Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

French fire upwards, Brits fire downwards = historical?


ObiQuiet

Recommended Posts

(The following discussion, if any, should have no bearing on the in-game mechanics being discussed wrt "high-lee kiting".)

 

Since the first time I heard of it, I thought the idea that the French aimed for sails and the Brits aimed for hulls must be an over-generalization.   There seem to be too many obvious factors that would matter much more than nationality:

* Where the ships were relative to the wind

* Which captain(s) desired to sink, capture or evade their enemies

* The relative strengths of the ships broadside, and who wants or doesn't want a close enagement.

* Whether it is a single ship or fleet engagement

etc.

 

So I looked at one of the earliest sources for tactics:

John Clerk of Eldin's  Essay on Naval Tactics  (~1782)

 

While Clerk of Eldin isn't a primary source himself, his book a useful source for at least two reasons:

1. He documented the knowledge of a neighbor of his, who had been a serving RN officer

2. His tactics were read and studied by many, including Nelson, who used them at Trafalgar.

 

However, even this book cites the French-Up, Brits-Down idea as conventional wisdom:

 

 It having been often said that the French have made it a rule to throw the whole effect of their shot more particularly into the rigging of their enemy and that the British on the other hand have been as attentive to point the force of their fire against the hull 

 

 

I guess this is the main written source of today's conventional wisdom.   I'm trying to get to the origins behind "It having been often said..."

 

Thoughts from those more knowledgeable than I am?   I should also look into the various Fighting Instructions to see if they dictated where to aim.

 

Thank you,

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aerodynamicist have you not read about the Sopwith Camel's gyroscopic precession?  There certainly is a well-known basis for its left vs right turn flight characteristics.  Unless I misread your post...

 

All rotary (spinning) engined aircraft had gyroscopic precession (Pup, N17, Dr1 ...), but as mentioned other design quirks of the Camel, such as it's concentrated and forward placed centre of mass, small empennage control and stabilizing surfaces, resulted in some rather nasty handling behaviour (or beneficial depending on whether you mastered it in a dogfight).  It is said that the Camel killed more pilots in training than the Germans ever shot down.  Could be a myth, but I wouldn't bet against the truth of it.

 

The aircraft designers of the time didn't understand as much as they needed to, though they did build some efficient killing machines by the middle of WWI.  For instance, ailerons were not 'balanced' till after the war, so during WWI if you tried an aggressive aileron turn you get negative induced yaw, rotation of the aircraft on the vertical axis away from the direction of your turn.  It feels very weird and unnatural.  You have to start turns with the rudder (induce positive yaw) before or during application of the ailerons to avoid stalls.  Thus the term stick and rudder flying, which you don't really need to do anymore (because of modern balanced ailerons) I suppose unless performing aggressive acrobatics.

Edited by SYN_Bloody-Bandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point well-taken. I'm also frustrated when a poor reading of a source is used to support specious assertions, eg the pirates thread.

That's why I'm interested if there better evidence than "I heard" and "people say".

Edited by Lt. Obiquiet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this doesn't sound like an "I heard" statement, as I don't have the source with me (being a railroader I'm not home very often) but I do believe Brian Lavery's "Nelson's Navy" book had some info on the French firing at masts and the British firing at the hulls debate, but the theory is held up by the number of casualties taken from either. I don't recall any numbers, but I recall the French casualty numbers being significantly higher than the British because of the difference in tactics. Of course there are other factors that can effect this as well, such as ship design, proficiency in gunnery, among other things. Also, weren't the French naval commanders also less experienced than the British ones due to the revolutionaries killing off a lot of the people associated with Louis XVI or thought to be associated? Anyways, if anyway is able to post some of the casualty numbers that would probably help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this doesn't sound like an "I heard" statement, as I don't have the source with me (being a railroader I'm not home very often) but I do believe Brian Lavery's "Nelson's Navy" book had some info on the French firing at masts and the British firing at the hulls debate, but the theory is held up by the number of casualties taken from either. I don't recall any numbers, but I recall the French casualty numbers being significantly higher than the British because of the difference in tactics. Of course there are other factors that can effect this as well, such as ship design, proficiency in gunnery, among other things. Also, weren't the French naval commanders also less experienced than the British ones due to the revolutionaries killing off a lot of the people associated with Louis XVI or thought to be associated? Anyways, if anyway is able to post some of the casualty numbers that would probably help.

 

Yes, an argument based on casualty data might show a bias in targeting, as long as it's corrected for some factors.   Lavery is sometimes pretty good -- maybe he's citing a research paper or war college study we could find.   I'll add that book to my list; it may be in a library here somewhere.  Or when you make it back home and can look it up, that would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read it many times in books from the period but since I'm English and tend only to read English sources it could well be a case of history being told by the victor. It was seen as cowardly and underhand to fire at the masts and rigging and as such befitted the image the British would have liked to paint of the French.

 

On the other hand it does make perfect sense. The British, having the larger navy would always win in a war of attrition, so fighting ship for ship was preferable to them. This was the thinking behind John Clerk of Eldin's essays. Bring battles to decisive conclusions. The French were often outnumbered so would usually want to flee. In fact it wasn't just the French, it was usually the case in many battles that the British would be the pursuer.

While you mention John Clerk of Eldin's Essay on Naval Tactics, have a read of this. It's a partial critique of his essay by non other than Commodore Charles Morris. Interesting stuff if you're into the tactical stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...