better as the wind rose.  Brits were quicker to tack and wear, hence more maneuverable, and Far more seaworthy.  Less rolling and pitching then there French counterparts.  Nor could the French hold as much stores.. Being generally “thinner” with finer lines there holds were by necessity smaller.  So they could spend less time on station.  Also they tended to be lighter built…   Using a home wall as example were talking 16” between studs instead of 12”

The French built some mighty fine ships.  In fact the captured Hermione, Invincible, Hebe were so well thought of by the Brits that they were used as models for an English version. But Hull for Hull i'd take the Brits for the reasons above... which are only some of the reasons. And the americans did not copy French ships..

[Mynok]

No argument here, but the French had differing requirements too. That influenced their designs. For sturdiness, I'll take the French every time. Seaworthiness is definitely in the British camp. Tactical doctrine plays a role here as well, since the French had a lee doctrine and generally tried to immobilize their opponents. The British on the other hand, primarily shot for the hull.

And there's no telling how much that influenced ship designs.

Let me also add that the "lighter built" part really only came into play late in the process when French resources were taxed out. The Brits, while they still had issues getting solid, old-growth timber, had resources from their empire that the French did not.

[Hornblower]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

For sturdiness, I'll take the French every time.

[X(] I'll give you a mulligan on this if you want.. Brit Frigates (28-32's) had 13" scatlings while the french averaged 9" and they were twice as far apart as the Brits. This is there armor... Also the longitudinal strength was less so they tended to hog and sag more so then there English counterparts. Also the way the brits used Knees instead of clamps to secure the decks to the side of the hull made for stronger decks, and capable of a heavier armorment.. Captured French ships tended to cost 20% more to maintain by the Brits because of the more frequent need for repair...

Now i wouldn't say id even take a USN 1770-1815 every time over the brits... Should never say never or ever..

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

Perhaps we should open another thread for those non-men of iron..
That being said.
JWE we must have favored the same book stores (naval institute press to name one)  I have amongst others Tracy’s “naval warfare in the age of sail” ; Harland’s “Seamenship” – good book; Lavery’s “ship of the line 1&2” and “Nelson’s navy” to name 3.  And a good number of Gardiner’s.

Now Mynok “Better” is harder to define in the Age of Sail when compared to WW2.  There are more attributes that need to be accounted for.  In fact ships of the same “class” could have certain traits that would make one better or worse then the others..   (For instance the USS United States, in the same “class” as old iron sides was known as the covered wagon because she wasn’t as swift as the president or the constitution.)

Also the performance of a ship could and was influenced by how there stores were placed in the hold, the number, weight, and position of her guns.  For instance if the guns were to far forward, the bow would tend to bury into the sea.  And if there was to much weight forward she would tend to act like a weather vain and come into the wind.. Not good.  The arrangement of rigging also had its effect.

Regarding the French Ships vrs British – GENERALLY SPEAKING and using Frigates as an example..  French ships tended to perform better in light winds, the British performed better as the wind rose.  Brits were quicker to tack and wear, hence more maneuverable, and Far more seaworthy.  Less rolling and pitching then there French counterparts.  Nor could the French hold as much stores.. Being generally “thinner” with finer lines there holds were by necessity smaller.  So they could spend less time on station.  Also they tended to be lighter built…   Using a home wall as example were talking 16” between studs instead of 12”

The French built some mighty fine ships.  In fact the captured Hermione, Invincible, Hebe were so well thought of by the Brits that they were used as models for an English version. But Hull for Hull i'd take the Brits for the reasons above... which are only some of the reasons. And the americans did not copy French ships..

In fairness to the "old wagon" there was that little running aground incident that did warp her keel. [X(]

[AW1Steve]

There has always been the philosophical differece as to "readyness". Even at the end of the 20th century there was a USA vs. USSR disagreement , that dated back to the French and British. The USN felt that readiness was ships at sea with well trained crews. The USSR felt readiness was ships at the dock , brand new and unused with brand new and rested crews. K, we Know who one. But at the time they didn't.