The HMS Victory's website says that 95% of British naval losses were due to disease, accidents, and shipwrecks. How could they possibly maintain enough crew to fight effectively if they were constantly losing men like this?
Would they supplement their numbers right before an engagement with press gangs? Or is this figure overblown?
CORRECTION: I misquoted my source slightly, it's 90%, not 95%.
For these men, living and working at sea was dangerous; it is estimated that 90% of the 92,000 British fatalities during the French revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with France were caused by disease, accident and shipwreck.
EDIT: To illustrate, in the last few days of AT, (army wargames) about a third of my unit (including myself) was released early to attend college. My battle buddies there said that reorganizing everyone was a gigantic hassle. Dismounts had to fill in as Bradley drivers, we only had a couple dismount squads to clear buildings and screen the Bradley's, etc...
It's overblown.
90% of 92,000 is 82,800 non-battle deaths.
The French Revolutionary War/Napoleonic Wars stretched from 1792 to 1815 (neglecting the 100 Days of 1816) or 23 years, minus one year for the Peace of Amiens, so 22 years.
82,800 divided by 22 years is 3,764 non-battle deaths per year for the entire Royal Navy.
The Royal Navy has ~300 major combatants (ships of the line and frigates) active during this time. So on average each ship would lose 13 men per year.
Ship's complements could range from 820 (HMS Victory ship of the line) to 200 (small frigates such as HMS Surprise) so a ship's captain would be looking at a loss rate of between 1.5% to 6.5% on average per year. This isn't a very taxing rate of loss by any means.
But actually, when the Royal Navy lost men, it was as likely to be due to the loss of a ship in weather with all hands (HMS York, 1804).
Keep in mind, that is not saying that the British navy lost 95% of their crew due to disease etc, just that for every guy killed by a cannon ball 19 died to other causes.