If they will not meet us on the open sea (a Trent TL)

all they'd have to do is hoist Confederate colours and the RN probably wouldn't even bother to stop a CSA ship sailing up the Florida coast (unless they thought it was carrying slaves anyway, which would be somewhat ironic...)
They'd definitely stop it: it's not like they have to be afraid of repercussions from the Confederate govenment for doing so. The captain and crew get a payout for slavers as well as for blockade runners, so no harm in checking. Furthermore, the Vanderbilt is pretty unique, so I can't see any Royal Navy ships being fooled by false colours in this case. There are only two real questions: could they catch it, and why hasn't the Union navy requisitioned it for commerce raiding yet?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
They'd definitely stop it: it's not like they have to be afraid of repercussions from the Confederate govenment for doing so. The captain and crew get a payout for slavers as well as for blockade runners, so no harm in checking. Furthermore, the Vanderbilt is pretty unique, so I can't see any Royal Navy ships being fooled by false colours in this case. There are only two real questions: could they catch it, and why hasn't the Union navy requisitioned it for commerce raiding yet?
Answering the second question first, it took six months to convert the Vanderbilt into a cruiser OTL. If it was offered two months earlier and got hurried up (I'll be fair to the Union and let them do that, probably up the Potomac or something...) then it could be finishing conversion any time from in a month's time to a month ago.
The question is then - is she more likely to be sent out as a blockade runner or a commerce raider? Either way she's about the only ship the Union has able to fulfil those roles without new construction, as she's the only vessel the US possessed at one time which was capable of catching the Alabama.

As to the second one - the Vanderbilt's speed is listed as fourteen knots. This is pretty fast by the standards of the time - picking the ships I originally designated to blockade the Chesapeake (for example):

Agamemnon - 11.2 knots under steam (clean)
Mersey - 13.75 knots trial (nearly there! But would be slower with fouling)
Immortalite - Emerald class, somewhat slower.
Brazen - 7.5 knots
Beaver - 7.5 knots
Snapper - 7.5 knots

So the Mersey, built for speed, might be able to catch her (if the Vanderbilt is roughly as foul as the Mersey). The other ships that might are Warrior, Black Prince and Orlando - which is to say, these are the ships with a listed speed fast enough that they could bring the Vanderbilt into engagement range with good geometry.
As such, it looks like the RN would in fact have to be lucky to catch Vanderbilt, but not that lucky. They could get away with it a few times, but not in perpetuity.

Attacking a convoy would be pretty similar, except that (1) you're less likely to run into a fast RN ship and (2) you're also deliberately going close to the convoys.

Attacking unescorted commerce is pretty easy for a ship that can cruise under sail, though Vanderbilt doesn't seem to have a water condenser or other tricks that would extend her sea sailing time.

So - what do people think the Union navy would do with their one and only fast cruiser? Blockade running, or commerce raiding?
 
So - what do people think the Union navy would do with their one and only fast cruiser? Blockade running, or commerce raiding?
I think you have to unpack the question here, because there are two components to it. Firstly, what would the Vanderbilt be better for; secondly, would the US navy make that judgement accurately? Leaving the first half alone, the construction of the Wampanoag-class a couple of years down the line shows that the Union navy has a very interesting conception of what a commerce raider should look like.* The Vanderbilt is probably the closest thing they possess to the Wampanoag: I think they'll send it out cruising.

*Similar to the Panzerschiffe.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Thanks for the assistance - in that case, it sounds like the scene in question is to be more like a breakout than anything as this is about the time she'd be ready for departure.

Pennsylvania anthracite, a dark night (it's full moon on the 12th, but pick a day with heavy cloud and she could make it) and good navigation, and Vanderbilt could make it out to raid - it's rather easier to sail into the sea at night as you're at less risk of running into the ground at 10 knots.
 
9 June 1862

Saphroneth

Banned
9 June

Dahlgren is still attempting various trials with his 11" gun and the modifications and improvements thereof, to attempt to find a way of reliably penetrating the side of a British ironclad.
On encouragement from a local inventor, he has attempted the use of guncotton - from a batch produced with great difficulty and which resulted in several small accidental explosions - on the grounds that it has been observed that unburned powder exits the barrel of the Dahlgren gun when it is fired. The faster burning guncotton is supposed to alleviate this.
In the event, the result is not encouraging. The faster burning powder produces pressure at the breech much faster than gunpowder, and the metallurgy of the 11" gun is simply not up to it - Dahlgren is lucky to escape injury as high velocity fragments go everywhere.

Dahlgren writes up his conclusions - which are, essentially, that the 11" gun as it exists is not capable of regularly withstanding an explosion of the power required to launch a projectile through the sides of a British ironclad (at least in anything more than the most marginal way). He also enquires as to where better iron could be obtained - since he feels part of the fault is with the gun metal - and is told that the best quality of iron used at Springfield was mainly sourced from England pre-war. (They are currently 'improvising', which has led to a noticeable decline both in numbers and quality of Springfield rifles.)

A curiosity about the result is that, as the tests are being done in Pennsylvania in June, they are giving a rosier picture for the armour than an identical test in Febuary would. This is due to the transition temperature of iron, a subject not well understood at this time.

McClellan hears about the tests, and they are the source of a letter complaining about how many guns Dahlgren is destroying in his tests while the Army of the Potomac goes under-armed. This prompts a rather acerbic exchange of letters.


The weather becomes stormy towards the afternoon, and by nightfall at New York there is 10/10 cloud with the occasional squall of rain.
Under cover of night, the Vanderbilt slips out of New York harbour. She is using mainly her sails, with her paddles used primarily for steerage (with the best clean Pennsylvania coal to reduce the smoke and flame she produces) and manages to evade detection.
Armed with several naval guns, she is to be a commerce raider in an attempt to pressure the British into giving up on the war (having been given to the US Navy months earlier by her former owner). The main thing to recommend her as a commerce raider is her extreme speed (fourteen knots dash, faster than the Mersey and the Orlando - themselves extremely fast British frigates), though some in the US Navy called for her to be made a blockade runner instead. (The US is not well provided with very fast ships, and obtaining them from the Clyde or other British shipbuilders is obviously not possible.)
 
The technical term is "sticking one's head into the lion's den" - there's more capital ships in British waters than any other navy has active.
That's true.
But...
There's an awful lot of coastline. Sneaking in and conducting a couple of minor raids and then fleeing should certainly possible. There's no radar or spy satellites, and lots and lots of coastline.

Risky as all get out? Yes. Worth it militarily? Nope. Worth it politically? Might be, depends on who's doing the calculations.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
That's true.
But...
There's an awful lot of coastline. Sneaking in and conducting a couple of minor raids and then fleeing should certainly possible. There's no radar or spy satellites, and lots and lots of coastline.

Risky as all get out? Yes. Worth it militarily? Nope. Worth it politically? Might be, depends on who's doing the calculations.
Indeed it might be. The sad thing is that if it failed then I'd be accused of making the Union make stupid decisions...

The way I'm currently thinking is, the Vanderbilt needs coal to operate at speed. That coal is a limited and wasting asset - she can't steal it from her prizes, recoaling on the high seas is basically impractical, and if she ever gets noticed recoaling in port by a British vessel she's going to be in big trouble.
So she'd try to find somewhere where there is relative ease of availability of coal and a relative lack of British RN vessels buzzing around, OR she would try to take the risk of operating somewhere she can actually sink plenty of ships.

Perhaps a campaign involving two or three strikes on the British coast, which comes a cropper when she pushes it one step too far.
 
Indeed it might be. The sad thing is that if it failed then I'd be accused of making the Union make stupid decisions...

The way I'm currently thinking is, the Vanderbilt needs coal to operate at speed. That coal is a limited and wasting asset - she can't steal it from her prizes, recoaling on the high seas is basically impractical, and if she ever gets noticed recoaling in port by a British vessel she's going to be in big trouble.
So she'd try to find somewhere where there is relative ease of availability of coal and a relative lack of British RN vessels buzzing around, OR she would try to take the risk of operating somewhere she can actually sink plenty of ships.

Perhaps a campaign involving two or three strikes on the British coast, which comes a cropper when she pushes it one step too far.

Well re-coaling on the high seas is impractical, it's not impossible either. The Confederate raiders managed to accomplish it when in desperation, and often they could simply sell their prizes at neutral ports to obtain more fuel. It depends on how stringently the country in question is enforcing their neutrality laws as ordinarily a ship could only stay three days in port.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Well re-coaling on the high seas is impractical, it's not impossible either. The Confederate raiders managed to accomplish it when in desperation, and often they could simply sell their prizes at neutral ports to obtain more fuel. It depends on how stringently the country in question is enforcing their neutrality laws as ordinarily a ship could only stay three days in port.
It's more a matter of who would be willing to potentially annoy the British in this - and where it is you can't find British ships. OTL the Confederate raiders (and Union cruisers) used British and French ports, but I could see the French being very picky about points of law as Napoleon III is rather more pro-CSA than anything.
 
It's more a matter of who would be willing to potentially annoy the British in this - and where it is you can't find British ships. OTL the Confederate raiders (and Union cruisers) used British and French ports, but I could see the French being very picky about points of law as Napoleon III is rather more pro-CSA than anything.

Well France would be particularly stringent in their neutrality unless Nappy came down firmly on one side or the other, but the French position officially historically was that while they would not participate in a war, they would be decidedly pro-British. The French diplomatic note was instrumental in the Union's decision to release the commissioners historically and I imagine the need to ensure even basic French neutrality would weigh heavily on the minds of the men in Washington.

Though ports which might be decidedly picky would certainly exist in the Netherlands, Spain, Prussia, and South America. But the range of the American raiders would certainly be limited in comparison to those of the Confederate ones historically.
 
10 June 1862

Saphroneth

Banned
10 June

As dawn breaks, Pennefather launches his assault on the Union positions north of the Grand river.
Four 40-lber Armstrongs arrived on the 8th, and he has spent the 9th registering them in on their targets - firing one round every half hour or so, to obscure his motives. Now these, and all his 12-lber Armstrongs (in specially built earth-ramp cradles which cause them to return to battery under their own gravity) deliver a snap bombardment at maximum rate.
Also adding to the general cacophany are the Pisces, Capricorn and gunboat Ripple, all bombarding the western end of the line. The storm of bombardment is incredible, with over a hundred shells bursting over or in the Union defences per minute for five minutes, and it also serves as a signal - three battalions British and Canadian infantry begin their crossing of the river, using assault boats built over the last three weeks supplemented by the small boats they have managed to capture.
To his credit, Blair defends tenaciously. The guns he has managed to preserve are well masked at the level of the river, and open up on the British assault boats - sinking several, mainly by use of the 'skip' technique to hole the boats. This leads to the loss of several hundred British and Canadian soldiers, but roughly two battalions make it over the river and begin to advance.
Pennefather's artillery retargets a little slowly, the cradles making it hard for the gunners to lay their pieces on the new targets, and it is a Canadian battery armed with smoothbore 9-lbers (the Loyal Company of Artillery) which disables three of Blair's guns - earning them much praise and a much-deserved spot in the history books. (Their time-fuzes are set with great precision, and the hail of shrapnel renders the weapons impossible to effectively use until Armstrong fire can concentrate on and destroy the gun carriages.)
Somewhat disorganized by the river crossing, the British/Canadian brigade reverts to training and spreads out in skirmish order. They advance slowly, gaining a portion of the defences against Union infantry still reeling from the opening bombardment, and hold on against two fierce counter-attacks (both of them repelled bloodily by well-aimed rifle fire, though on one occasion the commander of one Canadian militia battery requests permission to perform a bayonet charge!)
Pennefather has the two Zodiac ironclads brought in close to the southern shore to load reinforcements onto them (an evolution aided by their very low draft) and the 2/6th are ferried across to reinforce the penetration.
As they disembark, however, Blair raises the white flag.

It turns out that the Governor of Michigan's forces were simply stretched too thin. Needing to cover several miles of the Grand River, as well as defend his rear in case of a British landing on the long coasts of Lower Michigan, has resulted in a position given the appearance of strength more than the reality - with the second counterattack repelled, the closest fresh Union troops are four miles away (an hour's march) and he knows he will not be able to prevent Pennefather shipping his entire army over.

As a point of curiosity, the 17th Wisconsin do not surrender with the rest of the army. Their commander, Col. John L. Dornan, marches them up Michigan and across to Upper Michigan, and thence to Wisconsin - an impressive feat of logistics. (It is not reported if he had read the Anabasis).

Pennefather makes the preparations for some of his Canadian militia to garrison Lower Michigan - relying on the Royal Navy to protect the coasts - and marches for Detroit the next day. Union prisoners march along with the column, to go into captivity at or around Windsor.
 
Last edited:
Does Spengler still have a linked to a banned member's timeline in his signature?
I just told him to dump it.
Now that you've told him to change the link, are you actually going to follow through on this? As I write this, all he's done is change the text of his signature while maintaining the hyperlink direct to the banned member's timeline. I understand that you want some flexibility in the rules, but presumably not to the extent of what could be considered inconsistency.

It's more a matter of who would be willing to potentially annoy the British in this - and where it is you can't find British ships.
There were a couple of snippets about coal in the West Indies in the official records:

'The enclosed letter from Mr Richard Hitchens of Jamaica will explain itself… it would be greatly to the advantage of [the] Government to keep on hand here 1,500 or 2,000 tons and accept his terms (which are reasonable) for putting the coal on board. Without some arrangement of this kind our steamers cannot cruise in these waters.' (David D Porter to Hon. Gideon Welles, 23 August 1861)
'Mr Ball (an Englishman) owns the dock on which our coal is stored… in the event of war with England, Mr Ball, being a loyal subject of Great Britain, would not sell his coal to an enemy; nevertheless, I think the coal could be had, probably from a Frenchman here, or a Dane might sell it to us… Already there is talk of England taking possession of these islands in the event of a war with the United States, and if they should do so our chance in the West Indies would be but small. There would only remain to us friends in San Domingo and on the Spanish Main, where harbours are not fortified, and our ships taking refuge there might receive the same welcome and similar protection afforded the Essex at Valparaiso, the Armstrong at Fayal, and the Levant at Porto Praya.' (John Decamp to Gustavus Fox, Assistant secretary of the Navy, St Thomas, West Indies, 8 January 1862)

How they coal in the North Atlantic I've no idea, and I suspect the Vanderbilt would be coal-hungry: three times the size of the Alabama, and with those paddle wheels dragging in the water while she's put under sail.

Pennefather's artillery retargets a little slowly, the cradles making it hard for the gunners to lay their pieces on the new targets, and it is a Canadian battery armed with smoothbore 9-lbers (the Loyal Company of Artillery) which disables three of Blair's guns - earning them much praise and a much-deserved spot in the history books. (Their Moorsom fuzes aid them in this, as they are able to shell the American battery until their ready ammunition explodes.)
As far as I can tell, 9pdr smoothbores don't have Moorson fuses- the fuses they have are timed, to be used with the small quantity of shrapnel shells which the gun carries. Each battery would have 4 9pdr smoothbores and 2 24pdr howitzers, but the howitzers would also have timed rather than percussion fuse for common shell and shrapnel.
 
Now that you've told him to change the link, are you actually going to follow through on this? As I write this, all he's done is change the text of his signature while maintaining the hyperlink direct to the banned member's timeline. I understand that you want some flexibility in the rules, but presumably not to the extent of what could be considered inconsistency.

Loathe as I am to risk derailing this thread and not being a rodent particularly enamoured of either the signature bearer nor the person to whom he links I still have to say I regard the idea of not quoting persons who have been banned or linking to them when they publish valid resources as a silly rule. Surely this site is about the free exchange of pertinent information and evidence applicable to an understanding of history and alternative history? I would rather that the ban is regarded as punishment for a specific transgression and not that any person subject to it must be erased from our collective memory.

Anyway returning to subject, thanks for the link to the artillery equipment text and more power to Saphroneth's elbow in this highly intriguing and entertaining endeavour.
 
I still have to say I regard the idea of not quoting persons who have been banned or linking to them when they publish valid resources as a silly rule... I would rather that the ban is regarded as punishment for a specific transgression and not that any person subject to it must be erased from our collective memory.
Oh, I absolutely agree. Banning is a punishment not for lack of knowledge, but for repeated failures to act in a respectful and appropriate manner to the other posters here. It shouldn't be permissible to announce or suggest your intention to correspond directly with a banned member and post their views here ('meat-puppeting', I believe the term is). However, I don't see the point of preventing current members linking to helpful research just because it's produced by someone who's been banned. Really, it's no different to quoting messages the member made before they were banned. I don't even mind someone providing a discrete link to that person's work on other boards, any more than I mind people plugging books in their signature. The only point at which moderator action is needed is when it reaches the point of spamming links or deliberately drawing attention to them in a way that threatens to become distracting.

That being said, I think we can all agree that now the rule has been laid down it should either be enforced meticulously and impartially, or- if in retrospect it seems impractical- revoked. All or nothing; goose and gander.

thanks for the link to the artillery equipment text
Everybody's probably seen them already, but there's also infantry, cavalry, military train, commissariat staff corps, engineers, and hospitals.
 
Last edited:
11-12 June 1862

Saphroneth

Banned
11 June

Grant abandons Tennessee, pulling back along the rail line to Bowling Green. His army - now largely recovered in morale if not size from their defeat the previous month - arrives over the next two days, and defends the town from a Confederate attack by a small army under Hardee.
They manage to protect the rail line (although it is a near thing), and Grant makes the point that had he not taken this action his army would have been forced to surrender - whatever happened, Hardee's offensive move would have cost the Union their last foothold in Tennessee, but this way Grant's army is kept intact.
Buell pulls back into Kentucky as well up the Cumberland, no longer needing to extend his southernmost corps to cover Grant's northern flank - oddly, the two have swapped places compared to six months ago.


The Old Dominion, a Confederate ironclad, commissions in Gosport. Built to a similar design as the Virginia, she is less well armed but substantially shallower of draft - there is debate whether to leave her defending Hampton Roads (which is now quite well armed, with batteries north, south and in the middle of the channel) or to sail her up the Potomac to join Virginia.

Pope orders an attack on Island Number Ten, to gain this important defensive position for the Union. Unfortunately for him, his correspondence has been intercepted (this attack having been in planning some days in advance) and Union ironclads are not the only ones about to arrive.


12 June
Battle of the New Madrid Bend.

Pope has had every ironclad he can get his hands on concentrated for the attack, which is intended to secure the upper Mississippi for the Union by capturing this chokepoint. In addition to the remaining City-class ironclads (Cairo, Carondelet, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, St. Louis), he has managed to obtain both Puritan and the hastily-redesigned Casco (which now mounts two guns behind a thin gunshield, and is to be towed to battle to save coal weight) as well as the Benton and a few unarmoured gunboats.
For his part, Brown (who has put in over three months of strenuous effort to finish the Arkansas and Tennessee, thus making them available for this battle) has been appointed to command the Confederate fleet, and has obtained access to the Eastport, Mississippi and Louisiana. Rounding out his force are a few small unarmoured gunboats, as well as the Mobile (ex-Tennessee) whose powerful engines have made it possible for Mississippi and Louisiana to make it this far upriver in good time.


The first phase of the battle involves Pope moving several thousand infantry across the river, with the ironclads and gunboats in support, thus driving the Confederate defenders back from the river's edge and allowing the Union Army of the Mississippi to cut off Island Number Ten from the landward side.
Before the main siege operations can begin, however, the Benton reports that "many cased ships" are approaching from downriver.
Pope determines that to withdraw would be disastrous - with half the Army of the Mississippi on the eastern bank, it would result in the loss of troops the Union can ill afford to lose as well as surrendering much of the lower river. Foote disagrees, with the point that it is more important to preserve the Union's ironclad fleet in the Mississippi (an asset which cannot be replaced).
In the end the distinction quickly becomes academic - the Benton is slower than the approaching enemy fleet, and none of the Union's captains want to countenance the further humiliation that would obtain from the loss of the Benton. (Foote also admits to himself that the Benton is actually one of his toughest ships, so losing it to capture or defeat would seriously worsen the position of the Union's ironclad fleet on the Mississippi anyway.)
As such, Pope demonstrates against the forts on Island Number Ten, drawing off the gunners to defend against this attack, and Foote transits past the guns to engage in battle.


The first exchange of fire comes between the Benton and the Tennessee. Tennessee is the newest of the Confederate ironclads, having been finished just in time, and indeed there is boilerplate in place of some of her curved armour - but she is well armed, mounting a mix of 7" and 6.4" rifles. She is slightly more powerfully equipped than Benton, and this (combined with her better armour) means that over the first ten to fifteen minutes of the battle she begins to gain the upper hand.
Arkansas arrives at about the same time as the Casco does, and is prevented from delivering a fatal blow to the Benton by the intervention of the other ironclad.
Despite her deeply flawed construction (her guns are shot away by the first hit, the 1" silicaceous iron providing little benefit as it shatters under the force of the impact), the Casco nevertheless makes a game attempt at ramming the Tennessee and the Confederate ironclads come close to being hit (the Casco heading downstream is the fastest ironclad in the river at this point).
Mobile casts off her tow to steer clear, and takes a glancing blow from the Casco - which loses control due to the shock of ramming, and has to deal with water coming in through started seams (a major concern for a ship whose freeboard is measured in inches) before being hit hard by the Mississippi and Louisiana as she continues downstream.

Meanwhile, the Eastport - fastest of the Confederate ironclad ships - steams upriver to lend assistance to the Tennessee and Arkansas. The two Arkansas-class ships have guns fore, aft and on both broadsides, and they are having to use all of them as Foote sends in the City-class ships - all five of them.
In the cacophany of gunsmoke and heavy shot going everywhere, it is hard for Brown to exercise tactical control (or indeed tell what is going on) but the slugging match that has developed is to his advantage - Eads' City-class gunboats suffer from weak casemates, and the heavy rifles at close range are able to repeatedly pierce (ironically, the primary benefit of the armour is that the Arkansas-class are not using shells, though in fact some shells could probably penetrate).

After an hour's battle, the two Arkansas-class ships are heavily battered (Tennessee's chimney is shot away and she has had to drop anchor to maintain position, and Arkansas is taking on small quantities of water), but their opponents are as well - Cairo has ruptured her steam drum, and Cincinnati is in flames while the other three City-class ships are now only firing intermittently with one or two guns.
Eastport is also damaged, with only one gun left operational, and Brown signals for her to go back downriver and fetch the Mississippi and Louisiana (the pair of New Orleans ironclads can barely make headway against the Mississippi and will need a tow, and the Mobile has been driven into the mud by her evasive manoeuvres). Before Eastport has gotten halfway to the Mississippi, however, there is a sharp retort as the Passaic opens fire. She is using her 11" gun to aim (this is necessary as the gunport is completely obscured by the muzzle of her heavier gun) and the 11" round strikes home on Arkansas - ripping away some of the curved armour around the pilot house, which is promptly evacuated for understandable reasons!
Her 15" gun - a Rodman converted to turret firing, one of the only 15" guns in the Union - belches a colossal cloud of powder, and hammers a deep dent into the casemate of Arkansas, and her turret then turns away to reload - the Confederate rifle fire striking her turret at a range of fifty feet and cracking single plates, but unable to disable her as quickly as the 68-lbers of Warrior destroyed Monitor's turret.
Eastport turns about and charges, holding her fire to avoid drawing attention to herself. It works, with the crew of Passaic focused entirely on reloading drill (hard enough even without two Confederate ironclads firing on it, especially this close!) and on maintaining position in the Mississippi. As such, she only notices the incoming Eastport about a minute before impact, and a minute is not long enough for her to steer out of the way of the ramming attempt by the slightly-faster ironclad. She does make the angle more oblique, preventing the ram from doing instantly crippling damage, but a long scrape holes her below the waterline.
With only a couple of feet of reserve bouyancy, the Passaic is now on a time limit before sinking. She continues fighting for a quarter hour longer, thus buying time for the Carondelet, Pittsburgh and St. Louis to limp upriver (the Eastport damaged herself in ramming and cannot pursue) before finally abandoning ship. All three City-class make it past Island number 10, though they are significantly damaged.

At the end of the battle, the only ship the Confederacy manage to capture is the Cairo - the Cincinnati explodes, the Benton scuttles, and both the Passaic and Casco sink due to intermittent flooding. The battle has also effectively wrecked the two Arkansas-class ships for at least a month (Arkansas herself needs to be quickly towed to the riverbank to prevent her from sinking) and neither Mississippi nor Louisiana impressed with their low power - in fact, the result of the battle could be argued to have reduced both ironclad fleets to impotence.
Despite this, Brown and Foote share an opinion on who won the battle (and who will be able to deploy an ironclad fleet sooner), and Porter has to abandon ~4,000 infantry on the eastern bank of the Mississippi when the Confederate gunboats arrive late that afternoon.





(wow, that one ended up long...)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It's an odd and repeated theme of the Confederate ironclad program that they tended to build small numbers of well protected, powerful (if poorly engined) ships, and nearly finish them; whereas the Union ironclad program focused on large parallel builds of designs which weren't really all that great in a straight-up fight. (Or just plain awful, see Casco class).
This is probably partly because of the very first ironclads each side built - the Monitor was a radical new design, and I think the very modernity resulted in an impact all its own on the designers, whereas the Virginia was an older style but honestly I think more effective for the tonnage - and partly because of the opponents they expected to face. The Union ironclads were primarily going to face a small enemy navy anyway and they needed the hulls for blockade, whereas the Confederate ones expected to be outnumbered and were built with that in mind.
(there's no excuse for the Casco though.)

But really, looking at the Arkansas class in particular the CSA really missed out by not getting them going. Perhaps if they'd built them somewhere easier to defend (or easier to launch from) both ships would have been able to have an impact.
Similarly for the Mississippi and Louisiana - they just couldn't be finished in time OTL. Mississippi in particular had armour of the kind of grade you'd see on the Crimean ironclads (4.5 inches of iron) and even if the quality was less than that of others she'd be a giant on the Mississippi river simply for being immune to 32-lbers.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I've belatedly realized Sacramento is about sixty or so river miles up a navigable river from San Francisco - I'd thought it was on a different river system - and so my assumption is pretty much that Sacramento would have been captured by the RN months ago. That said, I could feasibly have them not have made the effort, so I'll roll with that.
 
Top