Divided North America = River/Lake warfare wank? What sort of ships will be used?

The American Civil War saw very large and prominent river fleets used by both sides, due to the strategic value of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Later concepts for river and lake warfare in the region occurred in the context of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes, also highly strategic. These rivers are some of the most traveled in the world and run by very important cities and areas.

So let's postulate a scenario (it will take some time TL describe but IMO might be necessary for this discussion) where Northern America is divided between three powers. West of the Mississippi we have Louisiana which has all of the OTL states west of the river (minus Hawaii and Alaska), but also contains OTL Minnesota, bits of northwestern Wisconsin, and southwestern Mississippi with a line drawn from the northern Louisiana border to the Pearl River watershed in Mississippi. The southern and northern borders are the same as the OTL US. In the north we have Canada, which is the same as OTL but has Alaska and Aroostook County. The United States is the third major power, bordered by Louisiana and Canada. For the purpose of this scenario, assume Latin America is the same as OTL, and the Paraguayan War has happened and went similar to OTL but less Paraguayans died. Something like the American Civil War happened too, and river warfare carried the day with gunboats on the Tennessee and Cumberland helping smash the Confederate States despite skilled efforts from the few ships they managed to deploy to the rivers. Something like the War of 1812 happened too, with battles on the Great Lakes between the US and Britain.

Economically and demographically, assume Canada is slightly more prosperous and has maybe 20% more people in any given year than OTL. The US is the same as OTL in terms of economics but has 10% less population by state. Louisiana has a slightly weaker economy than the OTL US in any given year and has 50% less people than the entire OTL US in 1850, rising to 33% less in 1900 and peaking at 25% less in 1950. Latin America is the same as OTL minus the Paraguayan War resulting in far less civilian casualties in Paraguay.

Assume that each three countries is more or less cautious toward each other, but would be willing to ally with one of the other two if needed in a war (in Canada's case this means an alliance with Britain obviously). Mexico is not perceived as a major threat since either Louisiana or the US believes they can destabilize the country (and thus their war effort) at the drop of a hat assuming Mexico doesn't remain neutral. This all means North America will be a lot more militarized so a lot more money is being spent on the military than OTL. The three nations cooperate on some economic issues, most notably for this scenario flood control on the border rivers as well as dredging them for navigation. OTL infrastructure on these rivers and lakes is built on schedule although Louisiana maintains the Missouri to a much higher standard while the Ohio and Tennessee on the US side are likewise maintained better than OTL. The Tennessee-Tombigbee is built by 1900 while by 1900 the Arkansas and Red River of the South is made navigable to 20th century standards. Louisiana also has a canal connecting the Mississippi to Lake Superior near OTL Duluth.

In a scenario like this, which isn't too unreasonable even with a fairly late POD, you have a rather important British dominion alongside two titans competing for domination of North America and potentially the Western Hemisphere as a whole. The rivers near the borders will mean control of the rivers will be massively important for any war. More than anything in Europe or North America OTL, with the best comparison being the Paraguayan War where river warfare played a key role. This means river and lake warfare TTL will see a lot more investment, attention, and innovation, meaning we have a riverine/lacustrine warfare wank.

Starting with river warfare, how much investment might each country put into their river fleets? Would it make up a sizable amount of naval investment in the US due to only having one ocean to defend and the rest is almost all river frontiers? Or perhaps Louisiana, who has the US to worry about, a short Gulf Coast, and a Pacific where they don't need to project power against Britain, France, and Japan unlike the OTL US?

What type of ship designs would spread 1850-1950? We have many examples of nice river monitors used by the US and Brazil in the Americas while in Europe Russia, Austria-Hungary, and its successors likewise had good examples of river vessels in this time period. But what about going bigger or more powerful? More armor to protect against forts and artillery? Bigger guns to punch through said armor and river forts? While river ships need to worry about the shallow draft in the rivers, and in particular the Mississippi has some challenging conditions, thus limiting their design, there must be room for innovation. A sort of torpedo ram in rivers seem interesting, given the confined space, while I also like the idea of a monitor meant for rivers like the Lord Clive-class with the 18 inch gun (no doubt smaller since a 3 meter draft might be too limiting). Figuring out a warship that could go as north as Memphis yet still be useful for coastal operations along the Gulf against oceangoing ships seems like a good concept too while of course these ships should also be able to enter the Great Lakes (size permitting).

How big might these fleets be? While the rivers are confined and the river forts will limit potential operations, how big might a plausible battle be, no doubt accompanying a crossing.

Finally, with air power playing an increasing role by the 1930s, what will happen to these fleets? Today's Romanian still deploys a sizable fleet of classic river monitors, some designed in the 90s, while the USSR IIRC had some nice monitors too into the Cold War. The US's Vietnam riverboats were comparatively less impressive. Would there be new designs to meet the challenges of the era? Like perhaps some sort of anti-air monitor, an arsenal ship type of river ship loaded with various types of missiles to take out both air targets and bombard land targets? An effective river submarine or other submerged vehicle for striking ships? Ekranoplans?

Lake warfare is a different topic. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence freeze over thus requiring icebreakers. Lake ships also have a longer life than ocean ships thanks to the freshwater. But otherwise, they seem similar to the oceans but for their shallow depths. Would we see more combat icebreakers (Finland and the USSR had some)? Coastal defense ships like the Nordic nations used? Honest-to-god lake submarines and lake cruisers and lake battleships?

This I think would be the US's field, although Louisiana will obviously want to invest and Canada will have some potential here too (those icebreakers are good for the Arctic too). How big of a fleet might there be on the Great Lakes reasonably?

Overall, will this make river warfare more important and invested in globally (especially if the *Great War spreads to North America), as many of these designs are great for other major rivers. Will many landlocked nations end up with bigger navies as North American countries sell older ships (long live the Paraguayan Navy!)? How much will naval engineering spill over to the civilian field as rivers are altered to fit the needs of the brown-water navies and much skill is gained in everything related to the science and engineering of these ships and knowledge of river conditions?
 
Shallow draft versions of deep water fleets.

But how much though? The Mississippi is a very chaotic river, and IIRC the Missouri is also a mess (hence why it's been "underutilised"). Although something like HMS Lord Clive with the 18 inch gun would certainly be very nice for any navy. Would a variant of the Lord Clive-class be viable for river warfare in North America?

The Great Lakes seem akin to the Baltic (which also freezes over), but has the problem of large ships not being able to move to the Atlantic. Would be interesting to the see the "Queen of the Lakes" be a warship. Given the scenario I've presented regarding Louisiana, building a "lake battleship" or two on Lake Superior could help seize the lake from enemy fleets and help out with shore bombardment (the Upper Peninsula is a nice target given the copper mines). Of course, you can't move it south to Lake Huron or Lake Michigan for a good while, and it won't be able to help in naval battles on those lakes.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I would point you to the Lake engagements of the war of 1812 for an idea of what would have been used. The British managed to launch a 36 gun frigate (HMS Confiance) that was within a couple meters of the length of a sea-going frigate of the same rate, but with much less beam and only around 1/3 the draft (both of which were much less of an issue/need on the lake since the need to carry provisions for multiple month voyages did not exist, and even at its most energetic the lake couldn't hold a candle to moderate North Atlantic sea state) on Lake Champlain and a remarkable 112 gun 1st Rate ship of the line (HMS St Lawrence) on Lake Ontario that was LARGER than HMS Victory. This would have continued to be the case as the age of sail ended and steam became the order of the day (about the only real difference is that steam would have eliminated the need for the row galleys that had some popularity on both Lake Erie and Champlain.

Riverine warfare would have continued with the pattern seen in the Union Navy during the ACW. Heavily armored broadside steam gunboats mounting the heaviest guns and mortars available and double ended monitors with construction moving from wrought iron over wood to iron hulls and eventually steel hulls with remarkably over gunned for size monitors becoming the capital ship of the Mississippi (similar but likely even more heavily armed versions of this vessel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Terror_(I03) ) and smaller, but equally potent fleets of ships constructed on the navigable portions of other river systems that are not navigable for their entire length.
 
Thinking of this the other day, I was wondering about the potential use of a river monitor which could also be used as a sort of "Inshore Fire Support Ship" like USS Carronade. You'd want a main gun of at least 4 inches, and a low enough draft to get close to the shore, but also a ship which can both stand up to the weather conditions near the coast on the ocean and travel deep inland along the rivers.

I would point you to the Lake engagements of the war of 1812 for an idea of what would have been used. The British managed to launch a 36 gun frigate (HMS Confiance) that was within a couple meters of the length of a sea-going frigate of the same rate, but with much less beam and only around 1/3 the draft (both of which were much less of an issue/need on the lake since the need to carry provisions for multiple month voyages did not exist, and even at its most energetic the lake couldn't hold a candle to moderate North Atlantic sea state) on Lake Champlain and a remarkable 112 gun 1st Rate ship of the line (HMS St Lawrence) on Lake Ontario that was LARGER than HMS Victory. This would have continued to be the case as the age of sail ended and steam became the order of the day (about the only real difference is that steam would have eliminated the need for the row galleys that had some popularity on both Lake Erie and Champlain.

Riverine warfare would have continued with the pattern seen in the Union Navy during the ACW. Heavily armored broadside steam gunboats mounting the heaviest guns and mortars available and double ended monitors with construction moving from wrought iron over wood to iron hulls and eventually steel hulls with remarkably over gunned for size monitors becoming the capital ship of the Mississippi (similar but likely even more heavily armed versions of this vessel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Terror_(I03) ) and smaller, but equally potent fleets of ships constructed on the navigable portions of other river systems that are not navigable for their entire length.

Such ships would be at risk of torpedo boats though. The Romanians used a small spar torpedo boat to sink a 400-ton Turkish monitor in the 1870s, and torpedos are getting more and more advanced in that time period. Rivers have limited room for manuever with increased risk of running aground. This would definitely influence design when a small torpedo boat can sink any river monitor.

Anti-aircraft monitors seem like a design which wasn't explored much, although some monitors were armed with anti-air cannons. I think this would be the main role for river monitors and even lake warships in some ATL where it's more common, alongside supporting land operations.

There is a fairly modern river monitor (well, built in 1936) still in service in the Brazilian Navy. The Romanian Navy has river monitors built in the 1990s. A divided USA might have similar vessels on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.

The Romanian ones are definitely good (Romania OTL had a ton of nice river warships), but I'm wondering the limits you could push the river monitor and other riverine warships to.

I especially like the Royal Navy's Fly-class gunboat from World War I. The narrow draft (2 ft) and 4 inch main gun (plus smaller QF guns) on a 100 ton boat which can be dismantled and re-assembled when needed is a very interesting design which could fit on a ton of rivers and be improved on if/when needed. Like maybe a similar design but with the guns mostly replaced by AA guns.
 
3mon_NB.jpg
vietnam-monitor-zippo-2.jpg

monitors.jpg

USN Monitors on LCM 6 hulls

But I do like to point out, despite 50 years separating them, the Eads built Milwaukee class Monitors and the RN Humber class WWI monitors had almost identical stats in size,draft, tonnage, armor and speed
milwaukee1a.jpg
Armed with 11" Dalhgen that could be lowered for reloading
ffbvfvb.jpg
Humber Class, as launched , before open 6" mount added to aft deck

and the launched, but not completed KuK Monitor Duna, for Danube service, also near identical stats.
duna_class_riverine_monitor_design_by_tzoli-db3uo8s.png

190mm and 88mm guns
 
I personally like the idea of Ekranoplan, both as gunships & as attackers. I'd add ACVs ("battleship LCACs"), maybe foil gunboats (PGH? PMH?).

Don't forget mining as a defense, especially laid by a/c. IMO, mines'd be the bane of these kinds of ships.

And there are helos with ASMs that could be pretty dangerous, too.

If there are Ekranoplan or ACV "gunships", does that require a new kind of river mine?:eek::cool:
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I would expect beginning with USS Michigan and similar steam warships to Terror and Carondelet type ships, moving to riverine monitors and finally a full sized monitor based mini-battleship like the Devastation. Inland construction would mirror sea-borne ships. If Britain retains control of Canada, you would see early construction of Royal Dockyards and canals though the St. Lawrence valley. Smaller ships would be river type rams and spar torpedo boats. A Spuyten Dyvil style torpedo boat with more power would be an interesting craft prior to automotive torpedoes.

Is Louisiana independent or controlled by a European power?
 
Where rivers are borders, artillery can easily dominate the river. Gunboats don't make a lot of sense.

Didn't stop Romania with their river borders and extensive river fleet in the interwar period. And there's plenty of advantage to having what amounts to a mobile gun platform packing 6 inch (or more) guns and not needing any horses to tow it around.
 
Top