TL-191: Navy Blue and Gray - Naval Forces of the USA and CSA

[RamscoopRaider]

Well, if the CSMC truly was reactivated again for the Second Great War, I'd imagine the Navy would have control over them like last time. I'm not saying the Army can't do it themselves as there are marine corps around the world that are under the control of their country's Army (France's Troupes de Marine as an example), I'd just need to see a reason for the Confederate Army to reactivate them as opposed to the Navy, whether it would be a political reason or a pragmatic reason. Just need a reason.

I'm just saying that the Navy, in the eventual occurrence of war in North America, would need their Marines again. It would definitely be a small force, but it would be a lean one.

Why would the CSN need Marines? What would they be doing that an Army force or more sailors can't do?

Presumably the CS Army would have the clout and ability to do it and the CSN lacks it. Given the scale of what we know Featherston's Army and Air Force buildup achieved relative to the CS economy, we can assume that the CSN got a bare minimum of resources. We don't see any sort of indication Featherston did the same sort of Naval dickwaving as Hitler did. As such the CSN probably is a coast defense and riverine force run on a shoestring. It is unlikely to have the spare manpower and budget to form a permanent Marine force, OTL Germany formed theirs out of skimmed off naval personnel

 

[Alterwright]

Why would the CSN need Marines? What would they be doing that an Army force or more sailors can't do?

Presumably the CS Army would have the clout and ability to do it and the CSN lacks it. Given the scale of what we know Featherston's Army and Air Force buildup achieved relative to the CS economy, we can assume that the CSN got a bare minimum of resources. We don't see any sort of indication Featherston did the same sort of Naval dickwaving as Hitler did. As such the CSN probably is a coast defense and riverine force run on a shoestring. It is unlikely to have the spare manpower and budget to form a permanent Marine force, OTL Germany formed theirs out of skimmed off naval personnel

Same argument and point can be made the opposite way --- why wouldn't the Confederate Navy need marines or some equivalent of it during the Second Great War.

Given the operations conducted during the Second Great War in the Caribbean, it can also be reasonably guessed that some kind of naval expansion was needed and possibly undertaken, even with personnel. The navy would likely still need a small force under its control specially trained in amphibious, raiding, and shore party operations, particularly in this theater. Sailors might fill this role, but it is ultimately not what they are specifically trained for --- that being to operate aboard ships.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Same argument and point can be made the opposite way --- why wouldn't the Confederate Navy need marines or some equivalent of it during the Second Great War.

Given the operations conducted during the Second Great War in the Caribbean, it can also be reasonably guessed that some kind of naval expansion was needed and possibly undertaken, even with personnel. The navy would likely still need a small force under its control specially trained in amphibious, raiding, and shore party operations, particularly in this theater. Sailors might fill this role, but it is ultimately not what they are specifically trained for --- that being to operate aboard ships.

Why wouldn't the Navy need Marines does not have to be asked, that's the status quo most likely. To change that one needs a reason, ergo why they need them, when they are currently going without them, is what needs to be asked.

What amphibious operations? The only one we know of was Haiti, which would not require an opposed landing given the probable state of Haitian military, it could be done with a destroyer and some freighters. Raiding is an argument, but as you said yourself other countries have army forces do this. Shore Parties in this time period are actually something sailors are expected to do, ships kept armament up to and including artillery and performed training for a significant portion of their crew to act as such

Sure the Navy would be expanding, but begrudgingly and focused on keeping the USN away from their coasts, now that the equation vis a vis the RN has changed

 

[Alterwright]

Concrete Battleship - Fort William Rufus

During the Great War and the invasion of the Sandwich Islands, there is a British fortress at the entrance to Pearl Harbor situated west over Keehi Lagoon. Its weapons are said to consisted of two 12in. guns and numerous 3in. AA guns. It was constructed by the British in order to protect the harbor from enemy attack. During the course of the invasion the fortress' guns manage to damage 2 battleships and sink one cruiser before it was blown up using a mixture diesel and gasoline poured into the vents and detonated using explosives.

Based on the description and even by how it was eventually neutralized, I'm willing to bet that the fort bears a striking resemblance to the real life Fort Drum at the mouth to Manila Bay in our timeline.

The description, at least to me, is very striking.

 

[Sierra]

Concrete Battleship - Fort William Rufus

During the Great War and the invasion of the Sandwich Islands, there is a British fortress at the entrance to Pearl Harbor situated west over Keehi Lagoon. Its weapons are said to consisted of two 12in. guns and numerous 3in. AA guns. It was constructed by the British in order to protect the harbor from enemy attack. During the course of the invasion the fortress' guns manage to damage 2 battleships and sink one cruiser before it was blown up using a mixture diesel and gasoline poured into the vents and detonated using explosives.

Based on the description and even by how it was eventually neutralized, I'm willing to bet that the fort bears a striking resemblance to the real life Fort Drum at the mouth to Manila Bay in our timeline.

View attachment 453163

View attachment 453164

The description, at least to me, is very striking.

In American Front, it statement has two twin 12in turrets, and a single 3in AA gun

 

[Alterwright]

In American Front, it statement has two twin 12in turrets, and a single 3in AA gun

Whoops, forgot the exact number of AA guns I guess!

With that description its even more apparent to me that the concrete fortress is inspired and based off of Fort Drum in our timeline in the Philippines. Even the way it was destroyed bears an eerily similar resemblance to how Fort Drum was taken out in 1945 when the Americans came back.

So, it is interesting to me at least that the British in this timeline added their own fortifications to the defense of the Sandwich Islands.

 

[Alterwright]

Confederate States Navy - Ship Names from the War of Succession (Civil War):

Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Confederate_States_Navy#Other_CSA_Boats

^^^ --- Here is a list from Wikipedia about the list of ships for the CSN throughout the duration of the Civil War, ones that were either under construction or in active use.

I thought a list might be useful in terms of ships names for the CSN. Given that multiple navies around the world tended to re-use names either in honor of the previous ship that bore it or for other reason, this might come in handy if one is trying to reason out how the Confederacy named their ships. As you will see in the link the names and variety can be quite surprising and impressive since a good portion of the ships in CSN use were either previously civilian craft or ex-USN craft.

There are names for privateers, steamboats, floating batteries, steam-power ironclads, cottonclads, paddle-wheel boats, blockade runners, the works. In fact there are quite a surprising number of ironclads in Confederate use that were converted from wooden vessels, used primarily for coastal defense, harbor defense, and riverine operations.

 

[Tiro]

God Bless Wikipedia - worth every penny of my monthly donation and infinitely more, it is.

 

[Alterwright]

God Bless Wikipedia - worth every penny of my monthly donation and infinitely more, it is.

Some of the names on that list are wild

Although, surprisingly, the Confederates operate a surprising number of shallow draft ironclads and cotton-clads. Was not expecting that at all. I'd imagine that well into the Second Mexican War that the Confederates would still be operating a good number of these for harbor defense, river operations, and coastal defense.

 

[Sierra]

I wonder....how radically do people here think that the names of non-US ships would change? US ship names, n turns, oth do and do not seem to be altered. And i do not see much reason why the British would, for example, have all their dreadnoughts built in the same order and by the same names.

 

[Tiro]

Well for one thing the GEORGE V-class are more likely to be named the EDWARD VIII-class (for obvious reasons); I definitely think it likely that other classes and other ships could have alternate names, though what those names might be one cannot tell.

 

[Sierra]

Well for one thing the GEORGE V-class are more likely to be named the EDWARD VIII-class (for obvious reasons); I definitely think it likely that other classes and other ships could have alternate names, though what those names might be one cannot tell.

This.came up when I was thinking about how the Imperial Japanese Navy would look, and it occured to me that with a POD prior to the "restoration", and virtually no American military influence, there is no real reason to keep the exact same list of ships except laziness.

 

[Tiro]

More charitably, using roughly the same names allows one to "set the scene" without going into exhaustive detail r.e. the details of Japanese ship building.

 

[Sierra]

Hey now. Exhaustive detail is fun to people like us.

 

[Alterwright]

I wonder....how radically do people here think that the names of non-US ships would change? US ship names, n turns, oth do and do not seem to be altered. And i do not see much reason why the British would, for example, have all their dreadnoughts built in the same order and by the same names.

Yes, I imagine that names for ships for various countries would changed up quite a bit. I do think that a few notable ships would have their names stay the same. Ark Royal, for example, is still an aircraft carrier. We do not get many names for ships of the Royal Navy, Imperial German Navy, or Imperial Japanese Navy.

With the Japanese I feel the change in names for ships is going to be felt early on for them, especially since their naval experience and overall history is notably different in this timeline, especially as you go forward into the Second Great War. Dreadnoughts and subsequent battleship classes might have different names due to circumstances and with the apparently high stakes naval arms race that occurred in this timeline it is likely to me at least that they'd building ships and name them differently.

I see the names of the Royal Navy's ships being drastically changed Post-Great War, especially among cruisers and destroyers. Dreadnoughts and battleships, for me, I harder to change up, but there isn't a rule that says you can't change a name to something in alternate history. If the United States Navy can name ships that are radically different than in our timeline, I imagine the other countries can too. It would be fun.

 

[Alterwright]

Well for one thing the GEORGE V-class are more likely to be named the EDWARD VIII-class (for obvious reasons); I definitely think it likely that other classes and other ships could have alternate names, though what those names might be one cannot tell.

I agree, but unfortunately I am not very familiar with British monarchs as I probably should be, @Tiro . Why would the King George V-class of battleship line in particular have their class name change to Edward VIII? Would it be because post-Great War reason?

And yes, I'd say that ships in general from cruisers and below would have to their names altered up and changed drastically in this time line. Not all of them, but a good chunk of them for sure, especially any ships that are potentially built after the Great War, since the end of that war is a very significant point of deviation from our own.

Now, I'm not so familiar with Royal Navy ships, but it seems they have the lion's share of some of the most creative and evocative names I've seen given to naval ships. To my understanding, if you can think of a cool name for a ship, whether mythical or legendary, chances are the Royal Navy has named a ship after that. I wouldn't be surprised if the Royal Navy started reaching back into its own history to dig up certain names to give ships.

Here are a few names for the British ships that could be used that, to my knowledge at least, have never been used for ships prior to WWI, WWI, or WWII (though I'm sure if you dig far enough they have been used) --- Kraken, Behemoth, Chimera, Manticore, Revenant, Juggernaut, just to name a few.

However, I would stress that HMS Dreadnought would remain the same and be named as she was in our timeline. I feel her construction as a ship, as well as her name and its great impact on development of naval ship, would be too important to change up. That's just my opinion though.

 

[Alterwright]

More charitably, using roughly the same names allows one to "set the scene" without going into exhaustive detail r.e. the details of Japanese ship building.

Hey now. Exhaustive detail is fun to people like us.

Indeed!

I do feel that a few ships would still have their names remain the same. HMS Dreadnought, for example, I feel would be a name that is potentially too significant to alter, even for the purposes of this timeline. She gave an entire generation of ships a name to go by, to the point that every ship made before and after her, was called "pre-dreadnought", "dreadnought","post-dreadnought", or "super-dreadnought".

Then again, maybe she too was named differently. She wasn't explicitly named in the books I don't think, but if I also remember correctly a lot of battleships were referred to in the books as "dreadnought" during the Great War.

In general though, name changes to ships are going to happen for sure, though a good portion would still have their names stay the same. HMS Ark Royal is still in this timeline, for example. It'd be easier to name Western battleships though as opposed to Japanese battleships, but you have knowledge on how Japanese ships were named, you can really come up with something good.

 

[Alterwright]

@Sierra @Tiro - Okay here is a class of destroyers from the British / Commonwealth Royal Navies that would definitely have some names changed or altered entirely due to this timeline.

^^^ --- The Tribal-class destroyers I believe would have names altered or changed in within their class in this timeline.

Here is a link to the article on Wikipedia --- >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal-class_destroyer_(1936)

Here is a list of ship names from the Tribal-class destroyer line. I put an asterisks next to the names I felt would most likely be altered, changed, or otherwise butterflied away due to the circumstances for TL-191, but of course it is up for debate.

Service with the British Royal Navy:

• Afridi
• Ashanti
• Bedouin
• Cossack
• Eskimo *
• Gurkha
• Maori
• Mashona
• Matabele
• Mohawk *
• Nubian
• Punjabi
• Sikh
• Somali
• Tartar
• Zulu

Service with the Royal Canadian Navy ** :

• Iroquois *
• Athabaskan *
• Huron *
• Haida *
• Micmac *
• Hootka *
• Cayuga *

** = The destroyers assigned to the Canadian Navy in our timeline I feel would have their names changed. It is at least a 50 / 50 chance in my opinion that some of the name would not be kept and altered to something else. Now, granted, some of the names here are meant to honor tribes found in Canada or tribes that sided with the British in earlier colonial conflicts in North America, but I feel that given Canada's status in this timeline these names have a high chance of being changed

Service with the Royal Australian Navy:

• Arunta
• Warramunga
• Bataan ***

*** = Named in honor of the 1941-1942 Battle of Bataan in the Philippines in our timeline, which would not have occurred.

What do you guys think?

 

[Alterwright]

@Sierra @Tiro - Here is another set of ships that may have their names changed up in TL-191.

Just looking at the names of certain cruisers for the British Navy, you can accurately guess which ones are most likely to be changed and given different names. Case in point, the ship below...

^^^ --- Town-class light cruiser HMS Belfast. Named in honor of the city of Belfast in Northern Ireland, Belfast was constructed in 1936 and completed in 1939 in our timeline. In TL-191, all of Ireland was made completely independent, with the Northern Irish area dominated by Protestants also being part of Ireland. US and German warships were dispatched to this area to help suppress the British-backed rebels here in the 1920s, with Belfast being bombarded. I believe HMS Belfast would be given a very different name in this timeline.

A few cruisers of the Crown Colony-class line would also likely not be named as they were in our timeline, taking on different names in TL-191. All of these ships are named after British Crown Colonies and depending on your views of the treaty signed after the Great War, Britain is going to lose a colony or two to the Germans.

Case in point, the ships below...

^^^ --- Crown Colony-class light cruiser of the Fiji Group, HMS Bermuda. She was completed in 1942 and named after the British territory of Bermuda. In TL-191, it may not be likely that this ships gets that name since the US took the island during the Great War.

^^^ --- Crown Colony-class light cruiser of the Ceylon Group, HMS Newfoundland. She was completed in 1943 and named in honor of the Dominion of Newfoundland, in Canada. Like Bermuda, a ship taking on this name within this class is unlikely given the status of Canada in this timeline.

 

[Alterwright]

@Sierra @Tiro - To make things a little easier so you can look up names at your leisure for the Royal Navy, I'll post some links here for different ship classes of the Royal Navy.

You should be able to find several ships on these lists here that would not fit in with TL-191's established world. In particular, any ships named after cities, colonies, or other locations within the British Empire that would have been lost during the Great War might not have a place as far as names go.

Aircraft Carriers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

Dreadnoughts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dreadnought_battleships_of_the_Royal_Navy

Cruisers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cruiser_classes_of_the_Royal_Navy

Destroyers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyer_classes_of_the_Royal_Navy