@MegaTheBrit However the point of neutralization is important. Without neutralization then complete victory over a forces cannot be claimed - victories in engagements certainly but not total victory - and as the Royal Navy's small contingent was still active at the war's end and still pretty much controling American waters they were not neutralized in anyway.
The US Navy of 1812 should, therefore, be rated with the Confederates of achievING some success in the field but none of it lasting.
@MegaTheBrit Again you've missed the point. I'm not denying that the small contingent the Royal Navy sent to America tried to gain control over the Great Lakes and failed, what I am saying is that if it were that much of a priority to the Royal Navy they could have taken them at any time just by sending one of its 1st rate Ships of the Line across the Atlantic. The St Lawrence proved the US weren't prepared to sail against a 1st rate Ship of the line let alone challenge one.
@MegaTheBrit For pity sake man! The pricipals the same. Modern day equivilents have not baring on their historical counterparts. The US having a powerful navy now means nothing as far as 1812 goes.
Claiming victory over the Royal Navy for defeating a force it only sent to keep the US Navy occupied is shallow. It would be far more accurate to say that the US achieved some victories over only the very small contingent the Royal Navy deemed worthy of sending against it but failed to neutralize it
@MegaTheBrit Look. Certainly the Americans were successful on the Great Lakes but their success only led to the creation of the St Lawrence and American impotance. Britain could have retaken the Great Lakes whenever it wanted to.
Its a matter of intent.
If the Royal Navy had truely been intent on breaking the US Navy then there wouldn't have been a force on heaven or earth that could have prevented it from doing so but it never had that intent.
@MegaTheBrit What ?! The US Navy of 1812 was great because its great today? You cannot judge a navy from hundreds of years ago by its modern day force, that's ludicrous.
If the War of 1812 proved anything from a naval perspective it was that the Royal Navy was so powerful it didn't need to take other navies seriously to achieve what it wanted.
The US Navy might have proven itself to be an effective small navy but it also proved its unworthy of the Royal Navy's attention.
@MegaTheBrit But the fact is that the US Navy didn't control their own waters when the war ended and had failed completely to deal with even the small ships the Royal Navy assigned to deal with them - the US won a few battles but didn't neutralize the Royal Navy's presence - and as such the Royal Navy was right not to take the US as a serious threat. If the US Navy couldn't neutralize a force made of small brigs, sloops and frigates then they weren't worthy of even seeing the ships of the line.
@MegaTheBrit That the Royal Navy didn't take the American navy seriously and didn't think it eough of a threat to divert any of its most powerful ships to oppose them - even the St Lawrence was built in North American not sent there - doesn't mean the US were better.
Sure the US may have gained from conducting the naval war against the Royal Navy - both experiance and money - but they still failed to make a lasting impression on it.
@MegaTheBrit The point, however, was that the US cannot claim to have won the naval war when they couldn't even effectively defeat a Royal Navy that wasn't even paying attention to them, that didn't even try to beat them, because not only did they fail to gain control of American Waters and repulse the British but they also failed to make themselves be taken seriously. Claiming victory in such circumstances would be a hollow - even laughable - afair.
@MegaTheBrit Well its great that the US gained greater strenght at sea through its War of 1812 endeavors but that has nothing to do with the US Navies inferiority to the Royal Navy in the 1800's. The fact that the US Navy survived the War of 1812 is more down to the Royal Navy's preocupation with Napoleon than the US Navy's effectiveness and just becuase the Victory, Royal Sovereign and St Lawrence weren't united against them doesn't mean they couldn't have crushed the US Navy if they had been.
@MegaTheBrit The simple, inescapable fact of the matter is that the American Navy in 1812 was a fly buzzing around the head of the giant that was the Royal Navy. It was an irritant and nothing more and if the Royal Navy thought it prudent it would have swatted the US Navy with ease. HMS Victory, HMS St Lawrence and HMS Royal Sovereign could probably have taken the whole US Navy between them. That may be a blow to your American pride but its true.
@MegaTheBrit So? Have I disputed the fact that the US overtook Britain as a world superpower? No I have not.
I'm afraid that stinks of an attempt to deflect from the issue at hand. The War of 1812 was not a victory for either side and I'm not trying to claim it as a British victory but as far as the Naval war is concerned it has to be recognized that the US never even fought the third best British ships available and failed to stop the British dominating American Waters so cannot claim victory.
@MegaTheBrit As for "Even after the war", the Royal Navy retained dominance over the oceans until around 1910 when the rest of the world were creating navies to rival it. For over 100 year there was no naval force in existance that could go toe to toe with the Royal Navy and have any hope of victory. It was the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921 that finally broke the Royal Navy's dominance. The US Navy couldn't compete with the Royal Navy until the 1890's or early 1900's
@MegaTheBrit But still did what? Win the naval war? Hardly. The American Navy weren't even a blip on the Royal Navy's radar.
If you think the US Navy somehow proved to be a match for the Royal navy let alone proved to be better than them on the back of several victories against small ships and success in privateering yet failure to gain control over even American water without even facing a single 3rd rate let alone 1st rate Ship of the Line then your seriously deluded.
@MegaTheBrit American privateering may have succeeded in inflicting some financial loss to the British and financial gains for the Americans - around $9,000,000 was made through this in the War of 1812 - but so too did British privateers take a heafty toll on American shipping. They captured between 100 and 200 ships and caused around $1,000,000 damages which pretty much destroyed American trade. Britian could still trade despite privateers praying on their marchants navy, America could not.
@MegaTheBrit My point remains unchanged. US ships being at sea & winning the last naval battle of the war didn't change the fact that the Royal Navy dominated the US Coastline to such an extent that it could go anywhere with impunity, attack anywhere at will & close any port it desired.
On a tactical scale the US may have done very well but on a strategic scale they failed - a bit like the Native American resistance to US Expansion, some victories but overall failure to stop the inevitable.
@MegaTheBrit The British didn't assign any 1st rate, 2nd rate or 3rd rate Ships of the line to the War of 1812 because Napoleon was more important to them. They sent sloops, brigs and frigates because they were expendable and could contain the Americans without the need to send any of the best ships - the fact that the Americans were blockaded in port by the end of the war proves that those small ships were all that were needed.
Victories in one on one engagements didn't win the naval war.
@MegaTheBrit The St Lawrence's uncontested dominance of the Great Lakes proved that the American navy couldn't stand up to a 1st rate ship of the line that could come to battle with over 100 guns and they knew they couldn't because they didn't even try. The mere presence of such a powerful vessel deterred the Americans and made them afraid to even set sail.
The St Lawrence was the only 1st rate ship of the line involved in the War, had more been employed the US Navy would have been crushed.
@MegaTheBrit Every Royal Navy Ship sunk or bested by the Americans were brigs, sloops or frigates. HMS Guerriere was a 38 gun frigate, HMS Frolic was an 18 gun sloops, HMS Macedonian was a 38 gun frigate, HMS Java was a 38 gun frigate, HMS Peacock was a 32 gun sloop, HMS Shannon was a 38 gun frigate, HMS Boxer was a 12 gun brig, HMS Epervier was a 18 gun brig-sloop and Reindeer and Avon were 18 gun sloops.
Even the 70 gun third rate British ships of the line were out of the Americans league.
@MegaTheBrit But they weren't 1st rate ships of the line like the Victory. HMS Reindeer and HMS Avon - both sunk in British waters by the USS Wasp - were 18 gun sloops HMS Victory was a 104 gun first rate ship of the line.
The US Navy couldn't compete with the biggest and best Royal Navy Ships. HMS St. Lawrence was the biggest Royal Navy Ship involved in American waters with 112 guns and her launch gave British uncontested control over the Great Lakes in the final months of the war.
@MegaTheBrit Against the Royal Navy's C team and even then only one in one on one engagement with the exception of the battles on the Great Lakes. The American Navy ended up blockaded in port.
As I said before HMS Victory outclassed any ship the Americans had and she was ancient. The rest of the best British Ships were all in Europe blockading Napoleonic France. Had they been sent to fight in the War of 1812 then the American Navy wouldn't have stood a chance.
The final shots of the war were not fired on Jan 8, 1815 at the Battle of New Orleans, this is a popular misconception. One month later on February 12, the Britsh attacked and captured Fort Bowyer, Alabama. The second battle of Fort Bowyer was the last action in that conflict.
On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the guns fell silent. Today we remember. Solemn Greetings on this Remembrance Veterans Poppy Armistice Day to all nations.
And for the for Americans/Canadians Please accept my salute on the anniversary of the Battle of Crysler's Farm Nov 11 1813.
@xXLukeTubexX like at chippewa, thames river, sandy creek, new orleans, sackett harbor ? or maybe in the see where the us frigate destroyed most of the british frigate they fought. maybe ross, brock, or packenham ...
@spad57 The US frigates did well in one on one engagements but this didn't stop them from being driven back to their ports and blockaded there, it did nothing to British dominance of the seas. In fact the ship that the US fought were not even British second best ships as the 1st Rate Ships of the Line were all in Europe blockading Napoleonic France. HMS Victory, which was alreadt ancient at that time, outclassed any ship the US had and could have blown any American Ship out of the water.
@11nytram11 of course but bigger naval victories still on the USA side. The US frigate were heavier, stronger and better manned than british one so their victories are not a surprising thing
American propaganda. You did not mention the battles the British won nor that you lost much more men then we did. And it was you guys who needed the peace treaty signed because Britain used full force after the war with Napoleon (Before he broke free from that island)
u missed a few battles us brits won , such as Battle of Queenston Heights, and the fact that you lost more men during the war than we did. and the reason we singed the peace was mainly because of the war with napoleon, we need our english lads to stop froggs
Lol, well, they are gona make themselves look good arnt they, so if it means missing the bad points out, who cares, aslong as they can keep most americans ignorant to the fact that they were (In my eyes) defeated, in the war of 1812.
@MegaTheBrit It's late, I'm tried so lets reach an accord if we can. Can we agree to this:
1 - the US won most of the naval battles and were successfull in privateering against British merchants
2 - the British dominated American waters and were successfull in privateering against American marchants
3 - the Royal Navy never dedicated its real strenght against the Americans
4 - neither side can won the war either on land or sea as both failed to achieve all of their aims
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit However the point of neutralization is important. Without neutralization then complete victory over a forces cannot be claimed - victories in engagements certainly but not total victory - and as the Royal Navy's small contingent was still active at the war's end and still pretty much controling American waters they were not neutralized in anyway.
The US Navy of 1812 should, therefore, be rated with the Confederates of achievING some success in the field but none of it lasting.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit Again you've missed the point. I'm not denying that the small contingent the Royal Navy sent to America tried to gain control over the Great Lakes and failed, what I am saying is that if it were that much of a priority to the Royal Navy they could have taken them at any time just by sending one of its 1st rate Ships of the Line across the Atlantic. The St Lawrence proved the US weren't prepared to sail against a 1st rate Ship of the line let alone challenge one.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit For pity sake man! The pricipals the same. Modern day equivilents have not baring on their historical counterparts. The US having a powerful navy now means nothing as far as 1812 goes.
Claiming victory over the Royal Navy for defeating a force it only sent to keep the US Navy occupied is shallow. It would be far more accurate to say that the US achieved some victories over only the very small contingent the Royal Navy deemed worthy of sending against it but failed to neutralize it
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit Look. Certainly the Americans were successful on the Great Lakes but their success only led to the creation of the St Lawrence and American impotance. Britain could have retaken the Great Lakes whenever it wanted to.
Its a matter of intent.
If the Royal Navy had truely been intent on breaking the US Navy then there wouldn't have been a force on heaven or earth that could have prevented it from doing so but it never had that intent.
Your mistaking disinterest for incompetance.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit What ?! The US Navy of 1812 was great because its great today? You cannot judge a navy from hundreds of years ago by its modern day force, that's ludicrous.
If the War of 1812 proved anything from a naval perspective it was that the Royal Navy was so powerful it didn't need to take other navies seriously to achieve what it wanted.
The US Navy might have proven itself to be an effective small navy but it also proved its unworthy of the Royal Navy's attention.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit But the fact is that the US Navy didn't control their own waters when the war ended and had failed completely to deal with even the small ships the Royal Navy assigned to deal with them - the US won a few battles but didn't neutralize the Royal Navy's presence - and as such the Royal Navy was right not to take the US as a serious threat. If the US Navy couldn't neutralize a force made of small brigs, sloops and frigates then they weren't worthy of even seeing the ships of the line.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit That the Royal Navy didn't take the American navy seriously and didn't think it eough of a threat to divert any of its most powerful ships to oppose them - even the St Lawrence was built in North American not sent there - doesn't mean the US were better.
Sure the US may have gained from conducting the naval war against the Royal Navy - both experiance and money - but they still failed to make a lasting impression on it.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit The point, however, was that the US cannot claim to have won the naval war when they couldn't even effectively defeat a Royal Navy that wasn't even paying attention to them, that didn't even try to beat them, because not only did they fail to gain control of American Waters and repulse the British but they also failed to make themselves be taken seriously. Claiming victory in such circumstances would be a hollow - even laughable - afair.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit Well its great that the US gained greater strenght at sea through its War of 1812 endeavors but that has nothing to do with the US Navies inferiority to the Royal Navy in the 1800's. The fact that the US Navy survived the War of 1812 is more down to the Royal Navy's preocupation with Napoleon than the US Navy's effectiveness and just becuase the Victory, Royal Sovereign and St Lawrence weren't united against them doesn't mean they couldn't have crushed the US Navy if they had been.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit The simple, inescapable fact of the matter is that the American Navy in 1812 was a fly buzzing around the head of the giant that was the Royal Navy. It was an irritant and nothing more and if the Royal Navy thought it prudent it would have swatted the US Navy with ease. HMS Victory, HMS St Lawrence and HMS Royal Sovereign could probably have taken the whole US Navy between them. That may be a blow to your American pride but its true.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit So? Have I disputed the fact that the US overtook Britain as a world superpower? No I have not.
I'm afraid that stinks of an attempt to deflect from the issue at hand. The War of 1812 was not a victory for either side and I'm not trying to claim it as a British victory but as far as the Naval war is concerned it has to be recognized that the US never even fought the third best British ships available and failed to stop the British dominating American Waters so cannot claim victory.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit As for "Even after the war", the Royal Navy retained dominance over the oceans until around 1910 when the rest of the world were creating navies to rival it. For over 100 year there was no naval force in existance that could go toe to toe with the Royal Navy and have any hope of victory. It was the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921 that finally broke the Royal Navy's dominance. The US Navy couldn't compete with the Royal Navy until the 1890's or early 1900's
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit But still did what? Win the naval war? Hardly. The American Navy weren't even a blip on the Royal Navy's radar.
If you think the US Navy somehow proved to be a match for the Royal navy let alone proved to be better than them on the back of several victories against small ships and success in privateering yet failure to gain control over even American water without even facing a single 3rd rate let alone 1st rate Ship of the Line then your seriously deluded.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit American privateering may have succeeded in inflicting some financial loss to the British and financial gains for the Americans - around $9,000,000 was made through this in the War of 1812 - but so too did British privateers take a heafty toll on American shipping. They captured between 100 and 200 ships and caused around $1,000,000 damages which pretty much destroyed American trade. Britian could still trade despite privateers praying on their marchants navy, America could not.
11nytram11 8 months ago
But ultimately like the songs says, (of Madison)
"He thought that he was tough, instead we went to Washington and out all his stuff!"
WOFWD123 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit My point remains unchanged. US ships being at sea & winning the last naval battle of the war didn't change the fact that the Royal Navy dominated the US Coastline to such an extent that it could go anywhere with impunity, attack anywhere at will & close any port it desired.
On a tactical scale the US may have done very well but on a strategic scale they failed - a bit like the Native American resistance to US Expansion, some victories but overall failure to stop the inevitable.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit The British didn't assign any 1st rate, 2nd rate or 3rd rate Ships of the line to the War of 1812 because Napoleon was more important to them. They sent sloops, brigs and frigates because they were expendable and could contain the Americans without the need to send any of the best ships - the fact that the Americans were blockaded in port by the end of the war proves that those small ships were all that were needed.
Victories in one on one engagements didn't win the naval war.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit The St Lawrence's uncontested dominance of the Great Lakes proved that the American navy couldn't stand up to a 1st rate ship of the line that could come to battle with over 100 guns and they knew they couldn't because they didn't even try. The mere presence of such a powerful vessel deterred the Americans and made them afraid to even set sail.
The St Lawrence was the only 1st rate ship of the line involved in the War, had more been employed the US Navy would have been crushed.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit Every Royal Navy Ship sunk or bested by the Americans were brigs, sloops or frigates. HMS Guerriere was a 38 gun frigate, HMS Frolic was an 18 gun sloops, HMS Macedonian was a 38 gun frigate, HMS Java was a 38 gun frigate, HMS Peacock was a 32 gun sloop, HMS Shannon was a 38 gun frigate, HMS Boxer was a 12 gun brig, HMS Epervier was a 18 gun brig-sloop and Reindeer and Avon were 18 gun sloops.
Even the 70 gun third rate British ships of the line were out of the Americans league.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit But they weren't 1st rate ships of the line like the Victory. HMS Reindeer and HMS Avon - both sunk in British waters by the USS Wasp - were 18 gun sloops HMS Victory was a 104 gun first rate ship of the line.
The US Navy couldn't compete with the biggest and best Royal Navy Ships. HMS St. Lawrence was the biggest Royal Navy Ship involved in American waters with 112 guns and her launch gave British uncontested control over the Great Lakes in the final months of the war.
11nytram11 8 months ago
@MegaTheBrit Against the Royal Navy's C team and even then only one in one on one engagement with the exception of the battles on the Great Lakes. The American Navy ended up blockaded in port.
As I said before HMS Victory outclassed any ship the Americans had and she was ancient. The rest of the best British Ships were all in Europe blockading Napoleonic France. Had they been sent to fight in the War of 1812 then the American Navy wouldn't have stood a chance.
11nytram11 8 months ago
The final shots of the war were not fired on Jan 8, 1815 at the Battle of New Orleans, this is a popular misconception. One month later on February 12, the Britsh attacked and captured Fort Bowyer, Alabama. The second battle of Fort Bowyer was the last action in that conflict.
WOFWD123 10 months ago
On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the guns fell silent. Today we remember. Solemn Greetings on this Remembrance Veterans Poppy Armistice Day to all nations.
And for the for Americans/Canadians Please accept my salute on the anniversary of the Battle of Crysler's Farm Nov 11 1813.
Eddythebeast666 1 year ago
britain kicked USA ass in that war
xXLukeTubexX 2 years ago
@xXLukeTubexX Then you woke up The USA Kick Britain's arse in that War Fact!
TheIceman567 1 year ago
@xXLukeTubexX like at chippewa, thames river, sandy creek, new orleans, sackett harbor ? or maybe in the see where the us frigate destroyed most of the british frigate they fought. maybe ross, brock, or packenham ...
spad57 1 year ago
@spad57 The US frigates did well in one on one engagements but this didn't stop them from being driven back to their ports and blockaded there, it did nothing to British dominance of the seas. In fact the ship that the US fought were not even British second best ships as the 1st Rate Ships of the Line were all in Europe blockading Napoleonic France. HMS Victory, which was alreadt ancient at that time, outclassed any ship the US had and could have blown any American Ship out of the water.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 of course but bigger naval victories still on the USA side. The US frigate were heavier, stronger and better manned than british one so their victories are not a surprising thing
spad57 1 year ago
Poor!
Redcoat66 2 years ago
American propaganda. You did not mention the battles the British won nor that you lost much more men then we did. And it was you guys who needed the peace treaty signed because Britain used full force after the war with Napoleon (Before he broke free from that island)
mpc12345678 3 years ago
US PROPOGANDA Once Again !!
Bullshit !!
sredordee 3 years ago
haha u got told u nerd !
yankeebird4 3 years ago
u missed a few battles us brits won , such as Battle of Queenston Heights, and the fact that you lost more men during the war than we did. and the reason we singed the peace was mainly because of the war with napoleon, we need our english lads to stop froggs
sgtreef 3 years ago
Lol, well, they are gona make themselves look good arnt they, so if it means missing the bad points out, who cares, aslong as they can keep most americans ignorant to the fact that they were (In my eyes) defeated, in the war of 1812.
ChaoticFallenAngel 3 years ago
nice
12we3r 3 years ago