AHC: Improve Confederate Navy

AHC: Improve Confederate Navy

How can the performance of the Confederate Navy be improved during the American Civil War?

Wheres the best place to invest resources: mines, ironclads, early subs, torpedo boats, commerce raiders, privateers, blockade runners? Any alternate strategies the Confederacy could have deployed to lessen the Union blockade? Could more help for the navy have been found overseas, perhaps James Bulloch purchases more ships?

interested in everyone thoughts.

By Britain and France joining an alliance with the Confederacy and breaking the Federal blockade. Seriously, the Confederacy does not have the means to make a stronger navy than they did. They dont have the resources, they dont have the facilities, they dont have the know-how.

Maybe they make more commerce raiders and less expensive ironclads ?Or maybe some more of the commerce raiders and ironclads they did manage to start got finished .

Have Farragut go with the Confederacy. (Tennessee native, had lived in New Orleans and Virginia, married to a southern woman, etc.) I'll admit it's not very likely, though; from the beginning, he made it clear that he regarded secession as treason.

Nytram01 said:

By Britain and France joining an alliance with the Confederacy and breaking the Federal blockade. Seriously, the Confederacy does not have the means to make a stronger navy than they did. They dont have the resources, they dont have the facilities, they dont have the know-how.

Click to expand...

Very much this. The best thing they can do is concede control of the ocean and put whatever money they can in blockade runners. Any money they put in commerce raiders or ironclades is money they can't spend on the army and blockade runners. How much more money they could get by having some more ships running the blockade I do not know but at least they wouldn't be wasting money on trying to change what can not be changed.

David T said:

Have Farragut go with the Confederacy. (Tennessee native, had lived in New Orleans and Virginia, married to a southern woman, etc.) I'll admit it's not very likely, though; from the beginning, he made it clear that he regarded secession as treason.

Click to expand...

Not nearly enough, he was a good admiral but an admiral without ships might as well be beached.

hasdrubal barca said:

AHC: Improve Confederate Navy

How can the performance of the Confederate Navy be improved during the American Civil War?

Wheres the best place to invest resources: mines, ironclads, early subs, torpedo boats, commerce raiders, privateers, blockade runners? Any alternate strategies the Confederacy could have deployed to lessen the Union blockade? Could more help for the navy have been found overseas, perhaps James Bulloch purchases more ships?

interested in everyone thoughts.

Click to expand...

Well, they'd need a fully-stocked naval base for a start. And the only one that they captured in the course of the entire war was Norfolk - which they then lost a year later. They'd need proper facilities to build proper warships, they'd need the resources to roll the armour for ironclads, they'd need steamship engines... oh and they'd need trained crews. Unless they capture Baltimore or somewhere else like that they just can't do it, sorry.

Of course you can improve the performance. When a fleet doesn't finish its ships because their construction crews have to do militia drill... you can improve it simply by prioritizing construction.

Saphroneth said:

Of course you can improve the performance. When a fleet doesn't finish its ships because their construction crews have to do militia drill... you can improve it simply by prioritizing construction.

Click to expand...

In which case your army is in worse shape, which the CSA can't afford. Whatever pathetic increase in naval power it would give wouldn't matter much.

Disband it

hasdrubal barca said:

AHC: Improve Confederate Navy

How can the performance of the Confederate Navy be improved during the American Civil War?

Wheres the best place to invest resources: mines, ironclads, early subs, torpedo boats, commerce raiders, privateers, blockade runners? Any alternate strategies the Confederacy could have deployed to lessen the Union blockade? Could more help for the navy have been found overseas, perhaps James Bulloch purchases more ships?

interested in everyone thoughts.

Click to expand...

Disband it.

The only thing that could benefit the rebellion at sea was blockade-running, which remained a private enterprise for much of the war, to the point that perfume was being run into southern ports from Europe, rather than anesthesia.

The entire rebel navy department was a waste of time and resources; organizing a "national" blockade running fleet under the control of the rebel War Department would have been much more effective and efficient.

Best,

Johnrankins said:

In which case your army is in worse shape, which the CSA can't afford. Whatever pathetic increase in naval power it would give wouldn't matter much.

Click to expand...

You seriously think a couple of hundred slightly less well trained infantry are a net loss even if you get an ironclad out of it?

I'm not saying that you could make it do anything decisive. I'm just saying that it's patently false that the CSA navy was as good as it could be - nothing is that good, though some things come close.

The easiest way to improve their is to focus on commerce raiding and basically have more CSS Shenandoahs in a sense. The overall effect on the war would be minimal, but it does meet the OP's requirements of improving the Confederacy's navy's effect with the U.S. Trade taking snigger than OTL big, even if not by much.

The thing is, all the rebel commerce raiding did was

Gurroruo said:

The easiest way to improve their is to focus on commerce raiding and basically have more CSS Shenandoahs in a sense. The overall effect on the war would be minimal, but it does meet the OP's requirements of improving the Confederacy's navy's effect with the U.S. Trade taking snigger than OTL big, even if not by much.

Click to expand...

The thing is, all the rebel commerce raiding really did was move ships from US to foreign registry; it never reduced the amount of imports/exports to/from US ports; it just moved in foreign-flag ships.

A blockade-running force under Richmond's control would have made more sense.

Best,

Saphroneth said:

You seriously think a couple of hundred slightly less well trained infantry are a net loss even if you get an ironclad out of it?

I'm not saying that you could make it do anything decisive. I'm just saying that it's patently false that the CSA navy was as good as it could be - nothing is that good, though some things come close.

Click to expand...

It is not just the manpower, it is the cannon you can make from the iron in the ironclad. The entire CSA navy was just a big waste of manpower, time and resources, none of which the CSA could waste.

Johnrankins said:

It is not just the manpower, it is the cannon you can make from the iron in the ironclad. The entire CSA navy was just a big waste of manpower, time and resources none of which the CSA could waste.

Click to expand...

hasdrubal barca said:

AHC: Improve Confederate Navy

How can the performance of the Confederate Navy be improved during the American Civil War?

Click to expand...

I'm trying to stick to OP here. I mean, I know it feels nice to shut down anything remotely CSA-doing-better related, but it's still worth considering that maybe they weren't massive mental giants who did the best they possibly could out of the hand they were played...

Incidentally, the iron that was used in the Mississippi and Louisiana would clearly be more useful actually in a single functional ironclad than in two half-finished ones which were burned to prevent capture.
That's an improvement right there, and more to the point might allow the capture of New Orleans to be somewhat postponed - which significantly helps the Confederacy as it lets them keep access to all that manpower and industry at least a little longer.

They'd be hard-pressed to substantially improve their navy.

However, they could, perhaps, have gotten lucky if several significant combat ships were in southern ports at the start of hostilities and the CSA quickly seized them before their commanders/crews got word of hostilities.

hasdrubal barca said:

privateers

Click to expand...

Definitely not. The Confederates need British goodwill (at a very minimum), and adopting privateering is a great way to lose it quickly.

hasdrubal barca said:

perhaps James Bulloch purchases more ships?

Click to expand...

The Confederates probably maxed out the number of ships they could get from Britain; any more, and the British government would have motivation to tighten the neutrality rules, just as they did when the Union started taking too much coal from British ports. However, with a bit more planning pre-war, there might have been an opportunity to pick suitable ships up from other countries (e.g. mail steamers from the Hanseatic towns).

The question is really how much those commerce raiders might achieve. The problem is that a lot of the weapons which the Union bought from Europe in the first couple of years of war were probably sent in British ships, and therefore trying to cut them off is likely to cause some significant diplomatic issues- even if all they do is throw the weapons overboard and send the ship on its way. If you're picking up a large number of mail steamers, you might be better using them to ship guns on government account rather than using them as commerce raiders. But then you run into the problem of the relative lack of foreign exchange, and the fact that both states were competing for weapons in the European market in the first place. In fact, you might get as many more weapons through private means by either incentivising or subsidising war materials being run through the blockade, or by banning private imports as they subsequently did.

The chief requirements were war materials of every sort, cloth for uniforms, buttons, thread, boots, stockings, and all clothing, medicines, salt, boiler-iron, steel, copper, zinc, and chemicals. As it did not pay merchants to ship heavy goods, the charge for freight per ton at Nassau being £80 to £100 in gold, a great portion of the cargo generally consisted of light goods, such as silks, laces, linens, quinine, etc., on which immense profits were made. At this time there were no mills, and practically no manufactories in the Confederate States, so their means of production were nil. With the progress of the war their need of war material increased so sorely that in 1864 the Confederate Government limited the freight-room on private account, and prohibited the importation of luxuries on the ground that if allowed to come in and be purchased the resources of the country would thereby be absorbed. (Thomas E Taylor, Running the Blockade [London, 1896], p.18)

Incidentally, I don't buy the argument that the Confederacy building a few more ironclads will lift the blockade, any more that I buy the argument that the Union building monitors will lift a Royal Navy blockade in the Trent War. You need to be able to lift the blockade and hold the port open: even if a few ships escape in or out in the meantime, international consensus seems to have been that it didn't count. Maybe they sink a few more Union ships, though, which I guess could be justified as doing better.

jahenders said:

They'd be hard-pressed to substantially improve their navy.

However, they could, perhaps, have gotten lucky if several significant combat ships were in southern ports at the start of hostilities and the CSA quickly seized them before their commanders/crews got word of hostilities.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's only going to help slightly. The Union Navy that won the ACW was almost entirely new-built - their fleet as of the declaration of war was tiny.

The absolute limit seems to be about seven sail frigates and ten steam... that's it as far as ships of force goes.
The ships destroyed in 1861 to prevent capture are one steam frigate (Merrimack) and two sail - but Merrimack was converted to Virginia, and that's arguably the best you can get from her. So... net gain two sail frigates?

On the other hand, it would slow the implementation of the blockade by a fair way if half the US fleet was caught in Norfolk.

Saphroneth said:

I'm trying to stick to OP here. I mean, I know it feels nice to shut down anything remotely CSA-doing-better related, but it's still worth considering that maybe they weren't massive mental giants who did the best they possibly could out of the hand they were played...

Incidentally, the iron that was used in the Mississippi and Louisiana would clearly be more useful actually in a single functional ironclad than in two half-finished ones which were burned to prevent capture.
That's an improvement right there, and more to the point might allow the capture of New Orleans to be somewhat postponed - which significantly helps the Confederacy as it lets them keep access to all that manpower and industry at least a little longer.

Click to expand...

Point taken, there are probably some things they could have done to marginally improved the navy.

Three words: reliable steam engines. Again and again during the war, powerful Confederate ironclads that terrified Union naval planners had one critical weakness in that they had nothing to power them except hand-me-down engines from prewar civilian vessels.

Two examples. If the CSS Louisiana had had a reliable set of engines, Farragut might have failed in his effort to run his fleet past the forts protecting New Orleans in April of 1862. If the CSS Arkansas had had a reliable set of engines, it never would have had to be abandoned in August of 1862; Grant could not have undertaken his campaign to capture Vicksburg if the Arkansas had remained a force-in-being along the Mississippi River into 1863.