Blue water navy

[atlantis]

I am surprised the CS naval academy wasn't located somewhere like Mobile or Wilmington, Charleston.

 

[atlantis]

In the same rant he said the South didn't need or want a manufacturing class, either, so I guess it's good they didn't need a navy. It's hard to build one without a manufacturing class. Tell me you want to be a colony or a third-world country without telling me.

Was he sober or that out of touch.

 

[atlantis]

So do you all really think it was not possible to stand up a blue water navy by spring of 1864 if the focus had been on that instead of the brown water program. 61-64 should have been enough time to assemble all necessary components, train and organize crews as well as establish all support facilities.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

It would have been of immense benefit if Norfolk had been retained and fort Pickens taken. That would have provided a solid foundation for fleet bases.

Holding Norfolk would have been really substantial!

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

So do you all really think it was not possible to stand up a blue water navy by spring of 1864 if the focus had been on that instead of the brown water program. 61-64 should have been enough time to assemble all necessary components, train and organize crews as well as establish all support facilities.

Yes (for me).

 

[Library Lady]

Was he sober or that out of touch.

I think he was totally serious.

 

[leftyhunter]

The creation of the imperial navy- [high seas fleet] was more impressive than the fleet built by nazi Germany.
The German navy gave a good account for itself during the first world war; it took the combined allied naval forces to defeat it. If the sailors seduced by Marxism hadn't mutinied it is possible the allied blockade could have been broken.

No it wasn't and one can't compare the German Imperial Fleet to the Confederate Navy its not even an apples vs comparison.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Without a Blue water navy there is zero chance of victory for the confederacy. The US had the French fleet in the war for independence, but no one was going to help the confederacy.

Plus the Spanish fleet in the ARW. Their was no way the Confederacy had the skill or manpower to even remotely compete with the Union Navy. Navies require a long term investment its not something that can be simply willed into existence.
Leftyhunter

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Plus the Spanish fleet in the ARW. Their was no way the Confederacy had the skill or manpower to even remotely compete with the Union Navy. Navies require a long term investment its not something that can be simply willed into existence.
Leftyhunter

Right. The best they could have done is to build several raiders instead.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Were the resources limited or were they mismanaged, not developed. Iron ore, copper, coal deposits existed in the confederacy.

Apparently I am not being explicit enough. There were no ship yards that could build blue water combatants. For example there was no ability to manufacture the steam propulsion engines that powered the screw sloops-of-war such as Hartford, & nine frigates such as the Wachusett. Refer to the NavSource Index for details of these vessels.

Refer to the 20 ironclads of various sorts built by the Confederacy in the NavSource Index & compare to the flotilla of Monitors. The capabilities of Confederate ship builders will make it clear that no blue water flotilla was possible. For an in-depth article about Confederate iron clads, read more here.

Link:`

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2014/january/confederate-ironclad-navy

To sum up, the Confederate States had no shipwrights, no materials, no ship yards, no money, no time to invest in the years it would have taken to build, launch, fit out & shake down a flotilla of blue water combatants.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I am very impressed by what was achieved at Selma foundry and Tannehill works.
What I see is the potential at some point for standing up a blue water navy.

Oddly enough, blue water combatants were not made of cast iron.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Apparently I am not being explicit enough. There were no ship yards that could build blue water combatants. For example there was no ability to manufacture the steam propulsion engines that powered the screw sloops-of-war such as Hartford, & nine frigates such as the Wachusett. Refer to the NavSource Index for details of these vessels.

Refer to the 20 ironclads of various sorts built by the Confederacy in the NavSource Index & compare to the flotilla of Monitors. The capabilities of Confederate ship builders will make it clear that no blue water flotilla was possible. For an in-depth article about Confederate iron clads, read more here.

Link:`

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2014/january/confederate-ironclad-navy

To sum up, the Confederate States had no shipwrights, no materials, no ship yards, no money, no time to invest in the years it would have taken to build, launch, fit out & shake down a flotilla of blue water combatants.

You were definitely astute to bring up the lack of ability to manufacture steam engines. The CSA was desperately in need of steam engines for all applications throughout the war.

 

[leftyhunter]

Right. The best they could have done is to build several raiders instead.

Which the Confederacy did but in British shipyards with mostly British crews who ended up working for free because their were no countries that they could action off captured ships and cargo. @atlantis should be aware of that so that it was literally impossible for the Confederacy to build a blue water navy.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rhea Cole]

You were definitely astute to bring up the lack of ability to manufacture steam engines. The CSA was desperately in need of steam engines for all applications throughout the war.

The steam propulsion on the sloops-of-war were maneuvering engines. There were cases of ships that would stand off a port after a month at sea & hold off for weeks at a time until the wind changed so that they could enter harbor. That was the eventuality that was addressed by the steam engines that the Confederates made into the main propulsion of their ironclads. A trolling motor powering the gunboat vs an outboard is an apt simile.

The blockade runners staged out of Bermuda or Havana. The reason for that was coal is very bulky. The bunkers on the blockade runners were designed to make a dash at speed, not cruise or make a crossing.

To give you a graphic example of what it took to power a gunboat, consider a City Class iron clad steaming up river on the Mississippi. The gunboats could make (+/-) 5 knots. The current of the Mississippi River is (+/-) 3 knots. In order to achieve a relative speed of 2 knots, roughly equivalent of a small girl going all out on a tricycle, required one ton of coal / hour.

In order to achieve this high speed tricycle velocity, the three boilers had to be fed from coal barges lashed on both sides of the boat. Ahead, a tug added both motive power & maneuvering leverage. The entire crew, officers included, were numbered off into gangs that monkey chained 40 - 50 pound bags of coal. This process was closely monitored because the stays that kept the hull from hog backing had to be constantly adjusted as the weight changed.

A ton of anthracite coal is 40 cubic feet. The bunkers of blue water vessels had a limited capacity. In order to keep the blockading flotillas at sea, coaling barges were stationed off shore something the CSA could not do.

Again, the Confederacy only had low BTU coal, so the amount of coal needed to fire the boilers was increased accordingly. Also, because there are many more impurities, the grates had to be cleaned far more frequently or the fires would not produce enough heat. This same problem plagued CSA RR engines as well.

Note: As a child I would ride on the coal in the bucket of a skip loader by Dad drove to load coal into the hoppers at the plant where he was the chief engineer. He Dad-splained how many buckets he had to dump into the hopper for the boiler to run through the weekend. All of the economics of burning coal to make steam were my childhood companions. When a lower grade of coal was delivered, the increased number of buckets into the hopper was noted & mumbled about because of the increased number clinkers to be dealt with.

 

[JeffBrooks]

They would have been much better off devoting any surplus naval resources to river defense in the West.

 

[Rhea Cole]

They would have been much better off devoting any surplus naval resources to river defense in the West.

Ladies started out making very elaborate Gunboat Quilts" fund raisers. In short order they wisely saw the futility. From that point a Soldier's Relief Fund was the beneficiary. I am hard wired to nod my head & say,"Yes Mam." when Southern ladies reach a consensus. Across the board CSA ironclad were a waste of resources.

 

[atlantis]

What I am suggesting is a short-range blue water navy for action on the Atlantic and Gulf coast. A high-risk strategy of prioritizing long-range gunnery and reliable munitions over armor is justified since not all of the ships in the blockading squadrons are top notch.
Who is with me I want to hear some can do spirit.

 

[atlantis]

Oddly enough, blue water combatants were not made of cast iron.

I was impressed by their skill in setting up viable industrial enterprises.

 

[Library Lady]

The steam propulsion on the sloops-of-war were maneuvering engines. There were cases of ships that would stand off a port after a month at sea & hold off for weeks at a time until the wind changed so that they could enter harbor. That was the eventuality that was addressed by the steam engines that the Confederates made into the main propulsion of their ironclads. A trolling motor powering the gunboat vs an outboard is an apt simile.

The blockade runners staged out of Bermuda or Havana. The reason for that was coal is very bulky. The bunkers on the blockade runners were designed to make a dash at speed, not cruise or make a crossing.

To give you a graphic example of what I took to power a gunboat, consider a City Class iron clad steaming up river on the Mississippi. The gunboats could make (+/-) 5 knots. The current of the Mississippi River is (+/-) 3 knots. In order to achieve a relative speed of 2 knots, roughly equivalent of a small girl going all out on a tricycle, required one ton of coal / hour.

In order to achieve this high speed tricycle velocity, the three boilers had to be fed from coal barges lashed on both sides of the boat. Ahead, a tug added both motive power & maneuvering leverage. The entire crew, officers included, were numbered off into gangs that monkey chained 40 - 50 pound bags of coal. This process was closely monitored because the stays that kept the hull from hog backing had to be constantly adjusted as the weight changed.

A ton of anthracite coal is 40 cubic feet. The bunkers of blue water vessels had a limited capacity. In order to keep the blockading flotillas at sea, coaling barges were stationed off shore something the CSA could not do.

Again, the Confederacy only had low BTU coal, so the amount of coal needed to fire the boilers was increased accordingly. Also, because there are many more impurities, the grates had to be cleaned far more frequently or the fires would not produce enough heat. This same problem plagued CSA RR engines as well.

Note: As a child I would ride on the coal in the bucket of a skip loader by Dad drove to load coal into the hoppers at the plant where he was the chief engineer. He Dad-splained how many buckets he had to dump into the hopper for the boiler to run through the weekend. All of the economics of burning coal to make steam were my childhood companions. When a lower grade of coal was delivered, the increased number of buckets into the hopper was noted & mumbled about because of the increased number clinkers to be dealt with.

To emphasize what @Rhea Cole is saying, RMS Lusitania was built with the assistance of Royal Navy incentives which would allow the Royal Navy to requisition it for wartime service. It was designed such that a few turrets could be dropped into place if it were called up for duty as an auxiliary cruiser. Since being a liner was its day job, it wasn't heavily armored. This was supposed to be OK because of its speed. Now why didn't the Lusitania get called up? The Royal Navy decided it was too expensive to feed it enough coal so that it could attain its top speed of 26 knots. If it can't hit that top speed, then being lightly armored could become a problem. Its speed was a draw for it continuing to be used as a liner, but on its final, fatal voyage, Cunard decided it was too expensive to feed it enough coal for the top speed, too, and was running only 3 of its 4 power plants. We all know what happened. As you may have noticed, the cost of fuel does tend to go up in time of war.

 

[leftyhunter]

What I am suggesting is a short-range blue water navy for action on the Atlantic and Gulf coast. A high-risk strategy of prioritizing long-range gunnery and reliable munitions over armor is justified since not all of the ships in the blockading squadrons are top notch.
Who is with me I want to hear some can do spirit.

It takes years to build up a navy that can be effective in wartime. Even in WWII at least the USN had a cardre of trained officers and petty officers to train and supervise new sailors plus established shipyards with skilled workers. Can do spirit doesn't equal a competent navy .
Leftyhunter