Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian Navy During the Civil War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Doing some research it seems the RN only had 9 real Ironclad warships the rest were either modded wooden ships or central battery types that where very under-gunned. The USN would have had a huge firepower advantage.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      Really, care to back that up? US monitors sailed to Britain, and around the Roarign 40's to reach the US West Coast.

      By the end of 1865 the US had 4 double turreted monitors which could beat anything at sea. The US also had 10 Passaic class monitors and 7 Canonicus class monitors. In addition the US had at least 6 captured CSS ironclads. The Royal Navy had 22 ironclads so was outnumbered 27-22. The US Passaic Class had much thicker armor over the turrets since the RN standard was 4.5 inches (5.5 on the Minotaur class, 6 inches of a few others) while the turrets of the US ships was 11 inches.
      The four Double turrets were considered good sea-boats, but were not finished until late 1865. None of the other US "Monitor" class could "sail" across the oceans they had to be towed.
      The Warrior had 40 guns including breech loaders and the Royal Navy was building at least 15 more seagoing ironclads at the time of Hampton Roads.
      Also the Brits had decided to build only iron ships from c1860 on. At this time the US's shipbuilding capacity was insignificant compared to the UK's. As for wooden ships that is where the UK outnumbered the US by at least 4 to one.
      One more item quoted from Wiki:
      The U.S. Navy ended the Civil War with about fifty monitor-type coastal ironclads; by the 1870s most of these were laid up in reserve, leaving the USA virtually without an ironclad fleet. Another five large monitors were ordered in the 1870s. The limitations of the monitor type effectively prevented the USA from projecting power overseas, and until the 1890s the USA would have come off badly in a conflict with even Spain or the Latin American powers. The 1890s saw the beginning of what became the Great White Fleet, and it was the modern pre-Dreadnoughts and armored cruisers built in the 1890s which defeated the Spanish fleet in the Spanish-American War of 1898. This started a new era of naval warfare.[77]
      As much as I love my country to think that it's Navy would have had a "snowballs chance in Hell" against the Royal Navy in the 19th century boarders on the delusional.
      At the start of WWI for example (from "Battleships 1856-1977" by A. Preston):
      p#47
      UK pre-dreds 40 built 1895-1908
      Dreds 22 + 9 Battle-cruisers
      p#48
      US 23 PDreds
      10 Dreds
      It was not till the Washington Treaty that the US Navy achieved parity with the Royal Navy and it may have been much later than that had the UK seen the US as a potential threat.
      Last edited by ghost88; 01 Aug 09,, 14:29.

      Comment


      • #18
        photo;scivil war picts of russian navy, and monitors

        nice info.
        if you want to see photo's of all mentioned above.

        archive .org

        [go to text] [advanced search]
        inter title: the photographic history of the civil war
        author: Francis miller

        it has ten volumes each around 330 pages
        published 1911

        there is photo's of the russian ships and crew photo's

        monitor photo's

        archive .org is a web site part of library of congress.
        it has open source out of copy write books in both text and audio.
        movies, old TV, old radio. etc

        text books i download in pdf format so i can print just like i scanned page from book.

        if the civil war is what you study you must have these books.
        plus all of Lincolns writings are also here.

        Comment


        • #19
          archive.org

          there is also books on dreadnoughts, great white fleet, all wars before 1927, and movies ww2 Aleutians, original Memphis bell movie with original crew done during ww2 etc.

          just about all books published before 1927

          project Gutenberg etc.

          there is in text area, just about info for all here, on any subject posted about any thing dating back before 1927 and a lot after that date if it was not copy writed.

          libraries are taking books shelf by shelf and digitizing them.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ghost88 View Post
            The four Double turrets were considered good sea-boats, but were not finished until late 1865. None of the other US "Monitor" class could "sail" across the oceans they had to be towed.
            The British weapons in all likelihood could not penetrate the armor of the monitors. Along the US seaboard or in the Gulf of Mexico the single turret designs would have ruled the waves and at sea the double turrets would have sunk anything they came across.

            As for wooden ships that is where the UK outnumbered the US by at least 4 to one.
            The USN finished the civil war with over 1000 armed vessels.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              The British weapons in all likelihood could not penetrate the armor of the monitors. Along the US seaboard or in the Gulf of Mexico the single turret designs would have ruled the waves and at sea the double turrets would have sunk anything they came across.
              Except the Warrior and Black Prince ;)
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warrior_(1860)



              The USN finished the civil war with over 1000 armed vessels.
              And how many were sea going ?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                The USN finished the civil war with over 1000 armed vessels.
                Armored, or armed vessels?
                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  10,000 British troops re-enforced Canada during the ACW. It would have been a nice speed bump for the Union.
                  Sir, can you expand on that?

                  Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  Doing some research it seems the RN only had 9 real Ironclad warships the rest were either modded wooden ships or central battery types that where very under-gunned. The USN would have had a huge firepower advantage.
                  I've been reading the book on Semmes and the Alabama that Shamus turned me on to, as well as looking through a few other things.

                  I'm of the opinion that Warrior and Black Prince and most of the rest of the Royal Navy would've torn through the ACW USN like a bag of leaves.

                  Was there any kind of serious comparison done that's been posted on the Web? Any learned opinions from our own WABbits? (particular the Warrior-class versus the best of the USN)

                  I'll be pruning this off onto a RN/USN-ACW thread tomorrow
                  “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    10,000 British troops re-enforced Canada during the ACW. It would have been a nice speed bump for the Union.
                    Originally posted by Tophatter
                    Sir, can you expand on that?
                    I think what he meant to say was that the US would have rolled over Canada like a bulldozer. A million men under arms? It would have been over in relatively short order, however, I'd think the logistics of organizing an offensive against Canada would have taken longer than the offensive itself. Let's say the Union had left half of its men under arms in the South for occupation and deployed the other half north, we're looking at an army of 500,000 men pitted against territories holding about 3 million in population.

                    Speaking of which, a quick check on Google states the Britain was dependent on US imports for 40% of its grain consumption, which could have led to major unrest in Britain and a fraying of the nerves of its government.

                    As far as the RN is concerned, even if it were more than a match for the Union at the time, what good is it going to do? I'd estimate the US could sink any RN fleet in its own water. Our monitors may not have been able to take the fight to the Thames like the Dutch did, but I'd assume they could cut through a British fleet like a hot knife through butter. At this time period, the world was far more dependent on US exports than the other way around. The largest impact the RN is going to have on the US is the disruption of foreign inflows of cash and depression of the price of grain in the US, while having the practical effect of exporting famine to Britain and Europe, the former of which would have created all sorts of domestic political problems for the British and created a minefield for British relations with other European powers.

                    For any of you ACW experts (Shek, AR) and on Canada/Britain (OoE), am I off the mark here or are my assessments valid?
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      want some info on ironclads

                      here is some books

                      report of the secretary of the navy in relations to armored vessels

                      dated 1864 has all action reports from commanders to and from secretary of
                      the navy on all iron vessels in all campaigns during civil war. very informative as to problems with them and damage they could take.

                      the monitor and the navy under steam

                      dated 1900 covers from monitor up to 1900 covers all iron ships all countries
                      during evolution of iron clads

                      these books can be downloaded from www.archive.org

                      if you look thru there you could probably find some thing on Canada during civil war. there was also something i read but cannot remember where about foreign troops also in Mexico.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                        For any of you ACW experts (Shek, AR) and on Canada/Britain (OoE), am I off the mark here or are my assessments valid?
                        I would dispute your view that the USN could even come close to defeating the RN, but your views on the cost of a war with the US on the economic side of things seem correct to me.
                        So its a good job that Britain at no point had even the slightest interest in getting involved in your disagreement over State rights ;)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by redco View Post
                          I would dispute your view that the USN could even come close to defeating the RN, but your views on the cost of a war with the US on the economic side of things seem correct to me.
                          The US doesn't need to defeat the RN. The monitors could operate in areas the RN couldn't and the US, in my opinion, could mass enough naval force to beat the British at any one of its ports.
                          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Okay, lets look at a few things here.

                            1. Land side

                            Combat experienced and well equipped forces. The US Army of the spring 1865 was arguably the best equipped, proficient and lethal large army in the world. It was well versed in operating over long distances, had superbly equipped, trained and experienced support harms, it logistics operations were second to none. The medical branch had advanced much opf medical sciences for the world due to its wide ranging experience...including the capability to operate a 2,000 bed mobile tactical hospital...in different theaters concurrently. Its artillery was ruthlessly efficient. Its cavalry was a superbly equipped and trained and the remount service of the US Cavalry was as coldly proficient as any other form of logistics within the US military. And the infantry was simply superb.

                            And the combat leaders from regiment through army level were stone killers who could take on any army in the world and win...repeatedly.

                            This is not national pride or hyperbole....it is stone cold truth. After 4 years of conflict the US Army had forged itself into a massively efficient bludgeon of national power.

                            And in typical American fashion it would all be thrown away within the year.

                            2 Naval side.

                            The Royal Navy was modern and well equipped. But so was the US Navy. Admittedly it was not a great ocean Navy as it would become a half a century later but it was a superb brown water navy and that is what would be needed in thsi fight...because the fight is in Canada not across the Atlantic. And the US Navy of 1865 had a LOT more combat experience than the Royal Navy of 1865.


                            That said if a war had come prior to demobilization it would have been a walk.

                            Logistically a Canadian campaign would have been easier than the Atlanta campaign or the Virginia campaign. Rail lines already ran throughout New York and the New England states to the Canadian border. The manufacturing base was closer to Canada than to the deep South and most of the territory which was worthwhile was, like today, within a 100 miles of the border.



                            It would have been an attack into Ontario supported by masses of gunboats which were no longer needed along the inland waterways. The blockading squadron off of Florida and Carolina moves to the mouth of the St Lawrence and cuts it off. The same engineers who bridged the James River could throw bridges across the Saint Lawrence and Niagra rivers.

                            If you want to recall how poorly prepared the British were to


                            As the good Colonel has already said...it would have ended in a negotiated settlement because there was nothing the British could have done to prevent it. And there was nowhere along the East Coast of the US that the British could attack which was not well defended by fortifications and killingly efficient large artillery backed by maneuver forces.

                            And all of this with the UK losing access to 40% of its wheat and 30% of its fish imports.

                            And all of this without resorting to using any former Confederate forces. As a wrote elsewhere a guarantee of full restoration of rights and access to free land in return for loyal service would have been an overwhelming incentive for many a Confederate veteran.
                            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                            Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              AR, exactly what I wanted to say, except I'm not quite the expert and couldn't have put it the way you did. Even this bit had crossed my mind:
                              Originally posted by Albany Rifles
                              And all of this without resorting to using any former Confederate forces. As a wrote elsewhere a guarantee of full restoration of rights and access to free land in return for loyal service would have been an overwhelming incentive for many a Confederate veteran.
                              And you make it almost sound as if America had lost a wonderful opportunity to start immediately healing those North-South hard feelings. :)
                              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Interestingly enough, I read the other night that President Abraham Lincoln had a Confederate $5 dollar note in his jacket pocket the night he was shot at Fords theatre.;)
                                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X