A Confederate Naval WI

[robertp6165]

The story of the CSS ARKANSAS, which eventually took on the entire Union fleet of David Farragut at Vicksburg and won, is well known. What is less known is that ARKANSAS was one of two such ironclads being constructed at Memphis, Tennessee, but not finished before the city fell to Union forces (ARKANSAS was moved to a site on the Yazoo River where it was eventually completed. TENNESSEE, her sister, was burned to prevent capture).

But these ships possibly could have been completed in March 1862, in time to have made a major impact on the war on the Mississippi, were it not for the intransigence of General Leonidas Polk, one of the most incompetent figures produced by the Confederacy.

From here...

In correspondence with Major General Leonidas Polk, CSA, throughout January 1862, seeking Army workmen from Columbus, Kentucky, Secretary Stephen Mallory promised for Tennessee and her sister, Arkansas, building at Shirley's yard, that "with such aid as mechanics under your command can afford, they may be completed, I am assured, in 60 days." The desired "shipwrights, carpenters and joiners in the Army" were refused—"on furlough or otherwise" —although the general was reminded that, "One of them at Columbus would have enabled you to complete the annihilation of the enemy . . . Mr. Shirley," Mallory prophesied correctly, "will fail in completing them within the stipulated time entirely from the difficulty of obtaining workmen", although they "would be worth many regiments in defending the river."

So let's assume that Leonidas Polk gets a unique flash of intelligence and sends the shipwrights, carpenters, and joiners in the army to work on the two ironclads being built at Shirley's Yard at Memphis, Tennessee. Let's also assume that Secretary Mallory's statement that with those workmen, the ships would have been completed within 60 days, turns out to be correct, putting that completion in mid-to late March of 1862.

Island Number 10 did not fall until April 7, 1862, and New Orleans not until April 25, of 1862, in OTL. The CSS ARKANSAS, by herself, outfought the entire Union fleet at Vickburg after she was eventually launched. With the presence of not one, but TWO powerful Confederate ironclads like the ARKANSAS on the river before April 1, 1862, it is very possible that New Orleans, Memphis, and Vicksburg, either don't fall, or the fall of said places is seriously delayed, and the Confederates might well control the Mississippi well past July 1863. What effects could all of this have?

 

[Art]

Hmm...

would that be the Confee ironclad that was blown up with a spar torpedo? One or two ironclads aren't going to change the fundamental situation for the C. S. A. Navy. They started out utterly outgunned, and never had anymore than a temporary advantage either tactically or stratigically. Unless the French or the British come in on the Confederacy's side, they were doomed from the start. The cannon were not to be had, the shipyards, the repair facilities. And they lost New Orleans so early on. There is no POD i can see that would fundamentally change that, unless you have the Confederacy planned YEARS ahead, which it never did.

 

[67th Tigers]

would that be the Confee ironclad that was blown up with a spar torpedo? One or two ironclads aren't going to change the fundamental situation for the C. S. A. Navy. They started out utterly outgunned, and never had anymore than a temporary advantage either tactically or stratigically. Unless the French or the British come in on the Confederacy's side, they were doomed from the start. The cannon were not to be had, the shipyards, the repair facilities. And they lost New Orleans so early on. There is no POD i can see that would fundamentally change that, unless you have the Confederacy planned YEARS ahead, which it never did.

The OP's PoD is realistic. The British, for example, could (and did) build 1,500 ton ironclads in 3 months, so did the US (although less powerful ships). Arkansas was lost due to the engines breaking down and had to be scuttled.

Arkansas and Tennessee would be very useful ships on the rivers, and would certainly improve the Confederate situation.

 

[robertp6165]

would that be the Confee ironclad that was blown up with a spar torpedo?

That was the Albemarle. Much less powerful warship commissioned in 1864 which still raised cain with Union forces it encountered.

One or two ironclads aren't going to change the fundamental situation for the C. S. A. Navy. They started out utterly outgunned, and never had anymore than a temporary advantage either tactically or stratigically. Unless the French or the British come in on the Confederacy's side, they were doomed from the start. The cannon were not to be had, the shipyards, the repair facilities. And they lost New Orleans so early on. There is no POD i can see that would fundamentally change that, unless you have the Confederacy planned YEARS ahead, which it never did.

The question wasn't whether the presence of the two ironclads on the river in early 1862 have won the war for the Confederacy. The question is, what effects would their presence have? The presence of one or both of them at the Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Phillip could have turned the tide of that battle the other way, for example, preventing the early fall of New Orleans in April 1862. If they had been present at Memphis in June 1862, that city probably would not have fallen. If those two places don't fall, Vicksburg certainly won't. The Mississippi remains open to Confederate commerce for much longer as a result. What I was looking for was a discussion of the likely effects of this on the conduct of the war itself.

The end result would likely have been the same, with the Confederacy going down to defeat in the end (although it is possible that butterflies released by longer Confederate control of the Mississippi might have led to a Confederate victory as well). But that is not what I was asking about.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

Well, this could certainly delay the US Western campaign, which could have butterflies on the perceived abilities of Grant and Sherman, among others, and of their Confederate counterparts. Alt generals opportunities here.

 

[67th Tigers]

The end result would likely have been the same, with the Confederacy going down to defeat in the end (although it is possible that butterflies released by longer Confederate control of the Mississippi might have led to a Confederate victory as well). But that is not what I was asking about.

The Army of Mississippi lost at Vicksburg was the second largest in the CSA, larger than Bragg's Army of Tennessee. A few butterflies and the CSA is a serious contender into 1864, since the US will continue to have to field 3 main armies rather than consolidating into two and marching to the sea. I suspect they might get a compromise peace in summer 1863.

 

[robertp6165]

The Army of Mississippi lost at Vicksburg was the second largest in the CSA, larger than Bragg's Army of Tennessee. A few butterflies and the CSA is a serious contender into 1864, since the US will continue to have to field 3 main armies rather than consolidating into two and marching to the sea. I suspect they might get a compromise peace in summer 1863.

That's all quite true.

 

[Claudius]

Let's say Polk dies of influenza in December of 1861. Who was next in line for his command?

 

[robertp6165]

The OP's PoD is realistic. The British, for example, could (and did) build 1,500 ton ironclads in 3 months, so did the US (although less powerful ships). Arkansas was lost due to the engines breaking down and had to be scuttled.

That's another change caused by this POD...in OTL, a big reason ARKANSAS' engines were as poor as they were is that the ship carrying them, and the iron for the armor, from Memphis to the construction yard on the Yazoo, sunk in the Yazoo River. By the time the Confederates could get the stuff raised from the bottom of the river, everything was rusted. Even after the rust was cleaned off the engine, it was never as reliable or efficient as it had been originally. That won't happen in the ATL.

Arkansas and Tennessee would be very useful ships on the rivers, and would certainly improve the Confederate situation.

I just thought of another effect of all this. If New Orleans can be saved, the MISSISSIPPI and LOUISIANA, the two Confederate ironclads being built there, will most likely get completed as well. So you now have a fleet of four (or five, if you count CSS MANASSAS, which was already operating at New Orleans and was, in OTL, sunk during the Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip) ironclads defending the Mississippi.

 

[Japhy]

I'd think the Confederates might be able to get the ships launched in the 60 days, but I dont know if that will solve the problems of Arkansas or the Tennessee. IIRC the Arkansas lacked the right engine shaft, which caused the engine problems which eventually led to its scuttling. The same will of course be true for the Tennessee.

That said the two together could form a serious threat to Union Naval Operations for Some time on the Mississippi. Mind you the engagement at Vicksburg was against the Gulf Squadron, ill suited for riverine combat. It would though, be quite interesting to see what the two gunboats could do against that squadron further down river.

If New Orleans can be preserved for a few more weeks (Again, If I recall correctly, I may be completely off base here) you see the Tennessee and Arkansas re-enforced by the CSS Louisiana and CSS Mississippi

Up river, against Andrew Foote's growing forces I think it would be a closer run thing, but the US Ram Fleet and the Mississippi River Squadron combined should be able to eliminate the threat eventually.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Robert,

Thanks to our earlier conversation about CSS Stonewall I know you're a wargamer and a Civil War naval wargamer at that. That's why I'm puzzled by your description of the "Passage of the Fleet" as some sort of titanic naval battle.

The truth is that CSS Arkansas passed by rows of moored warships, few of which had any steam up, and most of whose crews were ashore. Some damage was done by both sides, with friendly fire hitting Union ships, no ships were sunk, the Union losing about 80 killed or wounded, the Arkansas losing about 30 killed or wounded, with the result being that the ironclad successfully mooring below one of Vicksburg's fort.

Arkansas' presence at Vicksburg didn't effect Farragut's movements, he successfully ran south past the forts the next day, or influence Farragut's decision to withdraw, he'd already made it clear that the fleet couldnt take Vicksburg without army support.

Arkansas led a kind of Tirpitz[/]i-like existence after that with the Union keeping an eye on her and making one attempt to sink her. When the ironclad was finally used in an offensive role, during the failed attack on Baton Rouge, she was lost.

Her only real battle came a few hours before she passed Farragut's fleet when she brushed aside two wooden gunboats and temporarily disabled the steering of USS Carondelet, the slowest ironclad in the Union river fleet.

Some indication of Arkansas combat power can be gleaned from the failed Union attempt to sink her by ramming. USS Essex, the weakest armed and armored among the Union river ironclads at the time, missed her ramming attempt and ran aground for about 15 minutes in full view of the Confederate vessel. Despite that, Essex guns were able to inflict more damage on Arkansas than she in got return.

Arkansas was neither "powerful" nor did she ever "outfight" any of her opponents. Her only real battle involved using the extra speed traveling down river afforded her to run away from an enemy disabled by a lucky shot and her "Passage of the Fleet", while ballsy in the extreme, involved her running past moored and otherwise immobile warships without full crews.

If completed in late March, Arkansas and her sister would be out armed, out armored, and out numbered by a Union ironclad fleet which already totaled 9 vessels with more building.

At Island #10, Foote was using his flotilla conservatively thanks to the beating he got at Fort Donelson. However he still had 7 ironclads with him, each of which, if the experience of Essex is any guide, was a match for Arkansas or her sister.

Later during the campaign against Fort Pillow, Confederate rams did surprise the Union flotilla near Plum Point and managed to temporarily sink two of them. The presence of the slower Arkansas and her sister would have only drawn out the approach of the ram flotilla and given the Union fleet more time to prepare.

At Memphis where two ram "fleets" tangled, Arkansas and her sister would have hung back from the swirling ram melee just as their Union counterparts did. When the Confederate ram fleet was dispersed, the out numbered Confederate ironclads would have withdrawn.

Unlike in the OTL where Arkansas was only rumored to exist, with two Confederate ironclads known to be in operation, Farragut and Foote would have searched them out separately and together. What's more, both Union commanders separately have more than enough assets to destroy the Confederate ironclads when they're found. Once their existence is known, the only safe place for this ATL CSS Arkansas and her sister will be in the same place where the OTL Arkansas spent nearly half of her short existence; moored below a Confederate fort for protection.

The vessels just aren't enough to effect the Union operations occurring at either end of the Mississippi.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Nikephoros]

Basically, it's just another example of Lost Cause mythology.