The Wooden Wall and the Fighting Instructions.

General Questions
#1

Let me preface this question. As an amateur historian, I make a great hat rack. Actually, I’m just a guy who gets interested in a subject, reads a lot of stuff about it, and then gets sidetracked into something else. I could probably research this for myself, but I figured I’d just ask the smartest people on the web.

I’ve been interested lately in the Georgian-era Royal Navy and its influences on the fledgling U.S. Navy of the 1890’s.

My focus was mostly on ship design (6th rate, frigate types) and crewing methods, and I haven’t gotten into tactics or strategy much.

I keep seeing references in passing to something called the “Fighting Instructions.” From context, this seems to be some sort of tactical manual, as opposed to “sailing instructions,” which appear to have been navigational data.

Following the Fighting Instructions also appears to have been mandatory, and officers were evidently disciplined for failing to do so.

This leads me to my multi-part question:
[ul]a) How detailed were these things? General suggestions, play-by-play required tactics, or something in between?

b) Was it fleet-level ship-of-the-wall type stuff only, or did it get right down to single ship actions between frigates and such?

c) What sort of “discipline” could officers expect to face for failure to follow the Instructions to the letter? Court martial?

d) Granted that Age of Sail combat didn’t allow for much fluidity in tactics, these things must have been updated from time to time. What was the procedure for revision, and how would it come about if officers were required to follow the instructions and not try anything new?

e) I can’t believe that what Nelson did at Trafalgar would have been sanctioned in this context. If he had lived, would he have been subject to discipline?

f) Do they still exist? If not, when were they withdrawn?[/ul]

This is just for my own amusement, so it’s not terribly urgent, but any help would be appreciated.

#2

Is this what you are looking for?

#3

Holy crap. Thanks, Reeder.

That link pretty much covers “a” and “b.”

I guess the rest of it falls under Admiralty Law or something.

Heh. I knew this was the place to come for help.

#4

[bold]Exgineer[/bold]

If this really is not urgent I can pretty much answer all the list from reference material I have in the UK and happy to help a fellow history buff. I am not really interested in ship design but much more on actual lusage in war. Trouble is I am currently in Sydney and not back in UK for a couple of week - but for now…

a) How detailed were these things? General suggestions, play-by-play required tactics, or something in between?

b) Was it fleet-level ship-of-the-wall type stuff only, or did it get right down to single ship actions between frigates and such?

[bold]Reeder[/bold]'s mail is super but only part of the story - there were various and conflicting Instructions issued over the decades - the RN was excellent at issuing more instructions but never very good at withdrawing previous ones or explaining how they related!! I can provide more cites…

c) What sort of “discipline” could officers expect to face for failure to follow the Instructions to the letter? Court martial?

The RN were surprisingly practical - if your won no problem, if you lost then courtmarshall (“to encourage the others”)

d) Granted that Age of Sail combat didn’t allow for much fluidity in tactics, these things must have been updated from time to time. What was the procedure for revision, and how would it come about if officers were required to follow the instructions and not try anything new?

See comment to (a) and (b) - Admirals tended to issue instructions not the Admiralty hence the complications.

e) I can’t believe that what Nelson did at Trafalgar would have been sanctioned in this context. If he had lived, would he have been subject to discipline?

Oh yes it was - he issued very detailed instructions on what to do before the Battle which his officers followed very well (bar one squadron I recall who got a bit confused). It was so simple compared to standard line of battle and recognised as much more likely to produce decisive results. It could only work by relying on surperior RN gunnery - accuracy and rate of fire and moral high enough to endure the pounding as they came in. Whilst Nelson claimed it as radical and new it was actually more evolutionary but did formalise what had been done successfully on impulse in the past a few times. It was nicknamed “the Nelson Touch”.

f) Do they still exist? If not, when were they withdrawn?

No they don’t - not least as fleet actions in the RN as then known are now redundant but I do not know when withdrawn. Modern naval tactics are outside my sphere of interest but surely SD has one serving RN officers who know??

If nobody answers everything before I get back drop me a direct email.

#5

I would appreciate that a lot, notquitekarpov.

Like I said, it’s not life or death, but I am extremely interested.

#6

Here you go, Exgineer.

#7

QED’s cite included the aside that

"Nelson`s Signal on 21 October 1805 required twelve hoists

England Expects That Every Man Will Do His D U T Y

The word duty did not appear in the code book and had to be spelled out

253, 269, 863, 261, 471, 958, 220, 370, 4, 21, 19, 24"

In case anyone is interested this most famous signal ever raised caused a good deal of comment and offence within the fleet. Nelson originally wanted to use “confides” rather than “expects” but was pursuaded of the change by his flag officer who otherwise would have had to spell out “confides” too - as well as D-U-T-Y.

But it changed the meaning quite a bit - one jacktar being heard to ask his buddy, “England expects?! - What’s he on about? But I’ve always done my duty haven’t I, Jack?”.

And more than one captain was irritiated commenting, “Why does Nelson keep signalling, we all know what to do don’t we?” - which brings us back nicely to the clarity of Nelson’s tactical vision and it’s successful communication to his officers before the battle.

#8

Oh I forgot - sorry…

Nelson’s first draft was, “Nelson confides in every man to do his duty” - which would have got the cheer around the fleet that the actual signal made failed to do at the time. “Nelson” would have been another six flag spelling…

#9

Thanks for the link, Q.E.D.

Unfortunately, I’m now even more confused.

Are the “Admiral’s Intructions to the Fleet” and the “Fighting Instructions” the same thing?

It seems to me there was some sort of “stock” manual that every RN officer was issued, and that the “Admiral’s Instructions” were issued by flag signal on the eve of battle. I had assumed that fleet commanders were working within a predetermined framework (the Fighting Instructions) to refine their orders to the ships under their direct command (the Admiral’s Instructions).

That way, there’s some broad direction from the Admiralty in basic tactics, but the man on the scene makes the final determination.

[hijack]
Nelson’s signals amounted to nothing more that a morale raiser, right? (Not that such things aren’t supremely valuable.)

He had issued his orders in person earlier, and ran flags from the Victory after his initial signal only to request course corrections. Is that right?[/hijack]
[sub] I said I didn’t look at tactics much. You have to cut me a little slack here.[/sub]

#10

Whoops.

Thank you, notquitekarpov, for your help thus far and your offer of assistance via e-mail.

Trouble is, I’m not quite getting it yet, because I’m a hard -headed Yank.
P.S. your e-mail is listed as private, but thanks for the offer.

#11

Correct re your [hijack] comments Exgineer - Nelson’s intent was as a morale raiser but it backfired somewhat. Went down well in the Press back home though and thus in history.

Without my references I cannot only approximate on your main question - the Admiralty didn’t issue anything. The Fighting Instructions were the Admiral’s Instructions to the Fleet, he generally came along a said something along the lines of, “We’ll be following so and so’s Instructions (some famous Admiral whose Instructions were well known such that Captains would make it there business to ensure they were aware of as part of their ongoing professional training) unless I tell you otherwise” - but sometimes went to the trouble of writing out his own new revised Instrucitions - which if successful had the chance of becoming one of the new reference standards.

Hope this helps until I can get to chapter and verse.

#12

It does help. It helps a lot.

Thank you.

So the Fighting Instructions were compliations of previous Admiral’s Instructions, then?

#13

Yup - often direct steals, sometime compliations of the best bits, sometimes new ideas being formalised - like Nelson’s Instructions before Trafalgar.

#14

This stuff is exactly what I was looking for. I love the SDMB and notquitekarpov. In a purely platonic way in both cases, of course.

I really want to ask how they compiled, correlated, and edited these things, given that communication delays in that period could amount to years, but I have to go to work tomorrow, so I’m going to bed.

#15

Slight hijack; I await the movie with great trepidation–but for what it’s worth, here’s the Master and Commander movie trailer…

#16

Huh. Call me an ignorant yank, but I don’t get why Nelson’s message (“England Expects That Every Man Will Do His D U T Y”) could be considered funny. It sounds like standard “Be a Team Player” and “Win One for the Gipper” boilerplate, even if the final word had to be spelt.

The message Nelson had wanted to send sounds no more humorous.

I guess I’m missing the point, but that has always confused me and now I see some people who know what they’re talking about.

#17

Derleth - I wouldn’t dream of calling you an ignorant yank. Now there are some folk I would like to (if you spot my posts in various Great Debates about the imminent War) but not in response to a direct request for information…

It was never intended to be humorous - and it isn’t - it was intended to be INSPIRATIONAL.

And IMHO Nelson’s first draft is more so that the signal actually flagged - reference to NELSON (Band of Brother thing) using “CONFIDES” - trusting the common jacktar not EXPECTS which smells of orders almost…

Humour has it’s place in military signals but rarely in “Messages to the Troops”

#18

They’re making it into a movie! I didn’t know! Oh, man, I hope they do a good job on it. I love the books.
RR

#19

I’m confused again.

According to Q.E.D.'s link, some sort of Fighting Instructions were “issued” in 1691 and modified in 1703 and 1740, which would tend to imply some sort of service-wide standard practice.

I’m still unclear on the relationship between the general instructions for all operations and the Admiral’s instructions in a given situation.

Maybe I’ll have to accept that it isn’t as cut and dried as I thought.