James Flack ·
Lived in England, Scotland and France Sun

What technical advantages did the English Navy have over the French Navy
in the 18th and 19th centuries?
Copper bottoms.

The BRITISH Royal Navy spent some time experimenting with copper
sheathing for ships. It was expensive and hard work, and only the
British had the money and the industrial capacity to do so.

They did it as coppered ships don’t build up weed and other marine life,
and are much less vunerable to attack by ship-worms.

This means they sail faster, last longer, and need less mainternence,
particularly in tropical waters. Coppering an existing ship took far
less time than building a new ship, so was a highly effective way of
expanding the number of available ships the navy had.

This means a navy with worldwide duties can operate worldwide more
effectively, and if it needs to spend a long time at sea- say blocading
french ports- it can.

If it had been got right 10 years earlier, it is very possible the Royal
Navy would have caught the French ships supplying arms to the rebels in
the US, and the US revolution would have failed.

On 01/07/2021 16:26, a425couple wrote:
>
> James Flack ·
> Lived in England, Scotland and France Sun
>
> What technical advantages did the English Navy have over the French Navy
> in the 18th and 19th centuries?
> Copper bottoms.
>

In terms of vessels little or none, captured French Ships were put into
service with the Royal Navy and viewed rather favourably. Where there
was a technical edge was in the Dockyards. The RN Dockyards such as
Chatham and Portsmouth were early users of steam power and mass
production. The system for manufacturing pulley blocks was set up by
Marc Isambard Brunel and used machines powered by steam to mass produce
them.Not only did this increase production and lower the cost it made
the parts interchangeable. Even better they could be operated by
unskilled workers. By 1808 the Portsmouth Block plant was producing
130,000 blocks a year. All the major dockyards also had their own rope
making plants. The RN ws an early adopter of the Industrial revolution.

The new dry docks were emptied and filled by steam powered pumps and
excavated by steam powered mechanical shovels. Cranes and winches were
still largely human powered but now incorporated iron in their
manufacturing.

The other major difference was the quality of the officers and crew. The
French largely relied on conscripts who were mostly landsmen. This wass
in no small part due to the numbers who surrendered to the RN, by the
end of the Napoleonic wars there were over 70,000 French naval POW's in
England. In addition a significant number of French sailors were
Breton's who fled from France after the revolution along with many of
the officers.

The RN kept its ships pretty much constantly at sea and even those men
impressed were largely sailors. The RN had also learned the importance
of providing vitamin C so scurvy was almost unknown.

Keith

On 2021 Jul 01, a425couple wrote
(in article <sbkmqk01kkd@news4.newsguy.com>):

>
> James Flack ·
> Lived in England, Scotland and France Sun
>
> What technical advantages did the English Navy have over the French Navy
> in the 18th and 19th centuries?
> Copper bottoms.
>
> The BRITISH Royal Navy spent some time experimenting with copper
> sheathing for ships. It was expensive and hard work, and only the
> British had the money and the industrial capacity to do so.
>
> They did it as coppered ships don’t build up weed and other marine life,
> and are much less vunerable to attack by ship-worms.
>
> This means they sail faster, last longer, and need less mainternence,
> particularly in tropical waters. Coppering an existing ship took far
> less time than building a new ship, so was a highly effective way of
> expanding the number of available ships the navy had.
>
> This means a navy with worldwide duties can operate worldwide more
> effectively, and if it needs to spend a long time at sea- say blocading
> french ports- it can.
>
> If it had been got right 10 years earlier, it is very possible the Royal
> Navy would have caught the French ships supplying arms to the rebels in
> the US, and the US revolution would have failed.

In the main, it was France which did the innovating,and England/Britain which
made it stick. England/Britain got ‘corvette’ and ‘frigate’ and,
crucially, 74-gun ship of the line, from France; England/Britain then built
more and better of each of those ship types, and used them more effectively.
The 74 in particular became the dominant line of battle ship; two-decker 74s
where what the Royal Navy used to rule the waves. Smaller two-deckers (60s
and up) could not stand in battle against 74s, unless the smaller two deckers
were well-handled by competent crews (i.e., were Royal Navy; the only ship in
Anson’s force to complete his epic circumnavigation was Centurion, a
two-decker 60) while larger two deckers (80s and up) were usually either
overgunned or clumsy or both... and a well-handled 74 would beat them,
anyway. A well handled 74 could beat a three-decker 90 or 100 or more; none
of Nelson’s ships at the Nile was larger than a 74, and they beat a fleet
including a 120-gun four-decker... A few years later, at Trafalgar,
Redoubtable, a 74, was pounding the 100-gun three-decker Victory (a sniper
from Redoubtable gave Nelson his fatal wound; Redoubtable was about to board
Victory and probably would have taken her) when Temeraire (a 100-gun
three-decker) piled in and saved Victory. Temeraire was the third RN ship so
named, the first having been taken as a prize from France. It took two RN
three-decker 100s to take Redoubtable... (Note that Vicrory was also engaged
by a French three-decker and Temeraire was fighting three other French and
Spanish ships, two of them 74s...)

Where Britain innovated was in gunnery. The carronade, and the close-in
tactics it required forveffective use, was invented in Scotland and became a
major part of British warship armament. A 32-gun frigate might have
18-pounder guns, but could carry 32-pounder carronades. The long 18s had
superior range, but the carronades delivered heavier hits (almost twice the
weight of metal per shot) and could be reloaded 30-50% faster to boot. By
Trafalgar British 74s and larger line of battle ships were armed with
32-pounder long guns... and 68-pounder carronades. Temeraire put a
double-shotted broadside into Redoubtable, two ball or one ball and canister,
from a range of under 50 yards, and with that one broadside killed or wounded
two-fifths of Redoubtable’s crew, including much of the boarding party
about to take Victory. That’s what happens when 18 68-pounders put 130-plus
pounds of steel each into a ship... (the other 30+ guns on that side were
32-pounders, either 32-pounder long guns or 32-pounder carronades mounted
where 18-pounders might have been, and put an additional 60+ pounds of steel
per gun into Redoubtable... the guns on the other side were busy with the
other three ships which were attempting to pryTemeraire off of Redoubtable.)
The carronade was a war-winning weapon, and it was Scots, which meant
British.

British tactics were to pound the hull, blow holes in the sides, and kill the
opposing crews, and then board and take the ship. French tactics were usually
to shoot up the rigging and cripple the ship, then board. Temeraire had lost
her mizzen and had additional topsides damage, but could still fight;
Redoubtable could not fight with 2/5ths of her crew gone in one broadside.
French tactics couild win; there’s a reason why there was a French
Swiftsure at Trafalgar (and a British Swiftsure. And British, French, and
Spanish Neptunes...) It’s just that British tactics, and the carronade,
could win _faster_, if more bloodily.

On 03/07/2021 23:35, Wolffan wrote:
> British tactics were to pound the hull, blow holes in the sides, and kill the
> opposing crews, and then board and take the ship. French tactics were usually
> to shoot up the rigging and cripple the ship, then board. Temeraire had lost
> her mizzen and had additional topsides damage, but could still fight;
> Redoubtable could not fight with 2/5ths of her crew gone in one broadside.
> French tactics couild win; there’s a reason why there was a French
> Swiftsure at Trafalgar (and a British Swiftsure. And British, French, and
> Spanish Neptunes...) It’s just that British tactics, and the carronade,
> could win_faster_, if more bloodily.

Ah, the Fihhting Temeraire.

Perhaps people here will understand the sadness in Turner's painting

<https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/joseph-mallord-william-turner-the-fighting-temeraire>

as she is towed to the scrapyard by a steam tug.

Andy

On 7/5/2021 1:37 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 03/07/2021 23:35, Wolffan wrote:
>> British tactics were to pound the hull, blow holes in the sides, and
>> kill the
>> opposing crews, and then board and take the ship. French tactics were
>> usually
>> to shoot up the rigging and cripple the ship, then board. Temeraire
>> had lost
>> her mizzen and had additional topsides damage, but could still fight;
>> Redoubtable could not fight with 2/5ths of her crew gone in one
>> broadside.
>> French tactics couild win; there’s a reason why there was a French
>> Swiftsure at Trafalgar (and a British Swiftsure. And British, French, and
>> Spanish Neptunes...) It’s just that British tactics, and the carronade,
>> could win_faster_, if more bloodily.
>
> Ah, the Fihhting Temeraire.
>
> Perhaps people here will understand the sadness in Turner's painting
>
> <https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/joseph-mallord-william-turner-the-fighting-temeraire>
>
>
> as she is towed to the scrapyard by a steam tug.
>
> Andy

Neat painting. Thank you for that.

On 06/07/2021 15:31, a425couple wrote:

>
> Neat painting.  Thank you for that.

Turner documented the early stages of the Industrial revoluton really
well, one of my favorites is Rain, Steam and Speed showing an early
express train speeding through bad weather on the Great Western Railway.
https://newtonexcelbach.com/2013/07/14/rain-steam-and-speed/

For his nautical paintings se
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/turner-paintings-top-ten-timothy-spalle