Damn statistics!

[Berthier]

From The Trafalgar Companion

Total trees required to build the two combined fleets at Trafalgar was estimated at 286,800! This number would have covered an area of nearly 5,000 acres.

The total tonnage of ships in the RN in 1806 was 776,000 principally made up naturally of lumber. This quantity of timber does not even account for the merchant fleet which was even larger in vessel numbers and total tonnage.

The forests of England between the years 1608 and 1783 had shrunk to less than 1/6 the size. Some forests had virtually disappeared (eg Sherwood Forest) and this is the reason for Britain's need to keep the trade to the Baltic open to obtain trees from Scandanavia, Russia and parts of Germany.

The Victory required over 26 miles of rigging and 5500 square yards of sail. She needed over half million nails for her copper sheathing, the combined weight of her anchors was 15 tons and she carried 14 cables of 120 fathoms length (720 foot) whose diameter varied from 7-24".

There were 22 Americans on board the Victory at Trafalgar.

A single broadside from Mars (74) exceeded the weight of shot fired in a single firing by the entire French Grand Battery at Waterloo

[Comte de Brueys]

Interesting infos.

The captain of a ship of the line had more firepower under his command, than the most army commanders in the Napoleonic wars.

[Mark Barker]

From The Trafalgar Companion

Some forests had virtually disappeared (eg Sherwood Forest) and this is the reason for Britain's need to keep the trade to the Baltic open to obtain trees from Scandanavia, Russia and parts of Germany.



Yes, the is the reason that the Battle of Copenhagen took place.

Actually it was not the broadleafed trees (oak, elm etc) that built the hulls that were the main concern, but pine for the masts and the Baltic was the main source of tar for waterproofing and caulking. And hemp for the ropes of the rigging, and flax for the sails ...

It was not just that we had run out of trees for all this, we never had the right species in quantity in the first place !

Losing access to these resources was unthinkable - hence the attack on Denmark which had never been a historic enemy up to that time.

Well, not since the bloody Vikings anyway ....

"spam, spam, spam, spam ..."

Best wishes,

Mark Barker
The Inshore Squadron

[csadn]

Actually it was not the broadleafed trees (oak, elm etc) that built the hulls that were the main concern, but pine for the masts and the Baltic was the main source of tar for waterproofing and caulking. And hemp for the ropes of the rigging, and flax for the sails ...

[nod] And loss of access to the US supplies of timber; Canada was there, but underdeveloped.

And now Britain is is attempting to bring back the forests -- along with related lifeforms:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/12/30/article-1103010-01FFB4F000000578-693_233x257.jpg

:)

[Cmmdre]

Yes, the is the reason that the Battle of Copenhagen took place.

Actually it was not the broadleafed trees (oak, elm etc) that built the hulls that were the main concern, but pine for the masts and the Baltic was the main source of tar for waterproofing and caulking. And hemp for the ropes of the rigging, and flax for the sails ...

It was not just that we had run out of trees for all this, we never had the right species in quantity in the first place !

Losing access to these resources was unthinkable - hence the attack on Denmark which had never been a historic enemy up to that time.

Well, not since the bloody Vikings anyway ....

"spam, spam, spam, spam ..."

Best wishes,

Mark Barker
The Inshore Squadron

Very interesting perspective. I can see the need to attack for the resources.