So the exact islands never actually been mentioned?On the linked page, and the one immediately preceding it. I directed you to the version I did because the Cornell University domain was timing out when I posted the comment, but it wouldn't have been impossible to find another version if you didn't believe I was reporting the figures accurately.
I think, I failed to see how exactly the ability to supply the navy in European inland seas without any enemy resistace could be classified as splendid achievment. Basically, it's the same as saying "he so splendidly menauvred toops during training - he must be true military genius!"I'm not sure you know what Milne's job was during the Crimea. As a junior Lord of the Admiralty, his job (among other things) was to ensure that the squadrons in the Baltic and the Black Sea received enough coal, provisions and ordnance stores. I don't think I'm being unfair in suggesting that the fact that he did his job so well that there was a coal surplus in the Baltic may have qualified him to understand the logistics of blockading the Union.
I'm not saying this is impossible; I'm saying that it's quite not easy, and IMHO, results would simply not cost the efforts.I'm not saying your sources are wrong: I'm saying that they're difficult to read. I'm also saying that if you find out how much water a collier actually drew, and look at a higher resolution version of more or less the same map, you begin to see it's not as impossible as you'd originally thought.
Please include the number of paddle wheel gunboats of Union Navy, and the situation would not look so bright. There aren't as much difference between paddle-wheel and screw gunboats in therms of durability; especially considering the small size of british gunboats. Also, only part of RN gunboats of Crimean era was still combat-capable in 1860s.Again, "bigger" and "more powerful" are relative terms- particularly as Britain and the Union were building for different purposes. I do have to point something out, though: the US commissioned 31 screw gunboats armed with 11in shell guns over the course of a four-year war, but the British commissioned 32 screw gunvessels and 136 screw gunboats armed with 68pdrs/110pdr BLs between 1854 and 1857. Regardless of individual size, I'd rather have 5 British gunboats than 1 Union gunboat.
The ironclads defeated the wooden ships. The dreadnoughts replaced the pre-dreadnought battleships. The submarine replaced surface raider. The aircraft carriers & missile ships replaced battleships.These claims are always made for new technologies. The ram will defeat the ironclad; the torpedo boat will defeat the battleship; the submarine will defeat the aircraft carrier. In fact, Jefferson's big plan for 1812 was based on gunboats, and it didn't turn out well then either. It took surprise and a considerable superiority of force (722 guns to 470) for the Russians to 'tear apart' the Turkish fleet at Sinope: I've seen nothing to persuade me that this can be repeated in this era with inferiority of 10-1 or greater.
So much for examples)
I must point out, that Union advantage over CSS ironclads was much larger, than supposed RN over the Union. Also, the Union was able to provide fast ships, capable of either forcing the fleeing enemy to continue running (thus destroying the blockade) or stand and fight (in that case the ironclads would came and to the trick). Also, we are talking not about the blockade runners, but generally about entering/exiting Union cruisers.I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. All the Charleston sortie achieved, as did the attack by the Florida on the Massachusetts, was to temporarily discomfit the blockading force. The Union officer on the scene is absolutely explicit on how easy it is to avoid these attacks even without the presence of monitors: