what is the most impressive war in the history of america?

I describe it the way that I have described it above. I accept the nomenclature of referring to it as the American Civil War with the proviso and caveat that this is, linguistically, a misnomer. This war was a regular armed conflict between two separate states -- the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. A 'civil war' is a conflict within one state only, between two factions in that state. In this sense the English Civil War qualifies. Neither Parliament nor the backers of King Charles I could claim to represent two different and specific national constituencies. In America, they could.

Nobody's following you around, that would be pitiable. I come across you on threads, and occasionally, when you're being overbearingly hypocritical, or pedantic or rude, I may comment.

You give so very many occasions to comment, that I usually don't bother.

Well, as i've said above, i can't agree with that.

Sure Bubba, whatever you say.

The American Revolution.

Not only was the outcome immeasurably important to the world, it was quite impressive that colonial underdogs were victorious in war against a major (if not the major power) of Old World Europe.

From a more modern perspective: Gulf War I

Militarily crushing...no argument brooked.

I had just pushed the visual out of my brain, when you had to go and cement it in.

omg

AGREED. That makes historical good sense.





David

Our most consequential war was WW-II i.e. the war in which the United States saved all of the vermin who are now burning our flags and storming our embassies, from being processed into lampshades and soap. WW-II brought about the modern age, including the jet engine, space exploration, computers, and nuclear power.

You really are stupid. The flag burners are by and large Moslems, there were Moslem divisions in the SS. The people being turned into soap and lampshades were by and large Jewish, they're not burning flags and storming embassies.

The war of 1812 was interesting if far too small war to go for the title of most impressive war.

One fun fact however was that the US naval that had only had existed for 18 years at that point and yet this little tiny nation produce a frigate class of warships so superior to the British frigates that after a few encounters the English frigates captains were placed under order not to engage the American ships unless they had a three repeat a three to one advantage in numbers.

Then there was the battle of lake Erie where we got the famous quote of “We have met the enemy and they are ours. Two ships, two brigs, one schooner and a sloop.” from Commander Perry

Of course we got our new capital burned but we also got a hero and a future president when Jackson ate the British forces that attacked New Orleans.

And we got our national anthem when one fort stop the might of the English naval cold.

For me, since I was born during the Great Depression, WWII was the most impressive for "my" history of American wars. Also because of the 442nd RCT, the Japanese American battalion that was the most decorated in American history with 22 medal of honor winners. My cousin in Hawaii and my wife's uncle were in the 442.

Go For Broke
Truly impressive

The UK's frigates were loaded with 18 pounders because they were designed more for speed than heavy firepower.

If the UK wanted heavy firepower somewhere, they'd send lineships.

I'm not sure it is fair to compare a 24 pounder frigate to an 18 pounder frigate.

In any case, the UK had some 100 lineships and 150 frigates. We had 3 heavy frigates and 3 regular frigates.

We put something between 40 to 50 cannons on our heavy frigates which is somewhere near double the firepower of the English frigates and our frigates hulls was build with heavy heavy oak wood and the design of the bracings allow such heavy broadsides from such a small ship type.

Hell the fire power of our ships carry was near to the second rank ships of the line of the English fleet. I am not sure but those ships start at around 6o cannons in their broadsides if my memory is correct.

Second our frigates could outrun anything that was heavy enough to harm them such as ships of the line.

There was also ten more such super frigates being build that did not get done soon enough to see service in the war.

Now that is not bad for a new nation dealing with the most powerful naval in the world at the time.

Footnote by the English own judgment our super frigates was worth three of their frigates in combat so if the war had last long enough to get ten more of then into battle our frigates force would had have the combat power of 39 English frigates.

We had more than six frigates. Many of the Royal Navy frigates were captured French frigates--the French designed and built better frigates. The American "heavies" were 44 gun frigates, mounting 24 lb. cannon. Almost all ships of war at that time mounted more guns that the number of their rating, and that included the ships of the Royal Navy, as well as the USN. Whether French captures or built in England, the Royal Navy frigates were built with hulls of oak, just as were the Americans.

The difference between the USN and the Royal Navy was in the quality of the crews. By that stage in their wars, as mcuh as a third of the crews of Royal Navy vessels were pressed men, whereas American crews were volunteers. No crewmen of American vessels were pressed. In addition, American captains routinely trained their men in the use of small arms and cannon. The difference can be seen in the fight between HMS Shannon and USS Chesapeake. Broke's crew in Shannon had been trained and regularly exercised in small arms and cannon, which was not the usual course of affairs in the Royal Navy. Lawrence's crew in Chesapeake were new, and had little training. The fight turned into a slaughterhouse on both sides, but in a little over fifteen minutes, Shannon took Chesapeake. When United States took Macedonian and when Constitution took Guerriere and Java, the opposite was true.

Rather than just spouting some old bullshit one wants to make up as one goes along, i would advise reading reliably. The Naval War of 1812, Thoedore Roosevelt, Jr., New York, 1881, is by far the best source on the single ship actions of that war. Roosevelt's scholarship was beyond question, and when in the 1890s the Royal Navy was writing a history of their service, they commissioned Roosevelt to write the article on what they call the American War. The book has never been long out of print, and is currently available in a good paper-bound edition, which means that it is likely available in any good library system.

By the way, the War of 1812 did not take place only at sea. On land, we have the wonderful spectacle of the American militia running away time and again. When the Americans did succeed (as they did later in the war), it was because they relied on volunteers, or the milita were fighting along side volunteers.

The American frigaes were: Essex (32), President (44), Constitution (44), United States (44), Chesapeake (36), Congress (36) and Constellation (36). We also had two "corvettes" based on French designs, which would have been rated frigates in the Royal Navy: Adams (28) and John Adams (28). You can see a navy list for 1812 by clicking here. The author of that page does not include Essex. I have no idea why, but it is just more evidence that the interwebs are not always reliable. By Royal Navy standards, the United States had nine frigates at the beginning of the war.

Well Jackson used one hell of a mixed group at New Orleans to tear up the British forces.

His artillery men and cannons was from local privateers and he got must needed small arms weapons supplies from the same source.

Then there was free blacks and city men as well as the men he march to New Orleans.

He also did not wait for the British to mount their attacks either but mounted small night spoiling attacks on their encampment with a combined of land and gun boats attacks.

Is the Constitution now in Boston the one and the same?

You know as far as the defense of the new Capital at the time of the war of 1812 is concern I am assuming that Washington old guard was not then, as they are now assign to the Capital, acting as primary show troops but they still have teeth if ever needed.

Being the elite of the elite since George Washington days I can not see them breaking and running as did happen in the Capital fightings during the 1812 war.