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

Saphroneth

Banned
Not to mention that the first iron steam warship was the Nemesis, built by Laird several years earlier. I think the balance of probability is in favour of the Guadeloupe being an iron paddle steamer, and the Montezuma being a wooden paddle steamer.

There is a bigger problem, though- both ships were sold to the Spanish in 1846. I think you'd have to amend it to rumours of the Mexicans improvising an ironclad with sheet iron, or something similar.
Ah, damn. I tried to find what had happened to them but came up blank - it's hard enough for British warships, let alone ones like this.

I'll amend them to being basically tinclad merchant ships with the same names as the old Mexican paddle frigates.
 

It is our friend with the moustache again who has conducted an experiment that might provide some useful context. Though his experiment pitted the Snider against the later Martini-Henry it does give you an idea of the accuracy that could be obtained whilst blazing away at speed.

Slightly random question, but does anybody know what the music playing in the background of that video is?
 
Slightly random question, but does anybody know what the music playing in the background of that video is?
Can't remember the title, but it's the band of the brigade of guards during trooping of the colour at Horse Guards. It's where the Queen takes the salute as each company marches past.
It's quite a sight seeing the guards march in a diagonal line as they manoeuvre round the ground, but the band goes one better - they implode in on themselves turn about 180 degrees in a wheeling manoeuvre and come out the other side in perfect order without missing a beat! The manoeuvre is decades old but isn't written down, it's passed on from band leader to band leader through the years, and the band are playing this very tune whilst undertaking the dizzy waltz! I'm sure it will be on you tube!
 
30 April - 5 May 1863

Saphroneth

Banned
30 April

Ulysses S. Grant (Brigadier General) runs into Gen. George B. McClellan during the general administrative chaos at the Department of War - currently set up in a Philadelphia hotel as a temporary measure.
McClellan is surprised at Grant's appearance (his letters to his wife reveal he is particularly surprised not to smell whiskey) and the two men have a fairly amicable discussion about the failings of the late war.
The two men differ in their opinions of the correct course of action (Grant feels that the foreign policy decisions of the Lincoln administration have been flawed, McClellan that his army should never have been expected to fight in the first place with the equipment it has) but both agree that the principal problem facing the Union Army in the late war has been a dearth of suitable weapons.
What they would do with those weapons, however, becomes a point of contention that the two generals are both considerably interested in (and their opinions certainly differ on how to use what weapons the Dept. of War has already contracted for).

4 May

A report to the Confederate Congress on the State Militias of the Confederacy. It makes interesting reading, as the states are starting to diverge already in what they are aiming for.
The border states (MD VA KY AR CO and Indian Territory, as well as Texas and the Arizona and New Mexico Territories) are all trying to put together solid and fairly well funded militias, with Virginia in particular putting together an army along the lines of a small but wealthy German state (well provided with the most modern artillery and with skilled rifle-trained troops) and vulnerable Maryland focusing mainly on fortifications, having taken over the Fort Circle around Washington. They are interested in Beauregard's 'hidden forts', for example.
Kentucky is trading off their excellent horses to put together a cavalry-heavy army, one which plans to use cold steel as the decisive tactic for that section of the militia and which is supplemented by rifle skirmishers (along the 'Kentucky Rifleman' tradition.)
Arkansas and the Indian Territory are both focused on what can best be described as mounted infantry, skirmishers on horseback, and on the west coast the Colorado Militia is largely irregular but has a hard core of well-drilled infantry.
For the most part, however, the rest of the States do not have nearly so effective a force. Texas has plenty of men but no real unified doctrine (beyond a high, macho morale) and Louisiana's Native Guard is busily embarassing everyone else in the State with their dedication to military quality - barely a day goes by when at least a company of the NG is not practicing - but everyone else is largely focusing on slave-catching rather than actual effective military force.

The lack of quality of the militias of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, both Carolinas, white Louisiana and Tennessee is concerning to the Confederate Army, but as this is essentially half the country there are not the votes to do more than incentivize a well-drilled militia - and not well enough to get people actually doing anything about it.


5 May
A booklet starts to take shape by the name of "A Treatise on Attacks by Infantry with a Variety of Weapons", a collaborative work between Grant and McClellan. The drafting process is somewhat fraught - McClellan is sensitive to any sign that Grant may be drinking instead of holding up his side of the bargain, and the tension this generates causes Grant to take offense in turn - but matters do not get bad enough to actually stall the booklet.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
Incidentally, one of the things I plan on portraying the US doing is saying "of course! The equipment is why we lost!" and deciding that, really, American militia with rifles could have easily beaten standing-army British troops with the same rifles.
This seems like an entirely natural impulse for them - it's much easier to 'admit' you failed your soldiers than to admit to systemic problems all up and down the chain - and it has plenty of precedent both OTL and TTL.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
those who believe in invincible British ironclads might want to take a gander at this article

it should be noted that most actual Civil War battles (and indeed most of the Battle of Lissa in the same time frame) were fought at essentially point blank range

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=scia&cc=scia&idno=scia1008-7&node=scia1008-7:1&view=image&seq=110&size=150

The 150-lber Dahlgren rifle did not yet exist at the time of the battles I portray, so far as I can tell - it was a gun undergoing testing in early 1863 and was not adopted.
In addition, if this is the same "Warrior" target that Dahlgren tested against in summer 1862, that was not actually a Warrior target but Dahlgren's guess at a Warrior target.
Dahlgren called two targets the "Warrior" target. One was a single forged 4 1/2 inch plate, the other laminate of four 1" plates and one 1/2 " plate. Of these he did not penetrate the former but did penetrate the latter with his 11" gun at point blank range, and considered that to be evidence that he could penetrate the Warrior if need be with his 11" gun - a completely backwards assertion based on the information let alone the fact that the Warrior was in fact rolled armour and not forged. (Rolled is stronger.)
If he's following up on this in a logical way then the projectile is probably pointed at the laminate target, which is rather weaker than a Crimean ironclad.
Note also that the same article says that the Dahlgren 150-lber could penetrate nine inches of iron - this is highly unliklely if that's a single piece given known performance, but quite possible if they're nine laminate layers on top of one another - and that it's using something called the Stafford Projectile, which was undergoing testing in early 1863 and which ultimately was not adopted into general service.


So to summarize, you're arguing that an experimental weapon from early 1863, tested against a target which was almost certainly weaker than the real Warrior, fired from a gun that never entered full production, should be taken as a proof that British ironclads were not invincible. That's as may be - and the combination of gun and projectile possibly could penetrate a Crimean ironclad (which had forged sides) but it does not change the results of battles in this timeline in early 1862. (Heck, in the TL I have the Warrior being penetrated by Monitor's turret gun using the 8" Parrott.)

It's also necessary to explain why they would so rush it into service in an ATL when in OTL it was essentially rejected.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
I'm confused to - didn't Dahlgren himself effectively withdraw (or recommend to withdraw) most of the rifled versions of his guns because they tended to burst? So whatever guns the USN was developing for its ironclads they were not going to be rifled Dahlgrens
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I'm confused to - didn't Dahlgren himself effectively withdraw (or recommend to withdraw) most of the rifled versions of his guns because they tended to burst? So whatever guns the USN was developing for its ironclads they were not going to be rifled Dahlgrens
Yes, and he didn't even order the 150-lber into production. Though here I've had him making sleeved rifles to improve penetration.
I've actually tended generally to extrapolate better potency for the US guns than they would otherwise have done - if I hadn't had Dahlgren do a test in advance of the NY battle the Monitor would have gone out to fight with two guns of "can't penetrate the Warrior's sides even at point blank range and dangerously overloaded" quality.

It's important to remember that all battles TTL are over by the end of June 1862. That's barely enough time to build proper ironclads, let alone design and manufacture entirely new armour penetrating guns...
 
8 May - 1 June 1863

Saphroneth

Banned
8 May

Russian cruisers and a steam liner show up in New York. Other ships are making for San Francisco.
This is part of a risk mitigation plan by the Russian government, which seeks to ensure that their ships will not be trapped in port in the event of Britain intervening in the Polish crisis, but is treated in the United States as a gesture of support and solidarity from their friends the Russians.
Indeed, the friendship between the US and the Russians is one reason the Russians are so worried about British interference - they follow the US explanation of why the British went to war, which is that Trent was a mere pretext (though this is an interpretation the US itself is trying to de-emphasize.)


11 May
Admiralty court ruling on the Spirit of Carolina case, that the Spirit's capture was correct given the Right of Search and that the Confederacy itself has outlawed the slave trade.
A complaint is immediately registered by Mason.

13 May
The Moules, a French merchant vessel, unloads cargo in Danzig for shipment to a private buyer in Poland. The cargo - several crates full of long 'agricultural equipment' with bayonets on the end, along with several tons of treated nitrates - is inspected, certified to consist of agricultural equipment and supplies, and sent south and east.
Incidentally, the crate of what look a lot like percussion caps is officially 'bird scarers'.


15 May
Troubridge leaves Charleston after an eventful stayover. Interestingly, her crew seems to have gained a few more clumsy sailors of African descent.
Also on this day, the French ironclad Congreve is sold to Imperial Mexico as the Maximilian. (The price is a peppercorn, only a few hundred pesos.)



19 May
Battle of Lublin, where the main force of the nascent Polish field army engages a Russian column to the north of the town itself. This clash is particularly notable as the Polish force deploys fairly large quantities of muzzle loading artillery (considering their situation) and also manages to inflict an outright defeat on the outranged Russian regulars (who withdraw east of the Bystrzyca).

21 May
Angry remonstrations reach Prussia as to the German support for the rebels in Poland. Artillery in particular is mentioned, and Frederick III takes a certain pleasure in pointing out in his reply that Prussia fully rearmed with 6pdr Krupps some time ago - and in suggesting that perhaps it would be more appropriate to remonstrate with one of the constituents of the German Confederation which more recently rearmed, such as Baden, Wurttemberg, Hesse-Darmstadt, Brunswick, Hanover, Mecklenburg, Nassau, Oldenburg or Saxony.


25 May

Publication of the Grant-McClellan booklet.
The work is notable as it emphasizes the difference between maximum, effective and decisive range for a given weapon, and in that it is a serious attempt to construct a doctrine that can adapt to varying weapons.
The general thesis is simple - that an attack against a defending enemy will fail if the defending enemy is able to use their superior protection to lay down a base of fire - and goes on to suggest that what is called "successive suppression" should be used.
Under this concept, those troops armed with the longest ranged weapons should advance first, halting at effective range and using their weapons to lay down a base of fire of their own and suppress the defenders. With this set up, the next longest ranged troops should advance next - the example given has suppression by (in succession) rifled artillery, smoothbore artillery, Sharps rifles, Springfield rifles, smoothbore muskets with buck-and-ball, and finally multiple-shot repeaters. Once this suppressive fire is in place, the next waves should then advance to the point of the bayonet.

This tactical doctrine is untested by war, but the general view of both authors and many readers is that it can hardly be much worse than what happened in the late war.

This is also tied into the ideal form of defence, which under the recommendations places the men with the longest ranged weapons most towards back and has shorter ranged weapons further forwards - though both men agree this is unlikely to actually be feasible. But the general idea of a second rank creating a beaten zone by firing over the heads of the men in the front rank of defences is there.



29 May
William G. Armstrong sketches out a breech design for a breech-loading heavy rifle (not the first he has sketched today, let alone in the last few months - the topic has been on his mind to say the least). The key difference this has from his earlier designs is that the breech locks in place by the turning of a wheel rather than merely being screwed into place by the same - an important distinction as it means the force of the explosion is not able to force the breech back open again.
It will require much further development, but this breech mechanism is the one which will (under the name of the Elswick breech, as testing and development takes place under the Elswick Ordnance Company banner to avoid the conflict of interest that would otherwise result) become the basis for British breechloaders of the late 1860s and the 1870s.



1 June
With encouragement from the Emperor, the Daimyo of Satsuma refuses payment of an indemnity for the Namamugi Incident.

Also on this day, the Solferino sinks the Guadelupe and Montezuma. The victory is so fast that it leaves the French captain feeling he has made a mistake somewhere.
 
The 150-lber Dahlgren rifle did not yet exist at the time of the battles I portray, so far as I can tell - it was a gun undergoing testing in early 1863 and was not adopted.
In addition, if this is the same "Warrior" target that Dahlgren tested against in summer 1862, that was not actually a Warrior target but Dahlgren's guess at a Warrior target.
Dahlgren called two targets the "Warrior" target. One was a single forged 4 1/2 inch plate, the other laminate of four 1" plates and one 1/2 " plate. Of these he did not penetrate the former but did penetrate the latter with his 11" gun at point blank range, and considered that to be evidence that he could penetrate the Warrior if need be with his 11" gun - a completely backwards assertion based on the information let alone the fact that the Warrior was in fact rolled armour and not forged. (Rolled is stronger.)
If he's following up on this in a logical way then the projectile is probably pointed at the laminate target, which is rather weaker than a Crimean ironclad.
Note also that the same article says that the Dahlgren 150-lber could penetrate nine inches of iron - this is highly unliklely if that's a single piece given known performance, but quite possible if they're nine laminate layers on top of one another - and that it's using something called the Stafford Projectile, which was undergoing testing in early 1863 and which ultimately was not adopted into general service.


So to summarize, you're arguing that an experimental weapon from early 1863, tested against a target which was almost certainly weaker than the real Warrior, fired from a gun that never entered full production, should be taken as a proof that British ironclads were not invincible. That's as may be - and the combination of gun and projectile possibly could penetrate a Crimean ironclad (which had forged sides) but it does not change the results of battles in this timeline in early 1862. (Heck, in the TL I have the Warrior being penetrated by Monitor's turret gun using the 8" Parrott.)

It's also necessary to explain why they would so rush it into service in an ATL when in OTL it was essentially rejected.

I made no argument at all, i cited an historical source from the period about a gun that was in service in mid 1862

Whether you choose to ignore the source and not address the issue is up to you
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Of course, it's also worth noting that - while most battles in the Civil War were at point blank range - much of that is due to how slowly the guns fired.


Let's take the Monitor - her guns each fired once every fifteen minutes, and she had two of them. That means there's about a quarter hour between the first and second salvo, and at a closing velocity of (say) six knots that's enough time to travel about 3,000 yards (i.e. from extreme range to close range). The amount of fire during the closing period is small.

Compare that to Warrior. Her 68-lbers could be fired about once a minute (55 seconds), and each broadside has thirteen of them. That means that at a closing speed of six knots the enemy vessel would be able to travel about 180 yards between salvos, and the salvos are over six times larger - over the same period Warrior puts out approximately fifty times as many rounds as Monitor.
Now, since this is over a variety of ranges, it's not a direct comparison - and some of the 68-lber guns were not under armour and would not be used in a serious battle - but nevertheless this suggests that a hypothetical ship armed with this shell would be taking quite a lot of fire before reaching point blank range.
 
He just posted that the battles were over by the time this gun was mentioned. What issue would there be?

Well in fact it is the second plus time that this issue has been addressed in considerable detail

Post 13
is probably the first but this is a Saph thread...he does engineering and artillery studies with the same gusto Sappho did erotic poetry :D
 
He just posted that the battles were over by the time this gun was mentioned. What issue would there be?
There's a school of thought which tends to believe that when an author doesn't give the Union the ability to rush into mass production any experimental weapon from the period 1860-1875 and have it decide the conflict, they're unconscionably tipping the scales towards the British. The same often applies for not having the Royal Navy be manned by incompetent half-wits more likely to run aground than engage the enemy, or suggesting that a professional army of veterans might be better at some aspects of soldiering than a mass volunteer army of less than a year's existence.

Can't see the post, but I'm willing to bet a substantial sum that the non-appearance in active service of the Armstrong 300pdr RML (which pierced the Warrior target in April 1862) wasn't a problem.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Can't see the post, but I'm willing to bet a substantial sum that the non-appearance in active service of the Armstrong 300pdr RML (which pierced the Warrior target in April 1862) wasn't a problem.
That is, in fact, correct.

Speaking of the 300pdr, it or similar guns are probably going to get brief use as "AP" gun as part of the TTL RN policy of a mix of AP and BL guns - until the Armstrong-Elswick gun is fully debugged some time in the mid-late 1860s.
 
Ship's cover, HMS Superb

Saphroneth

Banned
Ship's Cover, HMS Superb (excerpt)

12th October, measured mile runs.
Vibration serious at aft when at 4/5 power or more.
Full power runs show 11.5 knots.
Sails took longer than anticipated to stow, due to use of chains instead of ropes for the shrouds.
Worries about vibration effects on iron mast.
Runs well under steam and sail combined.

13th October, weather became poor starting at 10 am.
Returned to port.


14th October, guns were trialled.
Pivot guns at fore and aft proved accurate, gundeck guns less so.
Would not be appropriate to operate ship alone even against a gunboat.

15th October, main mortar trials.
Mortar fired once under power. Shock of firing worried engineers.
Mortar fired five times stationary. One hit, very destructive. Misses made impressive craters.
Aiming a problem, suggest use of springs.
Rate of fire improved considerably by use of donkey engine to lift shells. Good feature.
Time taken to stow sails before firing considerable.
After sixth firing, crack was found in no.3 ring. Replacement took 1/2 hour.
Mortar fired twice with new no.3 ring.
Crew seems hard of hearing.
 
Last edited:
This looks something like a White Elephant. It seems to be very useful in it's role, but absolutely terrible outside it's (rather narrow) role.

Somewhat 'Win More' I think. She's only useful when you've already won the battle.
 
I know. But she's only useful in that role, whereas it seemed that ships like Warrior and Terror were useful both as Fort Reducers and as Naval Warfare ships.

Although that maybe speaks more to US Fort Quality than Warrior and Terror.
 
Top