Blue water navy

[Old Soldier]

I have provided you with the histories of every single Civil War Monitor. Since I literally do not understand the point you are trying the make, the citations await your perusal.

View attachment 579254

DELUDED PEOPLE CAVE IN

Before you dig into the your search for the particular engagement that fits your criteria, perhaps considering the psychological impact the Monitors had would be useful.

Just the rumor that a Monitor was coming could create a panic. CWT Member J P K Huston has posted a fine narrative you can add to your list of unworthy Monitor victories. In this case one vs one over a formidable ironclad. Read more here.

Link:

Thread 'Admiral Porter's Ironclad Hoax'

Jan 28, 2013

I had a chance to spend some time browsing, this time had a GREAT time with a few things! Pretty sure folks who frequent this part of the forum knew this, but it was the first I'd heard anything about Porter's hoax, his 'Quaker Ironclad'. Some accounts have the Confederates a little annoyed with the whole thing, albeit baffled. One account had this massive thing knocked together in only 12 hours, which would seem extreme if you hadn't read about some of the other massive undertakings the Engineers had turned out. Small potatoes compared to a pontoon bridge consisting of ships nailed...

• JPK Huson 1863
• Replies: 18
• Forum: Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

• 

'Causing a panic' is no evidence of the fighting capabilities of any vessel. It is just propaganda. The monitors were a DEAD END. They were of no use to a real navy. The vast majority that survived were put into reserve in 1867 and scrapped before 1875.

The modern equivalent is the Sturzkampfleugzeug - the Stuka. Feared throughout Europe 1939-40. Withdrawn from the Battle of Britain within a week. Too many shot down.

 

[Old Soldier]

Sorry she wasn't a citadel ship, they had an armoured enclosed central section with the ends protected by an armour deck and no belt. Monarch had a complete belt with what in other ships was a central battery, the difference being her Coles turrets within the top of the battery, only showing the top five feet.
A very successful ship, the Prussian Navy ordered and put into service three copies.

As I said - an EARLY citadel ship - the type before the real citadel ships - one which had a central armored 'bunker'. They had to get the final design there somehow.

 

[Piedone]

I have provided you with the histories of every single Civil War Monitor. Since I literally do not understand the point you are trying to make ( My old coach said that a win is marked with a "W" period. ) I await the posting of your citations.

My goodness!

Of all things you surely didn´t provide "the histories of every single Civil War Monitor".
We got nothing but some rather unbalanced and cherrypicked crumbs of information - and some (admittedly) nice pictures.

You are also obviously not willed to enter into any earnest conversation here
(as this would make it necessary to set one´s wits on things other people said).

@rebelatsea did nothing but show you that some confederate ironclads were definitely seaworthy up to a certain extent
(something you were always negating).
As a matter of fact all of what he said about the history of those ironclads is true -
one can find it even in wikipedia as easily as the fact that the Confederates lost the battle of Gettysburg.

And your only reply is barely mantled condescension?

Is this some kind of historical reenactment?
Are you wearing your Admiral Farragut trousers?
"D**** those facts - full spead ahead"

 

[Piedone]

Just the rumor that a Monitor was coming could create a panic. CWT Member J P K Huston has posted a fine narrative you can add to your list of unworthy Monitor victories. In this case one vs one over a formidable ironclad. Read more here.

Just the same with the Merrimack/Virginia (the "Merrimack"-scare) in the North….

But this is absolutely not related to the matter we are discussing now.
You just keep moving the goalposts - as soon as you feel you cannot come on top.

Aw, man. This is a forum to learn more about history.
It doesn´t matter if one "wins" an argument.
The better side, the better information, the more exact research should win!

I had to overhaul my opinion and convictions quite a lot when participating here -
and was more than once shown to having barked up the wrong tree.

Nothing wrong with that….

 

[atlantis]

Any record of dredging operations to upgrade confederate ports or attempts to build drydocks.

 

[rebelatsea]

Any record of dredging operations to upgrade confederate ports or attempts to build drydocks.

I think dredging was a more or less continual thing in most places, so normal commercial activities could carry on as far as was possible.
The ports already had building slips of various types and sizes, some quite extensive, and I have not seen anthying refering to construction of dry docks.

 

[rebelatsea]

I have provided you with the histories of every single Civil War Monitor. Since I literally do not understand the point you are trying to make ( My old coach said that a win is marked with a "W" period. ) I await the posting of your citations.

In the meantime…

View attachment 579254

DELUDED PEOPLE CAVE IN

Call sign of the USS WOODEN DUMMY.

Before you dig into the your inductive search for the particular engagement that fits your criteria, perhaps considering the psychological impact the Monitors had would be useful.

Just the rumor that a Monitor was coming could create a panic. CWT Member J P K Huston has posted a fine narrative you can add to your list of unworthy Monitor victories. In this case one vs one over a formidable ironclad. Too numerous to mention, the contemporary accounts are replete with references to the threat of a Monitor coming down stream. Read more here.

Link:

Thread 'Admiral Porter's Ironclad Hoax'

Jan 28, 2013

I had a chance to spend some time browsing, this time had a GREAT time with a few things! Pretty sure folks who frequent this part of the forum knew this, but it was the first I'd heard anything about Porter's hoax, his 'Quaker Ironclad'. Some accounts have the Confederates a little annoyed with the whole thing, albeit baffled. One account had this massive thing knocked together in only 12 hours, which would seem extreme if you hadn't read about some of the other massive undertakings the Engineers had turned out. Small potatoes compared to a pontoon bridge consisting of ships nailed...

• JPK Huson 1863
• Replies: 18
• Forum: Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

• 

So let's get rid of the hearsay and misinformation.

1) The "dummy monitor" was a not a dummy monitor at all, but a poorly constructed replica of the Indianola itself.
2) The thing never carried the words a union propogandist writer ascribed. Even if it had, the operation was carried out at night so one could have seen it anyway.
3) the raft ran aground once (confirmed) was refloated and apparently did so a second time. It was reported as a union ship. Just a
dark object in the night.
4) All the Confederates knew was that a union ship was coming, there was no "monitor panic"
5) The salvage crews knew there was no chance of refloating Indianola once they got aboard,so simply removed the bits that could be of use - the ordnance.

Before you dig into the your inductive search for the particular engagement that fits your criteria, perhaps considering the psychological impact the Monitors had would be useful

.Please explain "your inductive search" - what am I searching for? and "my criteria" is in the first line of my post.
Please name one action where USN monitors actually fought another vessel under way and in clear unobstructed waters and won?

 

[Rhea Cole]

So let's get rid of the hearsay and misinformation.

1) The "dummy monitor" was a not a dummy monitor at all, but a poorly constructed replica of the Indianola itself.
2) The thing never carried the words a union propogandist writer ascribed. Even if it had, the operation was carried out at night so one could have seen it anyway.
3) the raft ran aground once (confirmed) was refloated and apparently did so a second time. It was reported as a union ship. Just a
dark object in the night.
4) All the Confederates knew was that a union ship was coming, there was no "monitor panic"
5) The salvage crews knew there was no chance of refloating Indianola once they got aboard,so simply removed the bits that could be of use - the ordnance.


.Please explain "your inductive search" - what am I searching for? and "my criteria" is in the first line of my post.
Please name one action where USN monitors actually fought another vessel under way and in clear unobstructed waters and won?

DELUDED PEOPLE CAVE IN

Perhaps you are unaware of the profile of River Monitors such as USS Neosho. It is of special interest to me because of its participation in the Battle of Nashville.

Link

The U.S.S. Neosho Ironclad Gunboat | Battle of Nashville

The river monitor Neosho Ironclad was hit more than one hundred times in one of the, many engagements at this site, severely damaging her stern house and chimney.

battleofnashville.com

River Monitors were designed for brown water rather than littoral operations. Of necessity very different from their littoral cousins.

Link

River Monitors

At the onset of the Civil War, General Winfield Scott noted that a Union victory could be achieved by controlling the Mississippi River. Scott believed the entire Mississippi Valley could be controlled using only 12 to 20 gunboats and 60,000 soldiers. More resources would eventually be needed...

www.marinersmuseum.org

Note:

FYI: Ad Hominem attacks are prohibited in CWT posts. In the future snide prequels need to be edited out before posting. I am aware of what they indicate about the author, others are not quit so logical.

"The term 'ad hominem attack' might be familiar to you. What does ad hominem mean? In simple terms it means that rather than addressing the issue someone goes for the person.

For example, being called an idiot/fool/ignorant/etc by someone who disagrees with you but with no direct response to what it is you have posted.

People who engage in ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in mature debate are not actually advancing their cause. Mature (I'm talking attitude not age) social media users, who welcome debate as an opportunity to learn, find them annoying and easy to ignore."

 

[rebelatsea]

Nit pick away all you like. It was a littoral war & that is all there is to it.

Your non answer is noted !

 

[Old Soldier]

I think dredging was a more or less continual thing in most places, so normal commercial activities could carry on as far as was possible.
The ports already had building slips of various types and sizes, some quite extensive, and I have not seen anthying refering to construction of dry docks.

But there is dredging and 'dredging'. A practical form of dredging was available at this time (1860) but the technology was still new and evolving - and expensive. Most river ports - and shipyards - were situated on the outside of a meander - they let the river current do the job for them.

Rivers carry silt purely by the motion of water. The faster the current, the more silt can be carried. Erosion and deeper water was on the outside of a meander (focus of current), deposition was on the inside. Erosion forced the use of multi layer wood or stone quays. On the coast and estuaries it was often necessary to build a pier or jetty out into deeper water to accomodate the increasing displacement of ships.

The multi-bucket (bucket ladder) steam dredger was introduced in 1789 at Sunderland Co Durham. It was certainly used en mass during the early 1860s on the Thames at London - hence the high number of historical artifacts 'dredged up' at the time. By 1860 they had been used in the USA and suction dredgers were also used but mainly in established ports and estuaries. The first recorded use of a suction dredger in the USA was on the Charleston River in 1857 - the General Moultrie - which apparently sank in 1858! Most were confined to the major ports rather than rivers. Most river vessels were constucted for the waters they were to sail on - it was the easier - the only - way out. River navigation is NOT the same as 'blue water' or inshore navigation. There is no escape!! Knowledge is needed of depth and channel which are constantly changing.

It is noteable that the US Corps of Engineers did not start acquiring dredgers until the 1880s, accellerating through the 1890s and 1900s, and the Mississippi River Commission did not start until after 1892.

 

[Piedone]

So let's get rid of the hearsay and misinformation.

1) The "dummy monitor" was a not a dummy monitor at all, but a poorly constructed replica of the Indianola itself.
2) The thing never carried the words a union propogandist writer ascribed. Even if it had, the operation was carried out at night so one could have seen it anyway.
3) the raft ran aground once (confirmed) was refloated and apparently did so a second time. It was reported as a union ship. Just a
dark object in the night.
4) All the Confederates knew was that a union ship was coming, there was no "monitor panic"
5) The salvage crews knew there was no chance of refloating Indianola once they got aboard,so simply removed the bits that could be of use - the ordnance.

And it should be considered the salvage crew were just civilian mechanics and impressed slaves…
every other confederate vessel had gone to Vicksburg for refit and repairs.

It wasn't a "the hillbillies-found-a-spaceship"-thing
(by the way steamships plyed the waters of the Mississippi quite for a while then…).

It was more a question of should a (presumably intoxicated) tinker and an impressed slave
try to make a stand on an immobile ship
against federal forces of uncertain size (or any size at all)?

But @Rhea Cole should know all of that - as it is from "Defending the Arterias of Rebellion" - which he recommended to me as a read…

 

[Rhea Cole]

Your non answer is noted !

It is about time.

 

[Piedone]

DELUDED PEOPLE CAVE IN

View attachment 579291

Perhaps you are unaware of the profile of River Monitors such as USS Neosho. It is of special interest to me because of its participation in the Battle of Nashville.

And once again you are shiftig the goalposts.
Now we are talking about brownwater ships -
where we talked about littoral ships before -
after we started with bluewater ships….
just saying.

 

[Piedone]

DELUDED PEOPLE CAVE IN

---

FYI: Ad Hominem attacks are prohibited in CWT posts.

Speaking of which….

 

[Old Soldier]

Back to basics.

On research, the USN (pre 1861) - lost 25% of it's officers. No mention is made of other ranks or vessels. The Navy only had 42 ships in commissson but kept command of all of them. The centers of shipbuilding in the Confederacy in 1861 were coastal cities that were also significant shipping ports–Norfolk, Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, and New Orleans. Eventually, shipbuilding facilities of various sizes and abilities were spread across many locations on the coasts and rivers of the South.

When the Confederate States Navy was organized, it did not include a specific bureau to oversee construction, so shipbuilding efforts were widespread and poorly coordinated.

Norfolk VA was captured in April 1861. Captain C. S. McCauley, Flag Officer USN, ordered the yard destroyed and ships scuttled. Workshops were burned, but the dry-dock escaped destruction, as did many cannon, though their carriages were largely lost. The modern steam frigate Merrimack, sloop Plymouth, and brig Dolphin were scuttled and burned to the waterline. Ships of the line Pennsylvania, New York, Columbus, and Delaware were also burned or scuttled. The frigates Columbia and Raritan were burned, while the sloop Germantown was scuttled. Only the sailing sloop Cumberland, tug Yankee, and steam sloop Pawnee escaped. So most ships were burned and scuttled with a few being returned to service - Merrimack being the most obvious - although a large amount of naval ordnance and materials was seized. Norfolk was recaptured just over a year later, so - no time to build ships.

New Orleans. There are no reports of ships being turned over to the CSA. The city was initially a Confederate States Navy ordnance depot (ex-USN?). New Orleans shipfitters produced some innovative warships, including the CSS Manassas (an early ironclad), as well as two submarines (the Bayou St. John submarine and the Pioneer) which did not see action before the fall of the city. The Confederate Navy actively defended the lower reaches of the Mississippi River, during the Battle of the Head of Passes in October 1861 using RIVER boats. This was against the USN's initial blockading ships. In January 1862, they were replaced/augnemted by the West Gulf Blockading Squadron. By April the same year, New Orleans was in Union hands. No chance of more Confederate ships.

The Blockade ensured that any materials for shipbuilding had to be internal and they were few and far between. Salvage, rebuilding and 'reuse' was widespread. Why no preparation? All their initial thoughts were centered around King Cotton and the idea that the British and French would come to their aid to secure their share of cotton. Neutrality ended that idea pretty quickly.

 

[Piedone]

Great roundup!