Re: Havana Squadron at time of Battle of Chesapeake -- NAVAL WARFARE IN THE AGE OF SAIL 1650-1815

Friday, May 2, 2008 - New servers are in! Click-in for more info!

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:23:09 05/08/08 Thu
Author: Albert Parker
Subject: Re: Havana Squadron at time of Battle of Chesapeake
In reply to: Tom Cundiff 's message, "Re: Havana Squadron at time of Battle of Chesapeake" on 08:59:14 05/08/08 Thu

>Howdy Albert,
>
>Reinforcements under Rear-Admiral Darby?
>
>Now, that begs another question. What was the
>composition of the reinforcements Darby was bringing?
>
My apologies, there was an actively-employed Admiral Darby in the British navy but the officer who arrived at New York on September 24, 1781 to relieve Rear-Admiral Thomas Graves was Rear-Admiral Robert Digby. His flagship was Prince George, 98, and he was accompanied by Canada, 74 (a very efficient ship under Capt. Hon. William Cornwallis, brother of the general and later commander of the blockade of Brest during the 1805 campaign), and Lion, 64.

>Also, what vessels were in New York that were under
>repair and might, given time, have been able to
>reinforce Graves?
>
During the Battle of the Chesapeake, Robust, 74 and Prudent, 64, were under repair at New York. They sailed with Graves and Digby from New York on October 19 to make a second relief attempt, but that was the day that General Cornwallis surrendered.

Graves had thus been strengthened by a net of only four ships, counting the loss of Terrible, 74, burned after the battle as unserviceable because of damage sustained—1 × 98, 1 × 74, 2 × 64. Unfortunately for Graves and Cornwallis, de Grasse also had two sources of reinforcement, and on a net basis they were larger, only magnifying the French advantage:
1. The Newport squadron under Barras, at sea on September 5 bringing the French siege train: Duc de Bourgogne, 80; Neptune, Conquérant, 74; Provence, Ardent, Jason, Éveillé, 64.
2. Ships that had been up the Chesapeake in the James and York rivers participating in the close blockade of Yorktown on September 5: Glorieux, 74; Triton, Vaillant, 64.

The British also had a few 50's that they might have put into the line as a desperation measure; but these were not considered any more "fit for the line" than were frigates.

>Interesting ideas about how to incorporate the
>Spanish. And, yes, I do believe that they would have
>had misgivings about joining the French. You present
>a couple of plausable scenarios, if not three or four.
>
I have from Schomberg "A List of the French and Spanish Squadrons, . . . cruising off Cape Francois, with the Loss they sustained, in a violent Storm, on the 25th and 26th February, 1781." According to this English list
Of the French ships,
• Palmier (74) threw 36 guns overboard
• Victoire (74) and Réfléchi (64) were dismasted
• Intrépide was driven ashore and wrecked
Of the Spanish ships
• San Luis (80) lost her mainmast
• San Nicolas (80) and Guerrero (70) were totally dismasted
• San Francisco de Asís (70) and San Pablo (70) foundered
• Gallardo (70), Arrogante (70), Velasco (70), San Genaro (70), and Dragón (64) "arrived in port much damaged"
• San Agustín (70) and Astuto (64) were "missing"

I don't know to what extent the damaged ships had been repaired by the time de Grasse left Havana. Victoire, Palmier, and Réfléchi all were repaired in time to participate in the Chesapeake campaign, but the Spanish crews, including fewer seamen, would have been less capable of assisting in repair of their ships, and the Spanish had more to repair. On the other hand, they had the shipwrights, mastmakers, riggers, and other artifiders of the Havanna astillero. In trying to come up with a plausible list of Spanish reinforcements for de Grasse, it might be best to omit the ships damaged in this storm. Note, moreover, that none of the ships that Schomberg thinks from English sources were lost actually were: San Francisco de Asís and San Agustín remained in the Spanish navy until 1805 (both fought at Trafalgar), San Pablo until 1854, Astuto until 1810. We may assume that they were among the ships most badly damaged.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

War data about SOLs lost -- Gerardo, 16:09:00 05/08/08 Thu

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>>Howdy Albert, >> >>Reinforcements under Rear-Admiral Darby? >> >>Now, that begs another question. What was the >>composition of the reinforcements Darby was bringing? >> >My apologies, there was an actively-employed Admiral >Darby in the British navy but the officer who arrived >at New York on September 24, 1781 to relieve >Rear-Admiral Thomas Graves was Rear-Admiral Robert >Digby. His flagship was Prince George, >98, and he was accompanied by Canada, 74 (a >very efficient ship under Capt. Hon. William >Cornwallis, brother of the general and later commander >of the blockade of Brest during the 1805 campaign), >and Lion, 64. > >>Also, what vessels were in New York that were under >>repair and might, given time, have been able to >>reinforce Graves? >> >During the Battle of the Chesapeake, Robust, 74 >and Prudent, 64, were under repair at New York. > They sailed with Graves and Digby from New York on >October 19 to make a second relief attempt, but that >was the day that General Cornwallis surrendered. > >Graves had thus been strengthened by a net of only >four ships, counting the loss of Terrible, 74, >burned after the battle as unserviceable because of >damage sustained—1 × 98, 1 × 74, 2 × 64. >Unfortunately for Graves and Cornwallis, de Grasse >also had two sources of reinforcement, and on a net >basis they were larger, only magnifying the French >advantage: >1. The Newport squadron under Barras, at sea >on September 5 bringing the French siege train: >Duc de Bourgogne, 80; Neptune, >Conquérant, 74; Provence, Ardent, Jason, >Éveillé, 64. >2. Ships that had been up the Chesapeake in >the James and York rivers participating in the close >blockade of Yorktown on September 5: Glorieux, >74; Triton, Vaillant, 64. > >The British also had a few 50's that they might have >put into the line as a desperation measure; but these >were not considered any more "fit for the line" than >were frigates. > >>Interesting ideas about how to incorporate the >>Spanish. And, yes, I do believe that they would have >>had misgivings about joining the French. You present >>a couple of plausable scenarios, if not three or four. >> >I have from Schomberg "A List of the French and >Spanish Squadrons, . . . cruising off Cape Francois, >with the Loss they sustained, in a violent Storm, on >the 25th and 26th February, 1781." According to >this English list >Of the French ships, >• Palmier (74) threw 36 guns overboard >• Victoire (74) and Réfléchi (64) were dismasted >• Intrépide was driven ashore and wrecked >Of the Spanish ships >• San Luis (80) lost her mainmast >• San Nicolas (80) and Guerrero (70) were totally >dismasted >• San Francisco de Asís (70) and San Pablo (70) >foundered >• Gallardo (70), Arrogante (70), Velasco (70), San >Genaro (70), and Dragón (64) "arrived in port much >damaged" >• San Agustín (70) and Astuto (64) were "missing" > >I don't know to what extent the damaged ships had been >repaired by the time de Grasse left Havana. >Victoire, Palmier, and Réfléchi all were >repaired in time to participate in the Chesapeake >campaign, but the Spanish crews, including fewer >seamen, would have been less capable of assisting in >repair of their ships, and the Spanish had more to >repair. On the other hand, they had the shipwrights, >mastmakers, riggers, and other artifiders of the >Havanna astillero. In trying to come up with a >plausible list of Spanish reinforcements for de >Grasse, it might be best to omit the ships damaged in >this storm. Note, moreover, that none of the ships >that Schomberg thinks from English sources were lost >actually were: San Francisco de Asís and >San Agustín remained in the Spanish navy until >1805 (both fought at Trafalgar), San Pablo >until 1854, Astuto until 1810. We may assume >that they were among the ships most badly damaged.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.