Blue water navy

[Old Soldier]

A terrible idea for the Confederacy. The Confederacy lacked the money. manpower and skills to build a proper blue water navy plus it was to late to do so. A blue water navy can not fight a peer enemy by starting from scratch.
A blue water navy has to be at full strength before war starts.
The best the Confederacy could do was build a few blue water ships overseas with mostly British sailors armed with British cannons and because the Confederacy has no allies or diplomatic recognition it can't properly service its ships for maintenance and repairs which takes considerably more time the 72 hours granted by beligerency rights.
The best the Confederacy could do was to try to build a visual and riverine navy to break the Union blockade and despite the Confedracies best efforts it was a bridge to far.
Leftyhunter

None of the ships were armed IN BRITAIN. That was against the Terms of Neutrality. Only two were actually built in Britain - the others were merchant ships bought up. All left British waters under the Red Ensign - ie as merchant ships - and were armed and commissioned on Spanish islands. Any cannon, like the rifles, were supplied from the civilian manufacturers, not government sourced. The sailors were British, since in order to sail out of British territorial waters they had to be manned and sailors were gathered locally. Having said that, they were sailors looking for work in a British port, there may well have been Scandinavians and other Europeans among them.

When they were commissioned, CSN officers and senior ranks took over and the sailors had to swear loyalty to the flag, which most did, since there was no way back home from those islands. As for servicing - they could use any neutral port, even a British one, (none did) for hull, rigging or engine repairs and resupply but not re-arming or taking on ammunition or powder. That is what happened to CSS Alabama. They called into Cherbourg, France, for hull cleaning and repair. USS Kearsage had followed her there and waited until they had cleared Cherbourg before sinking her.

CSS Shenandoah ( a bought-up merchant ship, armed and commissioned in Madeira) actually called in to Liverpool to surrender, lowering the ensign in the River Mersey. She was surrendered by Captain Waddell to Captain Paynter of HMS Donegal on 6 November 1865.

CSS Shenandoah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[leftyhunter]

None of the ships were armed IN BRITAIN. That was against the Terms of Neutrality. Only two were actually built in Britain - the others were merchant ships bought up. All left British waters under the Red Ensign - ie as merchant ships - and were armed and commissioned on Spanish islands. Any cannon, like the rifles, were supplied from the civilian manufacturers, not government sourced. The sailors were British, since in order to sail out of British territorial waters they had to be manned and sailors were gathered locally. Having said that, they were sailors looking for work in a British port, there may well have been Scandinavians and other Europeans among them.

When they were commissioned, CSN officers and senior ranks took over and the sailors had to swear loyalty to the flag, which most did, since there was no way back home from those islands. As for servicing - they could use any neutral port, even a British one, (none did) for hull, rigging or engine repairs and resupply but not re-arming or taking on ammunition or powder. That is what happened to CSS Alabama. They called into Cherbourg, France, for hull cleaning and repair. USS Kearsage had followed her there and waited until they had cleared Cherbourg before sinking her.

CSS Shenandoah ( a bought-up merchant ship, armed and commissioned in Madeira) actually called in to Liverpool to surrender, lowering the ensign in the River Mersey. She was surrendered by Captain Waddell to Captain Paynter of HMS Donegal on 6 November 1865.

CSS Shenandoah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That doesn't negate the fact that said ships wete British built ships with British sailors and armed cannons with knowledge of the British government that allowed them to proceed with minor inconveniences to avoid hostile repercussions from the US.
By 1864 the US was able to mount enough diplomatic pressure in Great Britain and France not to supply the Confederacy with warships. Beligerant rights only allowed limited time to service Confederate raiders which was not adequate for extended maritime service.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rhea Cole]

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.

You can hang there & twist in the wind all you want. The coastal flotilla you propose is made up of blue water vessels.

The littoral Monitors drew (+/-) 9' to 12'. Blue water sloops-of-war drew (+/-) 16-20 feet. The mouth of the Cape Fear River was 9'. The Savannah River 12'. The drafts are listed in the NavSource Index which might educate your speculations.

Once again you are insisting that ships could have been built & equipped in non existent yards, by nonexistent shipwrights, with nonexistent materials & manned by right man-o-wars-men that did not exist.

Your time could be more profitably taken up with the fascinating history of what actually happened.

Applying deductive logic rather than inductive would be productive.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

Given the well-known constraints on the confederate navy should they have focused their efforts on creating a blue water navy.
With a mission of upending the blockade instead of merchant raiding.

The Confederacy was too young, disorganized, and lost deep water ports with the facilities to build, and outfit ocean going vessles. Had they, for the sake of argument, they had retained Pensacola a shakedown cruise might have turned into a firefight. That isn't a good thing if you don't know exactly the perameyers you're working within on a ship.

The biggest constraint I can think of was in strategy. There was no clear vision of what was needed. Tallships and blue water fleet is really something to behold. But they didn't have the time for all that.

To me the smartest thing they could have done was build classes of ironclads with uniformity. It would have to have been done fast, and very early in the war. They needed a few naval architects, not a whole bunch of people getting contracts, bright ideas, and just doin' the do, ending up with hogged hulls, inferior or defective power plants, or weird things like going faster going backwards while dragging an anchor chain.

The maximum that the best defense is a good offense did not apply in this case. The case of the Confederate navy would have much more sense to let the union navy bring the fight to them. They know the waters. They know their ships. Everything more or less being the same, class wise. All things being equal, which woukd involve not only excellent leadership, dedicated naval and marine crews. The navy needed to be expanded within the confines of the theater of war.

The CSS Virgina's attack on the first day of Hampton Rhodes would have to have been the blue print. Union crews should have at the very least have been wary of being on station in the day, and terrified at night. Even smaller lighter ironclads would have done the job. What is scarier that the CSS Virgina? Five smaller vessels, all with the same firepower, and maneuverability, and at least the ability to go as fast as the slowest one in the class.

The navy would have to work in tandem with the army; backing up, or getting out front and defending fixed fortifications that only had X amount of range.

And it could have been done too. Hubbard Hart in Florida made 16 sternwheel steamboats, all of which burned wood, not coal. So a civilian with a contract had the ability to build a class. Its a lot easier to have one yard build one kind of ship, or gun boat with one design as opposed to Steve in Wilmington and Jimmy on the Tombiggbee build radically different boats without a clearly defined goal.

That all being said, all my hijacking aside, commerce raiders and foreign crew were pretty cool, i gotta say. Effective, eh. But I like a good pirate story and that is as close as you got in that war.

 

[Piedone]

I contend it was possible to build the components of a naval industrial complex and a blue water fleet. The confederacy created an arms industry from scratch for example.
It was of utmost importance to keep the ports open and retain control of the rivers, bays, sounds that were for the confederacy what railroads were for the north.

There was an extensive thread here in CWT about the capabilities of confederate ironclads and about the question if building those ships was a waste of ressources.
It was also discussed what ship building would have been effective and to what extent such would have been possible at all.
Confederate Ironclads - worth the effort?
If I recall correctly there were substantial and very differentiated contributions.

I'd like to bring it up again - just because I feel that in the discussion here
some of the insights of that thread are disregarded.

Another interesting question could be what effect buying european warships (like the Laird Rams) would have had (especially on the upkeep of the blockade). There is also a thread about that question:
The Laird Rams join the CSA
Such a move could have hurt the Union - at least a lot of effort was made to not let such transactions happen.
There is also a quite insightful thread on that question.

Besides of that I also do believe that after the fall of N.O. the Confederacy commanded only very limited naval production capabilities.

 

[Piedone]

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.

Maybe it would be insightful to read about the attack of confederate ironclads in January 1863 off Charleston to get a more balanced view of their abilities.

 

[Old Soldier]

There was an extensive thread here in CWT about the capabilities of confederate ironclads and about the question if building those ships was a waste of ressources.
It was also discussed what ship building would have been effective and to what extent such would have been possible at all.
Confederate Ironclads - worth the effort?
If I recall correctly there were substantial and very differentiated contributions.

I'd like to bring it up again - just because I feel that in the discussion here
some of the insights of that thread are disregarded.

Another interesting question could be what effect buying european warships (like the Laird Rams) would have had (especially on the upkeep of the blockade). There is also a thread about that that question.
Such a move could have hurt the Union - at least a lot of effort was made to not let such transactions happen.
There is also a quite insightful thread on that question.

Besides of that I also do believe that after the fall of N.O. the Confederacy commanded only very limited naval production capabilities.

The Laird Rams - and the two French versions - never made it as they were too obviously warships - turret rams. They were pretty useless anyway and only served as harbor guards. They were NOT 'blue water' ships.

 

[Piedone]

The Laird Rams - and the two French versions - never made it as they were too obviously warships - turret rams. They were pretty useless anyway and only served as harbor guards. They were NOT 'blue water' ships.

Please to not misunderstand me: I did not intend to debate the qualities of the Laird Rams (as my knowledge about them is rather limited) - I just used them as an example that the Confederates could rather buy blue water war ships than build them IF they decided on having such.

 

[Old Soldier]

That doesn't negate the fact that said ships wete British built ships with British sailors and armed cannons with knowledge of the British government that allowed them to proceed with minor inconveniences to avoid hostile repercussions from the US.
By 1864 the US was able to mount enough diplomatic pressure in Great Britain and France not to supply the Confederacy with warships. Beligerant rights only allowed limited time to service Confederate raiders which was not adequate for extended maritime service.
Leftyhunter

And you forget that the Confederate buyers were far more clever about buying and ordering that you think they were. The Laird Rams and the two French turret rams were ordered for the 'Egyptian Navy' and given Egyptian names, before the Egyptian government were questioned and was denied. They were later discovered to be a Confederate contract. Both the French and the British rams were sold off to the Royal Navy, Denmark and Prussia. (They were pretty useless).

The merchant ships were bought through real merchantile agents under false names. The British sailors were there on their own, they were not supplied, monitored or noted by the British Government in those days. The Union also bought arms and cannon from Britain, although they soon had the resources to make their own. The Confederates were never 'supplied with warships' as that was against the Terms of Neutrality. As I have already stated, they left British waters as British-registered mechant ships and armed in Spanish island territories by the Confederates and operated as commerce raiders OUTSIDE BRITISH JURISDICTION.

 

[Old Soldier]

Please to not misunderstand me: I did not intend to debate the qualities of the Laird Rams (as my knowledge about them is rather limited) - I just used them as an example that the Confederates could rather buy blue water war ships than build them IF they decided on having such.

They tried their hand. It didn't work. Under the Terms of Neutrality, the sale/building of warships was banned as was up-gunning civlilan ships to make them into warships. The Laird Rams were obviously warships, but they were being built for the Egyptian Navy - a legitimate organisation - or so the contacts stated. What many do not know is that there were also two turret rams being built in France, under the same contract and almost ready for sea! Both the British and French governments stepped in and confiscated them. They never reached the Confederates and were sold off the European navies.

 

[rebelatsea]

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.

Evidence that failing to live in the real world is not a new thing !!

 

[leftyhunter]

And you forget that the Confederate buyers were far more clever about buying and ordering that you think they were. The Laird Rams and the two French turret rams were ordered for the 'Egyptian Navy' and given Egyptian names, before the Egyptian government were questioned and was denied. They were later discovered to be a Confederate contract. Both the French and the British rams were sold off to the Royal Navy, Denmark and Prussia. (They were pretty useless).

The merchant ships were bought through real merchantile agents under false names. The British sailors were there on their own, they were not supplied, monitored or noted by the British Government in those days. The Union also bought arms and cannon from Britain, although they soon had the resources to make their own. The Confederates were never 'supplied with warships' as that was against the Terms of Neutrality. As I have already stated, they left British waters as British-registered mechant ships and armed in Spanish island territories by the Confederates and operated as commerce raiders OUTSIDE BRITISH JURISDICTION.

I am well aware of the concept of third party transfer but my point was the British government looked the other way until 1864 due to US diplomatic pressure.
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

The confederacy developed the ability to produce naval guns and munitions the weakness was in marine engine production.
Once the shooting started confederate naval authorities had to decide on a strategy and develop the means to execute that strategy.
You don't build a navy to match another navy you build one to achieve your objective.

 

[atlantis]

Evidence that failing to live in the real world is not a new thing !!

Were English firms willing to provide marine engine and propulsion parts to the confederacy in kit-built format for reassembly in the confederacy. Also, the provision of tool and machines or were there regulatory obstacles.

 

[Old Soldier]

I am well aware of the concept of third party transfer but my point was the British government looked the other way until 1864 due to US diplomatic pressure.
Leftyhunter

No. It did not. Government did not control industry in 1860. If a Royal Proclamation was issued, they assumed compliance - as they always had done. They did not go around inspecting shipyards nor did they investigate ship sales and transfer of ownership. It was just not done then. To do so would have caused serious upset. The contracts were deemed sufficient The 'Laird Rams' and the two French equivalents were contracted to the Egyptian Navy - a not uncommon occurance. However John Laird, the owner of the shipyard was known to have Confederate contacts and sympathies - as did many businessmen and workers in Liverpool. To have just jumped in may well have resulted in a serious riot. There was no immediate indication of WHERE they would end up other than Egypt. Since the turret rams were WARSHIPS, specifically prohibited under the Terms of Neutrality, they were actually watched covertly by the US Ambassador. The Admiralty contacted the Egyptian Navy after the US ambassador expressed concern. There was no record of such a contract in Cairo so the government seized both ships in 1863 before they were sea-tested. The French did the same to their turret rams.

It was not a matter of 'looking the other way'. You did not do that sort of thing to a Royal Proclamation. It was classed as TREASON.

And we do hereby further warn all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this Royal Proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in the said contest, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf — as, for example and more especially,........all persons so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the said statute, or by the law of nations, in that behalf imposed or denounced.

British proclamation of neutrality in the American Civil War - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

As long as industry had a civil contract, it was OK. Besides, it was not our war. No government factory supplied either side. Government did NOT go around inspecting industry in those days - especially for a 'foreign war'. Contracts would have been examined, but that was about it. The cannon and arms supplied were on civil contract and nothing was supplied from 'stock' Yes, the government did buy cannon from Whitworth and Armstrong since there was no state factory for those at that time, but it would have been done on a dedicated contract as rifles had been before the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield was brought in as sole supplier. Remember there was no government help for the employees or companies running the cotton mills who had to close during the Blockade either. It just was not done.

 

[Old Soldier]

Were English firms willing to provide marine engine and propulsion parts to the confederacy in kit-built format for reassembly in the confederacy. Also, the provision of tool and machines or were there regulatory obstacles.

There was nothing in the Terms of Neutrality to stop that. It will have been a civil contract. The parts would not have been supplied by the government. BTW - it is quite possible that RR locos were shipped out to the Confederacy too. They were not on the list of prohibited goods. Both sides were supplied from Britain and Europe. Marine engines and propulsion items were not classed as parts for 'warships'. Bear in mind that any imports had to run the USN Blockade.

 

[leftyhunter]

No. It did not. Government did not control industry in 1860. If a Royal Proclamation was issued, they assumed compliance - as they always had done. They did not go around inspecting shipyards nor did they investigate ship sales and transfer of ownership. It was just not done then. To do so would have caused serious upset. The contracts were deemed sufficient The 'Laird Rams' and the two French equivalents were contracted to the Egyptian Navy - a not uncommon occurance. However John Laird, the owner of the shipyard was known to have Confederate contacts and sympathies - as did many businessmen and workers in Liverpool. To have just jumped in may well have resulted in a serious riot. There was no immediate indication of WHERE they would end up other than Egypt. Since the turret rams were WARSHIPS, specifically prohibited under the Terms of Neutrality, they were actually watched covertly by the US Ambassador. The Admiralty contacted the Egyptian Navy after the US ambassador expressed concern. There was no record of such a contract in Cairo so the government seized both ships in 1863 before they were sea-tested. The French did the same to their turret rams.

It was not a matter of 'looking the other way'. You did not do that sort of thing to a Royal Proclamation. It was classed as TREASON.

And we do hereby further warn all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this Royal Proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in the said contest, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf — as, for example and more especially,........all persons so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the said statute, or by the law of nations, in that behalf imposed or denounced.

British proclamation of neutrality in the American Civil War - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

As long as industry had a civil contract, it was OK. Besides, it was not our war. No government factory supplied either side. Government did NOT go around inspecting industry in those days - especially for a 'foreign war'. Contracts would have been examined, but that was about it. The cannon and arms supplied were on civil contract and nothing was supplied from 'stock' Yes, the government did buy cannon from Whitworth and Armstrong since there was no state factory for those at that time, but it would have been done on a dedicated contract as rifles had been before the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield was brought in as sole supplier. Remember there was no government help for the employees or companies running the cotton mills who had to close during the Blockade either. It just was not done.

I am aware of the history of British arms sales to both sides of the ACW. The British government tolerated or looked the other way until 1864. Governments always control arms sales sometimes they look the other sometimes they don't. Laws are enforced except when they are not.
Leftyhunter

 

[Old Soldier]

Governments did not control industry. They did not control arms sales in those days either - unless it directly interfered with government or colonies. In fact, after the Indian Mutiny, only Enfield supplied arms to the Indian army - smoothbore Enfields. After the end of the civil war the existing arms firms were re-organised along company lines and the smaller gunmakers were basically 'home only'. The supply contractors, 'guilds' and 'associations' basically ceased to exist. At least one firm supplying the Confederacy went bust - the London Armoury Company (LAC) - the only company who produced rifles to Enfield standards. Why? Either non payment or Confederate currency at a guess. It was bought out by a few managers and was reborn as the London Small Arms Company (LSAC) in 1866. I suspect the 'gun quarter' of Birmingham went the same way and became the Birmingham Small Arms and Manufacturing Company (BSA&M). Having said all that, Britain was supplying arms and ammunition to France, Russia, Italy, Prussia, Japan, Ottomans and China during this period (1860-1870), not just America.

Not only was the arms industry undergoing reform. There was also the Reform Act of 1867. Before this only freeholders of properties above a certain value could vote. Before the act, one million of the seven million adult men in England and Wales could vote; the act immediately doubled that number. This started the replacement of the 'Upper Class' politicians and a revision of policies. It is claimed that the Union victory in the American Civil War in 1865 emboldened the forces in Britain, mainly Chartists, that demanded more democracy and public input into the political system, to the dismay of the upper class landed gentry.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Were English firms willing to provide marine engine and propulsion parts to the confederacy in kit-built format for reassembly in the confederacy. Also, the provision of tool and machines or were there regulatory obstacles.

You can pretzel this topic any way you want to. Supplying steam engines to power nonexistent ships served no purpose. What they really needed was parts for RR engines. The diminishing inventory of RR motive power was an existential threat. Wasting precious resources on useless gunboats was, as history demonstrated, a complete waste. There is nothing speculative about this.

 

[Old Soldier]

You can torcher this topic any way you want to. Supplying steam engines to power nonexistent ships served no purpose. What they really needed was parts for RR engines. The diminishing inventory of RR motive power was an existential threat. Wasting precious resources on useless gunboats was, as history demonstrated, a complete waste. There is nothing speculative about this.

And trying to get a complete RR loco through the Blockade was not an easy task.