Chesapeake Bay 1781

From what I’ve read, on September 5th 1781, the RN naval squadron caught the French naval squadron with their pants down anchored in Chesapeake Bay and had the opportunity to attack them as they emerged in ones and twos from the bay but being English gentleman allowed the French to pull their pants up again and get ready for battle – the rest is history.

Anyone want to hazard a guess at world history if the RN had kicked the French while they were down and Cornwallis wasn't forced to surrender

http://p210.ezboard.com/ftheworldatwar7 ... D=72.topic

 

As Sun Tzu says, when the enemy is crossing a ford (in this case, leaving a port), strike him when half his force is across. The commentators provide an example of a Duke of Sung who decided to be chivalric and let his enemy cross and organize himself fully before attacking. Naturally, he was defeated. The translator adds how Mao Tse Tung has later been quoted: "we are not the Duke of Sung!"

In other words, how very stupid of the British to waste a piece of that vital naval superiority like that.

 

Actually the "english gentleman" story that they did not want to attack before the french fleet before it was ready is pure fiction.

What is true is that the english fleet under Admiral Hood did reach Cheasapeake bay when french fleet under Admiral De Grasse was not ready.

But at the time conventional tactic was that the ships of a fleet were to form up a line before battle.This, the english did.

By the time they had formed their line, the french had been able to cut their anchors and had begun to form their own line.

The gentleman legend was later invented by the english to explain their setback.

 

Further to Roel's example, try the battle of Mauldon.

I am quite sure that the 'Sporting English Gentlemen' story was made up afterwards - and I'm sure it was also used to show how dashed unsporting the French were for going and winning like that!

 

You win some and lose some. British navel tactics didn't change until 1805.

 

The Hood touch

So, no Hood touch then???

 

Re: The Hood touch

Nope. Hood wasn't even in command of the British fleet at the Battle of the Chesapeake; Samuel Graves was.

 

You are correct.
But Hood too was with the british navy in north america at the time, wasn't he?

 

Googled

I've lost the site I found about the battle previously (not where I read about the catching the French with their pants down though). but a bit of Googling

http://college.hmco.com/history/readers ... london.htm

http://college.hmco.com/history/readers ... eparis.htm

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1320.html

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/RevWar ... Ytn-15.htm

http://www.richardferrie.com/hood.htm

http://www.usahistory.info/south/Yorktown.html

http://www.patriotresource.com/battles/ ... page4.html

http://www.americanrevolution.org/degrasse.html

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_bo ... hh14b1.htm


I could go on but I'll leave it at this.....

Anyway - any suggestions as to world history if England had held onto what it owned in North America at this time - would it ever have been a long term possibility with government back in London (England)???

 

Yes, he was. He later served under Admiral Rodney at the Battle of the Saintes in 1782.

 

Every word of that is true.

I would however give Nelson more credit then 1805 however because he fought and won many sea battles were he ignored traditional naval tactics and simply surprised his enemies before Trafalgar.

Trafalgar was Nelson's most important but certainly not the only battle he fought.

 

Nelson also fought at the Nile in 1798 (IIRC) and Copenhagen in 1803 (again, IIRC).