Russian navy

[TFSmith121]

The lone Russian naval success in the last 200 years was an 1853 victory over the Turks

They defeated an Anglo-French squadron at Petropavlovsk in 1854; basically with one anchored warship and shore defenses, they frustrated the allies so much the RN admiral shot himself.

The Russians sank or captured at least two British warships during the Crimean War, a paddle wheel sloop - HMS Tiger - that ran aground and was shelled into surrender off Odessa and a gunboat - HMS Jasper - that ran aground and was actually captured by cavalry at Taganrog.

Not Lake Champlain, 2nd Taku Forts, or Coronel, but not nothing, either.

And the above does not include various actions in the world wars, of course.

Best,

 

[Sbc]

[QUOTE="Dilandu, post:



Hm? You forgot the World War I actions?[/QUOTE]
I'm ignorant, can you enumerate them please?

 

[major bill]

Russia had a long history of having its navy in North American waters. This shows the uniforms worn in Alaska in 1804-05.

 

[major bill]

Alaska in 1826-1844. Does anyone know how large of an army garrison did Russia have in Alaska during the American Civil War? I take it the Russians did not have enough troops in Alaska to cause worry to Great Britain in Canada.

 

[gary]

The Royal Navy would have its hands full with a two Ocean, many seas war. There were ships in the Pacific, Black Sea (and they'd have to get through the Dardenelles) and Baltic. The Baltic Fleet would pose the greatest concern to British isles and the Pacific Fleet was a threat trade (British interests in Asia/India). The RN would also have to try to lift the blockade against the South and guess what, the Union Navy was the biggest navy in the world at that time. If the Union Navy started interdicting British shipping, it would be h*ll to pay.

The RN had only a few ironclad warships (HMS Warrior and her successors) but the bulk of the RN were still wood ships vulnerable to the Monitor and her kind.

 

[Dilandu]

I'm ignorant, can you enumerate them please?

Well, not everything was perfect, but the raiding actions of Russian destroyers&cruisers on Baltic were quite impressive. It was Russian Imperial Navy, after all, which invented offensive mining of enemy waters. The battle of Gotland between the cruiser squadrons was maybe not very significant, but victory for Russian Navy. And the Riga Bay defense in 1915 was quite effective. And, of course, on Black Sea - the battle of Sarych and Bosphorus Battle of 1915, where the old pre-dreadnought russian battleships were capable to make the "Goeben" retreat twice.

 

[Dilandu]

Alaska in 1826-1844. Does anyone know how large of an army garrison did Russia have in Alaska during the American Civil War? I take it the Russians did not have enough troops in Alaska to cause worry to Great Britain in Canada.

Basically, they haven't any significant forces. The total russian population of Alaska was only 2500 - including womens, elders and childrens. The only actual Imperial Army garrison was about 100 soldiers and officers from the 14th Siberian Battalion, shipped in 1852. After the war, in 1857, another 100 soldiers from the same battalion were shipped as reinforcements.

The Russian-American Company - which basically governed Alaska - have some fortifications around their most important locations: by 1954, the Novoarchangelsk have around 50 cast-iron guns and carronades (of them four 9-inch shell guns) and about 30 old bronze guns. But the garrison was small and mostly forced to rely on loyal native population.

The major problem was the food supplies. The russian colonies were unable to provide themselves enough, and were forced to rely on import from mainland Russia or USA.

Basically, in case of british&french attack, the Russian territories on Alaska were able to repel a few raiders, but they lacked any resources to fight a prolonged campaing in case of large invasion.

 

[Dilandu]

The Royal Navy would have its hands full with a two Ocean, many seas war. There were ships in the Pacific, Black Sea (and they'd have to get through the Dardenelles) and Baltic. The Baltic Fleet would pose the greatest concern to British isles and the Pacific Fleet was a threat trade (British interests in Asia/India). The RN would also have to try to lift the blockade against the South and guess what, the Union Navy was the biggest navy in the world at that time. If the Union Navy started interdicting British shipping, it would be h*ll to pay.

The RN had only a few ironclad warships (HMS Warrior and her successors) but the bulk of the RN were still wood ships vulnerable to the Monitor and her kind.

Exactly. While the Royal Navy was big, it was not entierly modern. They have a large number of relatively slow screw ships-of-the-line and frigates, but only a limited number of fast screw sloops and corvettes, capable of fighting raiders. In case of war with Union, the British navy would have tremendous problems with all fast raiders that Uniuon could unleash into Atlantic: Britain simply lacked enough fast ships to provide decisive advantage. And their ironclads have quite a lot of problems...

 

[Dilandu]

Moving the discussion from:

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/monitor-versus-merrimac-and-armor-piercing-shot.128151/page-7

You think the Russians won the Crimean war? Or are you saying it was a British 'failure' simply because they had allies. Cart and horse. Britain didn't need to do more because they had allies.

No, we lost. But this victory was far from decisive for Britain. Basically all this conflict was peripheral war of attrition - the only theather when the actions were actually decisive (forgive me this pun) was Crimea. And even there, the best that Britain&Co was able to do is to push the russian army from Sevastopol. Push, not destroy.

 

[Dilandu]

Fort Tomkins hasn't been built at the time of the ACW, with them still laying foundations. Fort Hamilton was a weak fort with 3 ft walls (far weaker than any Russian fort) with 33x 32 pdrs and 25x 24 pdrs mounted, plus an infantry defense outwork at the back with 8x 24 pdrs. Of these about a quarter could bare on any attacking fleet - the fort was round.

Strange. No columbiads?

And as far as I knew, fort Tompkins existed since early 1800s. The enlargements were started in 1840s, and by the 1860 they were finished.

And there were fort Lafayette, which was refitted by Lee just before the war.

 

[67th Tigers]

Strange. No columbiads?

No. That said "columbiad" can refer to two different pieces. The original 8" and 10" shell guns were called Columbiads, but in the late 1850's a new pattern was sealed which was essentially halfway between a shell gun and a shot gun.

And as far as I knew, fort Tompkins existed since early 1800s. The enlargements were started in 1840s, and by the 1860 they were finished.

Different Fort Tompkins than the War of 1812 one. The new work was commenced 1858 and completed 1864. It was a five sided fort with none of the casemates pierced for guns. It was not meant to fight ships, but rather as a landward defence for Fort Richmond (now Ft Wadsworth), which was completed in 1860.

I note wikipedia confused the two a bit.

And there were fort Lafayette, which was refitted by Lee just before the war.

Fort Lafayette was built on Hendrick's Reef and whilst building subsided so badly that only the curtain wall was built of brick. Everything else, including the supports, were made of wood. The fort burnt out in 1868 due to an unattended fire in the barracks.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The term "columbiad" seems to have been somewhat loosely applied at times, to at least two kinds of (rather different) pieces of ordnance... not really sure of the reason, but it's a common trap for the unwary history buff.

 

[67th Tigers]

The term "columbiad" seems to have been somewhat loosely applied at times, to at least two kinds of (rather different) pieces of ordnance... not really sure of the reason, but it's a common trap for the unwary history buff.

Original manufacturer was the Columbia foundry in Washington DC.

 

[Dilandu]

The term "columbiad" seems to have been somewhat loosely applied at times, to at least two kinds of (rather different) pieces of ordnance... not really sure of the reason, but it's a common trap for the unwary history buff.

Well, I mean pre-Rodman, 8-inch and 10-inch guns, adopted in 1850s, if I'm not mistaken. There were 1811-model columbiads, but I'm not sure, was any of those early guns still in comission?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

In commission, not likely. Still sitting around gathering dust? Probably-- a number of what we would consider museum pieces got dusted off and used in the war (especially on the southern side).

 

[Dilandu]

In commission, not likely. Still sitting around gathering dust? Probably-- a number of what we would consider museum pieces got dusted off and used in the war (especially on the southern side).

Well, they probably still were good against wooden ships... Were any of them recomissioned for coastal defense? Or the supply of new Rodmans&Dahlgrens were sufficient to provide coastal forts without using those old heavies?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Well, they probably still were good against wooden ships... Were any of them recomissioned for coastal defense? Or the supply of new Rodmans&Dahlgrens were sufficient to provide coastal forts without using those old heavies?

Hmm... You know, I realize I'm more familiar with the armament of southern forts than northern ones, since the latter were basically never tested.

*If* the prewar armament of Southern masonry forts can be taken as a reliable guide to the condition of Northern forts, I'd say their starting armament was probably somewhat underwhelming-- though of course that began to change once war production cranked up.

 

[CanadianCanuck]

Hmm... You know, I realize I'm more familiar with the armament of southern forts than northern ones, since the latter were basically never tested.

*If* the prewar armament of Southern masonry forts can be taken as a reliable guide to the condition of Northern forts, I'd say their starting armament was probably somewhat underwhelming-- though of course that began to change once war production cranked up.

From my own reading the armaments of the northern coastal fortifications was, across the board, spectacularly underwhelming, and IIRC there is a mention in some report of field pieces from 1812 being mounted somewhere along the Canadian frontier.

Of course, after the Trent affair historically there was a slow build up of modern defences, most being completed in 1866 or so from what I recall. Simply put, there was no need to waste resources on the coastal defences of say, New York or Boston since the South's chances of assaulting such ports was essentially nil. The resources were put to much better work elsewhere.

 

[major bill]

Today while at a used book store I looked at a book about U.S. naval canons of the pre Civil War to Civil War eras. I decided not to buy it because I would probably never read it. If I purchased it I would have to read it because of this thread. Because of this thread I want to go back and purchase the book.

 

[Schwallanscher]

Today while at a used book store I looked at a book about U.S. naval canons of the pre Civil War to Civil War eras. I decided not to buy it because I would probably never read it. If I purchased it I would have to read it because of this thread. Because of this thread I want to go back and purchase the book.

that's the reason why i live in a paper mine