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

[Captain Jack]

The Welland thing is the local commander acting. I'll admit I'm not sure if it's sensible, but the alternative is for them to just let ironclads onto the upper lakes (thus at a stroke giving them to the British and making Detroit unsafe).

Ah, that makes sense. It's a local commander taking the initiative to secure a strategically and tactically advantageous position-not an actual offensive in the area.

The US troops have been training for about as long as the Canadian militia, perhaps a bit longer on average, but the Canadians have been training with prewar regulars - a luxury the Americans do not have. That said, smoothbores have the advantage of buck and ball if you can get close so it's almost more effective for non rifle trained troops than rifles would be.

That's an interesting dynamic. The British and Canadians will have an advantage at longer ranges, but the Americans will equalize that if and when they're able to close. I'm not at all familiar with the techniques of the period, but I recall reading that both Union and Confederate soldiers in the Civil War generally did very poorly in terms of closing with the enemy. They relied too much on shooting in situations where it would have been better to charge and try to actually drive off the opposition, whcih would have been the practice in well-drilled and trained regular armies. And as bayonet charges rarely actually made contact with the enemy, oneside or the other generally broke before or just after contact, an properly conducted bayonet charge often resulted in the closing force securing the ground in question. How applicable is that to the British army in the period?

And in San Francisco the British have basically got control of the city, but no further inland (they only have their Royal Marines and small arms men). This cuts off the gold convoys though.
They've not taken over all of California, though there's discussion going on as to whether to send a few battalions of Indian troops to help out on the Pacific Slope. Ironically if they knew about it they could literally sail a gunboat into Sacramento, the city is several feet underwater in early 1862

Well, if they went through with it, that would certainly be an interesting episode!

A point on the blockade: The effect on insurance rates would likely be a significant part of the effectiveness of the blockade. The mere presence and threat of the RN drives up shipping insurance prices and restricts the number fo ships that can sail. It's another era, but at the beginning of WW1, the British Admiralty's biggest fear from German commerce raiders was the effect they'd have on insurance rates. Presumably, the same effect would apply in both directions, though possibly to a lesser degree, here.

Lastly, thank you for answering my flurry of questions!

 

[FriendlyGhost]

Really enjoying this TL, thank you.

A question if I may: you've mentioned a few times the relative effectiveness of percussion vs times fuzes and layered vs solid armour. Were there any tests done then into spaced layered armour? That would presumably be reasonably effective for the Union against the percussion fuzed RN fire - what I mean is that the fuze would go off as it hits the first layer, with sufficient space between layers to reduce the effectiveness of the explosion thereafter - I'm not explaining what I mean very well, but I hope you know what I mean. IIRC, OTL this sort of thing wasn't introduced until the early 20th century (on tanks, I think), but maybe someone might have a brainwave ITTL? I may be completely wrong, as I'm way outside my area of knowledge... ... but I'd be interested to hear (read) your thoughts.

 

[Saphroneth]

That's an interesting dynamic. The British and Canadians will have an advantage at longer ranges, but the Americans will equalize that if and when they're able to close. I'm not at all familiar with the techniques of the period, but I recall reading that both Union and Confederate soldiers in the Civil War generally did very poorly in terms of closing with the enemy. They relied too much on shooting in situations where it would have been better to charge and try to actually drive off the opposition, whcih would have been the practice in well-drilled and trained regular armies. And as bayonet charges rarely actually made contact with the enemy, oneside or the other generally broke before or just after contact, an properly conducted bayonet charge often resulted in the closing force securing the ground in question. How applicable is that to the British army in the period?

The British Army at this point is very, very fire focused (in India they broke up cavalry charges at half a mile) but they're actually also much better at shock action than the Union and Confederacy. This is almost entirely due to troop quality, but also a little bit due to their better shooting.

Example: the Battle of the Alma. Alma is kind of like a scale model of Fredericksburg, except that the hill is taller:


120,000 Union vs 72,500 Confederates (1.66 to 1)
61,000 Allies vs 36,400 Russians (1.68 to 1)
325 Union guns vs 260 Confederate guns (1.25 to 1)
132 Allied guns vs 120 Russian guns (1.1 to 1)
Climb at Fredericksburg 20m
Climb at the Alma 117m
Casualties at Fredericksburg: 12,653 Union to 5,377 Confederate (2.35 to 1)
Casualties at the Alma: 3,342 Allied to 5,709 Russian (0.59 to 1)


The reason for the difference is twofold. Firstly, the British second echelon was firing up the hill and suppressing the Russian defenders. And, second, the British charged through the beaten zone at the point of the bayonet.

You're absolutely right about the American armies relying too much on shooting, but there's a bit more to it than that - they rely on shooting halfway through a charge. Time and again, we see the American troops charge up to about 100 yards or less, then - at the range when they could reach the enemy in one or two volleys - they slow, lose momentum, go to ground, and engage in a firefight. Which they lose. (Another example of this is the British at New Orleans in the War of 1812.)

Something similar is in place with cavalry - the Union cavalry took about three years to get good at shock action. Indeed, since many of the Washington fortifications were poorly laid out, in 1862 if the Confederacy had a good disciplines cavalry arm then some of the forts could have been ridden over by cavalry. (A British officer demontrated this to some shocked Union troops OTL.)

A question if I may: you've mentioned a few times the relative effectiveness of percussion vs times fuzes and layered vs solid armour. Were there any tests done then into spaced layered armour? That would presumably be reasonably effective for the Union against the percussion fuzed RN fire - what I mean is that the fuze would go off as it hits the first layer, with sufficient space between layers to reduce the effectiveness of the explosion thereafter - I'm not explaining what I mean very well, but I hope you know what I mean. IIRC, OTL this sort of thing wasn't introduced until the early 20th century (on tanks, I think), but maybe someone might have a brainwave ITTL? I may be completely wrong, as I'm way outside my area of knowledge... ... but I'd be interested to hear (read) your thoughts.

This is basically trying to initiate a fuze on demand.

As far as I am aware, the reason it's not really worthwhile is that it only takes a few inches of armour to protect against shellfire at this point (so you may as well just use the armour to protect against shells directly). AP shells do come along later in the decade (Palliser) and they're triggered by friction rather than contact so you need quite a heavy armour belt to initiate them anyway - and at that point, again, just fit the armour belt to the side of the ship.
The void you'd need to let the explosion happen safely would need to be several feet wide, which just cuts too much into ship volume (and makes the outer armour unstable).

As for protecting against solid shot fire, spaced armour is terrible. It's even worse than laminate since the layers aren't mutually supporting.

 

[FriendlyGhost]

As far as I am aware...<snip>

That makes sense - thanks.

As for protecting against solid shot fire, spaced armour is terrible. It's even worse than laminate since the layers aren't mutually supporting.

What was the relative proportion of shot and shell in this period anyway? Was it similar for the RN and USN / others?
(Sorry to derail the thread a bit - tell me to shut up if it's too much)

 

[Saphroneth]

What was the relative proportion of shot and shell in this period anyway? Was it similar for the RN and USN / others?

Basically, it's... not basic.


Let's take the Warrior. She has 26 68-lber guns and 10 110-lber guns. The 68-lber guns are high velocity smoothbores, the 110-lber guns are medium velocity rifles.

And they're all ablle to fire solid shot or shell.

Roughly speaking, at this point all guns can fire shot or shell. The difference is if they're optimized for it - which means lower MV so the shell doesn't overpenetrate, and so you don't smash the shell. But you can always lower the shell MV by reducing the powder charge, though this may make loading more tricky.
So what that means is that all guns can fire shot, and all guns can fire shell.. but that some guns are better suited to shot (e.g. the 68-lber) and some guns are better suited to shell (e.g. a 10" 'shell gun').

In turn that means the important parts of a gun are:
Bore
Max MV
Accuracy (the 68-lber 95cwt is very accurate for a smoothbore)

My understanding is that the USN used a higher proportion of shell-optimized guns on their mainline vessels at this time.

 

[FriendlyGhost]

<snip>

Thanks - I figured it wouldn't be simple. I'll stop derailing the thread now...

 

[TheHittite2002]

What are the dimensions of the Aetna? The only figure I have located is a draft of 8 feet, 8 inches. I don't know if that is an actual or a design figure.

2nd Welland Canal (1839): In 1839 the government of Upper Canada approved the purchase of shares in the private canal company in response to the company's continuing financial problems in the face of the continental financial panic of 1837. The public buyout was completed in 1841, and work began to deepen the canal and to reduce the number of locks to 27, each 45.7 by 8.1 m (150 by 27 ft). By 1848, a 2.7 m (8.9 ft) deep path was completed, not only through the Welland Canal but also the rest of the way to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence Seaway.

It would seem to be a tight squeeze? I presume stores would have to removed as well as coal and perhaps guns and armor.

 

[Saphroneth]

Aetna's different - she was built later because the original caught fire, and was lengthened. As such her normal draft is only six feet - the others would not fit without removal of coal/guns/armour, but Aetna has two feet clearance (though she only just squeezes in, as I understand it, and it may be she wouldn't actually fit up the Welland, hence the Zodiacs to make sure.)

 

[Saphroneth]

25 April
The initial crossing by the US troops is made at dawn. 2,500 troops cross the Niagara river in the first wave, taking light fire from Canadian militia pickets (which are engaged by the Union artillery on the east shore in turn, and firing into the sun) and take approximately fifty casualties before getting across and establishing a beachhead. There is a short, sharp action which leads to the Canadian militia companies falling back in rout, having taken heavy casualties and some troops captured.
Much of the US-controlled lakes shipping is now brought into action, ferrying troops across in a continual stream so that by 8am (around an hour and a half after sunrise) the US force has all moved to the western bank, including all their artillery. Notably, there is a new innovation - the ~18,000 troops sent are accompanied by about 2,500 civilian drovers, as the commander of the Union forces has elected to put all his rifles on the firing line. This effectively increases his force compared to a normal army of the same size, though it does make the supply train more vulnerable.
Similarly, the artillery are not armed with any personal weapons and are supported by civilian volunteers, and consideration was given to stripping the cavalry of their long arms as well - though this was not taken up. All this means that the Union force is actually slightly larger than its weapon allotment would normally allow.


The British commander has heard of the Union crossing, and considers an attack to drive them back across the river. Quick contemplation makes him realize this is unlikely - any window of opportunity has likely passed - so he begins moving forces southwards.
He is cautious, and does not strip the defences - not knowing for sure the size of the Union force to his east, he considers it possible another attack in the same or greater strength may be about to happen on the southern end of his line.
The nearest Cavalry regiment is a unit of Canadian militia cavalry (the Royal Montreal cavalry, a name which has caused a few chuckles among bilingual Canadians) and these are sent forwards to keep track of the Union troops. While this is taking place, the Regulars (2 battalions, the 31st and 32nd foot) deploy forwards, with skirmishers ahead of their supports.
In keeping with standard British doctrine, the Regulars have their skirmishers deployed about half a mile in front of the main line - this means in effect that the support column is behind a hedge two large fields ahead of the main line, and that the skirmishers are another fifty yard ahead in pairs.
Most of the Canadian militia are in the main line, with some of the more experienced flank companies joining the Regular skirmish line and one regiment of Canadian militia in the support column. As such, there are about 400 regular infantry and 1,000 militia in the skirmish line and the same again in the support line.

The American formation encounters the Royal Montreal cavalry around a small farmhouse. The Canadian cavalry has been ordered to merely keep track of the Union troops, but the Colonel is not experienced at controlling an entire regiment under combat conditions and is unprepared for some of the Union 12-lbers to engage his horse with grape. This and a volley of (long ranged, inaccurate, but intimidating) rifle fire scatters them, and the Royal Montreals will take around half an hour to reform with ~200 casualties - most of them missing.

At about this point, the American scouts enter the fields covered by Imperial skirmishers. Rifles crack, and at this range (400 yards, very roughly) the Canadians are inaccurate but the British regulars are very accurate indeed. The American cavalry is driven back, and contact reports go back to the main American column.

It is now around 10AM, and the American commander is preparing his attack. The first attempt to set up artillery results in several casualties from sharpshooter fire, so the guns are pulled back behind the hedge line and orders distributed. Around five regiments (~4,000) will be going in down the middle, with smaller three-regiment attacks (~2,500) on the flanks - while this is going in, the American artillery will deploy on a rise of ground to the north and begin bombardment of the main British line.

 

[Saphroneth]

Also, an interesting point - apparently the average life of a small arm is two years in the ACW (i.e. 24 months). What this means in practice is that the average regiment of 1,000 men consumes an average of 35 weapons per month to replace broken weapons, lost ones or the like. (simulating 48 months has a total of 2685 guns issued, including the initial 1000, so 1685 replacements in 48 months or 35 per month)
At this point there's about 15,000 weapons per month being produced in the Union at most, which is enough to supply replacements for an army of 430,000. In other words, the Union is just about keeping pace with replacement.

 

[Saphroneth]

Oh, something else I shouldn't forget - what the Confederacy do with the large guns captured from the Colorado, Brooklyn, South Carolina and Sciota. In aggregate that's
1 11"
3 10"
48 9"
18 8"
which is quite a lot of throw weight and which could prove very useful in fighting the Washington forts. In particular all those 9" guns.
Not as good as a rifle against masonry, but placed at the right range they could do a fair deal of damage - and most of the Washington Forts are earthwork and wood. They're hardly a magic bullet, but they can probably push through one fort given a few weeks or months... and the Washington forts are not mutually supporting, so that's trouble.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

Interesting + TFS free

 

[The Sandman]

The things I'm wondering:

1) What exactly did the British import from the US at this point, and what are they using as a substitute for it?

2) To what extent is the very fact of foreign intervention, and specifically British intervention to boot, going to change the Union view of the war from a suppression of a rebellion to an existential war against the old enemy, regardless of what British intentions might be?

3) To what extent are the Confederates likely to ruin any British attempt to negotiate a comprehensive treaty by exhibiting all the tact, diplomacy and appreciation for their own strength they exhibited IOTL?

Number 3 seems like the biggest issue to me; unless they're willing to actively assist the Union right after destroying both the existing US Navy and its capacity to build a new one, the British no longer actually have anything the Confederates want militarily, and assuming the Confederates didn't burn their cotton ITTL they can still both sell it directly and float loans backed by it with which to purchase war materiel. In essence, they can't actually exert any pressure on the Confederates not to press for maximalist terms, and the Confederates both know it and are arrogant enough to take advantage of it.

What I ultimately see as likely is a separate US-UK treaty with minor border adjustments in Canada's favor and an official apology from the US, followed by the British washing their hands of the Confederacy in disgust. The war then proceeds similarly to OTL, only with a more paranoid and vengeful Union post-war. And, more ominously for the British, one that won't neglect its navy the way the US did for most of the 19th century IOTL.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

1) What exactly did the British import from the US at this point, and what are they using as a substitute for it?

2) To what extent is the very fact of foreign intervention, and specifically British intervention to boot, going to change the Union view of the war from a suppression of a rebellion to an existential war against the old enemy, regardless of what British intentions might be?

3) To what extent are the Confederates likely to ruin any British attempt to negotiate a comprehensive treaty by exhibiting all the tact, diplomacy and appreciation for their own strength they exhibited IOTL?

Taking these points in order

1) According my OU module material , 18% of UK imports came from the US in 1860. Not far from the 24% supplied by the whole British Empire BTW. My guess would be cotton, other raw materials for industry and food, especially wheat. Cotton they eventually sourced from Egypt and India iOTL and ITTL from the Confederacy also once the blockade is broken. Wheat - depending on harvests probably Russia and Poland. Or the decline of British arable farming might be slowed if cheaper competition was reduced.

2) Possible (TFS would claim it as very likely) and something the Brits might wish not to provoke. Up to Saphroneth how to extricate (or not) the Brits from that risk. Maybe by simply limiting their actions on land to defending the Canadian border and not being indiscriminate in seizing ports or destroying war-related materials they could minimise the after-effects of a short, victorious, war. Also by not asking for anything beyond an apology and guarantee of Canadian territory in the settlement.

3) As there is (IIRC) no alliance between the CSA and UK (has the UK even recognised the CSA?), I think the UK has no need to take any account of CSA demands. It could I think simply revert to neutrality in the "War between the States". Offering its services as a mediator might be - insensitive. Perhaps France could be suggested instead?

Again, up to Saphroneth. I think what i'm suggesting isn't inconsistent with his thinking but I might be misreading his excellent posts.

 

[Saphroneth]

Basically, the British may ask for a territorial adjustment (e.g. the Oregon claims, the south bank of the St Lawrence) when the dust settles, but they'll trade that away at the peace conference for the Right of Search on American ships. This is because Palmerston is playing the long game - the man is dangerous, especially to those who might think they're his friends.

The likelihood is a peace conference in about August, I think. Mediators being France and Russia (Russia is crucial as they've actually got a history of friendship with the US.)

As for imports, the British didn't import a great deal that they can't replace from elsewhere - the US does not manufacture anything the British can't make themselves cheapr, so it's mostly raw materials (food and cotton - the US is a big importer of British iron). Obviously they're getting cotton from the south, and wheat is fungible (food is quite fungible)... but the even stranger thing is that food imports to Britain are continuing more or less unaffected! (The British blockade is not stopping foodstuffs going in either direction, and I've had the US not pass an Embargo Act because if it did so it would basically destroy its own economy.)

The British are at this point waiting for the Union to "come to their senses" and apologize and release the damn diplomats -it's not yet occurred to them that the Americans haven't realized that's about all it would take. Part of my "make the war continue long enough to be interesting" requirement going in.
The Union reaction is hard to work out - the British have certainly been doing some nasty naval things, but they've not occupied any territory except a few port towns (San Francisco, Portland) and a strategic railroad in Maine. The British position is that this is a war the Union forced on them, by committing an act of war in the Trent affair and then not disavowing it - this may meet mixed reception in the Union, but what they don't know is how OTL would have gone, and they don't know the British intervention is so critical in the Confederate victories of the summer.

As for the CSA - the British haven't recognized them, no. Their call-in at Charleston was strictly business, buying supplies from private citizens and concerns.
That said, I think it's now essentially inevitable that the Confederacy will end up independent - and quite large, all things considered, though they may not like what happens afterwards as much as they were hoping. The British reaction will be to treat them as independent...

Spoiler

...and Palmerston will quietly inform the Admiralty that, since the Right of Search was agreed to by the Union before the Confederacy was recognized as independent, it is therefore binding on the Confederacy. Gunboat diplomacy ahoy!

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

I presume the Royal Navy is continuing its anti-slaving patrols off West Africa and the Americas during this little conflict? When it captures a CSA slaver, I hope it takes the same action it would with any other slave traders. Indeed, since it doesn't recognize teheCSA, can it simply hang the crew immediately?

 

[Saphroneth]

I presume the Royal Navy is continuing its anti-slaving patrols off West Africa and the Americas during this little conflict? When it captures a CSA slaver, I hope it takes the same action it would with any other slave traders. Indeed, since it doesn't recognize teheCSA, can it simply hang the crew immediately?

They actually can't capture American-flag slavers (in time of peace) unless the Right of Search is provided - that fact nearly precipitated a war in 1858. I'm not sure if the CS had any slaving operations actively running during the Civil War, but my gut says they wouldn't be quite so stupid as that. (Besides, it's more profitable to blockade run if you're going through the blockade anyway.)

As for the flag, the British certainly considered the Confederate flag to be valid in some sense. Not sure if it would provide protection from search.

My understanding of the matter is that they can't hang the crew of a slave ship right there - that's summary justice. They have to take the ship in as a prize (for which it's forfeit) and try the slaver.
As to what happens then - it's tricky.

 

[Captain Jack]

With regard to Confederate slavers- OTL, the Confederacy didn't operate any slaveships during the war, due to the blockade. As you said, blockade running was a far more profitable activity. However, after the war is over, Southern businessmen will go back to what they were doing before and operating a few slavers. And in all likelihood they'll do it more openly and at a greater scale than they did before. IOTL, slavers were almost never convicted. Indeed, I'm not aware of any actual convictions by Southern juries, but it's not something I've really looked into. Regardless, slaving is bound to increase as I see no way the Confederacy would continue the death penalty for slaving, and whatever laws, and the states, do pass to restrict it will exist only on paper. And that's just the illegal smuggling. There were other schemes to dodge the prohibition on slave trading by calling them something else. Both Louisiana and Mississippi considered and nearly passed "apprenticeship" laws in the late 1850s (1858, to be precise) that would have set up companies to import "free african labor". In reality it was a dodge to import more slaves. I can see those states and a few of the others, maybe Florida and Alabama, (doesn't seem viable in any other state. My understanding is that those regions needed to import slaves because they had a higher mortality rate than birth rate. That wasn't true in other parts of the South, so there was a constant flow of slaves from the border states to the Deep South. This was particularly strong in the sugar planting regions, where the slaves were literally worked to death cutting cane and working the mills.) considering that type of law again after the war. They could be reasonably certain the Confederate government wouldn't do much to stop them, regardless of its ban on the international slave trade. In fact, I think the biggest opponenet and force against the slave trade in the Confederacy will be Virginia. IOTL, Virginian planters and slave owners made quite a lot of money by breeding slaves and selling the excess to the deep south. It was why the Confederate constitution specifically made the United States the only exception to its ban on the interntaional slave trade-they wanted to keep that economic link to the border states.

And yes, the Confederacy will quickly find out how little fun it is to be on the recieving end of gunboat diplomacy. And in general how nasty it can be to be a weaker power without any diplomatic leverage dealing with an imperial power. The earliest big point of contention I see are the Negro Seamen Acts of various states. They varied, but the laws in Mississippi and South Carolina at least mandated imprisonment of any black sailors who entered the ports. In South Carolina, if the ship's captain didn't pay the fine, the seaman in question would then be sold into slavery. Pre-war, these laws were a serious point of tension between the US and Britain, who did not appreciate seeing it's black sailors treated that way. It was also a violation of Britons' treaty rights, not to mention the Constitution. After the war, Britain is going to push very hard for the repeal of those laws, and the South will find that it is less able to resist British pressure alone than before. That might be a rude awakening to many Southerners.

 

[Saphroneth]

Yes - that's something else I want to explore with this TL, which is that effectively the North shielded the South from the British pushing them around!
It'll also be an opportunity to look into a British style war - the kind which involves an amphibious expedition, an invasion, and taking an area to just hold until the enemy gives up.

 

[CalBear]

Interesting + TFS free

Enough with the grave dancing. The band has stopped playing.