Great Lakes Fleet

[The Gunslinger]

Let us pretend, that at some point throughout the 19th century Britain and America stop being friendly. Maybe it's an Oregon War, British intervention in the ACW, or an 1812 that ends acrimoniously. It doesn't really matter. What DOES matter is that both sides start arming ships in the Great Lakes.

Anyways, in the early 20th century, what would would such a fleet look like?

Edit: This should be in the pre-1900 forum. My bad.

[The Kiat]

I did a piece or two on the Great Lakes Front of the Great War. I just pictured smaller fleets and even smaller ships. Fort Mackinac would be strategically vital, so I imagine it would be heavily fortified, and with some big battleship-caliber shore batteries defending it.

[BlondieBC]

I would go with Coastal defense BB. Basically slower ships with the same guns and more armor than dreadnoughts. And lots of torpedo boats and probably railbased artillery.

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

I would go with Coastal defense BB. Basically slower ships with the same guns and more armor than dreadnoughts. And lots of torpedo boats and probably railbased artillery.

Seconded, and I'd laugh if they were literally just the South Carolinas, or Connecticuts and Mississippis with a uniform secondary armament of 8" guns, and improved defensive armament.

Really, it'd be decided by Torpedo boats and destroyers, with the odd armored cruiser or BB about for shore bombardment and smashing fortifications.

Also, some fortifications that'd resemble the best in Europe, but with much bigger guns. We might even see some artillery duels across the lakes at Niagra, Detroit/Windsor, and Sault Ste. Marie etc.

Also Mines would be commonly deployed as a defensive measure, even if they have to be deployed in the dead of night, while diversionary attacks were underway. A Flashbomb for whatever the main guns are for the forts might be useful for this, since it'd blind the sentries and anybody on the range finder.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by NothingNow

Seconded, and I'd laugh if they were literally just the South Carolinas, or Connecticuts and Mississippis with a uniform secondary armament of 8" guns, and improved defensive armament.

Really, it'd be decided by Torpedo boats and destroyers, with the odd armored cruiser or BB about for shore bombardment and smashing fortifications.

Also, some fortifications that'd resemble the best in Europe, but with much bigger guns. We might even see some artillery duels across the lakes at Niagra, Detroit/Windsor, and Sault Ste. Marie etc.

You know, strangely enough, I can see some modified ocean going ship, say a 12 X 14" BB with the same engines as the Ocean going ship, just with so much extra armor that it barely floats. Say 50% thicker main belt. And I can also see one sinking in peace time and killing 1000+ sailors.

I used to live in Buffalo, so I can easily see 10" to 16" guns on both sides of the lake attacking each other. I am pretty sure a standard 15" guns shoots across the widest part of lake Eire or Ontario.

Now the truth is that this makes for an unstable situation, and almost guarantees a USA/UK war. IMO, it also means the USA enters the alliance system opposite of the UK. If I had to bet with limited butterflies, we see the France/USA/Russia v. UK/Germany/AH alliance. It would make a great TL if one went to the details to write the good 20 year build up before the war. It is likely the weaker side still spends enough to make sure it still is a long war. I have pictures of a huge USA main battle fleet, and several armies of South Asian soldiers in Canada.

[BigWillyG]

Think we could get a USS Wolverine launching aircraft on the lakes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wolverine_%28IX-64%29

[Luath]

I can't help but feel that the Brits would not be to successful in this scenario, because of Lake Michigan. Think about it, a huge waterway that stretches deep into the USA and with the Manufacturing base of Chicago at the end of it. Plus if you can successfully blockade the northern entrance you effectively isolate Western Canada.

[tchizek]

Torpedo Boats, Destroyer and maybe cruiser sized ships except maybe in Lake Superior because of weather issues.
Then build shore defenses with your heavy guns. The ships are for commerce raiding and fast pinprick raids.

The lakes are small enough that you want fast, nothing that you build that can float can beat shore guns and both sides are looking at major hurt because the lakes boarder major industrial, mining and agricultural areas so they HAVE to fort up the ports and inlets.

Any war that includes fighting on the lakes after the introduction of aircraft and subs will get very, very ugly.

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

You know, strangely enough, I can see some modified ocean going ship, say a 12 X 14" BB with the same engines as the Ocean going ship, just with so much extra armor that it barely floats. Say 50% thicker main belt. And I can also see one sinking in peace time and killing 1000+ sailors.

Cold freshwater won't float as much as salt water will. Something like the Tegetthoff-class, with an 8" secondary battery and a 12" belt and deck, but with a generally sturdy and buoyant hull. These ships don't need to be handsome,

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

I used to live in Buffalo, so I can easily see 10" to 16" guns on both sides of the lake attacking each other. I am pretty sure a standard 15" guns shoots across the widest part of lake Eire or Ontario.

Yeah. But even the 16"/50 caliber M1919 couldn't range across the entirety of Erie or Ontario, maxing out at 42km with their systems as built. You could maybe squeeze 50km out of them with everything, but that means pretty much everything valuable is well in range of coastal artillery batteries. Everyone would be on edge all the time.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Now the truth is that this makes for an unstable situation, and almost guarantees a USA/UK war. IMO, it also means the USA enters the alliance system opposite of the UK. If I had to bet with limited butterflies, we see the France/USA/Russia v. UK/Germany/AH alliance. It would make a great TL if one went to the details to write the good 20 year build up before the war. It is likely the weaker side still spends enough to make sure it still is a long war. I have pictures of a huge USA main battle fleet, and several armies of South Asian soldiers in Canada.

Oh yeah. This would be a very big deal, and would make everyone very nervous. It'd completely alter the balance of power worldwide, and would make the Anglo-Japanese Alliance all the more important, while France would likely expect American reinforcement and the protection of French colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific. So we're talking about a much larger USN overall, with more focus on opperations further out, so you'd have two strains of Battleship designs, with Lakes designs, and designs suitable for long range missions, like OTL USN Doctrine called for.

That the Salish sea would likely be impassable during wartime would likely also be seriously problematic as well (well, the Canadians could move ships in and out by Queen Charlotte Strait, heading south to Vancouver but that's rather tricky.) So the UK would vastly be even more dependent on the IJN in the Pacific, using Yokosuka and Kawjalein Atol as major bases, since they don't have any secure harbors in the eastern Pacific. Unless the UK grabs Hawaii, (possibly as an "ally", possibly as an outright colony.)

[rudebadger]

As much fun as this thread sounds, the sad truth is that the Great Lakes are a series of easily defended chokepoints along it's entire length. No navy is moving from lake to lake unless the opposite side of Canada or the US Great Lake is occupied by the enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Great_lakes_basin.jpg

By the 20th Century the artillery tech is reaching out 15 to 18 miles, further narrowing the operational area that a navy could operate. And when the airplane comes along that shuts down the Lakes.

So, kick this idea back into the mid-19th Century and you'll really have something to play with.

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by rudebadger

As much fun as this thread sounds, the sad truth is that the Great Lakes are a series of easily defended chokepoints along it's entire length. No navy is moving from lake to lake unless the opposite side of Canada or the US Great Lake is occupied by the enemy.

But that's what makes figuring the hypotheticals on this really fun.

It's very different from regular naval warfare, and requires a lot of inter-service co-operation, with opposed amphibious landings and the like being necessary to gain essential mobility through the lakes, and it's on a small enough scale that land-based airpower and coastal artillery are very big factors, so you can't win just by being completely and utterly dominant in one area.

[The Gunslinger]

I just thought that it would be a nasty piece of naval warfare with mines, airpower, coastal batteries and attempting to control the canals

Since the canals will be the definite chokepoints on the lakes, are there any alternate canals that could be constructed?

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

Since the canals will be the definite chokepoints on the lakes, are there any alternate canals that could be constructed?

Plenty. With government effort building canals to accomodate Panamax or Seawaymax vessels connecting the upper lakes, crossing the upper peninsula, and running between Toldeo and St. Joseph would be easy on the American side. Well, relatively anyway, it'd all depend on the bedrock and everything, but with enough money and dynamite, anything is doable, and these would be blank-check projects really.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

I just thought that it would be a nasty piece of naval warfare with mines, airpower, coastal batteries and attempting to control the canals

Since the canals will be the definite chokepoints on the lakes, are there any alternate canals that could be constructed?

Love Canal. It was an attempt to go from Lake Eire to Lake Ontario, it only got on mile in, and then was filled with toxic waste.

Eire Canal gets major upgrades. Also look the waterway through Chicago to get upgrades. And a lot more RR on both sides of the border.

[David S Poepoe]

I think that by the 1910s the British would follow Fisher's 'flotilla system' of using destroyers and other light craft backed up by seaplanes or land based aircraft. I would also consider that the Canadians would have built a great series of specialized railway lines for mobile artillery to be quickly moved about to reinforce any fixed positions.

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by David S Poepoe

I think that by the 1910s the British would follow Fisher's 'flotilla system' of using destroyers and other light craft backed up by seaplanes or land based aircraft. I would also consider that the Canadians would have built a great series of specialized railway lines for mobile artillery to be quickly moved about to reinforce any fixed positions.

Definitely. You'd probably see longer-ranged and generally newer pieces on the railway cars, but the BL 12 inch Mk IX/X guns and BL 12 inch Mk I/III/V Howitzer equivalents would likely be the dominant guns in modern fortifications, with some older 13.5" guns, and Howitzers on the scale of the 42 cm Gamma Mörser. You'd get the kick-ass stuff on railroad mountings, and in essential forts, because they'll be something you'd want to be able to pull out if the situation got hopeless, and would pretty much be the arm of decision when airpower wasn't available, and light-craft had to stay in harbor.

Any Armored/Protected Cruisers or Battleships in use on the lakes might even be built with Ice-rated hulls to allow further mobility in wintertime (when they'd be safe from anything but mines and artillery on most days.)

[Petike]

Originally Posted by BigWillyG

Think we could get a USS Wolverine launching aircraft on the lakes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wolverine_%28IX-64%29

The US had a freshwater aircraft carrier ?!!!




Damn...

WWII was... weird.

[kclcmdr]

Originally Posted by Petike

The US had a freshwater aircraft carrier ?!!!
:

I believe it was two huge ferries that used to carry either cargo or train & traincars in where they built an upper superstructure long enough to train the raw pilots in how to land and fly off....

Maybe a pocket Monitor with one mount carrying 14 or 16 inch guns, 2 ea.

And lots of Submarines and frigates and destroyers .... cruisers?

The States facing the Five Great Lakes will have to build bigger Ports and facilities to create the naval forces needed to balance each other out....

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by NothingNow

Any Armored/Protected Cruisers or Battleships in use on the lakes might even be built with Ice-rated hulls to allow further mobility in wintertime (when they'd be safe from anything but mines and artillery on most days.)

I doubt anything really large will be built. Very poor return on one's investment. The likely limitations would be transitability via canals. What comes to mind in the Great War naval theater of the Adriatic Sea.

Avalanche Press produced a supplement years ago for their naval game series Great War at Sea title GWAS: War Plan Scarlet, which basically was Anglo-American monitor clashes on the Great Lakes. The warships were completely imaginary and not even close to anything either side built in OTL.

[ModernKiwi]

Ships don't fight forts and win. That's been the standard line of thought in naval circles for a very long time. And the Great Lakes are far to easy to fortify anywhere important, especially with the industrial resources available to late 19th/early 20th century US and Canada/UK.