Great Lakes Fortifications

mowque

Banned
Hello all!

My TL has a much cooler relationship between the UK and the USA. To the point were war is sometimes threatened. POD is in 1902, and my period from 1902-1940 or so.

Anyone here interested in helping me turn the Great Lakes into a fortified area? I'm looking for everything from places to build forts, to alternate canals, to types of ships that may be used, to planes, to weather impacts....

Let's build a very realistic armed border.
 

Trotsky

I'm sure Forts Malden (Ontario), Wayne (Detroit), and Mackinaw (Straits of Mackinac) would probably be more than sleepy outposts.
 

zoomar

If we are talking about the late 1800's and early 1900's, I could see the construction of a whole range of small warships uniquely created to wage war in the Great Lakes, both along the coasts and against lake traffic far out "at sea".

By 1917, this might include "lake battleships" - ships between 10,000 and 25,000 tons, similar to traditional predreadnoughts but lacking the intermediate range heavy guns, a powerful anti-aircraft battery for the period,with "modern" protection schemes, and heavy armament gained at the expense of range and endurance. Something more than a coastal monitor, but less than a true ocean-going battleship. Such as:

HMCS Ojibwa
Sister ships HMCS Huron, HMCS Niagra, HMCS St. Andrew
Full-load displacement 22,000 tons
Main armamament - six 13.5 inch guns in two triple turrets one fore, one aft
Secondary battery - twelve 6 inch guns in casemates, six to a side
AA battery - a mix of 3 inch rapid fires and 40mm, 20mm, and .50 cal open mounts
Main belt - 13 inch in "all or nothing" layout
Main gun turrets and barbettes - up to 13 inch
Deck - 2 to 4 inch
Speed - 18 Kts

USS Andrew Jackson
Sister ships USS US Grant, USS Stand Watie
A US attempt to develop a multi purpose ship mainly optimized for attacking Canadian lake traffic and quick raids on Canadian/British coastal facilities. A sort of "mini pocket battleship" without the endurance requirements
Full Load displacement 16,500 Tons
Main armament - three 12 inch guns a single triple turret aft
Secondary battery - 10 5.5 inch in port and starboard casemates.
Main belt - 8 inches
Main turret and barbette -8-10 inches
A flight deck and hangar forward capable of handling 10 Curtiss GN-1 scout bombers.
Speed - 25 kts

The period 1890-1920 would be the heyday of the Lake Commands. With the introduction of effective land-based warplanes, most major combat ships in the Great Lakes would be either scrapped or removed, except for those which could be repurposed as stationary batteries. While the shallow waters would be a problem, small coastal submarines might also be very effective.
 
Last edited:

mowque

Banned
Enigmajones said:
Well just in terms of heavy fortification, Grand Island is something you should definitely look at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Island,_New_York
Click to expand...

A useful spot, I'll look into it.

Trotsky said:
I'm sure Forts Malden (Ontario), Wayne (Detroit), and Mackinaw (Straits of Mackinac) would probably be more than sleepy outposts.
Click to expand...

Good places, I suppose I'll research them. Any others?

zoomar said:
If we are talking about the late 1800's and early 1900's, I could see the construction of a whole range of small warships uniquely created to wage war in the Great Lakes, both along the coasts and against lake traffic far out "at sea".

By 1917, this might include "lake battleships" - ships between 10,000 and 25,000 tons, similar to traditional predreadnoughts but lacking the intermediate range heavy guns, a powerful anti-aircraft battery for the period,with "modern" protection schemes, and heavy armament gained at the expense of range and endurance. Something more than a coastal monitor, but less than a true ocean-going battleship. Such as:

The period 1890-1920 would be the heyday of the Lake Commands. With the introduction of effective land-based warplanes, most major combat ships in the Great Lakes would be either scrapped or removed, except for those which could be repurposed as stationary batteries. While the shallow waters would be a problem, small coastal submarines might also be very effective.
Click to expand...


Man, we have some ship experts here. Thank you. Airplanes are slightly nerfed in the TL for a variety of reasons. So the heydey may last a bit longer.
 

ModernKiwi

One of the oldest rules of the RN is "ships don't win against forts".

It's very easy to fortify anywhere important on the lakes. Do that and there is zero purpose in building ships for service on them.
 

zoomar

ModernKiwi said:
One of the oldest rules of the RN is "ships don't win against forts".

It's very easy to fortify anywhere important on the lakes. Do that and there is zero purpose in building ships for service on them.
Click to expand...

True, but the Lakes are a major route of transport as the unfortunate Edmund Fitgerald attests. I suspect as long as the lakes are used to transport ore, grain, etc. on ships, both sides would consider basing sufficiently capable warships in the Lakes to intercept enemy traffic. My Lake Battleships might be stretch, but there are also local politicians to consider. I could see Governors, Premiers, and Mayors on both of the border lobby successfully for lake fleets regardless of whether or not the respective admiralties thought it was a good idea.
 

ModernKiwi

If it's expect to be a conflict zone, more railways would be built and expect the lakes to be largely ignored as a tranport method. Any lake bourne transport is going to be carried out within the range of the fortifications.
 

zoomar

ModernKiwi said:
If it's expect to be a conflict zone, more railways would be built and expect the lakes to be largely ignored as a tranport method. Any lake bourne transport is going to be carried out within the range of the fortifications.
Click to expand...

Your point that lake borne transport might be minimal in this situation is well put, but I don't accept the rest. All five lakes are certainly large enough to maintain "sea lanes" well beyond the range of shore batteries. All except Lake Michigan are bordered by both nations, so control of them could be a strategic issue to be contested. Large fortifications would probably only be built at strategic choke points or to guard major cities, leaving thousands of miles worth of largely unprotected shorline on both sides of the border dotted with small towns, many of whom draw their wealth from the Lakes. Politicians representing these areas would demand some sort of naval presence to protect them from raids and attack, regardless of how likely this actually was. Congresses, Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Parliaments would respond. I believe politics would demand that there would be a naval presence in the Lakes. This would only cease to be relevant when aircraft reached the level of efficiency where they would supplant ships in these confined waters, about 1930.
 

General Greene

Well for starters, the Eire Canal becomes much more important as does the Ohio and Eire canal. Railroads will supplement these obviously, but I could see them being enlarged to carry much bigger vessels and increase transport capacity. Detroit and Buffalo will be heavily fortified obviously, and Cleveland will probably get at least coastal defenses and maybe even a small naval base. Those are just off the top of my head. Interesting to think about though. I think I'll be back for more.
 

ModernKiwi

zoomar said:
.... Large fortifications would probably only be built at strategic choke points or to guard major cities, leaving thousands of miles worth of largely unprotected shorline on both sides of the border dotted with small towns, many of whom draw their wealth from the Lakes. ...
Click to expand...

How likely are these towns to develop without water traffic?

Control of the lakes is only really worthwhile if you control the bits that are important. Controlling open waters that lead to nowhere means very little.
 

robbiej

Here's a thought; whats going to happen out west?

Its a hugely long border we're talking about - almost 9000 kilometres. How would the Canadians and the Americans effectively defend that?
 

jlckansas

Here is a group that you might look at to find out what was actually built during different time periods in the US.

http://cdsg.org/

The Coast Defense Study group has links to different forts in the US.
 

LostCosmonaut

robbiej said:
Here's a thought; whats going to happen out west?

Its a hugely long border we're talking about - almost 9000 kilometres. How would the Canadians and the Americans effectively defend that?
Click to expand...


I could see that speeding up the development of mobile and mechanized forces a lot.

For starters, I'd look at how the Soviets defended their border with Japanese Manchuria during World War 2, since that's a similarly long border.
 

ModernKiwi

robbiej said:
Here's a thought; whats going to happen out west?

Its a hugely long border we're talking about - almost 9000 kilometres. How would the Canadians and the Americans effectively defend that?
Click to expand...

Fortified garrisons in places that mattered. For the rest, cavalry and infantry moved by train. For much of that frontier, if the enemy moves south or north for three or four days by foot they're not reaching anywhere of significance.
 

sloreck

The lakes are a great zone for fast lighter vessels carrying torpedoes or up to 3" guns. They will be useful for both protecting and interdicting shipping, and can be supported at many of the smaller ports along the lakes, and can also "hide" in coves/bays pretty easily. "Monitors" with heavier guns to support landings/army movements would be useful, but you won't see serious heavy ship slugfests in those restricted waters. Aircraft whether HTA or LTA will make the lakes a dangerous place for larger ships by day.

Small coastal types subs may be OK for the lakes, but ships will try and stay as close as they can to "their" shore & that leaves most targets too shallow for even small subs.

IMHO the most contentious spots in the lakes will be where the USA & Canada close - like Niagra, Sault Ste Marie, and points where lakes join. Lake traffic is more important to USA than Canada s I expect the US would try and jump across to secure choke points early.
 

mowque

Banned
sloreck said:
T

IMHO the most contentious spots in the lakes will be where the USA & Canada close - like Niagra, Sault Ste Marie, and points where lakes join. Lake traffic is more important to USA than Canada s I expect the US would try and jump across to secure choke points early.
Click to expand...

I think this is key. Really, there are so many choke points that a small fort could basically ground all shipping. If the USA wants to keep the Lakes open, they'll have to secure at least some of these points.
 

rudebadger

General Greene said:
Well for starters, the Eire Canal becomes much more important as does the Ohio and Eire canal. Railroads will supplement these obviously, but I could see them being enlarged to carry much bigger vessels and increase transport capacity. ....
Click to expand...

If railroads are developed then look for a huge rail network being built on both sides for transport of raw materials to production centers and ship traffic dropping to zero. The Great Lakes are just enclosed bodies of water that are easily bypassed with these railroads. Who wants to chance hundreds of freighters on the lakes to attack and/or capture by enemy warships?

Waterborne traffic isn't going to move any further than the nearest enemy fortifications guns. With no commercial traffic to defend or escort there's no need for real warships. The only thing left is fishing boats that could use some protection but I see them staying in range the the nearest friendly fort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top