Question about a Naval battle?

OTL the American navy had roughly a dozen first class ships (large steam frigates, not ships of the line) against the Mexican total of zero. (That's right; zero. The Mexican economy was such a basket case that they could not afford even one warship.)

To reach the totals given in the OP would require the Americans to roughly double the size of their fleet, which is certainly within the realm of possibility, given that the Union went from fifteen ships in 1861 to over 600 in 1865. American ships of the period were generally well equipped, well maintained, and well supplied, with well trained crews and officers; I expect the same would hold true for this fleet.

On the other hand to get a fleet that size the Mexicans will have to buy, beg, borrow, or steal every ship they can lay hands on; the result will be a hodgepodge of different ships armed with every conceivable size and shape of naval gun, crewed by whoever they can persuade or coerce into serving aboard this misbegotten fleet. Given that they have virtually no one with any sort of naval experience available any training is going to be rudimentary and uneven.

With this sort of disparity an American victory is almost a certainty and any Mexican who survives the engagement should count himself among the most fortunate of individuals.

I grant that this is not the only possible outcome, but it is the most probable; a Mexican victory in such a battle would be the upset of the century.

If we are talking about OTL, I'd agree with you. But I would argue that it would be impossible for OTL Mexico to put together a fleet of the size specified in the OP. Therefore, the OP must, perforce, be assuming an ATL Mexico which has a much better economy. Therefore any assumptions we are making from OTL are simply not useful in this scenario. For all we know, this ATL rich Mexico had their ships built and equipped in England to RN standards and their crews trained by RN officers.
 
OTL the American navy had roughly a dozen first class ships (large steam frigates, not ships of the line) against the Mexican total of zero. (That's right; zero. The Mexican economy was such a basket case that they could not afford even one warship.)

In 1853 the American navy had in commission:
  • four steam frigates with between ten and six guns each
  • two first class steamers, one with five guns and one with one.
  • One smaller steamer with two guns
  • Five fifty-gun sailing frigates, only one of which was stationed at home
  • Seventeen sailing sloops, between twenty-two and sixteen guns.
  • Three brigs, with between six and four guns.
  • One three-gun schooner.
(Source: Register of the Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Navy of the United States, including Officers of the Marine Corps, and other, for the Year 1854)

The Mexican navy's 1849 establishment required only one schooner, but by 1853 there were plans to add a number of small cutters to that force, and by 1859 there were 9 small vessels with a total of 35 guns. (Sources: Brantz Mayer. Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and republican, vol. 2, Hartford, 1853 and Hans Busk, The Navies of the World- Their Present State and Future Capabilities, London, 1859).
 
If we are talking about OTL, I'd agree with you. But I would argue that it would be impossible for OTL Mexico to put together a fleet of the size specified in the OP. Therefore, the OP must, perforce, be assuming an ATL Mexico which has a much better economy. Therefore any assumptions we are making from OTL are simply not useful in this scenario.

Agree that Mexico must have a better economy to meet the OP -- however, it does not follow that their armed forces and officer corps must be an improvement on OTL. (In fact, UIAM, Mexico at the time had larger forces, a larger population, and a larger economy than the US at the time of the US-Mexican War...)
 
In 1853 the American navy had in commission:
  • four steam frigates with between ten and six guns each
  • two first class steamers, one with five guns and one with one.
  • One smaller steamer with two guns
  • Five fifty-gun sailing frigates, only one of which was stationed at home
  • Seventeen sailing sloops, between twenty-two and sixteen guns.
  • Three brigs, with between six and four guns.
  • One three-gun schooner.
(Source: Register of the Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Navy of the United States, including Officers of the Marine Corps, and other, for the Year 1854)

The Mexican navy's 1849 establishment required only one schooner, but by 1853 there were plans to add a number of small cutters to that force, and by 1859 there were 9 small vessels with a total of 35 guns. (Sources: Brantz Mayer. Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and republican, vol. 2, Hartford, 1853 and Hans Busk, The Navies of the World- Their Present State and Future Capabilities, London, 1859).

Thanks for the correction; I had thought the Americans were better off than that. As for the Mexican schooner, that was more of a coast guard vessel and not a proper warship; the same would hold true of the small cutters. Still, even those few ships would have produced some Mexican crews and officers with some experience, so they would have done a little better than I predicted.

As for the OP being set in an ATL where the Mexicans are better off, true; but one where they are well enough off to outnumber the US Navy is a LARGE departure from OTL. I would be interested to see what POD he proposes for that.
 
Maybe you misread it? The Americans have the newer weapons while the Mexicans have the older more obsolete ones.
Do they? Maybe I missed it but I can't see HellHound01 saying anywhere which fleet is which, merely that one is the US navy and the other the Mexican navy. I find it interesting that several people, even on an alternate history board, seem to be automatically assuming that the Mexicans must automatically be the technologically inferior of the two.
 
Agree that Mexico must have a better economy to meet the OP -- however, it does not follow that their armed forces and officer corps must be an improvement on OTL. (In fact, UIAM, Mexico at the time had larger forces, a larger population, and a larger economy than the US at the time of the US-Mexican War...)

Well, population-wise, Mexico had 6,744,000 people in 1841, while the United States had 17,069,000 in 1840 (statistics from here). And I seriously doubt they had a larger economy than the USA. And Mexico's army numbered about 30,000 (including the permanent standing army and the active militia) at the beginning of the Mexican War, which did greatly outnumber the US Army (which numbered about 5,000 at the outset of the war). However the small size of the American Army was by conscious design and policy, while Mexico's was limited by the ability of the Mexican economy to support them.

And no, it doesn't NECESSARILY follow that a richer Mexico will have a better officer corps and better training than in OTL. But a richer Mexico capable of putting together a fleet of the size and power stated by the OP would certainly have to have better political leadership than the OTL version...which might make better decisions with regard to its military forces, including better training.
 
when reading this thread, i was amazed by the fact that some people assumed that the Mexican would be less professionnal and trained than the American one. A Mexico able to field a fleet of 24 or 55 warship is totally different than OTL, with a POD maybe before the independance of Mexico. So these comment seemed somewhat racist, for a lack of a better term.

Anyway, why everyone assume that the Mexican get the large obsolete fleet and the US the small advanced one ? That is strange.

But as everybody here says, the best trained fleet is the one that is going to win (or the one with the more experience of large scale engagement).
 
when reading this thread, i was amazed by the fact that some people assumed that the Mexican would be less professionnal and trained than the American one. A Mexico able to field a fleet of 24 or 55 warship is totally different than OTL, with a POD maybe before the independance of Mexico. So these comment seemed somewhat racist, for a lack of a better term.

Anyway, why everyone assume that the Mexican get the large obsolete fleet and the US the small advanced one ? That is strange.

But as everybody here says, the best trained fleet is the one that is going to win (or the one with the more experience of large scale engagement).

For my part I made that assumption because it made the resulting battle more even; if the Americans have the larger fleet in addition to their other advantages the contest will be even more lopsided.

And no, it's not racist. Nowhere did I state or imply that Mexicans were in any way inferior to Americans. The fact is that IOTL the US had the resources to build and operate a navy and Mexico did not.

An ATL in which Mexico has such resources is a LARGE departure from OTL requiring a POD well before Mexican independence from Spain (OTL 1821).
 
In 1853 the American navy had in commission:
  • four steam frigates with between ten and six guns each
  • two first class steamers, one with five guns and one with one.
  • One smaller steamer with two guns
  • Five fifty-gun sailing frigates, only one of which was stationed at home
  • Seventeen sailing sloops, between twenty-two and sixteen guns.
  • Three brigs, with between six and four guns.
  • One three-gun schooner.
(Source: Register of the Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Navy of the United States, including Officers of the Marine Corps, and other, for the Year 1854)

The Mexican navy's 1849 establishment required only one schooner, but by 1853 there were plans to add a number of small cutters to that force, and by 1859 there were 9 small vessels with a total of 35 guns. (Sources: Brantz Mayer. Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and republican, vol. 2, Hartford, 1853 and Hans Busk, The Navies of the World- Their Present State and Future Capabilities, London, 1859).

The Americans are better off than this, simply because it was general policy, among many navies of the time, not to keep their more expensive warships in commission, but to crew and ready them when they were needed. The US definitely has ships of the line ready to be manned, and additional frigates. Of course it will take some time from the outbreak of the crisis to man them and get them ready for sea, but they don't actually have to be BUILT.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The US definitely has ships of the line ready to be manned, and additional frigates. Of course it will take some time from the outbreak of the crisis to man them and get them ready for sea, but they don't actually have to be BUILT.
I was responding to an assertion that the US navy had a dozen large steam frigates and the Mexicans had no navy whatsoever. If we are looking at the fleet in ordinary, it's questionable how much value it might have possessed in the event of the war we're discussing here. We'll leave aside the uncompleted ships and the difficulties of masting, crewing, arming and trialling a ship of the line for the time being.

Of the ten ships of the line, only five have ever been used: two five years ago, one ten years ago, one sixteen years ago, and one whose first and only voyage was made in 1837 between Delaware Bay to Chesapeake Bay. I'll grant you that the sailing frigates move in and out of commission fairly regularly, though it's hard to argue that they won't suffer from severe disadvantages in manoeuvring against steam-powered ships.

In many respects, America's reserve fleet is an albatross in the same way that Britain's large reserve fleet came to be at the end of the 19th century. States attempting to build a fleet from nothing, which in the absence of any real context to this debate I'm assuming includes Mexico, were able to produce a much more balanced and modern force. Take for instance the German Confederation, which found itself in 1848 with the task of building a fleet while at war. In 1852 it had two sail frigates (one captured) and one sail corvette to three steam frigates (including the former RMS Britannia) and six steam corvettes.
 
I was responding to an assertion that the US navy had a dozen large steam frigates and the Mexicans had no navy whatsoever. If we are looking at the fleet in ordinary, it's questionable how much value it might have possessed in the event of the war we're discussing here. We'll leave aside the uncompleted ships and the difficulties of masting, crewing, arming and trialling a ship of the line for the time being.

Of the ten ships of the line, only five have ever been used: two five years ago, one ten years ago, one sixteen years ago, and one whose first and only voyage was made in 1837 between Delaware Bay to Chesapeake Bay. I'll grant you that the sailing frigates move in and out of commission fairly regularly, though it's hard to argue that they won't suffer from severe disadvantages in manoeuvring against steam-powered ships.

In many respects, America's reserve fleet is an albatross in the same way that Britain's large reserve fleet came to be at the end of the 19th century. States attempting to build a fleet from nothing, which in the absence of any real context to this debate I'm assuming includes Mexico, were able to produce a much more balanced and modern force. Take for instance the German Confederation, which found itself in 1848 with the task of building a fleet while at war. In 1852 it had two sail frigates (one captured) and one sail corvette to three steam frigates (including the former RMS Britannia) and six steam corvettes.

While it's true that newly built ships will probably be better quality than existing ones and the Mexicans' new ships would be equal to the Americans' new ships, that is not the only consideration. I believe the OP allows for enough time for the Americans to bring their reserve fleet up to standard, so to speak, so they will have a considerable head start. Given that they have a longer naval tradition than the Mexicans (seventy seven years as opposed to thirty one) they will have the more experienced crews and officers, which should give them the edge.

For the record I had ignored the American ships of the line since none of them ever fired a shot in anger and only considered frigates and smaller ships, since these were the ones which did the actual fighting. Even with that caveat the Americans have more ships with better crews; I would expect them to win. If he plans a Mexican victory that's going to require a very early or very large POD from OTL; maybe he can clue us in? Hint, hint.
 
If he plans a Mexican victory that's going to require a very early or very large POD from OTL; maybe he can clue us in? Hint, hint.
Most of what you've put is probably true. However, in the absence of any context I'm enjoying playing devil's advocate. It's not like we've never seen the argument that the much smaller, shorter-traditioned Union navy could overthrow the larger British one...

Bear in mind that to reach a fleet of 55 ships (not just overall, but in tone specific battle) will require a large expansion on the part of the American navy, and that such an expansion is going to result in a dilution of any qualitative advantage which they may initially have possessed over the Mexicans.
 
Most of what you've put is probably true. However, in the absence of any context I'm enjoying playing devil's advocate. It's not like we've never seen the argument that the much smaller, shorter-traditioned Union navy could overthrow the larger British one...

Bear in mind that to reach a fleet of 55 ships (not just overall, but in tone specific battle) will require a large expansion on the part of the American navy, and that such an expansion is going to result in a dilution of any qualitative advantage which they may initially have possessed over the Mexicans.

I'm going to second this, though with some reservations.

55 ships in commission and of good quality? Wouldn't be that hard - not exactly easy, but doable. The Ohio and its sisters ought to count for a bit more than I think you're including.

55 in one battle? A lot of those are going to be either new construction or small ships and probably both.

55 all frigate class or up with modern weapons...not going to happen without the US having some POD, too. Even for the US navy as a whole.

Some thoughts as a naval history amateur.
 
I'm going to second this, though with some reservations.

55 ships in commission and of good quality? Wouldn't be that hard - not exactly easy, but doable. The Ohio and its sisters ought to count for a bit more than I think you're including.

55 in one battle? A lot of those are going to be either new construction or small ships and probably both.

55 all frigate class or up with modern weapons...not going to happen without the US having some POD, too. Even for the US navy as a whole.

Some thoughts as a naval history amateur.

Agreed; both fleets will be composed of a few professionals directing a lot of amateurs. The US advantage will still exist, but will not be as pronounced.

For the US to put 55 ships in commission would be difficult, but by no means impossible given sufficient time (say two years or so). For the Mexicans to put even 24 in commission, let alone 55, will be nearly impossible without a massive improvement of the Mexican economy, which would require equally massive changes to Mexican society.
 
Agreed; both fleets will be composed of a few professionals directing a lot of amateurs. The US advantage will still exist, but will not be as pronounced.

For the US to put 55 ships in commission would be difficult, but by no means impossible given sufficient time (say two years or so). For the Mexicans to put even 24 in commission, let alone 55, will be nearly impossible without a massive improvement of the Mexican economy, which would require equally massive changes to Mexican society.

Well, we don't know the POD or even if there is one. A Mexican Empire (Iturbide et al) that beds down, holds onto Guatemala, defeats the Texan revolt, and avoids the infighting and economic screw-ups of the 1840s-1850s should be able to field a decent small navy if it is minded so to do.

Don't forget Texas itself had a navy, and IIRC so did Yucatan when it seceded, not large ones but professional and able.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I think it would also be likely, considering the Spanish-American War, that many of the eastern seaboard states would be nosily lobbying Washington to provide guard ships for their coastal cities and harbors. One Mexican sail seen off the coast will probably panic New England whalers and traders to the point that the American battleline will not be as large as possible.
 
Agreed; both fleets will be composed of a few professionals directing a lot of amateurs. The US advantage will still exist, but will not be as pronounced.

For the US to put 55 ships in commission would be difficult, but by no means impossible given sufficient time (say two years or so). For the Mexicans to put even 24 in commission, let alone 55, will be nearly impossible without a massive improvement of the Mexican economy, which would require equally massive changes to Mexican society.

Yeah. Battlefleets are a huge investment in many ways - and this brings up another problem.

Well, two.

1) Where does Mexico have the reserves of materials and shipmakers?

2) Where does it have the reserves of sailors?

The US can address this with enough effort. I'm not sure even a relatively prosperous Mexico has those two things due to its position.

It might have a few ships, but without seasoned seamen (even if they're not warship seamen before the navy is built), it really will suffer.
 
Yeah. Battlefleets are a huge investment in many ways - and this brings up another problem.

Well, two.

1) Where does Mexico have the reserves of materials and shipmakers?

2) Where does it have the reserves of sailors?

The US can address this with enough effort. I'm not sure even a relatively prosperous Mexico has those two things due to its position.

It might have a few ships, but without seasoned seamen (even if they're not warship seamen before the navy is built), it really will suffer.

One possible POD would be that Cuba revolts along with Mexico against Spanish rule. With Cuba part of Mexico the Mexicans gain Havana which was a major shipyard for the Spanish IIRC, or at least it will gain the reason to maintain a maritime presence. There are a few PODs I can imagine that will give Mexico better odds.

Without Cuba the Mexicans will just purchase warships from either Britain or France.
 
Top