French troops

[67th Tigers]

The USN can raid French commerce just has they effectively did the UK with a more primitive navy in 1812.
Leftyhunter

i.e. ineffectually?

 

[CMWinkler]

Operating from Havana, the French could make a lot of trouble for Federal bases at Key West and Pensacola. A landing of French troops in Florida wouldn't be necessary or especially useful.

The argument against French intervention, of course, was the British Royal Navy, which historically took the French as its primary likely opponent. Any scenario that involves French intervention on the side of the Confederacy must also factor in how the British would likely respond.

What ships are those, Andy?

 

[AndyHall]

The center one is the French ironclad Gloire, launched in 1859 and part of a rapid buildup of ironclad vessels by the European navies. I believe the ships on either side are Gloire also -- it was a convention of ship portraiture to show the subject from more than one angle.

 

[NedBaldwin]

The center one is the French ironclad Gloire, launched in 1859 and part of a rapid buildup of ironclad vessels by the European navies. I believe the ships on either side are Gloire also -- it was a convention of ship portraiture to show the subject from more than one angle.

Andy,

Do you know anything about the size/composition of the French fleet in the Gulf/Caribbean during 1862-1863?
You mentioned Havanna, but I thought it was based in Martinique.

 

[AndyHall]

Not off the top of my head. I only mentioned Havana because it had been suggested earlier in the thread that the Spanish might have cooperated with the French, and having a hostile French squadron using that as a forward deployment station, less than twelve hours' steaming from Key West, would make things very *interesting*.

 

[AndyHall]

This is a new book to me, but seems relevant:

https://archive.org/stream/franceconfederat00bigeuoft#page/n3/mode/2up

 

[major bill]

Andy, I looked at parts of the book and it is very interesting.

 

[leftyhunter]

i.e. ineffectually?

Maybe not. With a much smaller navy the US did cause distress to the Royal Navy the largest in the world. See "Commerce Raiding Historical Case Studies 1755-2009 edited by Bruce Edlemen US Navy Press. You can google the relevant pages. By 1861 the US has a much larger population , much more ship building capacity and the French Navy is smaller then the Royal navy.
Leftyhunter

 

[67th Tigers]

Maybe not. With a much smaller navy the US did cause distress to the Royal Navy the largest in the world. See "Commerce Raiding Historical Case Studies 1755-2009 edited by Bruce Edlemen US Navy Press. You can google the relevant pages. By 1861 the US has a much larger population , much more ship building capacity and the French Navy is smaller then the Royal navy.
Leftyhunter

The numbers are :

British took or destroyed 34 US warships, 278 privateers and 1,248 US merchantmen

USN took or destroyed 16 RN warships and 172 merchants; US privateers took 1,441 merchantmen. Of the merchants ca. 30% were immediately recaptured by the RN and never made a US port.

The American offensive against British shipping was ineffective, taking only about 5% of the entire UK merchant marine during the course of the war, and seeing a massive increase in British shipping due to captures of US shipping being greater than the loss rate and the reflagging of US ships to the UK.

In 1861 the French Navy is massively greater than the USN. Remember that privateering is out, the Treaty of Paris means all privateers will be hung as pirates rather than treated as PoWs. The USN needs to send regular warships and isn't likely to have more than it had OTL. The French as of ca. 1860 had:

9 screw ironclad batteries
14 fast screw battleships + 25 converted screw battleships
7 fast screw frigates + 12 converted screw frigates
10 fast screw corvettes + 2 converted
24 fast screw avisos (sloops) + 3 converted
28 screw gunboats and gunvessels

19 paddle frigates
9 paddle corvettes
50 paddle avisos
14 paddle tenders (general purchased ships carrying mortars)

13 sailing battleships (all effective and awaiting conversion to screw, but this was cancelled due to the armoured frigates)
40 sailing frigates (12 converted to screw before 1862)
18 sailing corvettes

They of course had added 6 armoured frigates and a few other ships.

The USN on 31st December 1862 has:

2 Ironclads (New Ironsides and Galena)
4 Large Screw Frigates
3 Small Screw Frigates (Corvettes in French terms)

3 Sidewheel Frigates
13 Steam Sloops (no attempt to separate out any sidewheelers)
3 Sail Frigates
11 Sail Sloops
4 Sail Brigs
30 Transports
9 Schooners
19 Mortar Schooners
3 Barks
2 Yachts

8 River Steamers
4 Ocean Steamers

40 Gunboats
47 Auxiliary Gunboats
58 Transport Steamers altered to Gunboats

The USN is massively outclassed by the French Navy. It's difficult to see any US steamer operating away from the US as they won't be able to resupply.

 

[Elennsar]

It would be nice to see where those numbers are from, both those for the War of 1812 and the French navy as of ca. 1860.

 

[major bill]

The difficultly in accessing what the French Army and Navy could do is that the French had other military obligations. Note that France send only 38,000 to Mexico. They could have sent 100,000 or more up to even 500,000 and easily took over Mexico. but 100,000 soldiers in Mexico for 2 or 3 years would leave them weak in other places. Napoleon III felt he only had 38,000 men to spare and that is why I used that number. Now Napoleon could field a 400,000 to 500,000 man army if need be, but at what cost? The French Navy is another area and not one I could give much light on. Certainly with a world wide commitment, some of the French Navy woudl have had to be assigned that task.

 

[67th Tigers]

It would be nice to see where those numbers are from, both those for the War of 1812 and the French navy as of ca. 1860.

The War of 1812 numbers are from Lambert's "The Challenge" - http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Challenge-Britain-Against-America/dp/057127319X

1860 numbers are from Busk's Navies of the World and ISTR the December 1862 issue of Scientific American (I extracted it a long time back).

 

[Elennsar]

67th Tigers: Thank you.

 

[DaveBrt]

Davis' "strategy" in the West was to defend the Mississippi River; he has Lee taking care of the East. So what to do with a "free" army?

1. Take Pensacola and its forts? Why? How does this defend the Mississippi?

2. Retake New Orleans? Why? Good for morale, but the city will be hard to retake and will require a defensive force to keep it. Keeps the Union from using the Mississippi River, but does not defend the river and its tributaries or the planters in the Valley.

3. Add an army to defend the upper Confederate Mississippi Valley? Why? With the Confederate invasion of KY, the area is short of troops and this will require the Union to react to a Confederate threat. At least for a while, Grant will not be able to remain fixated on Vicksburg. After the Union responds, who knows?

 

[NedBaldwin]

2. Retake New Orleans? Why? Good for morale, but the city will be hard to retake and will require a defensive force to keep it. Keeps the Union from using the Mississippi River, but does not defend the river and its tributaries or the planters in the Valley.

This is my choice. In 1862 I dont think it would be hard to retake by a french force of 30k-40K troops plus navy.

With the support of the French navy, the defensive force required to keep it might not be that large, especially if the French Navy could defeat the US Gulf squadron.

It would help defend the river in two ways 1) reduce the need for the CSA to defend the lower river, thus freeing up forces that could be used up river and 2) the french could move up river to help against Grant.

 

[Elennsar]

Regrettably I have no idea where the return for September is, but this can be used as a rough estimate if we know what portion of the units listed only arrived after October:

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/c...lf,+department+of&view=image&seq=641&size=100

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that in a situation where the French are sailing to Louisiana that no one would concentrate what of this can be concentrated at New Orleans, so as a very rough estimate: 10,000 Union troops?

Considering the dearth of French land artillery in the proposed forces, I hope for their sake that their naval guns can play a significant role at dealing with the Union troops.

 

[DaveBrt]

Of course, allies do not always do what the other allies want them to do. What would the French want out of their investment? Maybe taking and holding New Orleans would be all they would actually do. Especially if they are not willing to add more troops in the future because the 40,000-man investment is the limit of what they are willing to invest.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Regrettably I have no idea where the return for September is, but this can be used as a rough estimate if we know what portion of the units listed only arrived after October:

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar&cc=moawar&idno=waro0021&q1=Gulf, department of&view=image&seq=641&size=100

That return includes the force sent by ship from NY which only arrived in LA in late December. The portion is roughly 1/3 were there before; 2/3rds arrive in late December.

 

[Elennsar]

That return includes the force sent by ship from NY which only arrived in LA in late December. The portion is roughly 1/3 were there before; 2/3rds arrive in late December.

Your basis for that?

Not my strongest area of study by a very long shot, but if it is yours, I'd love to see it elaborated on.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Your basis for that?

Not my strongest area of study by a very long shot, but if it is yours, I'd love to see it elaborated on.

Butler's strength was reported at the end of June in this table:
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;q1=present for duty;rgn=full text;idno=waro0123;didno=waro0123;view=image;seq=0197

It would then have been reduced a bit due to operations around Vicksburg in July and battle of Baton Rouge in August.