In the Age of Sail, and even into the early portion of the ironclad age, sailing one's fleet into the opposing fleet and breaking their line (accepting that this would mean allowing your own T to be crossed on the run in) was a battle-winning tactic that could be _devastatingly_ effective (Four Days, the Saintes, Trafalgar, Lissa...). By the 20th century, however, sailing into an enemy battleline and allowing your T to be crossed had become a near-surefire way to get your _own_ fleet shredded unless you could rapidly and cleanly disengage (Tsushima, Jutland, Surigao Strait...). When did breaking the line cease to be a viable fleet battle tactic?

The Akagi and Kaga originally had multi flight deck plans when completed but later were refitted to have a single flight deck. Were there any plans to do something similar to the ships of the Courageous class. If not what design changes could the royal navy have done in a hypothetical refit to those ships.

At around 2:25, you show an image of constitution. I can't help but notice the strange strings/rope pieces dangling on the sails. I have seen those one many an age of sail ship's drawing or picture, what are they and what purpose do they serve?

There are a lot of fictional naval and sci-fi uniforms in media, which are some of your favorite?

Besides CSS Alabama did the Confederates have any other effective commerce raiders?

You too? That’s why if you see me on you tube I’m missing a leg. Dude used fire control and rangefinders and I joked how that was useless at 15 paces. I was in hospital for months after the amputation… I nearly died from getting septic. I was given medicine that was within the scope of the channel…

You can infinitely improve any ship by removing William Bainbridge from command (see his losing of the philadelphia to the barbary pirates) but yes putting in a competent officer like Stewart is always good

Given the fact that both British Captains had coordinated, and done so well I rather suspect that is no more than propaganda.

I wouldn’t be so sure, if I were you. The two British commanders had already revealed their best tricks, and what they could accomplish working in tandem. If a couple high school seniors wanted to fight me and I beat the hell out of them, they would be stupid to try me a second time.

L​@@paulprovenzano3755

In that period, if you kept your men happy and confident in their captain, they'd be thoroughly excited at the prospect of battle. I wouldn't be, but that's beside the point.

Consider the issue of prize money. When the war ended, these people would be unemployed sailors in a world now overflowing with such. But if they took one more good prize, maybe they'd get enough money out of it to make it through the lean years that'd inevitably follow...

Frigate captains were crazy aggressive, kind of like destroyer skippers in WWII. Always out looking for trouble.

umm not quite, HMS Cumberland had arrived :) XX

She was firing a gun salute, not just firing at random.

Fate favors fools, small children, and ships named Enterprise. Constitution probably got a bit of the leftover karma.

* Tour of the USS Constitution.

she was too busy... defending against japanese torpedo boats

It usually takes about 5-10 minutes. We're here pretty early! 😅

he made one a few years back: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bahmoadju9rHpZs.html

He has done at least a timeline of the Great Lakes. look for "War of 1812 - Freshwater Edition"

most of the crew were british ffs.

​@@j5edgar2h Crew? How about the leadership if the vessel?

most of America was British

As would I. I first read that book several years ago as I was recovering in hospital from bowel cancer surgery. The nurses would ask me if I wanted the TV turned to some cable channel and I simply pointed to the book laying atop me and told them "I'm good, thanks!"

@@ryanaegis3544 rigs vary but additional fore-aft sails when all sails were set weren't unusual. Whether this is an exact representation to Constitution under full sail at the time though I am not immediately sure of, I'd need to dig up her sail plan.

Was it on Portuguese territory? If so, no. The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance is the oldest continuous Alliance in the world, and is still in effect. Britain and Portugal have been Allies since 1386.... And no that is not a typo, Britain and Portugal have indeed been allies for just shy of 640 years.... In fact the US benefited from it in WWII as Portugal allowed basing rights on I believe the Azores. Had it not been for that Alliance between the UK and Portugal the US likely would not have been allowed the bases. They also sent troops to fight on the Western Front in WWI. The only reason the Portuguese did not join the allies during WWII (they offered) was that Britain was (probably rightly) worried about Spain's reaction, and the threat to Gibraltar Spain swung towards the Axis. Gibraltar was simply too important strategically to risk in that manner so the British convinced the Portuguese not to join the allies... At least not overtly. As Spain supported Germany during the war, Portugal supported the Allies, but it was nothing 'official'....

They certainly fought smart, if not successful. Unfortunately, you have to play the hand you're dealt.

Hi first! I'm second! 😅

​@@TheEDFLegacyI third that

...and why did they say it with the emphasis on the wrong syllable? 😋

Why not? lots of ships so lots of names required. I believe Levant was an historic name for the Eastern Mediterranean? After all there was an HMS Pansy in WWI.

It's not an often forgotten fact, because it's not a fact at all. At best, it's a hypothesis - one that doesn't survive critical examination. It's clear the British government was extremely wary of further conflicts with the US government after the war of 1812-1815, and even more wary after the US Civil War - which showed how quickly the US could build an enormous and skilled navy. Even if arguably not up to British standards, it was far superior to anything any other power could hope to throw across the ocean. The British hated US policies on tariffs - but were unwilling to go to war over them - unlike so often in the past when their commercial interests were threatened. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. No power other than Britain could hope to defeat a nation capable of building such a navy in so short a time - and it would have been logistically insane for another power to even make the attempt. While the British might have been able to do so, the potential cost was far higher than they were willing to pay and they wisely decided a third round of conflict was not in their interests. The British were so interested in peace they even paid compensation for the damages done by Confederate raiders secretly built in Britain, such as CSS Alabama. The Americans in turn were happy to sell the British lots of food products from the midwestern farms of the US (plus other farm products such as cotton for the mills of England), a very convenient thing given that Britain was rapidly reaching the point where she could no longer feed her own people except by foreign trade. Over the long term - until just before WW2 in fact - US tariff policies were quite unfortunate, and there would be a terrible price to pay for them down the road during the Great Depression, but at least the lesson was learned without a war. The 'immunity' the US had until 1941 was in part due to the Atlantic Ocean, and in part earned by the actions of the US people and government. Any role played by the RN was tertiary at best.

@@bluelemming5296 The width of Atlantic was no real immunity everyone from Irish monks to Norse to Spanish had crossed it; however the overwhelming strength of the RN was. The RN controlled the seas of the world even destroying the West African slave trade along with other slave trading hubs even forcing defeated nations including the USA to not only accede to their rules on oceanic slave transport but also to supply warships to police the trade

@@davidmcintyre8145 None of that has any relevance to my point. If every vessel in the Royal Navy had sunk at the end of the US Civil War, or was bought off or otherwise distracted or unavailable, that wouldn't change things in the slightest. No other nation was going to risk trying to invade a nation that had demonstrated the ability to build an enormous (and skilled) fleet in a very short time, had a large population, lots of resources, a demonstrated clear ability to wage war, and was across a large often-stormy ocean. The ability of small groups to cross the Atlantic has no relevance either - logistics is enormously more difficult for any group large enough to be a credible military threat than it is for a small group.

@@bluelemming5296 My answer to you is two ships HMs warrior and HMs Black Prince

​@@davidmcintyre8145 I suggest reading the following as a starting point in broadening your understanding of this topic: Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton by Martin van Creveld

But it wasn't over. It was in the PROCESS of MAYBE being over.

negotiations may have been ongoing, but until that treaty was signed and back in the United States, it wasn't in effect. it's similar to how the guns kept firing until the eleventh hour in the great war.

besides, the British were clearly just as eager for a fight, and just as well informed about the war being over

Don't forget The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the treaty was signed as well, and that was a full on British attack. In other words their own fault. Ships raiding before rumors are confirmed is reasonable.