The American Navy was literally the same size as a coast guard at the time, so how did they do so well?
Did the Brits just get too cocky for their own good after constantly curb stomping the French Navy over the last two decades or something?
I don't get it.

>as a coast guard
saaaaaaaarrrrrr

>>17797480
What?

they didn't.
there was only 1 ship on ship duel in the entire war by the way - the americans surrendered in less than 15 minutes.

>>17797533
This is terrible cope.
There were about 43 naval engagements throughout the war and the US Navy won nearly all of them, but how did they do it?

>>17797541
>small highly trained tactical raiding navy
>only fight battles you're sure to win while they're distracted with france
They also didn't have disloyalty like the army did

>>17797474 (OP)
The 1812 war was completly irrelevant and all naval resources were in Europe. Holy shit mutts are deluded, no wonder their decadent empire is going to crash hard

>>17797541
no one other than americans writes about the war of 1812, that's why your head is full of nonsense and what's essentially make believe.

grand scale - US was blockaded at sea almost immediately and the blockade was never broken, or even came close to being broken. that was the foremost reason why the US was bankrupt and begging for armistice and why the northeastern states were against the war from the outset.
minor scale - only 1 duel during the war, americans surrendered in less than 15 minutes. you can google the uss chesapeake, it was broken up and used to roof a deano's house

>>17797553
>don't play chess with a pigeon.jpg

>>17797694
is that meant to be clever?

>>17797552
>I’ve never heard about the war of 1812 so that means it’s irrelevant
COPE, your precious Royal Navy got embarrassed by a fucking coast guard and there’s nothing you can do about that hahah.
>Holy shit mutts are deluded
I’m not an American, but keep seething about a war that happened over 210 years ago.
>>17797553
>we bongs don’t write about embarrassing things that have happened to us
Yeah everyone knows, unless you can blame some other country for it, am I right?
>c-can we all just forget about all the other naval b-b-battles and only focus on this one minor engagement that makes my beloved r-royal navy look good
This is getting fucking pathetic, even for you Nigel. There were 43 naval engagements which took place during this war and you’re obsessing over just one.

>>17797713
Do you not understand the reference?

>>17797721
If you weren't retarded you would know that frigates were light ships for scoutting and small skirmishes while naval power was measured in ships of the line which none engaged in the 1812 war

>>17797721
we don't write about it because it was a very small scale conflict of minimal interest even at the time. the americans can't decide why they instigated it and the result changed little so why should anyone else care?
i press the chesapeake duel because it was the only engagement where there was a parity of sides. no one other than americans would describe ships with two to three times the gun complement sweeping small frigates as "naval engagements", in large part because no one other than americans would build these utterly useless oversized propaganda ships in the first place. and that leads to my other point you studiously avoided, which was the successful RN blockade that's generally accepted as being the main reason the US pleaded for armistice - ie the exact opposite of your thread premise

>>17797759
>America starts a war with peaceful neighbours for basically no reason
>Gets ROFLstomped by Canadian Lumberjack miltiamen, despite going full warcrimes on the civilian population (We had to burn the 'ville in order to save it)
>Achieves basically nothing at sea
>Redcoats land at Washington and burn the place to the ground
>American economy strangled by British naval blockade
>America desperately begs for peace, then commits some more warcrimes after they get the armistice, for no particular reason
>Only reason America doesn't get annexed again is that it has nothing of value to Britain at that time, and Britain is dealing with real problems back in Europe (Britain stood alone against a tyrannical European despot with dreams of world domination, where have I heard that one before?)
>Also Americans 200 years later: "USA! USA! USA! USA! WE TOTALLY WON THAT ONE MY GUYS!!!!!!"
What level of state run propaganda do you need to get people to that point? Is China taking notes on the American media?

>>17797553
/thread
OP is a delusional amerimutt high on his own farts. Any serious /his/torian familiar with the War knows it was a fucking disaster, we got our asses handed to us multiple times, and that we have coped as hard as humanly possible ever since by pointing to Jackson and his cracker militia btfo'ing some Brits in a swamp *during* peace talks as a """win"""
If the fucking capitol city of your infant nation gets burned down and you fail miserably at taking Canada (the main goal of the whole affair from the outset), you've lost. Simple as
t. amerishart

>>17797867
Britain failed to take the Mississippi River. Britain's Maryland campaign also failed. The United States invasion of Canada failed.

The war resulted in a draw because neither side could successfully carry out their campaigns. The treaty of Ghent resulted in this, essentially just normalizing relationship.

BUT, American did gain this huge moral boost from the war because they were able to withstand another war with Britain and they actually got more concessions out of the treaty of Ghent. There was all this territory along the Canadian border that was disputed by both sides and in the treaty, they Brits relinquished it all to America. The war was very unpopular in Britain, it was seen as a needless distraction, and they gained nothing from it. The war also started with Britain stealing American sailors too because they didnt think America would do anything about it and they invaded Canada.

The war itself was a draw, but America won.

>>17797894
>Britain failed to take the Mississippi River.
Never a serious objective.
>Britain's Maryland campaign also failed.
Barely. And that was after they took D.C. and burned it to the ground.
>The United States invasion of Canada failed.
Miserably failed. Score - Britain: 2 USA
: -1
>The war itself was a draw, but America won.
WRONG
>fail at every objective you set out to achieve
That right there is a loss. The US lost. Hard.
>get a peace treaty only because King Nappy is busy keeping the might of the British Empire busy elsewhere
It's not a """victory""" if you """win""" solely because your opponent is dealing with an even bigger threat elsewhere and can't be bothered to focus on you. And DESPITE THAT the amerishits STILL couldn't gain any of their objectives.

>>17797894
Do you honestly believe this shit Anon? Or are you just trying to troll the Brits ITT?

>>17797894
>The war also started with Britain stealing American sailors
Throughout the entire war America demanded these sailors to be repatriated and Britain promise they would never do it again
This never happened and the matter goes entirely unmentioned in the treaty of Ghent.
Meaning of this was America's primary war goal they failed miserably

>>17797922
It's obviously bait

>>17797910
>taking the MISSISSIPPI RIVER, THE RIVER THAT CONTROLS ALL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTIENENT, was never a serious objective
stopped reading there

>>17797927
With Americans you can never be too sure, they'll unironically make claims that make that one look sane and accurate - and then try to persuade you that you're the retard for not immediately believing them.

>>17797929
Because you're retarded and have no counterargument, yes, I know
>b-b-b-but
Name a single action the Brits took to show that they were serious about gaining control of the Mississippi. I'll wait

>>17797932
True, and OP tried to pretend he's not an amerishart already itt so you just know he is one kek

>>17797932
USA won the war of 1812 because there's McDonald's in London

>>17797941
No anon, you have no counter argument. Youre literally coping by claiming the Mississippi wasnt a serious objective. You know, the river at the center of America, that all other rivers flow into, that if you control you basically control America?
>Name a single action the Brits took to show that they were serious about gaining control of the Mississippi. I'll wait
The battle of New Orleans you fucking idiot. New Orleans is the base of the fucking river, thats why they were trying to take the city. New Orleans was the largest and most important city in the south.

>>17797925
>a main cause of the war was ended before the actual end of the war
>since they didnt demand an end to this in the treaty, this means that it was not a casus belli
Are you retarded?

>>17797957
>Louisiana
>in 1815 and with a force that got btfo'd by some hillbilly militia
0/10 bait harder

>>17797947
The Soviets won the Cold War, because America never occupied a single square centimeter of Soviet land, never even beat actual Soviet troops in a single engagement - and Communist infiltrators completely dominate the American political, academic, and social spheres.

>>17797963
That isn't what I said

>>17797965
>NAME A SINGLE ACTION CHUD!
>name one of the most famous battles of the war
>N-NOT THAT ONE! IT DOESNT COUNT BECAUSE WE GOT BTFO IN THAT BATTLE!
lol fuck off back to getting arrested for hate speech faggot. You're done.

>>17797971
>dude the Brits were totally going to take the Mississippi just trust me bro that's why they waited until the last year of the "war" to go to Louisiana bro come on just trust me bro it totally wasn't because they saw Maryland as a waste of men bro and didn't do a goddamn thing to take it from the North or any other point whatsoever bro please just believe me bro
Uh-huh
>some 21st century schizoid nonsense about hate speech
Aaaaand there it is. The /pol/tranny always reveals himself

>>17797474 (OP)
It takes Anglos to beat Anglos, simple as

>>17797978
>coping and getting triggered
lol go back to lelddit faggot

>>17797990

Those early frigate-on-frigate duels were a boost to American propaganda but meaningless in the bigger picture. Britain easily blockaded American ports and was able to land massive expeditionary forces without opposition. American privateers were still a factor just like they had been in the Revolution but they were more economic pests than effective naval forces.
The naval battles on the inland lakes were big American strategic wins and kept us from getting utterly clowned on the Canadian front.

>>17798003
>Britain easily blockaded American ports and was able to land massive expeditionary forces without opposition.
Their Chesapeake invasion was a failure.

>>17798006
>Non-Sequitur! I choose you!

Bump

>>17797981
This

americans seem almost north korean tier when it comes to delusional revisionism and their national history

>>17799041
>seem
>almost

Nobody outside of Canada, UK, and USA ever think about this war. Canadians obsess over it because it’s practically the only historically relevant thing they have over the US, despite their entire identity revolving around that country. The UK obsesses over it because it enables the modern Brit to pretend that they “fixed” the humiliation of losing the colonies only to become eclipsed by them later. Americans obsess over it because they can’t stand the idea of their country not having immediately been a superpower at birth, and that they indeed used to get fucked. All three go online and endeavor to relitigate the conflict in their favor, when in reality it was an embarrassment for everyone involved. Most of the “Canadian” victories were accomplished by troops sent from over the Atlantic or by allied tribes – so they claim to have fought the war single-handedly and personally burnt the enemy capital, even though that was done by the British navy. The might of the British empire failed once again to reign in their uppity ex-colonies and had to once again treat them as equals in front of the world after continual losses to backwoods hicks and dinghy pirates – so the jingoists jump at every opportunity to pretend that actually the empire never cared about this, it’s a nothingburger, what war? The Americans got firmly shown up to be an underdeveloped regional power still far behind Europe, and incapable of actually defeating such a country without direct aid from a rival empire – so they have to play up the conflict as if it were a major piece of world history and try to claim every minor skirmish as some epic victory.

tl;dr
>burning Washington DC is the only relevant thing Canada ever did, and they didn’t even do that
>Brits yet again couldn’t defeat their retard children and had to sign another cuck treaty with them
>USA proven to be a weak trailer park country who can only get a “win” if conditions in Europe favor it
Yappy monkeys.

>>17799160
sure whatever fat

>>17799041
The largest battle in the "American revolution" took place in Gibraltar. As in Spain. Tells you everything you need to know.

brits seething because americans vassalized them and made them their bitch post ww2 lol

>>17799160
Americans who are smart (if you find one) admit that President Madison fucked the dog and was force to sign a humiliating treaty that handed over New Orleans to the Brits. That treaty got fixed in postproduction by Andrew Jackson who forced the Brits out of New Orleans. That's when the humiliation shifted to the Brits.
In sum, Jackson was GOAT and Madison was a fucked goat.

anyway fuck Canada, day of the rake when?

>>17799236
>President Madison fucked the dog

>>17797474 (OP)
Note they're mostly all 1-1 engagements, the Americans purposefully played to their strengths and built the famous 44-gun Frigates explicitly because they could outmatch the British on these kinds of engagements, but they avoided major fleet actions with multiple ships or heavy hitters like First Rates, Third Rates, etc.
Basically the Brits could pound the Americans into dust in a fleet battle on the high seas (i.e not fucking Lake Erie where the RN couldn't actually enter with their fleet), but the Americans knew they didn't need to fight that kind of battle and avoided being dragged into one

>>17797553
>one other than americans writes about the war of 1812,
...have you ever heard of this little country called Canada?

>>17799160
>Nobody outside of Canada, UK, and USA ever think about this war
Yeah no shit, nobody outside of Sweden thinks about their wars with Denmark over Skåne either but the Scandis still discuss them, turns out people are interested in their own cultures and shit

>>17797752
>>17797759
>it doesn't count cause da ship was different
There's no cope like bongcuck cope.

>Captain Broke boarded Chesapeake at the head of a party of 20 men. They met little resistance from Chesapeake's crew, most of whom had run below deck. The only resistance from Chesapeake came from her contingent of marines. The British soon overwhelmed them; only nine escaped injury out of 44.[98] Captain Broke was severely injured in the fighting on the forecastle, being struck in the head with a sword. Soon after, Shannon's crew pulled down Chesapeake's flag. Only 15 minutes had elapsed from the first exchange of gunfire to the capture.[99][100]
Imagine losing in 15 minutes fucking KEK
>Later that year a report was made concerning Chesapeake's performance in British service. Her captain observed that she was strongly constructed, but criticized the excessive overhang of the stern. He concluded that she was not a suitable ship to serve as a model for copying. Her speed under sail was not impressive: 9 kn (17 km/h; 10 mph) close-hauled and 11 kn (20 km/h; 13 mph) large.[110]
And then your ship is so shit it gets turned into a house

>>17797764
>>17797867
>>17797910
>>17797941
>>17797978
Hey idiots, this thread is about the naval battles of 1812, it's not about land warfare of 1812. Try to stay on topic you dumb yellow toothed retards.
Not a single one of you morons have been able to tell me how America won these battles. Now I know you inbreds cope and seethe about everything, yes I know it's apart of your national character to whine about every single thing in life, but try and at least try to pay attention.

>>17799765
poor chesapeake was the ship the built with the leftover materials

>>17799794
holy cope

>>17799765
>overweight and slow
Sounds like a proper American

>>17797474 (OP)
The 6 american "frigates" were ships-of-the-line classed as frigates as an early attempt at propaganda. For some reason Wikipedia persists in describing them as frigates, even though there were actual ships-of-the-line with lower displacement. Good for home morale, but they had no effect on the outcome of the war at sea, where the US was at a severe disadvantage it never overcame.

>>17799765
>continues to obsess over one duel
Now explain the Battle of Lake Erie, why did your precious bongs decide to mass surrender?
You've clearly been avoiding the most famous battle this entire time...I wonder why..

>>17799284
Finally a proper answer, thanks.

>>17799160
>The UK obsesses over it
No? It's not taught in school, any bong you see that knows of it has heard of it through americans bringing it up

>>17799160
>The UK obsesses over it because it enables the modern Brit to pretend that they “fixed” the humiliation of losing the colonies
you are literally the first person in 213 years to conceive of this ridiculous notion