Talk:Capture of HMS Guerriere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force United States military history task force

[edit] start

1st edit on this and this page is lifted from the Naval historical website which is released for public use. Its probably a good start for a full blown article.

Tirronan 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very sceptical about the thrust of this piece - it seems to have a strong and distorted US POV. Constitution was a new type of frigate with much heavier armament that simply outclassed the Guerriere in weight and number of guns. The article should spell out the number of guns and their weight - then this would come through clearly. Phrases like 'inspired seamanship and vastly better gunnery' and 'much seperior accuracy' should be taken out. Once the ships had manouevred to the position where their yardarms were almost touching, accuracy was no longer an issue - it was down to the weight of shot, the number of guns and the rate of fire. To prove superior gunnery it would be necessary to prove a better rate of fire, and to my knowledge there is no such evidence in this case. 86.133.139.212 12:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to respond to this, in point of fact the British Admiralty issued instructions to stop the "spit and shine" and concentrate on gunnery practice. It wasn't that the British ships were of poor quality nor that there crews were bad. The British fleet had to be manned by pressing and the quality showed vs. an American fleet with few ships and hoards of unemployed seamen in its ports. Most of these battles were not just bigger guns but also good sailing. In this case HMS Guerriere had the 1st broadside without much effect, while some of this could be laided upon USS Consititution's heavy construction it also speaks to poor accuracy. HMS Guerriere's Captain reported that he was under manned and that this effected his ships performance. HMS Shannon in fact did believe in gunnery practice and was rewared by taking USS Chesapeak. I will also point out that the 6 frigates had been on the sea well over a decade when the War of 1812 broke out. HMS Leander and her sister HMS Newcastle were 60 gun 4th rate frigates of simular firepower and were built in 1813 and on the sea as a result of seeing the US frigates at sea before the War of 1812, and both ships were involved in the capture of USS President I have a source to quote to if you have further questions in this regard.

I've reviewed this battle and the opening broadside of Constitution was at 300 yards. Seamanship was involved in not allowing the Guerriere to rake, none of the 44's were all that nimble and at this time most of HMS frigates were faster and more nimble. As for speed of the guns refer to USS Constellation vs. La'Vengence. The British Admirality was convinced that her ships were lacking in gunnery practice and that it was showing. I need to add a section about the 44's construction as it was true that many cannon balls did not penetrate the 44's sides which is an advantage. So that you understand, the cream of the English speaking seamen often worked for US merchant ships as the pay was better. No slight to the English Navy is implied here. Tirronan 18:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not sling around accusations of Gung Ho and blatent POV it is insulting in the extream. Perhaps you are new to Wiki as you don't have an account but no one here enjoys that kind of talk as it results in the other party getting defensive and not working to resolve the issue. I would encourage you to get an account, we get trolled here way too often to work with IP addresses much. Tirronan 13:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub to start

I've changed the from stub to start class to begin the review and editing. If you make changes please leave the captain's letters alone. Spellings and grammer are 18th century and leave the flavor of what they are saying. Delete if you think they do not belong but do not change them.

Tirronan 15:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed section

These Captains didn't know each other nor was there a bet. This happened later when the USS United States battled HMS Macedonian Tirronan 17:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)