Blue water navy

[atlantis]

Prior to steamship propulsion oceangoing frigates relied on sail this could have served as an expedient for a short-range force [500 miles]. Yes, I know highly risky, but you compensate with long range gunnery, crew recruitment the old way-press gang.

 

[atlantis]

View attachment 578897
Library of Congress

Just think about Farragut taking the Hartford all the way upriver to Vicksburg. Notice that the topgallants have been struck down.

On the tall ship HMS Rose we struck topgallants to pass under the Brooklyn Bridge & on the River Avon down stream of Bristol. Also in anticipation of foul weather. No need for a man-o-war's topgallants & royals on the Mississippi River.

Nice Picture

 

[atlantis]

Maybe the premise of @atlantis is not flawed in general -

of course it would have been advantageous
if the CSA could have lifted the blockade - if even for at least certain time spans and if only in some places.

What do you all think:
Would a dedicated blue water fleet even would have been necessary for such a task?
I could imagine more littoral ships could also have helped a lot - if they at times kept blockading squadrons farther off -
hence giving more maneuvering space to blockade runners improving their successes?

But agreedly this is nothing more but an academic question:

- as the South should have found it hard to muster even such a capable littoral force….
- I mean most confederate ironclads - even the the better ones of the James River squadron could do not much more than 5 or 6 knots
- and to achieve anything against the blockade they would have had to be quite a bit more mobile….

Design ships as weapons systems focus not on armor or speed but on long range gunnery and accept that most crews will not survive. Russia, Japan and many others have used this approach.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Prior to steamship propulsion oceangoing frigates relied on sail this could have served as an expedient for a short-range force [500 miles]. Yes, I know highly risky, but you compensate with long range gunnery, crew recruitment the old way-press gang.

Pardon me, but you really need to hit the books & learn about the age of sail. If, as I have suggested, you would peruse the NavSource Index you would know about Admiral Farragut's flagships. Read more here.

Link to Farragut's flagship USS Hartford. Read more here.

Miscellaneous Photo Index

Link USS Brooklin.

Miscellaneous Photo Index

 

[atlantis]

Pardon me, but you really need to hit the books & learn about the age of sail. If, as I have suggested, you would peruse the NavSource Index you would know about Admiral Farragut's flagships. Read more here.

Link to Farragut's flagship USS Hartford. Read more here.

Miscellaneous Photo Index

Link USS Brooklin.

Miscellaneous Photo Index

Rhea, the action where the fire raft is alongside the Hartford is quite stirring. I am glad there are people like you out there educating the youth about this pivotal point in our history.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Rhea, the action where the fire raft is alongside the Hartford is quite stirring. I am glad there are people like you out there educating the youth about this pivotal point in our history.

Apropos of this thread, note how many times the Hartford was laid up for a refit.

 

[Piedone]

This thread made me curious how much maintenace marine steam engines needed and how reliably they worked.
I came upon this site: Marine Engines and their Story -

as a matter of fact marine steam engines in 1860 were already quite advanced (when compared to earlier engines):
I did quite some reading and all of the steam ships built in the 1860´s that were equipped with british steam engines I could found were in service for over thirty years -
many of them in quite mundane roles as ferries, Irish channel freighters etc.

Hence I´d conclude that those engines should have been quite cost-efficient and durable.

 

[Piedone]

Ships & steam engines are maintenance hogs. After a cruise the engines had to be torn down & the boilers refurbished.

For blockade runners, only one or two high speed runs could be made before a complete rebuild was necessary.

Well…I hate to say….but just out of curiosity I lately did a lot of reading about maritime engines and maintenance and the durability of blockade runners…and I just cannot help: you are exaggerating much with your statements.

Maybe the following examples (I can readily furnish more) can convince you:

1) The "Alabama" travelled around the globe before a refit was necessary - and that refit was not a complete rebuild - as well as the engines had not to be torn down (even after such a extended voyage).

2) Most blockade runners operated from Nassau - with at times dozens of them anchoring in the port. Please read about the port installations of Nassau in the Civil War: it just wouldn't have been possible to completely rebuild the engines of all of those blockade runners after each run or after every second run.
(and a rebuild of ship engines in the Confederacy was definitely nearly impossible - especially not for those highly advanced, high powered blockade runners' engines)

But this doesn't change anything about a eventual confederate blue water navy:
the South clearly wouldn't have been able to keep even a small force seaworthy -
but in the first place not because steam engines are demanding that much of attention
but rather because the maintenance capabilities in the Confederacy were that minuscule.

But on what grounds could the "Alabama" get a refit in France?
She was a war ship - was it not illegal to neutral countries to do a refit on war ships?

 

[leftyhunter]

Well…I hate to say….but just out of curiosity I did a lot of reading lately about maritime engines and maintenance and the durability of blockade runners…and I just cannot help: you are exaggerating much with your statements.

Maybe the following examples (I can readily furnish more) can convince you:

1) The "Alabama" travelled around the globe before a refit was necessary - and that refit was not a complete rebuild - as well as the engines had not to be torn down (even after such a extended voyage).

2) Most blockade runners operated from Nassau - with at times dozens of them anchoring in the port. Please read about the port installations of Nassau in the Civil War: it just wouldn't have been possible to completely rebuild the engines of all of those blockade runners after each run or after every second run.
(and a rebuild of ship engines in the Confederacy was definitely nearly impossible - especially not for those highly advanced, high powered blockade runners' engines)

But this doesn't change anything about a eventual confederate blue water navy:
the South clearly wouldn't have been able to keep even a small force seaworthy -
but in the first place not because steam engines are demanding that much of attention
but rather because the maintenance capabilities in the Confederacy were that minuscule.

But on what grounds could the "Alabama" get a refit in France?
She was a war ship - was it not illegal to neutral countries to do a refit on war ships?

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1905/october/belligerent-warships-neutral-ports

During the ACW there was no universal agreement on how long a warship could stay in a neutral port until the Hauge Convention of 1907.
During the ACW different countries could grant port privileges to either side of the ACW as they saw fit but in general West European countries granted only 24 port privileges but there were exceptions to the rule.
Leftyhunter

 

[Old Soldier]

The engines were not the major problem - it was the boilers. Most needed servicing aevery 6 months or less, depending on the coal - and water - used. That was one of the reasons Alabama went into Cherbourg.

 

[atlantis]

The engines were not the major problem - it was the boilers. Most needed servicing aevery 6 months or less, depending on the coal - and water - used. That was one of the reasons Alabama went into Cherbourg.

How long was the typical service work on a boiler.

 

[Rhea Cole]

How long was the typical service work on a boiler.

I can answer that question, steam engines & boilers require constant service & attention. Onboard vessels the "mud drum" had to be shoveled out.

Water was drawn first to the mud drum & held while solids were allowed to settle out. Deposits clogging valves & encrusting the fire tubes could reduce pressure or even cause a catastrophic failure. Grates had to be kept clean & clinkers removed while underway.

The his article is a good basic overview of the evolution of steam propulsion. It was not uncommon for over 100 people to be hideously scalded & suffer traumatic amputations from boiler failures.

In an age where tolerances were a trifle rough, bushings, actuator arms, leather bearings, lignum vitae ( an exceedingly hard wood ) crankshaft bushings, etc. were replaced at regular intervals between overhauls.


During overhauls, the engine, running gear & boilers are essentially manufactured. That process could take months or over a year to complete.

Read more here.

Link:

historical-roots-of-steam-boilers-in-ohio

Steam power emerged in the 18th century as a driving force of the Industrial Revolution.

nbwinc.com

Tennessee Valley not only does maintenance & inspections of their own steam engines, they completely restore steam engines.

Read more here.

Breathing Life to History: TVRM's Passionate Restorations

Delve into the meticulous art of railway restoration at TVRM. Experience history revived through passionately rehabilitated locomotives and coaches.

www.tvrail.com

 

[atlantis]

Well…I hate to say….but just out of curiosity I did a lot of reading lately about maritime engines and maintenance and the durability of blockade runners…and I just cannot help: you are exaggerating much with your statements.

Maybe the following examples (I can readily furnish more) can convince you:

1) The "Alabama" travelled around the globe before a refit was necessary - and that refit was not a complete rebuild - as well as the engines had not to be torn down (even after such a extended voyage).

2) Most blockade runners operated from Nassau - with at times dozens of them anchoring in the port. Please read about the port installations of Nassau in the Civil War: it just wouldn't have been possible to completely rebuild the engines of all of those blockade runners after each run or after every second run.
(and a rebuild of ship engines in the Confederacy was definitely nearly impossible - especially not for those highly advanced, high powered blockade runners' engines)

But this doesn't change anything about a eventual confederate blue water navy:
the South clearly wouldn't have been able to keep even a small force seaworthy -
but in the first place not because steam engines are demanding that much of attention
but rather because the maintenance capabilities in the Confederacy were that minuscule.

But on what grounds could the "Alabama" get a refit in France?
She was a war ship - was it not illegal to neutral countries to do a refit on war ships?

Why could they not scale up maintenance capabilities overtime?

 

[atlantis]

Charleston harbor for the Atlantic and Mobile for the Gulf after the loss of Norfolk and New Orleans and Pensacola would be the best candidates for repair and resupply of ocean-going naval vessels. It would take funds and labor but doable to establish drydocks, workshops etc.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Why could they not scale up maintenance capabilities overtime?

No. Very simply no. The CSA was incapable of maintaining the engines & rolling stock operating in 1860. There was no industrial base, there were no artificers, there was no money, there was no way to build up the machine shops, engineering expertise or anything else.

You can rephrase this question 100 more ways & the answer will still be one word, no.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Why could they not scale up maintenance capabilities overtime?

 

[Piedone]

The engines were not the major problem - it was the boilers. Most needed servicing aevery 6 months or less, depending on the coal - and water - used. That was one of the reasons Alabama went into Cherbourg.

But then the sheer technical problems for the Confederacy were not that overwhelming - as they theoretically could produce boilers and in reality even produced some for their ironclads (see my post above).

Notwithstanding the fact that they couldn't produce many…

 

[Piedone]

I can answer that question, steam engines & boilers require constant service & attention. Onboard vessels the "mud drum" had to be shoveled out.

Water was drawn first to the mud drum & held while solids were allowed to settle out. Deposits clogging valves & encrusting the fire tubes could reduce pressure or even cause a catastrophic failure. Grates had to be kept clean & clinkers removed while underway.

The his article is a good basic overview of the evolution of steam propulsion. It was not uncommon for over 100 people to be hideously scalded & suffer traumatic amputations from boiler failures.

In an age where tolerances were a trifle rough, bushings, actuator arms, leather bearings, lignum vitae ( an exceedingly hard wood ) crankshaft bushings, etc. were replaced at regular intervals between overhauls.


During overhauls, the engine, running gear & boilers are essentially manufactured. That process could take months or over a year to complete.

Read more here.

Link:

historical-roots-of-steam-boilers-in-ohio

Steam power emerged in the 18th century as a driving force of the Industrial Revolution.

nbwinc.com

Tennessee Valley not only does maintenance & inspections of their own steam engines, they completely restore steam engines.

Read more here.

Breathing Life to History: TVRM's Passionate Restorations

Delve into the meticulous art of railway restoration at TVRM. Experience history revived through passionately rehabilitated locomotives and coaches.

www.tvrail.com

You are talking about steam engine restoration now when it is a highly special and very rare trade - just read Semmes' "Memoirs of Service Afloat during the Civil War" and you'll see that it was not that much of an effort to keep engines running then or to have a leaky boiler sealed.

 

[Piedone]

No. Very simply no. The CSA was incapable of maintaining the engines & rolling stock operating in 1860. There was no industrial base, there were no artificers, there was no money, there was no way to build up the machine shops, engineering expertise or anything else.

You can rephrase this question 100 more ways & the answer will still be one word, no.

Em. You are also doing a lot of rephrasing. I am not saying that the Confederacy could do it - but I'd prefer some more substantial proof they couldn't…

 

[Old Soldier]

Could they hsve done it? Definite ... 'maybe'.