On this day 1 March

[7eat51]

During the early morning hours of the 1st of March 1799, the HMS Sybille, formally the French ship Sibylle, captured the French frigate Forte in the Bay of Bengal. Sybille, commanded by Captain Edward Cooke, was in search of Forte when she saw flashes in the distance. Originally mistaking these for lightning, Cooke and his crew soon realized it was the signature of cannon fire. Heading toward the Forte, the French captain, Beaulieu-Leloup, mistook the oncoming ship as a merchant vessel. Upon recognizing the Sybille, Beaulieu-Leloup closed with his British counterpart and commenced firing. Cooke did not immediately answer, but when he was within pistol shot range, he delivered two broadsides and the fight began in earnest. For the next two hours, the two ships exchanged gunfire, resulting in the deaths of the Beaulieu-Leloup and many of his officers and men. Cooke sustained a mortal injury that claimed his life three months later.

HMS Sybille vs. the French frigate Forte:


For more information on today's event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...Sibylle_(1792)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...e_Forte_(1794)

[Coog]

One thing interesting about this engagement is that Forte was armed with 24-pounder long guns to Sybille's 18-pounder long guns yet Sybille was able to capture her. Much was made about the United States winning engagements between the American 44-gun 24-pounder frigates and British 38-gun 18-pounder frigates being unfair due to the Americans having an advantage with 24-pounders.

[David Manley]

I don't think "unfair" is really the right term. More "unsurprising" :)

And I'm guessing you mean 18pdrs rather than 38pdrs :)

[Coog]

I'm guessing you mean 18pdrs rather than 38pdrs

Thanks, corrected

I don't think "unfair" is really the right term. More "unsurprising"

So, was the taking of Forte by Sybille surprising?

[David Manley]

What, a British frigate taking a French one despite the Frenchman having a heavier broadside? No, not really. I think I posted stats on British vs French frigate actions some time back. It was a pretty run of the mill event, for all the reasons we've discussed before, but primarily better training, tactics and rate of fire.

[Coog]

What, a British frigate taking a French one despite the Frenchman having a heavier broadside? No, not really. I think I posted stats on British vs French frigate actions some time back. It was a pretty run of the mill event, for all the reasons we've discussed before, but primarily better training, tactics and rate of fire.

Okay, the usual explanation...Forte was French.

[David Manley]

Do you have an alternative?

[Coog]

Do you have an alternative?

No not really, there seems to be some consistency with that one.

[Coog]

One thing interesting about this engagement is that Forte was armed with 24-pounder long guns to Sybille's 18-pounder long guns yet Sybille was able to capture her. Much was made about the United States winning engagements between the American 44-gun 24-pounder frigates and British 38-gun 18-pounder frigates being unfair due to the Americans having an advantage with 24-pounders.

I don't think "unfair" is really the right term. More "unsurprising"

So, was the taking of Forte by Sybille surprising?

What, a British frigate taking a French one despite the Frenchman having a heavier broadside? No, not really. I think I posted stats on British vs French frigate actions some time back. It was a pretty run of the mill event, for all the reasons we've discussed before, but primarily better training, tactics and rate of fire.

Okay, we've established that the British were able to defeat the French when facing a better armed ship because their crews were well trained, able to produce a higher rate of fire, and their officers used better tactics.

Why then were they not able to do the same against the Americans and their defeats were "unsurprising"?

[csadn]

One thing interesting about this engagement is that Forte was armed with 24-pounder long guns to Sybille's 18-pounder long guns yet Sybille was able to capture her. Much was made about the United States winning engagements between the American 44-gun 24-pounder frigates and British 38-gun 18-pounder frigates being unfair due to the Americans having an advantage with 24-pounders.

Well, there's this monumental screwup on the French side's part [from _Forte_ link]: "At 12:15, Forte opened fire with a few shots, which were left unanswered until she came down the side of Sybille, at which point the British frigate delivered a full broadside, turned about and raked her with a second broadside. In the confusion of the battle, the gun crew of Forte were not advised that Sybille had circled around to starboard, and they kept firing their port guns at a ship whose silouhette could be seen through the smoke, but which was actually one of the prizes. After some time, the mistake was realised and the starboard battery was manned; however, as part of the crew of Forte had been dispatched to man her prizes, her forecastle guns could not be used."

It helps to shoot at the ship which is shooting back....

[Coog]

Well, there's this monumental screwup on the French side's part [from _Forte_ link]: "At 12:15, Forte opened fire with a few shots, which were left unanswered until she came down the side of Sybille, at which point the British frigate delivered a full broadside, turned about and raked her with a second broadside. In the confusion of the battle, the gun crew of Forte were not advised that Sybille had circled around to starboard, and they kept firing their port guns at a ship whose silouhette could be seen through the smoke, but which was actually one of the prizes. After some time, the mistake was realised and the starboard battery was manned; however, as part of the crew of Forte had been dispatched to man her prizes, her forecastle guns could not be used."

It helps to shoot at the ship which is shooting back....

What can you say?...they were French.

[David Manley]

Okay, we've established that the British were able to defeat the French when facing a better armed ship because their crews were well trained, able to produce a higher rate of fire, and their officers used better tactics.

Why then were they not able to do the same against the Americans and their defeats were "unsurprising"?

Because, as we have also already discussed, the Americans were also well trained, could sustain a high rate of fire and used decent tactics as well. Hardly surprising though given the genesis of the US Navy in the Royal Navy

[Coog]

Because, as we have also already discussed, the Americans were also well trained, could sustain a high rate of fire and used decent tactics as well. Hardly surprising though given the genesis of the US Navy in the Royal Navy

To sum it up, if you went up against an American 24-pounder frigate with a British 18-pounder frigate, it could be said that it would have been expected or "unsurprising" that you were going to lose. After all the American ship was better armed and Captain and crew were just as good (actually better in most cases according to some sources) as those on British ships. Why then did the British engage the American 24-pounder frigates with 18-pounder frigates on three occasions, resulting in the loss of all three frigates?

[David Manley]

Several reasons, including (in no particular order)

Overconfidence borne out of fighting the likes of the French for many years an a consequential expectation of victory (which is why the chattering classes were outraged when RN frigates didn't routinely overcome bigger, heavier armed US frigates)

An "engage the enemy wherever he is encountered" tradition / mentality

Because (if you are willing to extend a 38 to a 40) sometimes it came off.

[Coog]

Several reasons, including (in no particular order)

Overconfidence borne out of fighting the likes of the French for many years an a consequential expectation of victory (which is why the chattering classes were outraged when RN frigates didn't routinely overcome bigger, heavier armed US frigates)

An "engage the enemy wherever he is encountered" tradition / mentality

Because (if you are willing to extend a 38 to a 40) sometimes it came off.

To get to the point, it was only "unsurprising" after three good thrashings were dealt.

[David Manley]

Maybe, but then again as I said sometimes it came off, the tactics improved, the losses were sustainable and the ultimate aim was achieved.

[csadn]

Maybe, but then again as I said sometimes it came off, the tactics improved, the losses were sustainable and the ultimate aim was achieved.

Uh-huh -- the "Indian buffer state" in Michigan was not only defeated, but annihilated*; the Great Lakes wound up having to be shared, rather than being solely-British water; the three invasions launched in 1814 all failed miserably, leaving Britain no closer to actually defeating the US in 1815 than they were in 1812; and the rest of the causes of the conflict went away when Napoleon was defeated.

[*:This is why some in the US wanted to "take Canada"; they wanted to prevent Britain using it as, to use a more-modern parallel, Cambodia to Tecumseh's Vietnam -- an untouchable safe-haven for supplying Indian raids into US territory.]

[David Manley]

Uh-huh -- the "Indian buffer state" in Michigan was not only defeated, but annihilated*; the Great Lakes wound up having to be shared, rather than being solely-British water; the three invasions launched in 1814 all failed miserably, leaving Britain no closer to actually defeating the US in 1815 than they were in 1812; and the rest of the causes of the conflict went away when Napoleon was defeated.

[*:This is why some in the US wanted to "take Canada"; they wanted to prevent Britain using it as, to use a more-modern parallel, Cambodia to Tecumseh's Vietnam -- an untouchable safe-haven for supplying Indian raids into US territory.]