Napoleon and his men

jonniebgood1

Napoleon is very prominent figure in European history. He had several spectacular victories but what do we know of them and him. He was also ultimately defeated dispite his many victorious campaigns. His attempt at defeating the Russian empire was massive in scale with estimates of 500,000 men in his command. The Russian defeat is brilliantly summed up in the map- graph by Minard:

this map by Charles Joseph Minard portrays the losses suffered by Napoleon's army in the Russian campaign of 1812. Beginning at the Polish-Russian border, the thick band shows the size of the army at each position. The path of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow in the bitterly cold winter is depicted by the dark lower band, which is tied to temperature and time scales. http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters

So to move 500,000 men across a continent almost 200 years ago was a massive logistical challenge. How did he do it?

What do we know of the grind of day to day life his soldiers had? And what were his greatest achievements and losses.

ejmaztec

There's no doubt that Austerlitz (Moravia, Czech Republic) was a good one for Napolean in 1805, and I think that he had more incentive to win, to make up for the loss the French and Spanish navies suffered at Trafalgar a few weeks earlier.

Proclamation of Napoleon I. Bonaparte


Soldiers!
I am pleased with you. Everything I expected of your dauntlessness has been fulfilled by you today, at Austerlitz. You have crowned our colors with immortal fame. The enemy army, comprised of a hundred thousand men, led by the Russian and Austrian emperors, was pulverized and crushed in less than 4 hours. Those who escaped the brunt of your weapons were drowned. Forty battalions, Russian Emperor's Guard flags, one hundred and twenty cannons, twenty generals, and more than thirty thousand captured - this is the outcome of this monumental day. Despite its superior size, the reputed Russian infantry was not able to withstand your assault, and you need not fear any opponent anymore. The third coalition was defeated and destroyed within two months. Peace is not far in the future. However, as I promised my nation before I crossed the Rhine, I will establish only such a peace that would provide me with an assurance and ensure our allied with compensation.
Soldiers,
When my nation placed the Emperor's crown upon my head, I trusted that you would maintain it in the brilliant lustre of fame, which is the only value it holds for me. But at the same moment, our enemies wanted to destroy and debase it. They wanted to force me to place this iron crown, tainted by the blood of so many of our people, on the head of our most cruel enemy. You have suppressed and ruined those arrogant and senseless efforts, on the anniversary of your Emperor's crowning. You have proved that it is easier to threaten and hold us in contempt than it is to defeat us.
Soldiers,
When I have completed everything that is necessary for ensuring the happiness and prosperity of our fatherland, I will lead you back home to France. There you will be treated to my most kind and generous care. My nation will welcome you with open arms. It will be enough to say: I fought at Austerlitz, in order for everyone to rejoin: this is a hero!
Napoleon
In our Emperor's tent at Austerlitz, 12 Frimaire of the year XIV.
Situation at 3-4 p.m. on the 2. december 1805

http://www.austerlitz.org/the-outcome_a239

jonniebgood1

What the graph illustrates is that it was a logistical problem more than anything else that saw the Napoleon led attack on Russia fail. The figures involved in this are described in 'The Logistics of Waging War - American Logistics, 1774-1985' by Lt. Col. David C. Allen:pg 180


http://books.google.ie/books?id=IA20xVTl-nEC&pg=PA180&dq=transport+Napoleon%27s+Army&hl=en&ei=ZxVyTqH2LMfoOf_gxYoD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQ6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

So we can take points of fact from this.

-Overloading horses and lack of food for them resulting in disease.
-The French were unprepared for the effect of weather (rain turning ground to mud) on the terrain.
Expectation of an early attack was incorrect. The Russians refused to engage.
By the time he reached Moscow Napoleons army had halved in size due to mainly the problems of the distance covered. The Russian army which had originally been weaker, was now of a similar size.
When he eventually succeeded in confronting the Russians he defeated them but suffered big losses with little gain. It was the beginning of the cold season and Napoleon realised that he was in an impossible situation and had to retreat. The common theory that it was the Russian winter that defeated Napoleon is incorrect.
The final figure given is staggering. Of 250,000 men to start with (which corrects my OP figure) he had only 8,800 men fit for duty at the end of the campaign.

The saying comes to mind 'You may have won the battle but not the war'!

HellsAngel

ejmaztec wrote: »

There's no doubt that Austerlitz (Moravia, Czech Republic) was a good one for Napolean in 1805, and I think that he had more incentive to win, to make up for the loss the French and Spanish navies suffered at Trafalgar a few weeks earlier.

http://www.austerlitz.org/the-outcome_a239

The French navy was very much the poor relation to the army as the French had more to worry about been invaded by land by Prussia, Austria, Hanover etc And of course Boney was the head of the army, his counterpart in the navy wasn't nearly at his level.

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

The French navy was very much the poor relation to the army as the French had more to worry about been invaded by land by Prussia, Austria, Hanover etc And of course Boney was the head of the army, his counterpart in the navy wasn't nearly at his level.

There were a number of reasons why the French Navy was the poor relation to the British, defence being a key one. Britain never had a large standing army, it relied on the dominance of its navy for its defence.

Everytime that dominance was threatened, it acted swiftly and ruthlessly such as at Copenhagen and Camperdown. There was also the whittling away at the French such as the battle of the nile. At the time, although the British vastly outnumbered the French, the two navies had a similar number of ships of the line and ship for ship, the French were considered superior. Ultimately though, it wasn't so much a case of the French and Spanish being poor, they were evenly matched with their peers, it was a case of the Royal Navy being very dominant, arguably the first superpower.

After Trafalgar (which included the Spanish fleet as well as the French), the French fleet increased quite rapidly and by 1812 numbered around 80 ships, in comparison to Britain's 90.

Fratton Fred

Oh, as for the French Navy commander not being at Boney's level, not many people were.

Manach

The performance of the French navy might have also been due to the anti-aristocratic outcome of the recent revolution. In the army, whilst every soldier had a marshal's baton in his knapsack, in the navy the upper class comprised the officer class. The skill sets that they had successfully acquired (as shown by their denying the English fleet mastery over the Atlantic during the American Colonial war) was lost during the revolution due to exile or the guillotine.
Thus while French ships were of excellent quality, and frequency used by the English navy when capture, revolutionary zeal was no match for sea-skills.
-Based on recollections from the books of Mr Patrick O'Brian.

Fratton Fred

Manach wrote: »

The performance of the French navy might have also been due to the anti-aristocratic outcome of the recent revolution. In the army, whilst every soldier had a marshal's baton in his knapsack, in the navy the upper class comprised the officer class. The skill sets that they had successfully acquired (as shown by their denying the English fleet mastery over the Atlantic during the American Colonial war) was lost during the revolution due to exile or the guillotine.
Thus while French ships were of excellent quality, and frequency used by the English navy when capture, revolutionary zeal was no match for sea-skills.
-Based on recollections from the books of Mr Patrick O'Brian.

A lot of French Navy officers were either killed during the terror, or left France which left them pretty badly off. This was followed by political appointment of several admirals and officers which further compounded things.

They did however, have a number of very capable admirals, Villeneuve, Villaret and Missiessy spring to mind. All three as you say, thwarted the British in North America.

HellsAngel

Manach wrote: »

The performance of the French navy might have also been due to the anti-aristocratic outcome of the recent revolution. In the army, whilst every soldier had a marshal's baton in his knapsack, in the navy the upper class comprised the officer class. The skill sets that they had successfully acquired (as shown by their denying the English fleet mastery over the Atlantic during the American Colonial war) was lost during the revolution due to exile or the guillotine.
Thus while French ships were of excellent quality, and frequency used by the English navy when capture, revolutionary zeal was no match for sea-skills.
-Based on recollections from the books of Mr Patrick O'Brian.

And most of the Spanish sailors were forced conscripts, not exactly men too motivated to help France in it's war against Britain.

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There were a number of reasons why the French Navy was the poor relation to the British, defence being a key one. Britain never had a large standing army, it relied on the dominance of its navy for its defence.

Everytime that dominance was threatened, it acted swiftly and ruthlessly such as at Copenhagen and Camperdown. There was also the whittling away at the French such as the battle of the nile. At the time, although the British vastly outnumbered the French, the two navies had a similar number of ships of the line and ship for ship, the French were considered superior. Ultimately though, it wasn't so much a case of the French and Spanish being poor, they were evenly matched with their peers, it was a case of the Royal Navy being very dominant, arguably the first superpower.

True, Britain didn't have a large standing army as it could rely on it's cannons and muskets as well as spreading disease to wipe on men, women and children in it's 'wars' against the natives around the world.

Britain is an island nation unlike France or for that matter Prussia, Holland, etc which shares it's borders with others and therefore had to split it's resources between the army and navy. (Likewise in WW2 the German navy was very much the poor relation to the army and Luftwaffe)

After Trafalgar (which included the Spanish fleet as well as the French), the French fleet increased quite rapidly and by 1812 numbered around 80 ships, in comparison to Britain's 90.

Link/proof ??

Fratton Fred

Where exactly do you think the royal navy got its sailors from, or how exactly do you think Napoleon built his empire? You have a wonderfully idiosyncratic view of the world.

Anyway, have a read of this http://naval.histofig.com/French-Sail-of-the-Line-in-the.html

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Where exactly do you think the royal navy got its sailors from, or how exactly do you think Napoleon built his empire? You have a wonderfully idiosyncratic view of the world.

Anyway, have a read of this http://naval.histofig.com/French-Sail-of-the-Line-in-the.html

Nah, link is too unreliable, proven nothng.

Fratton Fred

http://napoleonguide.com/navy_sizes.htm

http://www.musee-marine.fr/site/en/expo_passee_napoleon_et_la_mer

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://napoleonguide.com/navy_sizes.htm

http://www.musee-marine.fr/site/en/expo_passee_napoleon_et_la_mer

Still say nothing about "the French fleet increased quite rapidly and by 1812 numbered around 80 ships, in comparison to Britain's 90. "

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

Still say nothing about "the French fleet increased quite rapidly and by 1812 numbered around 80 ships, in comparison to Britain's 90. "

I think there is enough there to get a pretty good understanding of how Napoleon viewed his navy and the rapid production that took place after Trafalgar.

If you believe otherwise, please support your claims.

jonniebgood1

I dont think we need to get caught up in the numbers- The Royal navy proved itself in many battles as the strongest naval force. This and its island stature were a great protection that other european powers did not have.

Do we have any accounts from navy men?

I am struggling to get basic descriptions of life in the armies of the time. I have seen accounts of French soldiers but they a highfalutin to the extreme.

jonniebgood1

In relation to the comparisons between British and French Navy's I came across a great letter source that is apparantly from a discussion directly with Napolelon. There are many interesting parts. There is an explanation of Napoleons plans to outwit the Royal Navy to get his mens passage across the channel.

Dear Sir
the following conversation which took place yesterday between General Bonaparte and myself may probably not be uninteresting to you.

Finding him in a tolerable good humour and apparently ready to communicate, I took an opportunity of asking him whether he ever had really intended to invade England? and if so, what were his Plans? and also whether he thought he would be successful? He replied (without hesitation) "It was my firm Intention to invade England and to head the expedition myself. My plan was, to dispatch two squadrons to the West Indies (he did not say from what ports). There they were to meet and unite at a specified place and instead of waiting there, after shewing themselves amongst the Islands, they were to proceed back again to Europe with all dispatch. They were to raise the blockade of Ferrol and take the fleet out of it. They were then to proceed to Brest and in like manner to release and join the squadron there. By these means I would have had a squadron of about seventy sail of the Line, besides frigates etc. They were to proceed directly (77v, p.2) and sweep the English Channel, where they would meet with nothing strong enough to oppose them, for by means of false intelligence adroitly managed, I would have induced your ministers to send squadrons to the Mediterranean, East (word erased) and West Indies in search of mine. I intended then to push over under their protection the Boulogne Flotilla, with 200,000 men, to land near Sheerness and Chatham, and to push directly for London where I calculated to arrive in Four Days. During the march, I would have made my army observe the most exemplary discipline, marauding or otherwise injuring or insulting the inhabitants would have been punished with instant Death. I would have published a proclamation (which I would have had ready) declaring that we were only come as friends to the English nation, to render them free and to relieve them from an obnoxious and despotical Aristocracy, whose object was to keep them eternally at war in order to enrich themselves and their families at the expense of the blood of the people. Arrived at London I would have proclaimed a Republic (I was First Consul then,” said he) Liberty, Equality, Sovereignty of the people, abolished the Monarchical Government, the nobility and the House of Peers, the House of Commons I would have retained with a great reform, the (78r, p.3) property of the nobles I would have declared to be forfeited and to be divided amongst the people, amongst the partizans of the Revolution, a general equality and division of property. By these means I hope to gain a formidable party, to be joined by all the "canaglie" in such a great city as London, by all the idle and disaffected in the kingdom and that, perhaps, I might ultimately succeed."

I replied, "that perhaps if he effected a landing with 200,000 men he might succeed in taking London, but that I was convinced his army would be ultimately destroyed. That such was the National Spirit of the English, their jealousy and their hatred of the French yoke, that it would operate like an electric shock amongst all ranks. That however some might be discontented and in opposition to the government, yet still that all parties would unite in expelling and annihilating the French. That the fear of being made a French Province, or even more of being humbled by France, would have been sufficient to induce every Englishman to arm and rally round the Constitution. That in a few weeks, he would have had 500,000 Infantry and 50 or 60,000 cavalry to oppose him. That perhaps at first he would have been successful in two or three pitched battles if the English Generals had been foolish enough to (78r, p.4) meet him, but that his army would have been destroyed piecemeal and finally annihilated".

He replied "It is more than you or I or Pitt could say, whether I could have been successful or not. I considered all you have said, but I calculated also the effect the possession of a great and rich capital, of the Bank and all the money, the ships in the river Chatman perhaps Portsmouth, would have had, together with the effect also the proclamation which I would have published to "coglionare il popolo" (2) would have had. For I would cautiously have avoided saying anything about annexing England to France, on the contrary, I would have declared that we came only as friends to expel a flagitious and tyrannical aristocracy and to restore the rights of the people. That when we had done that, we would depart as friends. The hope of a change for the better, of a division of property, would have operated wonderfully amongst the "Canaglie", especially of London. The "Canaglie" of all nations are nearly alike. There are traitors to be found amongst all nations. I would have made rich promises and could have had a great effect to "Coglionare" them all. What would an indisciplined army do in a country abounding Plains like England, against mine? Besides I calculated upon having the sovereignty of the seas for two or three months, by which means I would have had supplies of troops (79r, p7). When your fleet did return, they would find their capital in the hands of an Enemy, the country overwhelmed with my armies. This might have had a great effect upon the sailors, together with my promises. I would have abolished flogging promised them everything. But even if they did remain faithful, which is doubtful, some vessels of there?? nightly dispatched from France with troops whenever the wind was fair, would succeed in landing. I would also have stirred up an insurrection in Ireland at the same time in order to divide and distract your government's exertions. Afterwards I would have acted according to circumstance. According to my strength. If I found myself strong enough I would have annexed England to France, if not, and it is probably doubtful whether I would have been able to do it, or not, I would have established a government as would be most consonant to my views : There is so knowing what might have happened, Signore Dottore "continued he".

I replied "that the inhabitants would have burnt London sooner than have let their take it". He answered, No, no, I do not believe that. You are too rich, London is too rich and you are too fond of money to do that. A nation does not so easy burn a capital. Look at the French. How often have the Parisians sworn to (79v, p.5) bury themselves under the ruins of the capital sooner than let it fall into the hands of the enemies of France and yet twice they have let it he taken quietly."

I here mentioned "Moscow" to him and also said that Paris and London were quite different. That in Paris there was a division of opinion. That France, having been lately revolutionised, half of it inhabitants of one opinion and half of another. That they had not that national spirit of the English and been lately accustomed to changes viewed them with less concern than the English would. That besides probably the inhabitants of London would have defended the city, street by street, and that in such a case his army would meet with a similar fate as ours did at Rocetta and Buenos Ayres". (3)

He said "I believe that there is a great deal more national spirit in England than in France, but still I do not believe that you would have burnt the capital. If indeed, you had had some Week's time to remove your riches, then indeed it might have been possible, but consider that you would not have had time to organize any plan of doing so, I would have been at the gates in few days. Besides Moscow was of wood ; and moreover it was not the inhabitants who set it on have, on the contrary, they were very sorry for it and did every thing in their (80r, p.6) power to put it out. It was the Cossacks and some condemned criminals were the incendiaries. They had also time to take their treasures. As to defending the town, I would not have been foolish enough to have entered the streets under such circumstances. I would have "coglionato" you with treaties and their other means. Besides you would not have had time to arrange a Plan for the defence, before I would have been it your doors and the terror of such an army would have paralysed you exertions. I tell you "Mr. Doctor" continued he, "that there is a great deal to be said on both sides, and I do not know but I might have succeeded. Having the capital, the capital “repeated he” in my hands would have had wonderful effect.

Such sir was the conversation Which I have thought sufficiently interesting to communicate to you and which, I hope, Will not prove unacceptable.
I have the honour to remain, Dear Sir, With great respect, your must humble servant, Barry O'Meara

(80v, p.7) P.S. He observed, also thereafter, stating that he would promise "that his army only came to restore the rights of the people, that after they had done that, they would depart as friends. The exact discipline I would have forced my army to observe, I would have confirmed this opinion". B. O'Meara

As the name might suggest Barry O'meara was an Irishman. He was Napoleons medical physician so had close access to him. Hudson Lowe who he addressed the letter to was also Irish.

KeithAFC

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There were a number of reasons why the French Navy was the poor relation to the British, defence being a key one. Britain never had a large standing army, it relied on the dominance of its navy for its defence.

Everytime that dominance was threatened, it acted swiftly and ruthlessly such as at Copenhagen and Camperdown. There was also the whittling away at the French such as the battle of the nile. At the time, although the British vastly outnumbered the French, the two navies had a similar number of ships of the line and ship for ship, the French were considered superior. Ultimately though, it wasn't so much a case of the French and Spanish being poor, they were evenly matched with their peers, it was a case of the Royal Navy being very dominant, arguably the first superpower.

After Trafalgar (which included the Spanish fleet as well as the French), the French fleet increased quite rapidly and by 1812 numbered around 80 ships, in comparison to Britain's 90.

One of the greatest thing going for Britain and the UK. It gives the country a great chance to defend itself. Plus the country has had plenty of experience in dealing with attempted invasions. Going all the way back to the Spanish Armada.

Batsy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

After Trafalgar (which included the Spanish fleet as well as the French), the French fleet increased quite rapidly and by 1812 numbered around 80 ships, in comparison to Britain's 90.

Nonsense.

In 1812 the mighty Royal Navy numbered almost 1,000 ships.

There were about 950 ships in the Royal Navy in 1805. To put that into perspective the United States Navy today, the world's largest navy at this moment in time, has a mere 286 ships. That means that the RN of 1805 was over three times the size of the USN today.

The RN numbered about 270 ships in 1700 and about 500 in 1793.

If France had only 80 ships in 1805 it means the Royal Navy was almost 12 times bigger than the French navy.

http://www.todd-genealogy.ca/0Ship/0ship.htm

Fratton Fred

Batsy wrote: »

Nonsense.

In 1812 the mighty Royal Navy numbered almost 1,000 ships.

There were about 950 ships in the Royal Navy in 1805. To put that into perspective the United States Navy today, the world's largest navy at this moment in time, has a mere 286 ships. That means that the RN of 1805 was over three times the size of the USN today.

The RN numbered about 270 ships in 1700 and about 500 in 1793.

If France had only 80 ships in 1805 it means the Royal Navy was almost 12 times bigger than the French navy.

http://www.todd-genealogy.ca/0Ship/0ship.htm

Ships of the line. The 1000 ships would have been a real mixture, the vast majority would have been relatively small it lightly armed.

That article talks about armed cutters with 8 to 12 guns. HMS Victory has 104 and several of the French and Spanish ships had even more.

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do we have any accounts from navy men?

THE book for life afloat in that era is NAM Rodger's 'The Command of the Ocean' showing the rise of Britain's navy 1649 - 1815. The bibliography alone runs to about 100 pages.
For an ordinary seaman's account read 'The Diary of John Wetherell' - he was press-ganged into the Navy, saw lots of action, was taken prisoner, covers 1803 - 1814. Best version to get is the one edited by C S Forester, he of Hornblower fame.
Rs,
P.

Batsy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ships of the line. The 1000 ships would have been a real mixture, the vast majority would have been relatively small it lightly armed.

That article talks about armed cutters with 8 to 12 guns. HMS Victory has 104 and several of the French and Spanish ships had even more.

In the overall scheme of things, the size of certain ships doesn't matter. The RN was, by far, the largest navy in the world and for a long time was always twice as large as the next largest navy.

During the Battle of Trafalgar the Franco-Spanish had a ship of 136 guns and two at 112 guns, a bit larger than any Nelson had, but that was no advantage for the Franco-Spanish. They were completely and utterly annihilated, thanks to the fact that the RN sailors were much better trained than the Spanish and French ones - they were able to reload cannon and fire off another shot much quicker than the enemy, for a start - and the fact that Nelson used superior tactics.

The fact that just three Franco-Spanish ships had more guns than any British ship did not prove advantageous to the Franco-Spanish in the end. Not only that, but smaller vessels are more manoeuvrable and during battle that is an advantage.

Fratton Fred

Batsy wrote: »

In the overall scheme of things, the size of certain ships doesn't matter. The RN was, by far, the largest navy in the world and for a long time was always twice as large as the next largest navy.

During the Battle of Trafalgar the Franco-Spanish had a ship of 136 guns and two at 112 guns, a bit larger than any Nelson had, but that was no advantage for the Franco-Spanish. They were completely and utterly annihilated, thanks to the fact that the RN sailors were much better trained than the Spanish and French ones - they were able to reload cannon and fire off another shot much quicker than the enemy, for a start - and the fact that Nelson used superior tactics.

The fact that just three Franco-Spanish ships had more guns than any British ship did not prove advantageous to the Franco-Spanish in the end. Not only that, but smaller vessels are more manoeuvrable and during battle that is an advantage.

Absolutely, off the top of my head, the RN used a flintlock firing mechanism as opposed to a fuse on the French Ships. Despite that, no one would put a sixth rate frigate up against a first rate ship of the line.

Napoleon gave very specific instructions to the navy that were ignored for some reason. The first was not to engage the British unless they had a numerical advantage, the second was that when counting ships, count Spanish ship as 1 ship for every 2 such was the poor shape of their crews.

pedroeibar1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Absolutely, off the top of my head, the RN used a flintlock firing mechanism as opposed to a fuse on the French Ships. Despite that, no one would put a sixth rate frigate up against a first rate ship of the line.

Napoleon gave very specific instructions to the navy that were ignored for some reason. The first was not to engage the British unless they had a numerical advantage, the second was that when counting ships, count Spanish ship as 1 ship for every 2 such was the poor shape of their crews.

Sort of agree. Nelson too disobeyed orders, he was lucky his tactics succeeded as had they not, he would not now be remembered as a hero.

It was not considered ‘fair play’ for a rated ship to take on a smaller one, particularly a frigate, it just was not done. Frigates were just scouts and for relaying messages; they were manoeuvrable and fast, and would fight and be fought only by ships of their own size. Also not so sure that flintlocks were standard on all RN ships by Trafalgar.
Engagement played a huge role in battle tactics (SOP was to range alongside and hammer away at each other) whereas Nelson ignored this and ‘cut’ the French line, some of the French/Spanish ships colliding with each other in the ensuing confusion. Also, French naval gunnery tactics tended to rely on disabling ships by firing at their spars/sails/rigging and then boarding, whereas RN aimed at the hull, thereby causing increased loss of life from splinters. Batsy above is correct on the rates of fire, a good RN crew could get off 3 rounds in under five minutes.
P

Fratton Fred

The flintlock mechanism was something that stuck in my mind after a tour around HMS Victory. Not sure about the rest of the fleet.

Rate of fire was an obsession with the RN and may have caused the loss of at least one battleship at Jutland. Another thread though.

pedroeibar1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The flintlock mechanism was something that stuck in my mind after a tour around HMS Victory. Not sure about the rest of the fleet.

I unsuccessfully tried to remember Victory's gundeck when writing my initial post – however, USS Constitution is of more modern vintage and her cannon do not have gunlocks. The paintings of RN gundecks of that era do not show them either, but several authorities say that they were ‘common’ in the RN by the end of the 18th century. Supposedly they could not be retrofitted, which would explain why the older ships at Trafalgar did not have them.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Rate of fire was an obsession with the RN and may have caused the loss of at least one battleship at Jutland. Another thread though.

Not very well up on Jutland......
During the Nap. Wars , after years of training, Collingwood’s flagship, Dreadnought could fire her first three broadsides in three and a half minutes. She was regarded as exceptional (and was also fitted with gunlocks! )

At Porto Bello 1739 Vernon's ship Hampton Court, 70, averaged one round every two minutes.

At Minorca in 1756 the French Guerrier, 74, averaged 5 and a half rounds per gun per hour; at Saintes (1782) another French ship managed six rounds per hour. The French never really improved on their rate of fire.

Depending on the circumstance there can be strategic reasons for firing high/low, but the RN inevitably fired low and the French high. After the Napoleonic Wars French gunnery manuals were still recommending firing high despite history showing that this had much less effect. Qu'un boulet anglais qui nous tuait une vingtaine d'hommes, le boulet francais repondait en coupant un mince cordage ou en faisant un trou a la voile* (An English shot would kill 20 of our men, the French shot in reply would cut rigging or make a hole in a sail.)
*Masson, Histoire de la Marine, Vol 1.

Rs,
P.

Batsy

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I unsuccessfully tried to remember Victory's gundeck when writing my initial post – however, USS Constitution is of more modern vintage and her cannon do not have gunlocks. The paintings of RN gundecks of that era do not show them either, but several authorities say that they were ‘common’ in the RN by the end of the 18th century. Supposedly they could not be retrofitted, which would explain why the older ships at Trafalgar did not have them.

Gunlocks were first fitted on RN ships in 1745. They were well-established in the RN by the time of Trafalgar but were still not generally adopted by the French, which put them at a disadvantage against the British in naval warfare.

A typical broadside of a Royal Navy ship of the late 18th century could be fired 2-3 times in approximately 5 minutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_artillery_in_the_Age_of_Sail