New Civil War POD? CSS Virginia sunk...

NHBL

NHBL

Has anyone done a TL where the Monitor double charges its guns, and Virginia is battered to a wreck, and either strikes or sinks?
What effects would this have on naval development, and on the war? It wouldn't have much direct effect, since the blockade remained intact in OTL.
It might hurt the rebel ironclad-building, as the first one was sunk with minimal result. It also might have morale effects in both North and South, since it's a very clear victory/defeat.
European powers are, of course, very interested...
I lack the time to work on a timeline based on this...too many things brewing.
 
TheRockofChickamauga

TheRockofChickamauga

I'd say that it might limit the number of ironclads the CSA is willing to build. They might build a few more to achieve the massacre of some more wooden ships as seen on the first day of fighting, but not to many as the defeat could quite possibly lead them to believe that the northern ironclads are superior. Then again, Mallory, who had invested lots of time and energy into the project, might believe that is it just a fluke, and try once again fighting a U.S. ironclad in the hopes of this time achieving victory.
 
History Learner

History Learner

Banned
Double charging of the guns is against regulations IIRC and is actually just as likely to sink the Monitor, given the possibility of the guns blowing under the strain.
 
Count of Crisco

Count of Crisco

For the Civil war I could see it having the effect that the CSA doesnt build as many ironclads. Which just means that the USN doesnt sink as many incomplete Confederate ironclads during the war as that was the fate of many of the ships. For the Unions the battle would be a conclusive win, unlike IOTL where it was a strategic win. This wouldnt really IMHO change much about USN strategy during the rest of the war as historically following the battle a sort of monitor mania hit and they built as many ironclads as they possibly could to that design. I dont see them building many more ships then they did historically, though perhaps more are kept in good order with the war over?

As for any effects that the sinking of Virginia would have on European designs? Well the ironclad was already the clear way forward as far as warship design was concerned, and it doesnt really seem like the ACW had much of an influence on European warship development. If anything it would just drive home the point that ironclads can destroy traditional wooden ships, and that a purpose built ironclad is superior to a hastily converted one based on the burnt out hulk of a former USN frigate. Maybe a few more states, the smaller ones, order monitor like ships for their own coastal defense?
 
NHBL

NHBL

History Learner said:
Double charging of the guns is against regulations IIRC and is actually just as likely to sink the Monitor, given the possibility of the guns blowing under the strain.
Click to expand...
It was later determined that 30 pound charges were safe for the guns, so the precise POD would be that being determined earlier. Assume that the order allowing it if necessary arrives just before Monitor puts to sea.

I don't know if it would convince the rebels not to build ironclads; Virginia's guns were firing shells, and solid shot's better against armor--would they try again, but with solid shot?

I suspect that the biggest effect would be morale on both sides--the rebel superweapon is a shattered wreck.

As for European designs... broadside ironclad sunk by turret ship. When would the Europeans learn that Virginia was firing shells?
 

SwampTiger

Banned
You would probably see improved Confederate ironclads and a development of larger, more powerful naval cannons. The development of submarines and semi-submersibles would increase. I would expect the CSA to acquire European rolling machinery for sheet armor of greater thickness.
 
NHBL

NHBL

SwampTiger said:
You would probably see improved Confederate ironclads and a development of larger, more powerful naval cannons. The development of submarines and semi-submersibles would increase. I would expect the CSA to acquire European rolling machinery for sheet armor of greater thickness.
Click to expand...
How much could the rebels do in the way of improvements? Cannons are not simple, nor is thicker armor. We're talking about a nation that would pull up a railroad line and relay it elsewhere if they needed a new line.
Good luck getting that rolling machinery paid for, through the blockade, and getting enough people to run it, and raw materials to feed it.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
We are talking about 1862. The blockade was porous at this time. Cotton was a valuable resource. John M. Brooke developed rifles up to 8 inch and smoothbores up to 11 inch. Get him more support earlier. Iron mining should have had higher priority, and probably would ITTL.
 
NHBL

NHBL

It might be faster to get guns from overseas. Evern heavy naval gun built is how many pieces of field artillery that don't get bought or built?
 
Count of Crisco

Count of Crisco

SwampTiger said:
You would probably see improved Confederate ironclads and a development of larger, more powerful naval cannons. The development of submarines and semi-submersibles would increase. I would expect the CSA to acquire European rolling machinery for sheet armor of greater thickness.
Click to expand...
How would the CSN get such cannon? I could see the Union acquiring better guns, the Dahlgren guns they used IOTL were not really meant for naval combat as that was rare and what was needed was guns for smashing through rebel fortifications. However if the CSA has less ironclads then the Union may still keep with the same guns they used IOTL.
Similarly how would the CSN improve their submersible projects? Even if they gave more money to the relevant people they would still have the same technological limitations.

Also as has been mentioned how would the CSA get such rolling machinery? At the time the Union blockade was in effect, the CSA would have little money, and why spend it on the navy when they have failed before? And would the British or the French be willing to part with what was for the time a very expensive and advanced bit of machinery made in very limited numbers? Would such a device be able to survive a cross ocean trip even without the Union blockade?
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Answered above. The Brooke guns OTL were built. Rolling machinery could fit in fast steamers. Cotton was used for currency.
 

TRH

It seems a little counter-intuitive to me to infer that a naval defeat will lead the Confederacy to more heavily prioritize navy and implicitly perform better in the war overall. Is the logic that they were too lazy or complacent IOTL? Also, why should we assume they would meet the challenge of Union ironclads head-on despite having fewer resources, instead of adopting the guerre de course strategy that's more popular when you have the weaker fleet?
 

bpbruce

I could see a decisive defeat for Confederate ironclads causing them to switch to sabotage- sneak fireships into New York harbor, Baltimore, Boston. Result- as in our timeline, the North's merchant marine economy is destroyed, but by fire instead of by commerce raiders built in Britain while the British refuse to insure our shipping. Maybe a meaner Reconstruction.
 

The Tai-Pan

Am I missing the point here? Would this really be a huge POD? The South was pathetic on the high seas and defending their coasts. Would they merely not be even worse in this TL? A matter of degree, not kind?
 
NHBL

NHBL

The point isn't to drastically change the war. I thought that I might have found a POD that no one has played with.
The changes might be minor at first, but the fact that it had a clear outcome might have morale effects, and others.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The CSA needed several specialized supplies and access to European markets. Keeping the blockade at bay was essential to victory. They will, and they did, make extraordinary efforts to do so, in any timeline.

I could certainly see more deep raids from southern lines to attack border area industry, railways, canals, supply centers and barracks/training centers.
 

James Ricker

The Confederacy had limited supplies of iron, if the Virginia sinks ironclads would not be seen as a potential equalizer. The South would be able to put the iron that was used on iron clads to better use
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top