The Bombay Marine offer to the CS Government.

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,595
Location
Corona, California
Honestly the Bombay Marine ships should have been accepted by the CSA it would give them some naval power to harass the Union blockade fleet now by having state-of-the-art ships of their own.
 

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,698
Location
Pennsylvania
Honestly the Bombay Marine ships should have been accepted by the CSA it would give them some naval power to harass the Union blockade fleet now by having state-of-the-art ships of their own.
If they sought engagements with Union warships, they would probably have ended up in the Union Navy. Frigates or the large sloops were individually superior, not to mention the likelihood of encountering multiple Union ships, especially around the few Confederate ports that could accommodate frigate-size ships. I predict an eventful but short career.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,698
Location
Pennsylvania
Meant to include this in my previous post - USS Vanderbilt would have been a fair match for the Bombay ships; did any other Union 'merchant cruisers' approach her combat power? Were there other fast passenger steamers that could have been acquired if the need - or suitable opponents - arose?
 

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
4,410
Location
Kent ,England.
Found a reference in 'Shipbuilding and Shipping Record - Volume 66 - Page 399', that stated that Punjaub was converted to sail-only and ended her days as the fast clipper 'Tweed'

https://books.google.com/books?id=vKc-AQAAIAAJ&q=Steam-Frigate+Punjaub&dq=Steam-Frigate+Punjaub&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj44Z2w9OLcAhVqneAKHW4kA-4Q6AEIRjAF

On 18 July 1888 the ship was dismasted off Algoa Bay and was towed to shore, but a subsequent storm drove her aground and she was damaged beyond economic repair.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjaub_(ship)

Same ship?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Just noticed that no one answered this, yes indeed Tweed was the former Punjaub with wheels and machinery removed. She was the direct ancestor by design of the Cutty Sark.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,537
Nevertheless, until the Trent incident in late 1861, Frazer –Trenholm retained nominal title to the two ships in England, until the British Government withdrew then for sale to private buyers and subventioned them for use as transports to convey troops and weapons to Canada, as being paddle steamers they were then obsolete as warships to the RN.

It is possible that some if not all of the 68pdr sb from the two big ships found their way to the Confederacy.
'...subventioned...' Learned new word today!

If the British took back possession of the vessels, how did the Confederates get the 68 pdrs or was the armament sold as a separate lot?
2334

Thanks for the help,
USS ALASKA
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
4,410
Location
Kent ,England.
'...subventioned...' Learned new word today!

If the British took back possession of the vessels, how did the Confederates get the 68 pdrs or was the armament sold as a separate lot?
2334

Thanks for the help,
USS ALASKA
,
Good question, the ships certainly had been disarmed when they were taken as transports. It could be that as the sale of the ships was legal at the time, a blind eye was taken as to the whereabouts of the guns. The Admiralty certainly wouldn't have wanted them.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,537
Whatever port the two frigates used as a base would become the centre of a major fleet operation fairly quickly I should imagine.
Crazy how topics evolve, this subject came about when we were trying to come up with what the best use of these out of date PW frigates. Felt the best way was to disrupt the forming of the blockade.
Here's a thought on the use of Assaye and Punjaub. Delving into 'what-if' territory, what if they had sailed into Havana? Pull a 'SMS Goeben and SMS Breslau' some 53 years early? The Union could not ignore them that close to US shores in a well equipped deep-water port. Even if the Spanish didn't welcome them with open arms, and I believe the dry dock there belonged to the RN, the USN would have to react. A long distance blockade? Up close to Havana? That isn't going to make the Spanish happy...and draw forces off of the Confederate Coast Blockade.
2409

Just a thought,
USS ALASKA
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,698
Location
Pennsylvania
Here's a thought on the use of Assaye and Punjaub. Delving into 'what-if' territory, what if they had sailed into Havana? Pull a 'SMS Goeben and SMS Breslau' some 53 years early? The Union could not ignore them that close to US shores in a well equipped deep-water port. Even if the Spanish didn't welcome them with open arms, and I believe the dry dock there belonged to the RN, the USN would have to react. A long distance blockade? Up close to Havana? That isn't going to make the Spanish happy...and draw forces off of the Confederate Coast Blockade.
2409

Just a thought,
USS ALASKA
A neutral nation cannot allow belligerent warships to use its ports for longer than needed for essential repairs or resupply. G&B benefitted from Turkey joining the war on their side - in part due to their own actions.

Presumably the 'blockade' of A&P would not interfere with Spanish traffic (unless there was someone like Wilkes in command :smile:). It would for a time divert some Union warships from the blockade; but buying, manning, and maintaining a couple of frigates was also a substantial investment of the CSN's resources. And they would suffer the classic dilemma of blockaded forces in that era; they might see a couple of fast Union ships watching the harbor, but they couldn't be sure what might - or might not - be lurking over the horizon.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,537
A neutral nation cannot allow belligerent warships to use its ports for longer than needed for essential repairs and resupply.
Indeed sir - what got me thinking about this was CSN Sumter put into the Rock in very early 1862 and wasn't sold until Dec '62. Quite a long stay in a British port. And the entire time had to be watched by USN vessels even in her unseaworthy state.

G&B benefitted from Turkey joining the war on their side - in part due to their own actions.
Agreed, which led to thinking if Spain might have had her own reasons for allowing this...and leading to an informal / formal recognition of the Confederacy.

Presumably the 'blockade' of A&P would not interfere with Spanish traffic (unless there was someone like Wilkes in command :smile:).
:smile: I can hear him now..."Oh I stopped all those other vessels because I thought they were running supplies and crew to the Rebel ships."
2426

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,537
I wonder if the Union ever thought of buying these vessels? Much like trying to buy the Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre after Pearl Harbor. she certainly could have used the hulls...
2461

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,698
Location
Pennsylvania
I wonder if the Union ever thought of buying these vessels? Much like trying to buy the Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre after Pearl Harbor. she certainly could have used the hulls...
2461

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
How fast were they? The one mission that comes to mind is chasing Confederate cruisers. The Bombay frigates were more than was needed for catching blockade runners; the Union had plenty of small, handy ships for coastal or blockade duty - including former blockade runners
 

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
4,410
Location
Kent ,England.
How fast were they? The one mission that comes to mind is chasing Confederate cruisers. The Bombay frigates were more than was needed for catching blockade runners; the Union had plenty of small, handy ships for coastal or blockade duty - including former blockade runners
Somewhere around 11-12 knots under steam, maybe a knot or two faster under sail & steam together
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
4,410
Location
Kent ,England.
Last night I watched a show about Britain and India in the 19th Century. Lucy Worsley is the presenter. Talking about the Honourable East India Company, the fact they had their own navy and a print came up for about 60 seconds. In the centre was a big black paddle steamer in an oblique starboard bow view. My first thought was HMS Terrible, then I did a double take because the ship had two inline funnels, the paddle boxes were all black, and only two gun ports forward were visible. Now HMS Terrible had four thin funnels when built, two forward of the paddles and two aft, but the forward two were removed in 1850, and she had three gunports forward of the boxes. Also she never went to India. The ship could therefore only be Asaaye or Punjaub.
I have a poor rendering of Terrible which I found on the net, ideal for playing with, so here is my quick and dirty rendering of one or other of the two big Bombay Marine paddle frigates. The funnel spacing might not be quite right, but it's as close as I can get to what I remember seeing.
1551290481418.png
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top