Talk:Battle of Ushant (1778)

Casualties
Some obscure French source (on the English Wikipedia) does not equate to reliable I'm afraid. Said book is dubiously sourced and does not cross reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.65.135 (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The reference to the American Revlutionary war should be deleted
this battle had nothing to do with America or its War of Independence. It is no more relevant than tying a story about Babe Ruth to Hitler's rise to power. 207.164.79.6 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and it is done.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh? This battle was part of the War of American Independence, which France had entered when it signed a treaty of alliance with the United States in February and Britain declared war in retaliation in March.  The battle was fought between two belligerents on opposite sides of the same war, and was as much a part of it as the Battle of the Saintes or the Great Siege of Gibraltar were&mdash;and it had as much to do with America and American independence as the Battle of Blenheim had to do with who should sit on the Spanish throne or the first Siege of Louisbourg in Canada had to do with Maria Theresa's right to rule the Holy Roman Empire.  Refusing to mention what war a battle was a part of is indefensible.  Binabik80 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well that’s a moot point which largely ignores the wider global conflict between France, Britain and (to a lesser extent) Spain. This over simplistic, US-centric viewpoint creates a number of anomalies, not least in the American Revolutionary War article where, among other things, 80,000 Mysore troops in India are listed as allies, even though there was no alliance, they were concerned solely with their own cause, and cared not one jot about the outcome of a war in America (if indeed they knew where it was).--Ykraps (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL that's the first time someone has called me US-centric. It absolutely does not "ignore the wider global conflict between France, Britain and Spain" to use the actual name that actual historians use for that global conflict, which is sometimes "American Revoutionary War" and sometimes "American War of Independence".  It is, again, no more US-centric than claiming that it's "Austro-centric" or "Hispano-centric" to correctly locate the fighting between British and French colonists in North America in the 1740s or 1700s as parts of the War of the Austrian Succession or War of the Spanish Succession.  I've advocated an increase in British scholarship about the ARW for a long time, not least because it would increase study of the war within its larger context as part of the chain of eighteenth-century European wars.  But there's no support in the historiography for separating out every belligerent who fought against Britain in the American Revolutionary War as if each was a separate war, divorced from that global context.  Binabik80 (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation Needed
I have very little information regarding this battle but the little I have suggests the French had the superior numbers. The Command of the Ocean (N.A.M. Rodger) states, "In July Keppel was at sea again, reinforced to twenty-nine ships of the line, including seven three-deckers. At the same time the French fleet sailed from Brest, thirty ships of the line (including only two three-deckers) plus two fifty-gun ships, under Vice-Admiral compte d'Orvilliers" (pp.336-337) while The Age of the Ship of the Line (Jonathan R. Dull) says "Refusing to let the British have free reign in French waters, Sartine, Vergennes, and the Council of State sent all thirty-two ships of the line at Brest to fight the twenty-nine ships of the line of the British home fleet, which on average had more cannon than the French ships".(p.101) So to sum up, both sources indicate the British had 29 ships and the French 32 (although only 30 were battleships). Does anyone have a source that supports what's in this article or can I change it?--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Much of the information in this article has been copied from HMS Victory so I will leave a message there too--Ykraps (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion for a fortnight, I have gone ahead and changed the information as detailed above. If anyone comes up with any decent sources to support the previous statements, they are more than welcome to revert. I am doubting the casualty figures now so sources, please?--Ykraps (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Image shows a key to involved ships
This image lists additional ships to the Royal Navy line-up as mentioned in the article.

Ships of both sides listed in engagement 1-7: 1. The Formidable (90) engaging La Couronne (80),/ 2. Robust (74) - La Glorieux (74),/ 3. Vigilant (64) - St Michel (64) ,/ 4. P. George (90) - Le Vengeur (64) ,/ 5. Foudroyant (80) - L'Actionnaire (64) ,/ 6. Victory (100) - La Bretagne (110),/ 7. Bienfaisant (64) - La Ville de Paris (92). Broichmore (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)