Yup! Those can work too I think! Commerce raiders and blockade runners would be named after famous irregular soldiers of the Confederate army or of the south, so I think that could work too.
TL-191: Navy Blue and Gray - Naval Forces of the USA and CSA
- Thread starter Sierra
- Start date
Yup! Those can work too I think! Commerce raiders and blockade runners would be named after famous irregular soldiers of the Confederate army or of the south, so I think that could work too.
Naval Engagements --- Ship-on-ship actions:
In both the Great War and Second Great War, there were a notable number of naval battles and smaller engagements across the oceans of the world. Precious few of the them, however, are mentioned in the books besides the big and important ones, but some can very vague, leaving out the juicy details.
If you all have a list engagement that happened in the books, please list them here!
You can also put a number of fictional engagements and duels that might have happened as well!
Book Engagements:
In both the Great War and Second Great War, there were a notable number of naval battles and smaller engagements across the oceans of the world. Precious few of the them, however, are mentioned in the books besides the big and important ones, but some can very vague, leaving out the juicy details.
If you all have a list engagement that happened in the books, please list them here!
You can also put a number of fictional engagements and duels that might have happened as well!
Book Engagements:
- Battle of the Three Navies - 1916, US vs. Great Britain and Japan
- Battle of Jutland - 1916, Germany vs. Great Britain
- Battle of the South Atlantic - 1917, combined fleets of the US, Brazil, and Chile vs. Great Britain and Argentina
- Battle of the North Atlantic - 1942-1943, Germany and US vs. Great Britain, France and CS
- Battle of the Baltic Sea / North Sea - 1942, Great Britain vs. Germany
- Battle of Midway - 1941, US vs. Japan
- USS Remembrance, USS Sandwich Islands vs. HMS Ark Royal, 1941
- USS Dakota vs. Entente Battleship, 1942
- CSS Ballyhoo vs. USS Kalamazoo, 1943
- Confederate warship vs. German warship, 1942
- British warship vs. US warship, 1942
- Confederate coastal battleship vs. US warship, 1943
In the Settling Accounts arc, there are the following battles mentioned or experienced.
1941
Carrier engagement off Bermuda (Ark Royal decoys Remembrance and Sandwich Islands, Entente strategic victory)
First Battle of Midway. (US v. Japan. Japanese victory, Remembrance is sunk)
1942
Battle in the North Sea (British v. Germans, likely a British strategic victory like Jutland)
Battle in the Northwest Atlantic (British v. US. American victory. Bermuda is retaken soon thereafter in 1943)
Second Battle of Midway (US. V. Japan. US Victory. One Japanese carrier sunk)
1943 seems to have little in the way of large engagements mentioned. Bermuda is retaken in the Atlantic, and the US retakes Midway and Wake Island and discovers they've been abandoned, similar to OTL Kiska. After this, the Naval POVs focus on Carsten and the USS Josephus Daniels, and George Enos Jr. and his service on the Townsend, before it is sunk, and then the Oregon. I would hazard that by 1944, the Confederate Navy is pretty much either sunk, hiding in the Gulf, or in submarines, while the Japanese are currently refocusing on grabbing British and French colonies in Asia.
Though its not mentioned, I would possibly wonder if the Japanese became Central Powers co-belligerents, and possibly signed a cease fire with the US at least (I would thing they had nothing at all to do with fighting the Germans), swapping sides in much the same way that Romania or Italy did OTL. It could even be that the Japanese government had a "palace coup" of a sort, with the officers (such as Yamamoto) who OTL opposed war with the US taking over and refocusing the Japanese towards a more sure deal for expansion than fruitless fighting against the US. SInce, in this timeline, they have a chance to actually withdraw from fighting the US once it becomes clear that they cannot force a short war on their terms.
1941
Carrier engagement off Bermuda (Ark Royal decoys Remembrance and Sandwich Islands, Entente strategic victory)
First Battle of Midway. (US v. Japan. Japanese victory, Remembrance is sunk)
1942
Battle in the North Sea (British v. Germans, likely a British strategic victory like Jutland)
Battle in the Northwest Atlantic (British v. US. American victory. Bermuda is retaken soon thereafter in 1943)
Second Battle of Midway (US. V. Japan. US Victory. One Japanese carrier sunk)
1943 seems to have little in the way of large engagements mentioned. Bermuda is retaken in the Atlantic, and the US retakes Midway and Wake Island and discovers they've been abandoned, similar to OTL Kiska. After this, the Naval POVs focus on Carsten and the USS Josephus Daniels, and George Enos Jr. and his service on the Townsend, before it is sunk, and then the Oregon. I would hazard that by 1944, the Confederate Navy is pretty much either sunk, hiding in the Gulf, or in submarines, while the Japanese are currently refocusing on grabbing British and French colonies in Asia.
Though its not mentioned, I would possibly wonder if the Japanese became Central Powers co-belligerents, and possibly signed a cease fire with the US at least (I would thing they had nothing at all to do with fighting the Germans), swapping sides in much the same way that Romania or Italy did OTL. It could even be that the Japanese government had a "palace coup" of a sort, with the officers (such as Yamamoto) who OTL opposed war with the US taking over and refocusing the Japanese towards a more sure deal for expansion than fruitless fighting against the US. SInce, in this timeline, they have a chance to actually withdraw from fighting the US once it becomes clear that they cannot force a short war on their terms.
Please bare in mind that I have never read the books.
The Story of the CSS Virginia
The CSS Virginia had a long and eventful history. Named after the famous ironclad, it was the first Confederate Dreadnought, it was laid down in Britain in February 1906 and was commissioned into the CS Navy on July 2nd 1909. Based off the original Dreadnought, it was armed with ten 12 inch main guns, twenty seven 12 pounders for defence against Torpedo Boats and 5 torpedo tubes. It displaced 18,500 tons and could do 21 knots.
Stationed at Norfolk, it became the flagship of the Confederate Atlantic Fleet, consisting of 3 Pre-Dreadnoughts, 5 Armoured Cruisers, 7 Protected Cruisers, 6 Destroyers, 5 Torpedo Boats, 2 Submarines and 1 Gunboat. As the most modern and most powerful ship in the Navy, it was the flagship of the Navy and toured Europe in 1910-1911. In 1912 and 1913, the new Robert E. Lee-class ships came into service. They were better armoured and more heavily armed than the Virginia, which lost its status as flagship of the Atlantic Fleet to CSS Robert E. Lee.
When the First Great War began, Virginia was the flagship of 2nd Battle Squadron, consisting of itself and the Pre-Dreadnoughts CSS Richmond, CSS Atlanta and CSS Camp Hill. In 1914 it remained in port, but the ship was ordered to sortie on February 7th 1915, escorted by the Protected Cruisers CSS Sonora and CSS Sequoya, and raid American and German commerce.
It sunk two US merchant ships (on the 10th and the 12th) before the American Dreadnought USS Montana* went to intercept it with the Armoured Cruiser USS Washington. The two groups fought in the Action of the 14th February to the north of Bermuda.
Virginia was a better ship than Montana, and managed to cause seem damage to it. The Cruiser battle was hard thought, but Sonora was sunk at the expense of serious damage to the Washington. Montana decided to withdraw from the battle to avoid more damage. However, Captain Johnson of the Virginia decided to return to port after the battle in case the US sent a stronger force after his ship.
President Wilson didn’t want to risk any of his large surface combatants and the Virginia was kept in port for the rest of the war. Following the war, Theodore Roosevelt imposed harsh arms restrictions on the CS Navy, but they were allowed to keep Virginia as it was outdated by 1917. The only other Battleship kept was the Camp Hill.
Throughout the 20s and early 30s, Virginia fell into disrepair and was unseaworthy until the Featherstone Administration refitted her between 1935-37. With its flagship revitalised, the Navy was in a much better position under Featherstone.
Virginia travelled to Britain in 1938, where she visited London and trained with the Royal Navy. She then returned to Norfolk and remained there until war broke out in June 1941. It joined the British-CSA taskforce that recaptured Bermuda, with Virginia shelling American defences on the island.
On 21st May 1942, it left port on a commerce raiding mission and encountered the American Submersile, USS Seawolf. Daringly, Virginia rammed Seawolf, sinking the sub but causing significant damage to itself.
Returning to Norfolk, Virginia was laid up for the rest of the war as the vast majority of funds went to the Army. After the war, it was due to be scrapped but a preservation campaign led by Lieutenant Commander Sam Carsten, who was in charge of the occupying US forces in the area, lead to it Virginia being restored before opening as a museum ship in Norfolk Harbour on July 2nd 1948, exactly 29 years after it was commissioned. It remains there to this day and is a much loved attraction.
*OTL USS South Carolina
The Story of the CSS Virginia
The CSS Virginia had a long and eventful history. Named after the famous ironclad, it was the first Confederate Dreadnought, it was laid down in Britain in February 1906 and was commissioned into the CS Navy on July 2nd 1909. Based off the original Dreadnought, it was armed with ten 12 inch main guns, twenty seven 12 pounders for defence against Torpedo Boats and 5 torpedo tubes. It displaced 18,500 tons and could do 21 knots.
Stationed at Norfolk, it became the flagship of the Confederate Atlantic Fleet, consisting of 3 Pre-Dreadnoughts, 5 Armoured Cruisers, 7 Protected Cruisers, 6 Destroyers, 5 Torpedo Boats, 2 Submarines and 1 Gunboat. As the most modern and most powerful ship in the Navy, it was the flagship of the Navy and toured Europe in 1910-1911. In 1912 and 1913, the new Robert E. Lee-class ships came into service. They were better armoured and more heavily armed than the Virginia, which lost its status as flagship of the Atlantic Fleet to CSS Robert E. Lee.
When the First Great War began, Virginia was the flagship of 2nd Battle Squadron, consisting of itself and the Pre-Dreadnoughts CSS Richmond, CSS Atlanta and CSS Camp Hill. In 1914 it remained in port, but the ship was ordered to sortie on February 7th 1915, escorted by the Protected Cruisers CSS Sonora and CSS Sequoya, and raid American and German commerce.
It sunk two US merchant ships (on the 10th and the 12th) before the American Dreadnought USS Montana* went to intercept it with the Armoured Cruiser USS Washington. The two groups fought in the Action of the 14th February to the north of Bermuda.
Virginia was a better ship than Montana, and managed to cause seem damage to it. The Cruiser battle was hard thought, but Sonora was sunk at the expense of serious damage to the Washington. Montana decided to withdraw from the battle to avoid more damage. However, Captain Johnson of the Virginia decided to return to port after the battle in case the US sent a stronger force after his ship.
President Wilson didn’t want to risk any of his large surface combatants and the Virginia was kept in port for the rest of the war. Following the war, Theodore Roosevelt imposed harsh arms restrictions on the CS Navy, but they were allowed to keep Virginia as it was outdated by 1917. The only other Battleship kept was the Camp Hill.
Throughout the 20s and early 30s, Virginia fell into disrepair and was unseaworthy until the Featherstone Administration refitted her between 1935-37. With its flagship revitalised, the Navy was in a much better position under Featherstone.
Virginia travelled to Britain in 1938, where she visited London and trained with the Royal Navy. She then returned to Norfolk and remained there until war broke out in June 1941. It joined the British-CSA taskforce that recaptured Bermuda, with Virginia shelling American defences on the island.
On 21st May 1942, it left port on a commerce raiding mission and encountered the American Submersile, USS Seawolf. Daringly, Virginia rammed Seawolf, sinking the sub but causing significant damage to itself.
Returning to Norfolk, Virginia was laid up for the rest of the war as the vast majority of funds went to the Army. After the war, it was due to be scrapped but a preservation campaign led by Lieutenant Commander Sam Carsten, who was in charge of the occupying US forces in the area, lead to it Virginia being restored before opening as a museum ship in Norfolk Harbour on July 2nd 1948, exactly 29 years after it was commissioned. It remains there to this day and is a much loved attraction.
*OTL USS South Carolina
RamscoopRaider
Donor
@bguy Given that I've been away from the board for a week we don't we just agree to disagree rather than restart a big old arguement derailing the threat
@King_Arthur Good effort but pretty inaccurate. First a single battleship sortieing to commerce raid is not how things were done in WWI, battleships acted in squadrons and divisions not alone. Likewise the US would not have sent one alone to chase one. In addition I would consider it unlikely that the 191 US would build something similar to OTL South Carolina, as she was a budget ship, limited to 16,000 tons as a way of limiting costs by a pennypinching congress. As 191 US is a lot more willing to spend on the military, that degree of pennypinching seems unlikely. Assuming they did build such a ship, it would not be sent to chase a Dreadnought copy as it would be too slow to catch it. As for literary critiques, it's Featherston not Featherstone, the CSA was not allowed to keep Dreadnoughts after WWI being limited to something similar to OTL Panzerschiffe or Coast Defense Vessels*, Bermuda being recaptured in '43 and the issue with Sam Carsten
*Not sure if the vessel is described beyond being most powerful thing CSN had, could be a slow coastal battleship, or a heavy cruiser with oversized guns or even a sort of light battlecuiser if tonnage restriction is looser than Versailles
@King_Arthur Good effort but pretty inaccurate. First a single battleship sortieing to commerce raid is not how things were done in WWI, battleships acted in squadrons and divisions not alone. Likewise the US would not have sent one alone to chase one. In addition I would consider it unlikely that the 191 US would build something similar to OTL South Carolina, as she was a budget ship, limited to 16,000 tons as a way of limiting costs by a pennypinching congress. As 191 US is a lot more willing to spend on the military, that degree of pennypinching seems unlikely. Assuming they did build such a ship, it would not be sent to chase a Dreadnought copy as it would be too slow to catch it. As for literary critiques, it's Featherston not Featherstone, the CSA was not allowed to keep Dreadnoughts after WWI being limited to something similar to OTL Panzerschiffe or Coast Defense Vessels*, Bermuda being recaptured in '43 and the issue with Sam Carsten
*Not sure if the vessel is described beyond being most powerful thing CSN had, could be a slow coastal battleship, or a heavy cruiser with oversized guns or even a sort of light battlecuiser if tonnage restriction is looser than Versailles
My good fellows, as some of you might already know I once did my best to estimate the available pool of manpower tapped into by the CSA during the First Great War - my best estimate was that, leaving aside a Regular Army of about 547,620 effectives (and not counting "Afro-Confederates"), the South could potentially call up 5,693,082 recruits out of a population of roughly 32 Million.
May I please ask if anyone has thoughts on just how many of these warm bodies would have made up the Confederate States navy?
May I please ask if anyone has thoughts on just how many of these warm bodies would have made up the Confederate States navy?
My guess, considering the CSNs smaller size, and lesser importance to a country whose biggest objective is to hold the Northern Colossus at bay on land, no more than 5-10% of the whole.
So between 569,308 and 284,654 personnel? (one assumes that the lower figure might represent the peacetime naval establishment and the higher figure the wartime establishment); that makes a good deal of sense and I thank you very kindly for weighing in on this subject Sierra.
I wonder if the Confederate States Marine Corps ought to be counted as part of their naval establishment or if that sort of sloppy thinking marks me down for some sort of appallingly terrifying dixie jarhead vengeance?
I wonder if the Confederate States Marine Corps ought to be counted as part of their naval establishment or if that sort of sloppy thinking marks me down for some sort of appallingly terrifying dixie jarhead vengeance?
So between 569,308 and 284,654 personnel? (one assumes that the lower figure might represent the peacetime naval establishment and the higher figure the wartime establishment); that makes a good deal of sense and I thank you very kindly for weighing in on this subject Sierra.
I wonder if the Confederate States Marine Corps ought to be counted as part of their naval establishment or if that sort of sloppy thinking marks me down for some sort of appallingly terrifying dixie jarhead vengeance?
Again, in not sure. It depends on how much they have in the way of a navy. You might even see the navy forced to turn excess personnel over to the army when the manpower pinch starts hitting ahead of the black enlistments.
I think you can safely do that. Regardless of what real jarheads will say, the USMC was a minor part of the military up until WWI, and wasn't even effectively it's own,service until WWII saw a huge expansion. I dont think i can see the CSMC ever really having much need to expand nearly that much, since expanding it would come at the expense of the Army.
It is highly likely that the Confederate States Marine Corps in TL-191, throughout its history, was controlled by navy and never its own independent branch. This is not unusual actually, since many countries maintain marine corps of their own that fall under the direct control of their respective navies. You can say that the USMC and Royal Marines, by comparison, are unusual as they operate like an independent branch of the armed forces despite falling under the jurisdiction of their respective naval departments.
In this timeline the CSMC would likely see some expansion but it would not be enough to justify it being its own separate branch. This wouldn't be unusual though. The Germans even in our timeline technically had their own "marine corps" - or naval infantry, to be more accurate I think - but its personnel never rose above regimental strength. It is likely, however, that the CSMC would be a bit larger compared to other marine corps from other countries. Therefore, the marines would likely be counted as part of the naval personnel along side sailors.
I say this because, as mentioned before, CSMC is would be a small force compared to its US counterpart. Even then, its US counterpart would likely take a few more years to truly expand. The CSMC would likely be confined to operations in the Caribbean and the Atlantic, taking part in amphibious assaults to secure islands around the state of Cuba. While these operations would give precedence for further development and expansion of the CSMC, it would likely never attain a status of being an independent branch, nor receive the recruits it may desperately want. It could, however, be trained as a small yet mean fighting force specially trained in amphibious operations and raids. Although I wouldn't say they would be "elite" fighters, they would certainly be tenacious ones, conducting some of the more unorthodox operations.
Last edited:
So between 569,308 and 284,654 personnel? (one assumes that the lower figure might represent the peacetime naval establishment and the higher figure the wartime establishment); that makes a good deal of sense and I thank you very kindly for weighing in on this subject Sierra.
Indeed. If you're still unsure, you can probably try to find personnel numbers from other navies at the time of WWI or WWII for comparison. These numbers don't sound bad to me, but I believe a comparison with the US Navy in terms of personnel might also help, to get a feel for how big the CS Navy might be in the Great War. Either way, its numbers should definitely be smaller than that of the USN.
Can you provide pictures of what this ship looked like? You said it might be based off the USS South Carolina? I would like to see what you had in mind!
The problem is that while ship numbers are reasonably easy to come by, I have yet to come by PERSONNEL numbers for the various WWI fleets; I was able to learn that a compliment of manpower a little less than 500,000 made the United States Navy one of the largest fleets in the world at the end of WWI, so I think we can safely say that the Confederate Navy should be MUCH smaller than this.
I can easily see a Confederate Naval Division being formed to combat the Red Rebellion, especially in the Gulf Coast region - it's not impossible that the Army would attempt to retain these troops even after the Rebellion was put down, which would likely trigger a major bun fight between the Brass Hats.
Both Sierra and yourself make very cogent arguments - I not agree with them, I would go further and suggest the CSMC would almost certainly be disbanded after the Great Wars; it's not hard to imagine this indignity driving some of the former leathernecks into the ranks of the Freedom Party et al.
This does make me wonder if the USMC experienced an expansion during the Pacific War of the 1930s (it's amusing to imagine the Yankee jarheads being marginally more inclined to like President Blackford than most of the United States, for having allowed these particular bulldogs off the leash), comparable to their expansion during WWII.
So, you think the CSMC would be disbanded entirely then after war, huh? Well, I suppose its not entirely out of the question. With restrictions on the Confederate Navy and with the general downsizing of its personnel, the CSMC would be a shell of its former self. While offices for the marines might remain open, the very men that would make it might not be there. Like many men, this dissatisfaction could certainly mean that many of these former marines would have Freedom Party leanings post-war. I'm unsure though...
As for the USMC, given the results of the Pacific War with Japan, its hard for me properly say whether or not they'd be expanded significantly. Rearmament efforts were made by the US during this time and it likely recruitment for marines was increased. There is unfortunately no mention of amphibious operations during this time, with most of the fighting being done by the navies of each country. I'd say a modest expansion would be likely for the USMC during the Pacific War of 1932-1934, probably enough to justify amphibious operations against Japanese outposts in the Pacific.
Well, in OTL the USMC also came close to be disbanded before World War 2, so it may be the CSMC is and folded into the Army and Navy. Or they are kept, but again mostly in Central America and Haiti.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
I'd argue the example would be closer to that of Germany. OTL WWI Germany had a full Corps of 70,000 marines in 3 Divisions that was disbanded with Versailles. Nazi Germany only refounded the Marines as a company sized special ops units in 1938 and only grew to 6 companies total. Given how the CSA was forced into something similar to Versailles, the CSMC was probably either disbanded by Treaty or disbanded by the Navy due to manpower limitations imposed on them (Given a choice between keeping more Sailors or Marines, I see the CSN choosing sailors)
So the CSA probably had some sort of amphibious Spec Ops unit, but probably very small, and may be Army or Navy depending on who founds it, if Navy they may call them Marines, but not a full amphibous combat force
Well, if the CSMC truly was reactivated again for the Second Great War, I'd imagine the Navy would have control over them like last time. I'm not saying the Army can't do it themselves as there are marine corps around the world that are under the control of their country's Army (France's Troupes de Marine as an example), I'd just need to see a reason for the Confederate Army to reactivate them as opposed to the Navy, whether it would be a political reason or a pragmatic reason. Just need a reason.
I'm just saying that the Navy, in the eventual occurrence of war in North America, would need their Marines again. It would definitely be a small force, but it would be a lean one.