What if Napoleon the Third had not backed down?

Crimean War tactics might be one thing, but that wasn't "the last war" for France--that honor belonged to the Sardinian War.

It's the most contemporary example of how France fares in a bad logistical situation against a power with a paper strength far surpassing its own in an inhospitable terrain in a major engagement.
 

Maur

Banned
The book didn't explicitly name the wars, but it did say that European wars had recently been very short, so the European publics expected WWI to be over quickly--ignoring the example of the American Civil War.

It was an explanation for the whole "we'll be home by Christmas" thing that didn't happen.

IIRC the Franco-Prussian War and Russo-Japanese War were both extremely short, and wasn't the Austro-Prussian War known as "the Seven Weeks' War"?
Relatively (although i wouldn't say "extremely") short, yeah, but far from low casualties ones.
 
Sigma7 wrote:



Well, oddly enough I have, but I've always understood that it was something to do with secession, rather than anything else.

Yes, and the reason those states seceded?

It had to do with...what?


Yes, but be careful. Some around here have no tolerance for that observation.

Yeah, those of us that, at the end of the day, are capable of understanding that, the prime reason for the states seceding was, in fact, to protect the institution of slavery.

Why, are you one of those people who clings to "STATE'S RIGHTS!!!eleventy!" and is sticking to it...even though the only state's right the leaders of the CSA seemed to be interested in protecting was, in fact, slavery?:confused:

And you're talking about other people's powers of observation?:confused:


Cynical, sarcastic, ... a man after my own heart. I like you already.

Actually, that would be woman, but thanks none the less!:cool:
___________________________________________________________



Now on the subject of "The Great French Naval Superiority" that's going to wipe the U.S. Navy from the face of the planet, how many folks here are familiar with the fate of La Gloire's sister ships?

Yeah, funny story about those, seems they were under-gunned, ie; the original batteries were ineffective against armor, so they required a refit...but that didn't happen until 1868.

Another funny story about Invincible (which would have ended up with the most ironic name in the history of warfare had she actually seen combat against the USN in 1866/67) and Normandie?

They were made from substandard timbers and were both stricken in 1871, less than ten after entering service.

BTW, in 1866, La Glorie herself is packing the same guns as her sister ships. The ones that can't penetrate armor.

Granted, she was better built, but that still doesn't change the fact that her guns wouldn't penetrate armor.

So, let's speculate for a moment as to what reaction by the French admiralty and morale in the French navy would be if, after their first engagements with American ironclads, Invincible and Normandie are at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico and La Glorie is either with them (a possibility, if numerous ironclads get to tee off on her while she helplessly flails away with guns that can't scratch them...) or laid up in a Mexican port somewhere, unable to limp home without risking getting sent to the bottom.

I would say that, watching their first class of ironclads introduce the world to the expression "Epic Fail" over a century earlier than OTL might cause them to wonder if, perhaps, the rest of their ironclads have similar construction problems, making them equally vulnerable, and, how many more can they afford to lose before this becomes a major problem?

That and having to bring all their ships back for refits on their batteries...plus, they're going to have to examine the Alma class ships, halting completion of those ships while they're inspected to make sure they're built of sturdier materials than La Glorie's sisters.

Yeah. That's "naval superiority": Up to three jewels of the fleet sent to the bottom in catastrophes of poor armament and construction while the rest of the armored ships are laid up in port being refitted and inspected to make sure they aren't just expensive target practice for opposing navies.

That won't take too long...:rolleyes:


The USN didn't have as many ironclads as the French did, but I'll tell ya what they did have after fighting ironclad warfare for the previous four years and that's a substantial knowledge of what works and what doesn't when armored warships are engaging each other.

It would appear that the French, did not.

Gee, I wonder where the Americans got that knowledge?:confused::rolleyes:
 
Sigma7, what of the other, more advance French ironclads? Couronne, Magenta class, Provence class, Belliqueuse, and the Alma class. Your critiques of the Gloire class is spot-on, but you ignore the fact that she was the first ocean-going ironclad vessel, and she was launched in 1859 - nearly a decade prior to the OP's scenario. There had been quite a bit of advancement in French ironclads after Gloire; plenty of which influence the Americans. How would the US' ocean-going ironclads like USS Dictator or USS Puritan, or even the possibility of a recommissioned USS Dunderberg compare to the French ships?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Now on the subject of "The Great French Naval Superiority" that's going to wipe the U.S. Navy from the face of the planet, how many folks here are familiar with the fate of La Gloire's sister ships?

Yeah, funny story about those, seems they were under-gunned, ie; the original batteries were ineffective against armor, so they required a refit...but that didn't happen until 1868.

Another funny story about Invincible (which would have ended up with the most ironic name in the history of warfare had she actually seen combat against the USN in 1866/67) and Normandie?

They were made from substandard timbers and were both stricken in 1871, less than ten after entering service.

No they weren't. The wood was damaged because the iron stopped it ever drying out. All timber hulled ironclads had the same problem, which is why by the early 1870's all the Monitors were rotted.

BTW, in 1866, La Glorie herself is packing the same guns as her sister ships. The ones that can't penetrate armor.

Granted, she was better built, but that still doesn't change the fact that her guns wouldn't penetrate armor.

Nope. In 1866 she mounts 8 239 (9.4") Mle1864 Breechloading Rifles and 6 193mm (7.6") Mle1866 BLR.

The 239mm throws a 317lb steel bolt at 1,115 fps at the muzzle - that's 185 ft-tons per inch. In context that will achieve a clean penetration of Dictator's turret armour at short range, whilst Dictator's 15" will make shallow dents in Gloire's armour (the ball fractures on impact and the front creates a wedge which smashes the rest of the attacking round - the US was incapable of manufacturing the chilled iron/ steel rounds the British and French had).

Her sisters only got reequipped upon being moved from Ordinary (Reserve) onto active service. There is no reason that they wouldn't get the latest weapons and ammunition when fitting out for American service.

The USN didn't have as many ironclads as the French did, but I'll tell ya what they did have after fighting ironclad warfare for the previous four years and that's a substantial knowledge of what works and what doesn't when armored warships are engaging each other.

and yet they never got a full penetration of a Confederate ironclad?

Gee, I wonder where the Americans got that knowledge?:confused::rolleyes:

The same place the Iraqis got their knowledge of armoured warfare in the late 1980's, just before they went up against a "green" army.
 
Last edited:
Sigma7 wrote:

Yes, and the reason those states seceded?

It had to do with...what?
Well, if it was really to do with protecting black people, why did it take until the early 1960's for most of them to be able to vote? Why did segregation persist until the late 1950's? Why were black people still being lynched in the 1940's? (and note that I count only incidents where the whole town turned out to watch, not random killings by a few rednecks). It seems clear that once the Confederate states were prevented from seceding, any alleged concern for black people went out the window.

Alternatively, are you saying that if the Confederacy had seceded over (say) tariffs, that the North would have been happy to let them go?
 
Last edited:

Maur

Banned
Oh no not causes of secession war again :D

Well, regarding the whole "veternacy" issue, i'd like to point that the French army of that time was not merely non-drafted one, but it was professional to the extent that almost half of the soldiers already served over 10 years. That's basically a life career. In fact, recently it introduced the upper age limit for privates, 47 years, that is :D

(on a side note, it was lousy system whet it came to European warfare, even though it was perhaps suited to colonial one. Apparently French army was quite influenced by its colonial endavours anyway)
 
this whole discussion has gotten kinda bizarre and off track. For one thing, Nappy3 backed down from the whole Mexican venture partly because the French were losing there and partly because he really didn't want war with both Mexican rebels and the USA together (also, wasn't the UK belatedly taking an interest in the Monroe Doctrine again?). If the French do anything, I'd think it more likely that they will reinforce their troops in Mexico, who are suffering from Juarista guerrilla bands. And there's the real question... can they effectively garrison and occupy enough of the country to put an end to the Juaristas? The southern tropical half of the country is densely populated, the northern desert half is wide open, resource scarce, and the population is a lot more scattered. Plus, there are some native tribes who don't recognize anyone's authority and can make themselves a nuisance to all sides. I find it unlikely that the French will be the first to declare war on America, leaving that onus to the USA; most likely they will try to simply overwhelm the rebels with a surge of reinforcements first.
As for the USA... that 50,000 man 'Army of observation' on the border isn't going to be able to go all that far, due to supply lines. However, they have piles of older armaments they can splurge on the Juaristas, and that's likely what they'll do first. If the USA declares war (and that's a big if), it wouldn't be for a while yet, waiting to see if the French back down first or are beaten by the Juaristas. So, basically, it comes down to the French vs. the Juaristas...
 

Maur

Banned
As for the USA... that 50,000 man 'Army of observation' on the border isn't going to be able to go all that far, due to supply lines. However, they have piles of older armaments they can splurge on the Juaristas, and that's likely what they'll do first. If the USA declares war (and that's a big if), it wouldn't be for a while yet, waiting to see if the French back down first or are beaten by the Juaristas. So, basically, it comes down to the French vs. the Juaristas...
AFAIK, they did that anyway, DOW wasn't needed :D
 
Sigma7, what of the other, more advance French ironclads? Couronne, Magenta class, Provence class, Belliqueuse, and the Alma class. Your critiques of the Gloire class is spot-on, but you ignore the fact that she was the first ocean-going ironclad vessel, and she was launched in 1859 - nearly a decade prior to the OP's scenario. There had been quite a bit of advancement in French ironclads after Gloire; plenty of which influence the Americans. How would the US' ocean-going ironclads like USS Dictator or USS Puritan, or even the possibility of a recommissioned USS Dunderberg compare to the French ships?

With the Alma's, it's more a matter of them all being under construction in 1866. The Alma class ships would just be getting their initial launches in 1867, which would give the U.S. time to build more ships.

I'm at a loss on the gunnery of the Couronne, Magenta class, Provence class and Belliqueuse because I don't have any information on hand regarding their armaments at the hypothetical outbreak of hostilities.

Assuming they were carrying armaments that are capable of piercing armor, those would be a tough slog for the USN.

I see one advantage the USN might have in these engagements though and that's the low target profile of the littoral monitors that would be used to protect American ports and enforce a blockade of the Mexican coast. What they sacrifice in ocean going stability, the make up for in relative speed, maneuverability and profile against a broadside ironclad.

Now, USS Puritan, I like her chances if a war with France results in her being completed as a breastwork monitor with twin turrets as the navy originally wanted it. That'd be a tough ship for the Franch navy's best ironclads to take on head-to-head, and if the USN makes an entire class out of the Puritan...the war at sea is going to get really ugly, really fast for France.

Dunderberg, as she was, could be intriguing as a stop-gap ironclad, if properly armed for ironclad warfare (her ram's going to be useless) her armor and fitting with armor defeating guns would make her a good ship to have at a time when oceangoing ironclads aren't exactly choking American ports.

She might be rather useful as a practical applications platform; the USN could evaluate her as a basis for the development and construction of further ironclad frigates.

Dictator is kinda like Puritan; refitted as a breastwork ironclad, she'd be a dangerous adversary for the French navy. If she can be fitted with a second turret, all the better, but I'm not sure her initial configuration would allow for that possibility.

Also, there's the matter of the USS New Ironsides.

If they mount a pair of twin gun turrets on her, mount proper armor piercing guns on her gun deck and improve her power plant, making her a sort early armored cruiser, that could be interesting to say the least.

Whether or not that would be possible is another matter altogether.

Breastwork monitors could give the right types of naval minds the idea of building such ships though, especially if war with a major power is imminent.

I wish I could have answered your question about those other French ironclads better, though as I simply don't have the materials necessary to properly evaluate them.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Now, USS Puritan, I like her chances if a war with France results in her being completed as a breastwork monitor with twin turrets as the navy originally wanted it. That'd be a tough ship for the Franch navy's best ironclads to take on head-to-head, and if the USN makes an entire class out of the Puritan...the war at sea is going to get really ugly, really fast for France.

The "reconstructed" Puritan was a completely new ship. The Navy lied to Congress about her being a "reconstruction" of the uncompleted (and rotten) Ericcson monitor. Had Puritan been completed with the 20" Dahlgren's she'd be an interesting ship. The 20" could put a hole in any French ship at 1,000 yards, but waiting the hour to reload both guns would be fatal.

Dunderberg, as she was, could be intriguing as a stop-gap ironclad, if properly armed for ironclad warfare (her ram's going to be useless) her armor and fitting with armor defeating guns would make her a good ship to have at a time when oceangoing ironclads aren't exactly choking American ports.

She required a massive amount of work by OTL France even for harbour defence. Her engines are especially problematic, as was the extremely weak armour belt.

Dictator is kinda like Puritan; refitted as a breastwork ironclad, she'd be a dangerous adversary for the French navy. If she can be fitted with a second turret, all the better, but I'm not sure her initial configuration would allow for that possibility.

Dictator is Dictator. She was never reconstructed as a Breastwork Monitor. In fact that ship type does not yet exist. Reed, the British Chief Naval Constructor, designs the first of the type (HMVS Cerberus) in mid-late 1866.

Also, there's the matter of the USS New Ironsides.

If they mount a pair of twin gun turrets on her, mount proper armor piercing guns on her gun deck and improve her power plant, making her a sort early armored cruiser, that could be interesting to say the least.

?

Mount turrets on her and you increase her metacentric height to such a degree I suspect she'll o under.

I wish I could have answered your question about those other French ironclads better, though as I simply don't have the materials necessary to properly evaluate them.

The problem is you seem to be evaluating ships by the standards of the 1880's. Technology advanced incredibly quickly during this period. In 1866 the wooden steam frigate was still a very viable unit for example.
 
The "reconstructed" Puritan was a completely new ship. The Navy lied to Congress about her being a "reconstruction" of the uncompleted (and rotten) Ericcson monitor. Had Puritan been completed with the 20" Dahlgren's she'd be an interesting ship. The 20" could put a hole in any French ship at 1,000 yards, but waiting the hour to reload both guns would be fatal.

I'm aware of the difference between the two Puritans. The original wasn't even completed because the war ended before it could be finished.

What I meant was, by 1866, with war with a European power imminent, it wouldn't be a stretch for the USN to complete the ship as the twin turret ocean going monitor it wanted but Ericsson wouldn't build for them.

It's not out of the realm of possibility for someone to hit on the same idea as Reed or even outright adopt the same concept and complete her as a breastwork monitor.

She required a massive amount of work by OTL France even for harbour defence. Her engines are especially problematic, as was the extremely weak armour belt.

That's why I added:

Sigma7 said:
She might be rather useful as a practical applications platform; the USN could evaluate her as a basis for the development and construction of further ironclad frigates.

Sometimes, you learn more from a bad ship than from a good one, especially the most important lessons in the area of "What NOT to do." and "How NOT to build them."

She's still one more ironclad that can be used in a pinch.

She may not survive, but she could be a valuable source of data for future naval construction and engines.

From what I read about her, my impression wasn't that she was going to be a long serving, master of the high seas by any means.

I was leaning far more heavily towards "stop gap and evaluation tool".

Dictator is Dictator. She was never reconstructed as a Breastwork Monitor. In fact that ship type does not yet exist. Reed, the British Chief Naval Constructor, designs the first of the type (HMVS Cerberus) in mid-late 1866.

That's why I said I didn't know if it was even possible to refit her as a breastwork.

I was speculating as to whether it could or not and leaned towards "not".

?

Mount turrets on her and you increase her metacentric height to such a degree I suspect she'll o under.

Hey, I'm a financial analyst, not an engineer!

Cut me some slack.:D

Seems like a cool concept.

Best case with New Ironsides would probably be to refit her with better guns and a better engine and then build a next generation of broadside ironclads based off what the experience of the refit teaches them.

The turrets just seemed like a cool idea.

The problem is you seem to be evaluating ships by the standards of the 1880's. Technology advanced incredibly quickly during this period. In 1866 the wooden steam frigate was still a very viable unit for example.

Admittedly so.

I ordered some books that were suggested by other members of this very forum on the subject, but they have not yet arrived, so I don't have much besides Wikipedia (which is always a dice throw) and frustratingly few sites that specialize in this particular seemingly "forgotten era" of warships to go by.

And again, I'm not an engineer, I just have a vivid imagination that doesn't always conceive of the possible in areas that I have limited knowledge in, rather, tends towards the fanciful.
 
Top