NationStates Jolt Archive

Here are some scenarios, all involving the War of 1812 (aka British-American War):

Scenario A: Great Britain and the United States argue over the practice of impressment and nearly come to blows as a result. However, cooler heads both in Parliament and in Congress realise that full-blown war is not the answer and come to an agreement. How could this scenario have come to pass and ultimately prevent the war from even happening?

Scenario B: Despite American and British efforts, war is ultimately declared. After a run of success in single ship battles, the British blockade effectively shuts down the American economy. However, instead of earning victories like the Battle of Lake Champlaign or the Battle of New Orleans to force the British to back off their demands for territory, American armies are soundly routed all across the board when Duke Wellington crosses the Atlantic to take command of the Royal Army. How does a decisive defeat of the Americans change the course of American and British history?

Scenario C: The war takes place, but the U.S. decides Canada is not worth the risk of stretching its small armies too thinly. Early single ship victories like those of the USS Constitution turn into larger victories by American squadrons and ultimately, the British are forced to divert ships of the line from their blockade of France while that war is still going on. When the Royal Army tries to invade from Canada, troops led by the likes of Generals William Henry Harrison and Winfield Scott consistently beat Royal Army troops. How does a decisive defeat of the British change the course of American and British history?

For Scenarios A or C to happen, this is what I think would have had to take place: President John Adams defeats Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 Presidential election. The Federalists remain in power and Benjamin Stodderd remains Secretary of the Navy. With that being the case, Congress appropriates money to build no less than seven and up to 20 ships of the line carrying 74 guns or more, built to be as superior to any in the rest of the world as their frigates have been. More frigates and smaller ships also join the Navy.

For Scenario A, the Chesapeake-Leopard incident angers the Americans, who demand retribution from the British and instead of passing the Embargo Act, begin to prepare for war. Even 3,000 miles across the Atlantic, the British can read the writing on the wall and decide that impressment is not worth fighting a two front war. The British revoke their Orders in Council and agree to back off the practice of impressing American sailors for a guarantee that the Americans will not trade with the French. Fresh off the defeat at Trafalgar, the French can do little but protest the American decision.

For Scenario C, the British refuse to back down from the Americans in spite of the calls for war. However, Congress decides that war is not an option yet. They still appropriate more money to build more warships and commission crews. They also decide to prepare their armies for war. In early 1812, an American frigate fires on a British ship that attempts to impress sailors and the British, furious at this, declare war. The United States wins early naval battles like the Constitution defeating the Guerriere and when those single ship victories become squadron victories, the British have little choice but to sue for peace.

I find the war of 1812 far too dull and trite a scenario to offer anything constructive, so instead I'll just nitpick, and point out that the British Army doesn't bear the prefix 'Royal' like the navy and air force.

Okay then. But notice that I titled this as a discussion for "diehards." If you didn't want to discuss the War of 1812, why post to this thread?

Thanks for the correction, though.

Scenario B: Despite American and British efforts, war is ultimately declared. After a run of success in single ship battles, the British blockade effectively shuts down the American economy. However, instead of earning victories like the Battle of Lake Champlaign or the Battle of New Orleans to force the British to back off their demands for territory, American armies are soundly routed all across the board when Duke Wellington crosses the Atlantic to take command of the Royal Army. How does a decisive defeat of the Americans change the course of American and British history?

I don't believe British success in single-ship battles is a plausible scenario. American ships were just plain better.

Let's also keep in mind that the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed prior to the Battle of New Orleans, in which both nations agreed to return things to their pre-war state. The British may have welched on that agreement had they won a decisive victory at New Orleans, but that's not guaranteed.

However... had the British decided to do things a little bit differently, there are some plausible scenarios for a decisive victory. The US Navy had full control of the Great Lakes, so if the British had instead focused their attacks from the Atlantic, where they had recently gained numerical superiority, things might have been different. Rather than invading along Burgoyne's route down the Hudson, he might instead have launched an invasion up the Hudson via New York City. This would have given them a supply line they could better defend. They may have achieved their goal of cutting off New England from the rest of the states in this way.

Andrew Jackson's men were ordered to New Orleans in November of 1814. If there is no Lake Champlain victory in September of that year, the situation may have been grave enough that Jackson's army was called to the north instead... leaving New Orleans undefended. British troops occupy much of the Mississippi River.

When peace is called, the British make claim to lands up the Mississippi from New Orleans to Canada, and exchange New England for most of the Louisiana Purchase (but the Brits keep Maine), effectively cutting off American expansion. Canada goes on to realize Manifest Destiny, reaching the Pacific as far south as Oregon, and becomes a major world power in its own right. Mexico retains the American Southwest. Tensions between the UK and Canada on one side, and the US on another, continue. The US would have to seek an ally, partnering with either France or Bismark's Germany. A major war breaks out in North America in the 1860's or so, with the US and its allies invading Canadian territory.

From there on, there are just too many variables to predict any kind of outcome.

I don't believe British success in single-ship battles is a plausible scenario. American ships were just plain better.

That isn't quite true. At the outbreak of the war, the British had 11 ships of the line in american waters, and these 64+ gun monsters were far superior to any ship in the American fleet, which consisted only of frigates.

However, the American strategy was to conduct hit and run attacks, only engaging British ships when the odds were favourable. The usual encounter was an American 44-gun frigate against a British 5th or 6th rate, which typically had fewer than 32 guns.

The above scenario is implausible not because of the superior quality of american ships, but because single-ship battles were usually picked by the Americans, against inferior opposition.

British ships of the line could not catch US frigates. British frigates were inferior to US frigates in a lot of ways: http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/supfrig.htm

British ships of the line could not catch US frigates. British frigates were inferior to US frigates in a lot of ways: http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/supfrig.htm

British Frigates were essentially a different class of ship to the American 44's. Despite the classification 44, in reality they carried 50-60 guns, putting them at equivalent strength to a British 4th rate ship of the line (50-64 guns). However, 4th rates had more or less become obsolete in the Royal Navy by 1812, being too weak to stand in the line of battle, and too large and expensive to perform the duties of a frigate. In fact, the above article even admits that the US 44's cost more to build than a British 74 gun ship of the line.

When frigates of a similar class engaged in single combat, the most notable example coming to mind being the encounter between HMS Shannon and USS Chesapeake (both 38 gun frigates), the results were less one-sided.

A ship of the line is 90+ guns, a frigate of any type was insufficient in size to be able to slog it out with a ship of the line yet they had the speed to evade them which was the idea behind them - kill the weak and run from the strong.

The US frigates were rated for 44 guns, and overloaded, true. But that was normal. The British frigates were rated for 50 guns, and all but two carried more.

The US advantages were:

1) Use of 24-pound long guns versus 18 pound long guns.
2) Higher rate of fire despite the larger guns, due to more practice (frequent live-fire exercises) and better technology (use of lead powder cartridge versus flannel, meaning they didn't have to swab the barrel).
3) Better accuracy at range, due to use of sights, a feature deliberately left off British guns.
4) Better damage in close quarters, due to numbers of short range caronades (32 or 42 pound). Caronades were not counted when rating a ship by gun count... only long guns were counted. So, though the Americans carried more caronades, they were not considered to be better outfitted by the standards of the time.

They were frigates... they were just better. Vastly.

The Chesapeake/Shannon episode involved an idiot US captain taking rash action with a poorly-trained crew. Hardly an indicator.

http://www.alternatehistory.net/discussion/
Just go here, its awhole forum devoted to the stuff

The US frigates were rated for 44 guns, and overloaded, true. But that was normal. The British frigates were rated for 50 guns, and all but two carried more.

Nope.

http://home.gci.net/~stall/ship2.htm

The largest class of British frigates, 5th rates, carried no more than 44 guns. However, the vast majority were 36 and 38 gun vessels. This class includes HMS Shannon.


They were frigates... they were just better. Vastly.

They averaged an extra 400-500 tons, an extra 10-15 guns, and an extra 100 or so crew. They were a different class entirely, much more similar to a 4th rate ship of the line in terms of crew, guns and displacement.


And, if you're citing 'better trained crew' as an advantage of american ships, then don't go excusing the Chesapeake due to poor crew performance.

Much of the discussion from the British side has looked like what is going on during this thread. TBH, it looks like a lot of whining.

Give the American ships, commanders, and crew the credit they're due: They generally were better trained on guns, better sailors, and the captains were generally better than their British counterparts. The Shannon was the exception that proved the rule: Captain Phillip Bloke trained his crew on their guns incessantly and the Chesapeake crew was green and its captain was overconfident. In other words, the very things that the Royal Navy frigate captains usually were.

According to a text I've read (I don't remember which one), the difference in short-range power of a 24 pounder vs. an 18 pounder wasn't all that great. However, that's assuming that their respective gun crews are similarly trained and the guns themselves are similarly outfitted.

Were the American ships better than the British ships? Yes. Were the captains and crews better? Generally, yes. The problem was that there were far too few of them. Would the Shannon have defeated the USS United States, assuming that Commodore Stephen Decatur and his well-trained crew? Hard to say. I'm sure the Shannon would have given the United States a run for its money.

The other argument I keep reading from British apologists is that the Americans overloaded their frigates with guns. Look at the HMS Guerriere. It was rated as a 38 but it carried 49 guns, including carronades. The other thing I notice is that the British count the weight of American carronades in broadside weights and gun counts, but don't count their own carronades similarly. That could be interpreted as trying to make the difference between a British frigate and an American frigate even larger than it really was.

The point I'm driving at is that if the United States had a larger navy (particularly if it followed the more ambitious programme of Navy Secretary Benjamin Stoddard), it could have either forced the British to end the practice of impressment much earlier or it would have forced the British to decide which war was more important to them.