This is objectively so wrong, I'm surprised you would be dumb enough to post
that on a Canadian forum.
Britain orders fleet of "budget battleships"
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
This is objectively so wrong, I'm surprised you would be dumb enough to post
that on a Canadian forum.
And the stupidity continues.
Polish airmen, Dutch navy ships, FFI in England,
Canadian troops in England, South Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand,
all contributing troops, ships, and stuff.
Lend lease with the Americans.
But hey, thanks for insulting everyone, you dumbassed wanker.
Polish airmen, Dutch navy ships, FFI in England,
Canadian troops in England, South Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand,
all contributing troops, ships, and stuff.
Lend lease with the Americans.
But hey, thanks for insulting everyone, you dumbassed wanker.
[youtube]aOtEmR4QbgU[/youtube]
Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Flies At 7,400 Km/h And It Can’t Be Stopped Once Launched
Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Flies At 7,400 Km/h And It Can’t Be Stopped Once Launched
No, but you can probably confuse the hell out of it, though.
The French regularly supplied the British with ships all through the Napoleonic Wars era.
Far better ships than the hopelessly corrupt British could build, like the infamous Forty Thieves.
They were coveted for the quality of their construction.They all had a curious and unusual defensive feature, though... cannon facing aft.
Everybody had stern chasers. The French had a very good navy. It's not surprising that an island power would have a bigger one. Napoleon focussed on ground warfare cuz Eurasia's a big place. Soviets did the same, mostly leaving the seas to the Americans.
Yep. After the Royal Navy defeated the French in battle and stole their ships.
Royal Navy ships and crew were far superior to their French (and Spanish) counterparts, which was the major reason why the out-numbered Royal Navy destroyed a combined French-Spanish fleet at Trafalgar in 1805.
Not only were the British ships superior, but they were staffed by officers and crew who were much more highly trained than their French and Spanish (or any) counterparts and had much better gunners.
In both British and French fleets, ships only carried enough men to easily man one broadside, but as soon as both batteries where needed, a 14 strong crew for a 32-pounder (if they're lucky) needed to be split in two to fire guns on opposite sides simultaneously. This demanded regular training, which only the British had.
The French and Spanish used poorer powder than the British, as the British used cylinders rather than kilns to char their charcoal. This produced powder that burns more uniformly, resulting in better accuracy.
The British sailors were superior than the French and Spanish in their rate of fire: A British crew could fire three shot every five minutes. The French and Spanish could only manage to fire one shot every eight minutes for a 36-pounder, five minutes for a 18-pounder and four minutes for an eight pounder.
Really effective fire could occur when one ship raked another, and then fired one or two more broadsides in quick succession. The ship that received the rake would never be able to properly recover from it or then give fire properly again. Once followed with another broadside in quick succession then the unlucky receiver then never had a hope of winning the engagement. This is what happened at Trafalgar when His Majesty's ships cut the line, and some, such as the Victory, had their guns triple shotted. However, only a well trained crew, which only the British possessed, were able to pull this off well. Because the British had the best gunnery, it gave them a battle winning advantage.
Because large ships beat smaller ones, Britain had to maintain large numbers of battleships to defend Britain and her merchant shipping from the impending French invasion. So Britain naturally spent more on her navy than her army, so had a large, well trained, and versatile navy, to secure an edge over her opponents, but for France it was the other way round, so defeat at Trafalgar would have been a disaster for the British, but the amount of money spent on the navy did help to ensure that it was the best navy in the world, so the British had the advantage over the French and Spanish in this sense.
Size of navies during the Napoleonic Wars:
Royal Navy - 79 ships-of-the-line; 98 frigates; total 177
French Navy: 41 ships-of-the-line; 35 frigates; total 76
Spanish Navy: 38 ships-of-the-line; 26 frigates; total 64
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Why...h_and_Spanish_vs._British_Gunnery_and_Tactics
Great historical revisionism from you there.
Never hear of the lease/loan program?
Not during the Napoleonic Wars. The French Navy was in an appalling state, which is why they had to combine with the Spanish.
Another example of the competence of the RN:
The British sub that sank because crew left the hatches OPEN: Antiques Roadshow reveals Royal Navy's red faces after 40 years
The British sub that sank because crew left the hatches OPEN: Antiques Roadshow reveals Royal Navy's red faces after 40 years
I don't see Britain or most of the rest of the world facing any threat an aircraft carrier would help defend against. Carriers are designed for offense, not defence, so unless Britain intends to return the good old days of showing the flag in foreign waters much the way the US navy does now I suspect it would be much farther ahead in investing in less showy, but more effective hardware.