So the Union looses a war with the British then what?

[67th Tigers]

That depends. The War of 1812 showed that some embarrassing losses can be inflicted if the RN spreads its ships too thinly. 67th thinks that the superfrigate paradigm adopted by the US in the early 19th century (if you can't afford ships of the line, at least make frigates that can beat anyone else's frigates) was outdated by now, but a well trained US crew could probably give as good as they got providing they didn't run into a combined RN force that outnumbered them.

Not outdated, the Americans moved to a doctrine before the technology allowed. Lambert discusses it:

http://www.amazon.com/Battleships-T...7819062?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173050273&sr=8-1

I've no doubt some 1 on 1 victories can be achieved, particularly if some of the USS Hartford gets out (she's a damn good ship, fast and well armed) and some others. We're (unfortunately?) past the age where privateering is viable, they need to be half decent warships, and Hartford is far more powerful than Alabama was (she makes 13kts and has a throwweight of 274 lbs, completely outclassing Hatteras (8 kts, 74 lbs, Alabama threw 5 times the metal in each broadside and was much faster, no contest), while the larger Kearsarge (11 kts, 366 lbs throwweight and heavier construction) was roughly evenly matched against her).

Hartford would be roughly evenly matched against a 40 gunner, as are most of the heavier frigates. The Merrimacks throwing 0.7 tons of metal per broadside. The 4 Merrimacks have throwweights more akin to small liners and might be able to win a duel with a liner (probably 60/40 in the Brits favour), and have very quite good odds against a larger RN frigate (a 51 or 1 of the 6 "Walkers" - Mersey, Orlando, Diadem, Doris, Ariadne and Galaeta, all built in the late 1850's specifically to counter the Merrimacks, and all 6 are in American waters). Whether they'd face single liners in duels....


PS Found an article Lambert wrote on Ericsson: http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume2_number3_Dec03/article_lambert_ericsson_dec03.htm

 

[Tielhard]

67th Tigers wrote the following:

The Union got:

Monitor: Feb 62
Galena: Apr 62
New Ironsides: Aug 62 (might see some service late war, but without the ordnance etc. she carried)
Passiac: Nov 62 (probably too late)

Within the scope of this war, they get Monitor (which probably never challenged Virginia, might have stayed in NY as Guardship) and Galena (building on the Connecticut, but it will smashed even by a wooden sloop).

Something to note is USS Camanche was shipped disassembled to San Francisco (although was not ready for service until Feb 65!).

The RN has:

Warrior (In Squadron service)
Defence (In Squadron service)
Black Prince (In Reserve)
Resistance (In Reserve)
(plus 7 of the 8 Crimean Ironclads)
5 Armoured Frigates complete in the 2nd half of 1862, but are going to be post-war.

It's going to be a wood on wood war.

I don't think this is a realistic approach to assessing what ships are available. The build profile from the moment war starts would be substantially different to OTL.

If we first consider the Federal Americans. There is no question Monitor will be available and it is highly unlikely she will fight at the Hampton Roads agreed. Galana will also be available maybe as early as the begining of March. New Ironsides will be at sea June latest. Having the enemy bearing down on your coastline gets your build rate up considerably.

As there will be no battle of Hampton Roads the utility of the Monitor design will not have been demonstrated and I suggest it is unlikely that the Passics will be built especially as they are technologically complicated and use up a lot of (by USA standards) good quality iron. I suspect that the Union would build a lot of casemate harbour defence boats to be used in conjunction with the forts quickly using large thicknesses of poorer iron. If the Union can knock off an monitor in around 100 days they can probably do a casemate boat in about 50-70 (until the iron runs out). So think in terms of 10-15 cheap iron casemate boats by mid-Anglo-Federal American war.

I also suspect that Webb's might try to build a second vessel like New Ironsides if they can get or process the iron.

Camanche is 1863 when first built is it not??

On the British side.

I would suspect an immediate speed up of oceananic ironclad production so they will have at least two possibly four more in service by the end of the war. The were built in a very laid back way most of the time. The Admiralty never ones to miss an opportunity will have several more laid down even if they have no hope of using them.

The British will not just use thier Naval yards they will use the commerical ones too. These were the yard that built around 12 oceanic ironclads during the ACW. What will they build? If I had to guess I would suggest new batteries I think three of the Crimean batteries whilst serviceable were well past thier best. Say half a dozen or so. Some small ARMOURED gunboats that can cross the Atlantic under tow and get up the Riddeau canal say ten? Some motorised mortar boats, the stuff from the Crimea is in poor condition and most are sail Ketches. That lot should take 3 months tops.

 

[Tielhard]

67th Tigers,

You mentioned using Hartford and other warships as raiders. I do not think that would happen. Anong the merchant ships they have taken into the Federal service by spring 1862 there are a number of very fast, mostly large paddle steamers that can mount a big broadside among them are Quaker City, Keystone State, Vanderbildt, James Adger and Hatteras, they are mostly spacious and can be filled to the rail with stores and coal. They won't last long against an RN ship of any size as they can't resist the shot but as raiders they are excellent. Chances are though they can outrun them especiall on a long haul. Almost nothing can catch Vanderbuildt (NB in oTL they used it as a storeship). The only USN ship I could possibly see being used as a raiser is USS Susquehanna.

 

[Tielhard]

luakel,

After such a war where the US has been defeated and is blaming Britain for it, they might be inclined to ally with some European countries in case of "next time". I know Russia and the US were very close in this period...

The USA and Russia were not that close. In the OTL Trent Affair the Russians backed the British 100%. In 1863 when the Russian fleets turned up in Union ports it had little to do with Russo-Federal American solidarity and everything to do with getting the fleet away from ports where the British could easily blockade them in the event of war. They were having a spat at the time. The Tzar who had recently emancipated the surf admired Lincoln in going to war to free the slaves and the Russians distrusted British motives ("they want ... EVERYTHING") but that is about as far as it went. Diplomatic support yes, in an Anglo-Federal American war maybe material support (cladestine) thats it. In a world where the USA has been defeated by the British what exactly does the USA have to offer the Russian Empire as an ally?

 

[67th Tigers]

67th Tigers,

You mentioned using Hartford and other warships as raiders. I do not think that would happen. Anong the merchant ships they have taken into the Federal service by spring 1862 there are a number of very fast, mostly large paddle steamers that can mount a big broadside among them are Quaker City, Keystone State, Vanderbildt, James Adger and Hatteras, they are mostly spacious and can be filled to the rail with stores and coal. They won't last long against an RN ship of any size as they can't resist the shot but as raiders they are excellent. Chances are though they can outrun them especiall on a long haul. Almost nothing can catch Vanderbuildt (NB in oTL they used it as a storeship). The only USN ship I could possibly see being used as a raiser is USS Susquehanna.

We saw what happened when the AMC USS Hatteras went up against CSS Alabama.

Keystone state is pretty useless (4 12 pdrs, she's outgunned by a field battery), James Adger is okay (8 32 pdrs and a 20pdr rifle).

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wampanoag_(1864)

for what happened when the USN designed a ship to raid the British.


PS: this is interesting: http://www.militarymuseum.org/Pac Sqdn.html

 

[Tielhard]

The paddle steamers that could have been used as raiders are:

Vanderbilt, 3,360 tons, 14+ knts, 2*100lb rifle, 12*9" Dal., 1*12lb
Quaker City, 1,600 tons, 13 knts, 8*32lb, 1*20lb rifle
Santiago de Cuba, 1,567 tons, 14 knts, 8*32lb, 2*20lb rifles
Rhode Island, 1,517 tons, 16 knts, 4*32lb
Florida, 1,261, 13 knts, 8*32lb, 1*20lb rifle
R.R. Cuyler, 1,200 tons, 14 knts, 8*32lb, 2 rifles
James Adger, 1,152 tons, 11 knts, 8*32lb, 1*20lb rifle
Keystone State, 1,354 tons, 9.5 knts, 4*12lb
Hatteras, 1,126 tons, 8.0 knts, 4*32lb, 1*20lb rifle

There are a couple of others but I can't remember thier names. The low gun count on Adger, RI, Kestone and Hatteras are all due to weak decks I think, they could have been strengthened easy enough but as they were only chasing blockade runners it was hardly necessary.

There is also the odd screw ship you might want to use this way rather than put them directly up against an RN warship:

Varuna, 1,300 tons, ?, 8*8" Dal., 2*30lb rifles

 

[luakel]

luakel,
The USA and Russia were not that close. In the OTL Trent Affair the Russians backed the British 100%. In 1863 when the Russian fleets turned up in Union ports it had little to do with Russo-Federal American solidarity and everything to do with getting the fleet away from ports where the British could easily blockade them in the event of war. They were having a spat at the time. The Tzar who had recently emancipated the surf admired Lincoln in going to war to free the slaves and the Russians distrusted British motives ("they want ... EVERYTHING") but that is about as far as it went. Diplomatic support yes, in an Anglo-Federal American war maybe material support (cladestine) thats it. In a world where the USA has been defeated by the British what exactly does the USA have to offer the Russian Empire as an ally?

Help against the British if war does break out? After all, the Great Game going strong at this point, and anything that keeps Britain for beefing up its power in the region will look good. And Russian-American relations in OTL were warm into the 70's IIRC, so I could at least see some treaties being made, though probably not yet an outright alliance.

 

[67th Tigers]

Help against the British if war does break out? After all, the Great Game going strong at this point, and anything that keeps Britain for beefing up its power in the region will look good. And Russian-American relations in OTL were warm into the 70's IIRC, so I could at least see some treaties being made, though probably not yet an outright alliance.

Perhaps if the British get involved, Russia will be more inclined to settle of Polish matter by force, leading to Russia warring with the German Confederation (Prussia, Austria, Bavaria and the smaller states), France and Britain were clearly on the German side in this matter.

This would delay the showdown in 1866 between Prussia and Austria over supremacy in the "Deutchesphere".

Assuming the CSA win independence, I can't see much long term support from Britain as a slave state. In fact I can see looming conflict between the CSA and the British Empire.

 

[Tyr]

There's nothing Russia can do to Britain here and they know it.
Their navy is quaint at best and central asia is not a very nice place to try and send an army through.
They aren't going to be going to war to support America.
Any possible Russian war with Britain is over purely Russian interests (i.e. the Ottomans)

 

[stevep]

There's nothing Russia can do to Britain here and they know it.
Their navy is quaint at best and central asia is not a very nice place to try and send an army through.
They aren't going to be going to war to support America.
Any possible Russian war with Britain is over purely Russian interests (i.e. the Ottomans)

Plus the other thing is what could [and would] the US offer the Russians in return. For an alliance to work both sides need to have something to gain from it. Just because they have a common 'enemy' doesn't mean a lot as unless your ready and willing to do something you DO NOT want an 'ally' who will drag you into a war when they don't want one. Therefore for a tie up between the two to work on anything by the diplomatic level, although it could be useful there, the two would have to come to some agreement on how and when they would work together.

Furthermore autocratic Russia [even under a reforming Czar] and the USA sounds about as unlikely a combination as Britain and the CSA.

Steve

 

[Wendell]

Plus the other thing is what could [and would] the US offer the Russians in return. For an alliance to work both sides need to have something to gain from it. Just because they have a common 'enemy' doesn't mean a lot as unless your ready and willing to do something you DO NOT want an 'ally' who will drag you into a war when they don't want one. Therefore for a tie up between the two to work on anything by the diplomatic level, although it could be useful there, the two would have to come to some agreement on how and when they would work together.

Furthermore autocratic Russia [even under a reforming Czar] and the USA sounds about as unlikely a combination as Britain and the CSA.

Steve

While I agree with your assessment, and find any sort of Russian involvement very highly unlikely at best, I feel that I must ask this question. What could the Yankees guarantee the French in the 1770's other than a chance to battle a rival?

 

[Tyr]

The French actually COULD hurt Britain though.

 

[MrP]

The French actually COULD hurt Britain though.

I think perhaps the problem is that the Russian fleet is the Pacific one - unless Russia's in from the get-go, then in Tielhard's scenario the RN have taken out the USA's West Coast. So all the Russians can do is attack British troopships and merchants. The Baltic fleet is not very much use, because it'd have to penetrate first the RN Home Fleet and then the blockading forces off the American coast to get anywhere. This strikes me as the sort of thing one might do if playing Civ2, but not a very sensible option for RL.

 

[stevep]

While I agree with your assessment, and find any sort of Russian involvement very highly unlikely at best, I feel that I must ask this question. What could the Yankees guarantee the French in the 1770's other than a chance to battle a rival?

Wendell

We're talking about a formal alliance between two sovereign powers. That wasn't really the case in the 1770s. France aided the rebels expensively because they considered it in their interests to weaken Britain. If they had found it expedient they would have stopped the aid and there was nothing really that the rebels could have done about it. [Don't know if there was any attempt by either Britain or France to cut a deal with the other during this period but I presume not?]

In the 1860 period both the US and Russia are sovereign states and could form some form of alliance but neither would find it wise to do that without some form of negotiation 1st. On the reach of the alliance, what its aim was and what limits it had. [As I doubt if either would give the other a blank cheque which could see them dragged into a war with Britain and/or other powers without any real say on the matter]. Other than, if attacked by Britain we will support you, there would need to be some agreement on what both members are after. [Not to mention even that could be open to dispute over what counts as an attack].

Sorry, think I'm taking a long time to say that they [the US rebels] could guarantee nothing really. I don't think that really qualified as an alliance of equals.

Steve

 

[67th Tigers]

Slightly OT, I picked up (and put down, 15 UKP being too much) the plans to CSS Alabama today. She did have a civilian spec hull, only 11-14 inches of wood.

Anyone know the specs of US hulls?

 

[MrP]

Slightly OT, I picked up (and put down, 15 UKP being too much) the plans to CSS Alabama today. She did have a civilian spec hull, only 11-14 inches of wood.

Anyone know the specs of US hulls?

Not beyond Conway's, old boy, I'm afraid.

 

[Thande]

Courtesy of Doctor What, this may be a useful resource --

http://www.theshipslist.com/1862/index.htm

 

[67th Tigers]

Not beyond Conway's, old boy, I'm afraid.

You have the OOP Conways for that era? The data from that would be useful, I had a photocopy but lost it in a move.

 

[MrP]

You have the OOP Conways for that era? The data from that would be useful, I had a photocopy but lost it in a move.

Aye, I've got the 1860-1905 Conway's. I have a feeling I've put that stuff up on here before somewhere. Let me just have a look (may have omitted armour thicknesses that time).

 

[Wendell]

Wendell

We're talking about a formal alliance between two sovereign powers. That wasn't really the case in the 1770s. France aided the rebels expensively because they considered it in their interests to weaken Britain. If they had found it expedient they would have stopped the aid and there was nothing really that the rebels could have done about it. [Don't know if there was any attempt by either Britain or France to cut a deal with the other during this period but I presume not?]

In the 1860 period both the US and Russia are sovereign states and could form some form of alliance but neither would find it wise to do that without some form of negotiation 1st. On the reach of the alliance, what its aim was and what limits it had. [As I doubt if either would give the other a blank cheque which could see them dragged into a war with Britain and/or other powers without any real say on the matter]. Other than, if attacked by Britain we will support you, there would need to be some agreement on what both members are after. [Not to mention even that could be open to dispute over what counts as an attack].

Sorry, think I'm taking a long time to say that they [the US rebels] could guarantee nothing really. I don't think that really qualified as an alliance of equals.

Steve

Steve,

My point never was that it was an alliance of equals, but rather that it is possible (even if unlikely, as in this case) for one nation to back another without any clear advantage, except weakening a third nation. I agree with you that it would not be in the material interests of Russia to allign itself formally with the United States in circumstances such as these. That said, plenty of alliances have been forged without material gains for the assisting (rather than the assisted) party. As an example, I suggested French involvement in the U.S. War for Independence.