Smaller CSA Navy.

I was looking at the history of the Confederate States Navy and found that their primary Ship building center was what was eventually renamed the Gosport Shipyards (renamed the Norfolk Shipyards in 1862). The Union had controlled it at the beginning of the war, but when they abandoned it, did *not* properly destroy everything. For example, the hulk of the USS Merrimac became the CSS Monitor.

If the Union manages to properly destroy everything, it will cause a smaller CSA Navy (the only other ship building location was in Pensacola).

Does anyone have any idea on the effects of the Union Blockade being *more* effective? Are we likely to still get the CSS Alabama, more ships similar to her, or less?
 
Is this suppose to be a DBWI?

I don't think so...though it could be misconstrued as one. Going back to the poorly written/researched OP.

I was looking at the history of the Confederate States Navy and found that their primary Ship building center was what was eventually renamed the Gosport Shipyards (renamed the Norfolk Shipyards in 1862). The Union had controlled it at the beginning of the war, but when they abandoned it, did *not* properly destroy everything. For example, the hulk of the USS Merrimac became the CSS Monitor.

If the Union manages to properly destroy everything, it will cause a smaller CSA Navy (the only other ship building location was in Pensacola).

Does anyone have any idea on the effects of the Union Blockade being *more* effective? Are we likely to still get the CSS Alabama, more ships similar to her, or less?

I think main POD is that the US Navy is a bit more thorough than OTL when evacuating Norfolk. In this TL, the USS Merrimac is properly scuttled along with the handful of other ships. (naraht, FYI: The USS Merrimac was converted into the CSS Virgina which fought the USS Monitor in April 1862.)

Now assuming that this is the case, would it affect the size of the Confederate Navy? Probably not, as IIRC most confederate ships were not built at Norfolk and were instead built either abroad or at various other points within the Confederacy.

What the POD does affect is the course of the war as the Confederates will be hard pressed to build an analog of the CSS Virginia without the hulk (and especially the engines) of the Merrimac. Even if they do somehow manage to requisition enough material it's going to impede ironclad construction efforts elsewhere. It really depends on how you spin Confederate construction efforts in TTL.

Perhaps in TTL, instead of trying to build two massive Ironclads in New Orleans, TTL's *Virginia is given priority. This leads to the *Virginia being completed earlier and probably with superior engines/size. Given that in OTL both Ironclads built at New Orleans were destroyed before they could be used it could result in a net win for the Confederacy.

However, no matter which way you slice it, I just don't see a more thorough demolition of Norfolk Naval Yard as seriously impacting the progress of the ACW by more than a few months.
 
Much more important to the Confederacy than the hulk of the Merrimac was the dry dock and several hundred heavy naval guns. In fact I 'think' that most of the heavy guns that Confederate Navy used came from this stock of captured weapons. Their own weapon manufactures were never able to provide all of the guns that they needed. If the Union forces had managed to remove or destroy these guns it would have had at least some impact on the war.
 
It's pretty difficult for the blockade to be more effective. The Confederacy never mounted a serious challenge to it anyway. They had some minor successess with ironclads like the CCS Virginia and CSS Arkansas but never came close to making any kind of impact on the Federal Navy.
 
You might see a slight impediment to the development of ironclads in the US navy (no reason to build them).

And finding better engines...this is still the South. Where are you going to find them/make them?

So the details may change, and the loss of heavy guns (compared to OTL) will be a problem, but...

The war was lost on the land anyway. And I don't mean this as "it was inevitable" - just that having something that could be called a navy was just too modest in its impact on the war.
 
What the POD does affect is the course of the war as the Confederates will be hard pressed to build an analog of the CSS Virginia without the hulk (and especially the engines) of the Merrimac. Even if they do somehow manage to requisition enough material it's going to impede ironclad construction efforts elsewhere. It really depends on how you spin Confederate construction efforts in TTL.

Perhaps in TTL, instead of trying to build two massive Ironclads in New Orleans, TTL's *Virginia is given priority. This leads to the *Virginia being completed earlier and probably with superior engines/size. Given that in OTL both Ironclads built at New Orleans were destroyed before they could be used it could result in a net win for the Confederacy.

However, no matter which way you slice it, I just don't see a more thorough demolition of Norfolk Naval Yard as seriously impacting the progress of the ACW by more than a few months.

What might be more interesting is if the VIRGINIA is never built at all because the Gosport Navy Yard is thoroughly wrecked. As a result, much of the supplies and labor which were sucked into the VIRGINIA project can instead go to completing the ironclads at New Orleans, which are thus ready and operational when Farragut attacks in April 1862. The first clash between ironclad and wooden warships takes place on the Mississippi River instead of at Hampton Roads.

This might also affect Union ironclad development. Part of the reason why the MONITOR was rushed into production was because of the threat posed by the VIRGINIA. Remove that threat, and the MONITOR might not get approved, or if it does, its production might be delayed. The first clash of the ironclads might instead be a battle between one or both of the New Orleans ironclads and USS GALENA, and might go very differently than the OTL Battle of Hampton Roads, as GALENA was a very poorly designed ironclad (so much so that her armor was later removed and she was recommissioned as a wooden warship).
 
Would it really matter if the laborers and supplies spent on the Virginia are sent to New Orleans given the specific mechanical obstacles in the way of the ironclads there?

Also, speaking of designers other than the Monitor, don't forget the New Ironsides.
 
Would it really matter if the laborers and supplies spent on the Virginia are sent to New Orleans given the specific mechanical obstacles in the way of the ironclads there?

Yes, as those mechanical difficulties were, in large part, caused by a lack of skilled laborers and supplies which could have been alleviated by not building the VIRGINIA.

Also, speaking of designers other than the Monitor, don't forget the New Ironsides.

The NEW IRONSIDES wasn't commissioned until August 1862, and would have had a lot of trouble operating in the Mississippi River anyway.
 
Yes, as those mechanical difficulties were, in large part, caused by a lack of skilled laborers and supplies which were used to build the VIRGINIA.

Do tell.

The NEW IRONSIDES wasn't commissioned until August 1862, and would have had a lot of trouble operating in the Mississippi River anyway.

The Mississippi maybe, not so much New Orleans.

Why are you using ALL CAPS for ship names?

And its still one of the relevant designs if the Monitor doesn't go through, so it should be noted how it would be seen.
 
Why are you using ALL CAPS for ship names?

Ship names in historical texts are generally distinguished in some manner from the rest of the text, either by capitalization or by italicizing. I choose to capitalize as a personal choice. I've always done so in my timelines.

And its still one of the relevant designs if the Monitor doesn't go through, so it should be noted how it would be seen.

I don't deny that...however, that won't make it be ready any sooner than it was in OTL. And the Battle of New Orleans would be over for about four months before it was commissioned.
 
Ship names in historical texts are generally distinguished in some manner from the rest of the text, either by capitalization or by italicizing. I choose to capitalize as a personal choice. I've always done so in my timelines.

Its a little jarring to read, though to each their own.

I don't deny that...however, that won't make it be ready any sooner than it was in OTL. And the Battle of New Orleans would be over for about four months before it was commissioned.

The First Battle, assuming that the ironclads that OTL were in something less than battle-ready condition are ready sooner and successful.

Confederate ability to handle the issue of engines for its ironclads being what it was, I'm not sure if even if more labor is available that it will do much good. Murphey's law seems to be their bugbear.
 
CSS Louisiana

CSS Mississippi

It may be from the Genocide, but at least it's a start. Had the resources that had in OTL gone to building the CSS Virginia gone to these ships, they might very well have been completed early enough to go into action against Farragut's forces. Also consider that having a strong fleet of Ironclads in and around New Orleans was a key part of the CSA's naval strategy up until the city's fall to Union forces. Without the distraction of the Virginia in TTL, these ships will have considerable political backing as well as the materials available.

The effectiveness of these ships on the other hand, leaves something to be desired. If they're built to the same specifications that they were in OTL, the Battle for New Orleans will be little different. However without the need to build the CSS Virginia figures responsible for her construction might be diverted to help with the construction of the Louisiana and the Mississippi. Such as John L. Porter, John Brooke, Catesby ap Roger Jones, and William Williamson. Not to mention that without the distraction of the Virginia Mallory himself might take a more active role in the construction of the Mississippi Ironclads (In OTL his distraction was a major source of the mismanagement). The presence of these figures might result in TTL's designs for the Louisiana and Mississippi being far more reasonable (more within the capability of the Confederacy to build) and far more combat effective, making them a huge problem for the Union when they try to attack in April.

One possible minor ramification of no Virginia is the speeding up of the Peninsula campaign. Without the presence of the Confederate Ironclad, Yorktown is most likely taken in an amphibious envelopment This could have major butterflies not only on the actions of McClellan, Joe Johnson, Lee, etc, but also on Jackson and the Shenandoah. Though I'm sure eventually an ironclad would be built there, the presence of Confederate batteries guarding Richmond and the lack of available steam engines in the region probably puts the priority of having a Confederate ironclad on the Chesapeake lower than those on the Mississippi.

I think the Monitor would still be built in OTL due to the general need for ironclads. However the dominance of designs Monitor like designs won't occur without the climatic battle with the Virginia. In TTL the USN will most likely stick with the more conventional casemate ironclad approach.

TTL's battles around New Orleans will also be interesting. Two properly constructed, properly manned Confederate Ironclads could make short work of the Union fleet. Given a decisive enough defeat, the Union might be forced to wait until sufficient ironclads are completed to challenge the Confederates on the lower Mississippi. Also consider that in TTL with more expertise and emphasis on naval construction on the Mississippi, work on TTL's Arkansas and Tennessee might be accelerated as well.
 
Last edited:
If anyone's interested the CSA gained far more than what would become the CSS Virginia when Gosport was not destroyed.

The yard included a granite drydock, multiple barracks, ship houses, store houses, machine shops, a rigger's loft, a sail loft, and a gunner's loft.

Of these only the gunner's loft, two ship houses, the sail loft, and a gun carriage depot were actually destroyed by the retreating Union.

In addition to the Merrimack(CSS Virginia), the sailing sloop Plymouth with 20 guns, the Columbus with 80 guns, and the Delaware with 84 were salvaged.

4000 shells and hundreds of small arms were also recovered from the water.

The Merrimack was found to be holding 2200 ten-pound cartridges intact.

More than 1000 artillery pieces were intact, from eleven-inch to giant 32 pounders, many were not only in fine condition but actually left organized into batteries.

A giant magazine left intact yielded thousands of shells, quantities of ammunition, and 2000 barrels of gunpowder.

There were also thousands of uniforms, 11,000 pounds of bread, 991 barrels of pork, 674 barrels of beef, plus quantities of flour, sugar, rice, and coffee.
 
I've look at what ship were in invantor at the Norfolk Navy yard at the start of the war if the Confederates had taken the yard intact and no damge to the ships thier the Confederates would have had a nice start to thier Navy with several of the ship were 50 guns or more. also thier is a nice short story on this line of thought in Peter Tsouras Dixie Victorys
 
Unfortunately most of them are out of date - not even the latest pre-steam designs, I think.

So I'm not sure if taking the yard intact without any damage but the usual chaos of occupation (no supplies of alcohol will come out of this intact, enough said) would be much better than what happened OTL, which was pretty fortunate.
 
Top