A USN victory against the British in 1862 (or Tielhard has been doing Trent again)

Tielhard

Banned
As many of you know a war between Great Britain and the Federal Americans as a result of the Trent affair is a regular topic for discussion on this board. It comes around somewhat more frequently than Christmas. In recent discussions on the outcome of such a war I and several others most notably 67th Tigers and MrP have comprehensively demonstrated that the USA is at a huge disadvantage in any such war and on the balance of probabilities will be defeated in very swift order should it allow such a war to start.
I wrote a time-line based on this. No , that is not quite true I wrote several time-lines and did not complete any of them. The reason being it was all far too one sided. The Lion roars and the Eagle is humbled, end of story, it was believable but completely un-entertaining. I finally figured out what I did not like about what I was writing, and it is this, the Americans know they have weaknesses and do nothing to rectify or nullify them. So with that in mind I thought it would be a good idea to play Devil’s (or at least America’s) advocate and re-visit the federal American disadvantages and try to rectify or nullify them. I would greatly appreciate any comments you may have.

1) The USA has a huge store of gold and silver in California that it cannot move once war starts. This is because the overland route is subject to interdiction by the CSA, is months long and requires a vast logistics exercise. The sea route is subject to interdiction by the British.

Proposed US solution: Get the bullion out before the war starts and send it to a neutral country. Possible close options are the Netherlands at Batavia, China, Portugal at Macao or the Russian Empire on Kamchatka (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky) or in Alaska at Sitka.

2) The Federal USA is desperately short of powder.

Proposed US solution 1: Attempt to buy Chinese powder will Californian bullion before commencement of hostilities.

3) The British know that the Federal USA keeps its major powder store on the East coast close to the sea. Similarly the largest manufacturing arsenals are also close to the sea.

Proposed US solution 1: Move the powder in the store in land in conditions of secrecy. Prepare an ambush for troops advancing from the coast.
Proposed US Mitigation 1: Attack and occupy that area of Kentucky suitable for powder manufacture.

Proposed US solution 2: Move manufacturing of small arms in land. If that is not possible fortify arsenal sites.
Proposed US mitigation 2: If Arsenal sites are destroyed by the enemy. Do not resume rifled musket production instead invest resources and human capital in private gun production. This would result in a more diverse range of arms being used by the Federal armies but it would also result in a far larger number of repeating rifles being used by them too.

4) According to 67th Tigers the British are likely to abandon the Niagara peninsula and organise their defense from deep within Canada (I myself am not convinced of this but the evidence is with him).

US opportunity: Destroy or prepare for destruction the Welland canals especially the lock system. If the British have to rebuild the canals it will take some years longer than the duration of the war. They will be restricted to Lake Ontario for the duration of the war. The USA will have control of all of the upper lakes and hence the American/Canadian grain trade. The USA could seek to minimise smuggling of US grains and restrict the flow of Canadian grains.

US opportunity 2: Close lake Ontario to the British. The USS New Orleans an old style sail line-of-battle ship (98) is ‘complete on the stocks’ and housed over in fair condition at Sackett’s Harbour at the confluence of the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario. Equipped with modern guns and perhaps chained and armour plated she can stand against anything the British can send up the St. Lawrence with the possible exception of Aetna. To take her the British would have to mob her and take heavy losses.

5) The US Navy is in a very difficult position if it has to fight the British and the CSA at the same time. It cannot give up the blockade of the South. If it does then the neutrals will declare the blockade raise and will very soon afterwards recognise the independence of the CSA. If it does not give up the blockade the RN will destroy the USN a bit at a time. They must fight a naval action and win or at least not loose too badly.
6)
Proposed US strategy: First, at all cost capture New Orleans if it has not already been captured. Go into mass production of light ironclads at Carondeletes and start sending them down river to clear out the confederates.
New Orleans and the mouth of the Mississippi must not fall or the British and Confederates can cut the USA in two. K

Keep most of the schooners and weaker steam boats on station. Instruct them to run if the RN approaches then come back if they elude capture. Send the better stream boats to New York. Call home the cruisers. There are 3 serviceable 1st rates in New York and Boston plate them, up gun them and if time put an engine in them. If not then use armoured tugs to move them don’t bother with mast and rigging. Finish Monitor and Galena lay down further Galena hulls and build them fast. Finish New Ironsides. In the best case the USN may only be facing 3 British armoured ships, worst case could be 9 but is very unlikely. By taking this approach the USA could have up to 8 armoured or part armoured vessels of limited utility. Part armour the bigger frigates. Complete all of the builds currently underway. Fill six or more fast merchant ships with concrete in the bow. No fireships or bombs the USA does not have the powder. Lastly there are lots of steam launches in New York Harbour convert them into spar torpedo boats.

Offer battle outside the outer entrance to New York harbour. The best way to do this is a public letter echoing Broke’s terms to Lawrence. Milne would be unable to refuse even if he wanted to. Three lines of battle. Armoured ships and big frigates including sail (this will be SLOW 6 knots or less). Second line steam war sloops and gunboats with the fast merchant concrete on the flanks. Between the first and second line as may spar torpedo boats as you can find. In the third line about 20 fast converted merchant ships backed iron where possible additional wooden armour sanctuaries where not. full to bursting with soldiers. Use AMCs and a couple of gunboats as outliers and look for targets of opportunity.

Ensure both the inner and outer forts are manned and cannoned-up and all three channels are mined (torpedoed) to cover the retreat of the remaining fleet.

Strike at the RN’s armoured ships and big cruisers with the 1st line and spar torpedo boats. Use the big concrete rams against anything big you can find. Use the second line to protect the third until they are close enough to board.

Pray (Prey?). This is the best I can think of for a US naval victory. If anyone can think of anything better that does not have monitors surviving one on one engagements with big armoured ships or even big cruisers (more than once or twice) please let me know.
 
The reason the Trent affair came to naught in OTL is both the U.S. and Britain realized how unpleasant a war would be for both of them, with not much to potentially gain. I imagine that if the initial clash goes well for the U.S. (as you propose), that both sides will quickly negotiate for peace.

I like your idea about the U.S. merely being very unpleasant to lower Canada, rather than attempting a conquest. I think that the strategy you describe of the U.S. using its massive advantage in ground troops (the Federals' troubles in Northern Virginia in 1861-1863 are not indicative of the overall situation) and avoiding conflict where Britain has the advantage is America's best chance.

The naval battle you propose would be a desperate gambit for the Americans, but they had a capable shipbuilding industry and very capable naval commanders at the time.

The effects on America of the abortive British intervention are less interesting to me than the effects on the British Empire. My knowledge of Victorian British politics is slight, but I imagine that Lord Palmerston's government would collapse at the very least.
 
Interesting ideas, but I don't think that a war between the USA and Britain in the 1860s is that bad of a mismatch to begin with, even taking the Confederacy into account. The USA was already a pretty strong industrial country - not as strong as Britain, to be sure, but in this case the fighting will be closer to the USA industrial base than to Britain's.

The British navy will certainly beat the vastly outnumbered USA on the ocean, but in shallow water the US can heavily fortify every significant point, and the US can produce Monitor-style ironclads and other smaller ironclads that can create lots of trouble in coastal waters.

A lot of US manufacturing capacity was near the coast, but it has to be right on the coast to be hit directly by naval gunfire at this period. One thing the US had by 1862 was lots of well-armed volunteers, and they will make a British landing anywhere on the US east coast a risky proposition except in the most isolated areas. The west coast would be relatively poorly defended, but then again the British don't have nearly as many troops or ships available in the Pacific.
 
The reason the Trent affair came to naught in OTL is both the U.S. and Britain realized how unpleasant a war would be for both of them, with not much to potentially gain. I imagine that if the initial clash goes well for the U.S. (as you propose), that both sides will quickly negotiate for peace.

The British would have to avenge their defeat, peace with honour and all that.

They aren't going to come to the table if they aren't content that they have the upper hand.

I think that the strategy you describe of the U.S. using its massive advantage in ground troops (the Federals' troubles in Northern Virginia in 1861-1863 are not indicative of the overall situation) and avoiding conflict where Britain has the advantage is America's best chance.

67th Tigers work on the subject indicates they don't have a massive advantage in ground troops.
 

Tielhard

Banned
Baldy,

The reason the Trent affair came to naught in OTL is both the U.S. and Britain realized how unpleasant a war would be for both of them, with not much to potentially gain. I imagine that if the initial clash goes well for the U.S. (as you propose), that both sides will quickly negotiate for peace.

Yep. The Trent affair turning into a war is pretty unlikely. However, I have developed no less than three scenarios where there is a war and nobody behaves in a way that could be described as stupid or unreasonable.

The reason I propose the battle at New York (and failing adverse comment) will treat as a partial US victory i.e. significant British losses and a sucessful retreat of part of the US fleet to New York harbour is that without it the Union will sue for peace and Britain will not ask for unreasonable terms. If the RN has been mauled the US might press its luck, the British WILL want the utter destruction and humiliation of the USN.

The naval battle you propose would be a desperate gambit for the Americans, but they had a capable shipbuilding industry and very capable naval commanders at the time.

It may be a desparate gambit but it is the best I can offer them. Raiding won't cut the mustard.
 
The British navy will certainly beat the vastly outnumbered USA on the ocean, but in shallow water the US can heavily fortify every significant point, and the US can produce Monitor-style ironclads and other smaller ironclads that can create lots of trouble in coastal waters.

And what is to prevent the British building their own coastal Monitor type craft (it is quite easy to argue they already had with the Crimean battery ships) in far greater numbers and towing them over.

One thing the US had by 1862 was lots of well-armed volunteers, and they will make a British landing anywhere on the US east coast a risky proposition except in the most isolated areas.

A militia rabble is of little use against seasoned veterans and most of the US forces which are above that category will be busy elsewhere.

The west coast would be relatively poorly defended, but then again the British don't have nearly as many troops or ships available in the Pacific.

Since the British control the seas they just have to ship them to the Pacific.
 
How long will it take to assemble the forces for this naval battle because the US is going to be in a very time sensitive situation(vague numbers would be useful).

I also doubt Milne would have to go into a playing field of the US's choosing if he doesn't want to, he will simply tell them to come out and fight on the open seas where it is a fair match as any honourable contest demands.
 

Tielhard

Banned
Darkling,

How long will it take to assemble the forces for this naval battle because the US is going to be in a very time sensitive situation(vague numbers would be useful).

I gave them three and a half months. With almost four weeks of that prior to the start of hostilities.

I also doubt Milne would have to go into a playing field of the US's choosing if he doesn't want to, he will simply tell them to come out and fight on the open seas where it is a fair match as any honourable contest demands.

If Milne gets a formal challenge from a weaker opponent and it is in similar form to that from Broke to Lawrence he will be honour bound to accept unless he suspects it is sent in bad faith. He could not refuse without dishonouring the Royal Navy. Furthermore he will only be able to use a 'decent excess' of force. He will be unable to squash the USN like a bug. What I mean is, if the USA has 50 ships in its fleet at NY he might send 70 or 80 similarly sized vessels but if he sent 100 or 150 he and the RN would be regarded by neutral observes as behaning dishonourably.
 
Tielhard, he would also convince any potential foe that, if you can not match the RN in sheer force, either alone or with allies, you just don't start something.
 

Tielhard

Banned
True Grimm but that is a modern American mindset. We need to think 19th C. British gentleman mind set.
 
I doubt that the British mindset would include accepting a major naval defeat and heavy losses because Admiral Milne felt it would be unfair to involve more than half his available fleet.
 
And what is to prevent the British building their own coastal Monitor type craft (it is quite easy to argue they already had with the Crimean battery ships) in far greater numbers and towing them over.



A militia rabble is of little use against seasoned veterans and most of the US forces which are above that category will be busy elsewhere.



Since the British control the seas they just have to ship them to the Pacific.

The Monitor & her sister ships was actually quite an innovative design - the first real revolving iron turrets to appear in naval warfare. They can be copied, but it will take a little time. They'll have to be made a little more deep-seaworthy, though, or some of them will sink under tow if they hit a bad storm (that's what happened to the original Monitor).

The volunteer forces that the US raised in the Civil war were several notches above regular militia in training and discipline, and even militia can be effective defending their own territory with a little training and support. If the US goes on the defensive in most places vs. the CSA, that frees up maybe 100,000 volunteer troops, probably a lot more. Recruitment will probably be better if the war is against Britain, since the pro-confederate midwesterners and Irish immigrants who weren't eager to fight the Confederates won't have a problem signing up to fight the British.
 

Tielhard

Banned
The Monitor & her sister ships was actually quite an innovative design - the first real revolving iron turrets to appear in naval warfare. They can be copied, but it will take a little time. They'll have to be made a little more deep-seaworthy, though, or some of them will sink under tow if they hit a bad storm (that's what happened to the original Monitor).

This is going a bit off topic as I half expected but .... FYI the Monitor is not the first iron turret warship the British built or I should say modified one in 1859 and the turret system was in all respects superior to that of Monitor. The British Crimean war armoured batteries (1856) based on a French design are all capable of engaging and destroying Monitor they handle better in shoal water, have similar speed and far, far better armour. The USN has one monitor and at the time it is launched the don't know if it will work. I suggest to you if the USA is at war with Britain and the CSA it won't fight Virginia it will be kept to fight British Cruisers and if it does chances are it will be charged down and sunk in single ship action. In a fleet action as I suggest it may have a chance.

I doubt that the British mindset would include accepting a major naval defeat and heavy losses because Admiral Milne felt it would be unfair to involve more than half his available fleet.

Exactly my point. However, prior to the event the British public and government would expect him to both play fair(ish) AND win.
 
Very comprehensive, and should give the US a chance of making a suitable peace(ie status quo antebellum in regards to Britain), imho. Surprised to see it from you ;), but seems reasonable.
 
I gave them three and a half months. With almost four weeks of that prior to the start of hostilities.

So mid March, Monitor will be ready but that is it.
Maybe Galena

If Milne gets a formal challenge from a weaker opponent and it is in similar form to that from Broke to Lawrence he will be honour bound to accept unless he suspects it is sent in bad faith.

Well Lawrence never received that telegram however the form was "you come out to me" not please sail into my harbour where I can quickly hide again if need be.

He could not refuse without dishonouring the Royal Navy.

He can counter by asking them to come out to him instead, he is in no obligation to fight under their conditions, do you think he would accept if they asked him to fight directly under their fort guns? of course not.

Furthermore he will only be able to use a 'decent excess' of force. He will be unable to squash the USN like a bug. What I mean is, if the USA has 50 ships in its fleet at NY he might send 70 or 80 similarly sized vessels but if he sent 100 or 150 he and the RN would be regarded by neutral observes as behaning dishonourably.

If it is the Yanks asking for the competition then they can hardly cry foul at what he brings, they always have the option of remaining blockaded.
 
The Monitor & her sister ships was actually quite an innovative design - the first real revolving iron turrets to appear in naval warfare.

HMS Trusty had a turret, Monitor was neither the first Iron ship nor the first Turret ship, she just happened to be the first in a ship to ship engagement and American, that is why she gets the press.

They can be copied, but it will take a little time. They'll have to be made a little more deep-seaworthy, though, or some of them will sink under tow if they hit a bad storm (that's what happened to the original Monitor).

HMS Terror, which was one of those Battery ships was able to get to Bermuda.
The British were able to send HMS Cerberus to Australia in 69, now she was laid down in 67 so 5 years into the future from the POD but she was also considerably better than the Monitors the US produced and shows Britain was quite capable of coming up with Monitor type vessels.

The volunteer forces that the US raised in the Civil war were several notches above regular militia in training and discipline, and even militia can be effective defending their own territory with a little training and support. If the US goes on the defensive in most places vs. the CSA, that frees up maybe 100,000 volunteer troops, probably a lot more.

That is about 25% of the Union force, keeping that tied up on the coast (in addition to forces need to defend against/invade Canada) leaves the US with a very weak position with regard to the CSA.

It doesn't profit the US to make the British wary to invade Newport if the CSA overruns Kentucky and takes the Ohio River.

Recruitment will probably be better if the war is against Britain, since the pro-confederate midwesterners and Irish immigrants who weren't eager to fight the Confederates won't have a problem signing up to fight the British.

That means more money needed for weapons (and the fact that the US imported hundreds of thousands of weapons from the UK becomes problem here), equipment and wages for a US which just had its export industry shut down.

It also takes time to get those forces ready and time is on Britain's side.
 

Tielhard

Banned
Offer battle outside the outer entrance to New York harbour.

Well Lawrence never received that telegram however the form was "you come out to me" not please sail into my harbour where I can quickly hide again if need be.

Letter, not telegram BUT every officer in the RN and USN would have known of the challenge. Shannon took Chesapeake in the Boston roads just outside the harbour.

"Sir, As the Chesapeake appears now ready for sea, I request that you will do me the favour to meet the Shannon with her, ship to ship, to try the fortunes of our respective flags…… I entreat you sir, not to imagine that I am urged by mere personal vanity to the wish of meeting the Chesapeake, or that I depend upon your personal ambition for your acceding to this invitation; we both have nobler motives..…. Favour me with a speedy reply. We are short of provisions and water, and cannot stay long here.

(Letter to Capt. James Lawrence, from Capt. Sir Philip Bowes Vere Broke)."
 
Letter, not telegram BUT every officer in the RN and USN would have known of the challenge. Shannon took Chesapeake in the Boston roads just outside the harbour.

Yes but he was already under orders to sail, he left before the letter arrived.

"Offer battle outside the outer entrance to New York harbour."

Yes but since they are close enough to run back in when things get hot obviously they aren't that far away.
 
Looking at Galena it looks like she wasn't constructed in New York so she probably won't be able to take part in the battle.

Any chance of a rough Orbat, so far we have Monitor and 3 upgraded ships (could such an upgrade be done in a few months? IIRC the RN upgrades took longer).
 
The USS Vanderbilt was an ironclad available shortly after the confrontation between the Monitor and the Virginia, although I do not have the specs of this ship available.

Apparently Secretary of War Stanton, openly hysterical after the Virginia's first appearance, actually whined in public as to why the Navy didn't wait for the Vanderbilt to arrive instead of sending the Monitor alone!:eek:
 
Top