US Naval power

[MikeyB]

While the US was a pioneer in ironclads and had an impressive fleet by war's end, my understanding is that most of this fleet could only operate near the coasts or on the rivers, and was not a true blue water navy.

So the European powers had this advantage versus the US Navy. My question is, if the Royal Navy decided to invade the USA and brought its modern blue water navy against our Navy, fighting on our home turf along the coasts and up and down the Mississippi, would the USN be competitive? Or would we still be outclassed by the Royal NAvy?

 

[Jimklag]

While the US was a pioneer in ironclads and had an impressive fleet by war's end, my understanding is that most of this fleet could only operate near the coasts or on the rivers, and was not a true blue water navy.

So the European powers had this advantage versus the US Navy. My question is, if the Royal Navy decided to invade the USA and brought its modern blue water navy against our Navy, fighting on our home turf along the coasts and up and down the Mississippi, would the USN be competitive? Or would we still be outclassed by the Royal NAvy?

Mikey, the Royal Navy would most definitely have outclassed the US Navy on the high seas. Inshore and on the rivers is another matter. I would say the shallow-water US Navy would have been fairly competitive and the brown water navy would have been much more than competitive.

 

[USS ALASKA]

My question is, if the Royal Navy decided to invade the USA and brought its modern blue water navy against our Navy, fighting on our home turf along the coasts and up and down the Mississippi, would the USN be competitive? Or would we still be outclassed by the Royal NAvy?

Sir, what time frame are you looking at. The USN was a vastly different animal in 1865 than it was in 1861. But then again, the RN had changed too.

Also sir, since this is a navy-centric question, it might get more traction on the Naval Forum.
12

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[MikeyB]

Sir, what time frame are you looking at. The USN was a vastly different animal in 1865 than it was in 1861. But then again, the RN had changed too.

Also sir, since this is a navy-centric question, it might get more traction on the Naval Forum.
12

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

I was thinking 1865, peak US naval power. And thanks for the suggestion, for some reason I missed seeing the Naval forum.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Not a problem, sir - just use the 'Report' link at the bottom of your first post on this thread and request the Mods move it to 'The Naval War' sub-forum if that is something you wish to do.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[wausaubob]

The British had the best ships and naval officers. The US already had a number of substantial cities in the Great Lakes and controlled the locks which led to Lake Superior. The US already had San Francisco on the Pacific Coast, and controlled the mouth of Columbia River.
The British could whip the US, but could not conquer and occupy the US. The decision to stop fighting with the Yanks and start investing in the US had already been made.

 

[gary]

The vast majority of the Royal Navy was obsolete. Even if it got here, they'd have a hard time if a monitor came out and challenged them. We also had the USS Ironsides, an ironclad frigate.

 

[wausaubob]

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-02.pdf?# See page xxv. Asking Englishmen, Irishmen, Scots and Welsh, on both sides of the Atlantic to fight each other, would have led to predictable results.
With respect to the US and British navies, the officers and sailors were rivals, but they spoke the same language, had the same relatives and had the same religions and literature.

 

[USS ALASKA]

There have been quite a few threads on CWT about a potential RN vs USN confrontation - they are in the 'What If', 'Naval War', and 'Moderated Threads' to name a few - that have a LOT of good information on this topic.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/royal-navy-order-of-battle-1861.139215/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/ironclads-and-blockade-britain-vs-union.129092/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/trent-war-possible-timeline-of-events-battles-and-outcome.140223/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/wr...an-war-and-beyond.125042/page-30#post-1950747

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/strength-of-us-navy-ca-the-trent-affair.129974/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/monitor-versus-merrimac-and-armor-piercing-shot.128151/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/hy...on-vs-royal-navy-squadron-in-the-gulf.123352/
43

HTHs,
USS ALASKA

 

[rebelatsea]

Actually the RN and Marines were good at in shore and up river work, they had hundreds of gunboats and a lot of experience to use them.

 

[rebelatsea]

The vast majority of the Royal Navy was obsolete. Even if it got here, they'd have a hard time if a monitor came out and challenged them. We also had the USS Ironsides, an ironclad frigate.

I have only one word for that "Rubbish" Even without the ironclads, the RN had a modern purpose built fleet of steam line of battleships, frigates, and smaller ships, plus all the screw conversions.

 

[MikeyB]

There have been quite a few threads on CWT about a potential RN vs USN confrontation - they are in the 'What If', 'Naval War', and 'Moderated Threads' to name a few - that have a LOT of good information on this topic.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/royal-navy-order-of-battle-1861.139215/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/ironclads-and-blockade-britain-vs-union.129092/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/trent-war-possible-timeline-of-events-battles-and-outcome.140223/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/wr...an-war-and-beyond.125042/page-30#post-1950747

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/strength-of-us-navy-ca-the-trent-affair.129974/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/monitor-versus-merrimac-and-armor-piercing-shot.128151/

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/hy...on-vs-royal-navy-squadron-in-the-gulf.123352/
43

HTHs,
USS ALASKA

Thanks for putting this together for me, will give me some good reading.
Regards,
mike

 

[USS ALASKA]

Thanks for putting this together for me, will give me some good reading.
Regards,
mike

Just as a 'heads-up', sir, those in the 'Moderated Threads' sub-forum can only be responded to after Moderator review. Some of these threads are locked and can't be responded to. Both because of the...enthusiasm...of some of the posts.
54

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[MikeyB]

I have only one word for that "Rubbish" Even without the ironclads, the RN had a modern purpose built fleet of steam line of battleships, frigates, and smaller ships, plus all the screw conversions.

I'm sure this is a gross over simplification - but if that modern fleet of battleships and frigates didn't have iron plates, weren't they for all intents and purposes, obsolete? Or did these larger ships have a sufficient complement of large caliber weapons that they could punch through a Union monitor's iron plating?

 

[USS ALASKA]

I'm sure this is a gross over simplification - but if that modern fleet of battleships and frigates didn't have iron plates, weren't they for all intents and purposes, obsolete? Or did these larger ships have a sufficient complement of large caliber weapons that they could punch through a Union monitor's iron plating?

On an operational level, the RN could have exerted a huge impact on the USA without coming into much contact with the USN ironclad ships, most of which were optimized for littoral warfare. Using her ocean-going fleet, the RN could have severely restricted, if not shut down, traffic into NYC, the Delaware (Philly / Camden / Wilmington / Easton / Trenton / New Castle ), the Chesapeake Bay (Baltimore / D.C. / Norfolk - Newport News - Hampton / Richmond ), the Mississippi (NOLA / Baton Rouge / Memphis / St. Louis / Louisville / Cincinnati / Wheeling / Pittsburgh and MANY others). This would have had a tremendous impact upon the US economy. And if she had enough vessels in service at the time, throw in Boston, Charleston, Savannah. The RN's support bases would have been Halifax, Bermuda, Nassau, and Kingston.
84

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[wausaubob]

On an operational level, the RN could have exerted a huge impact on the USA without coming into much contact with the USN ironclad ships, most of which were optimized for littoral warfare. Using her ocean-going fleet, the RN could have severely restricted, if not shut down, traffic into NYC, the Delaware (Philly / Camden / Wilmington / Easton / Trenton / New Castle ), the Chesapeake Bay (Baltimore / D.C. / Norfolk - Newport News - Hampton / Richmond ), the Mississippi (NOLA / Baton Rouge / Memphis / St. Louis / Louisville / Cincinnati / Wheeling / Pittsburgh and MANY others). This would have had a tremendous impact upon the US economy. And if she had enough vessels in service at the time, throw in Boston, Charleston, Savannah. The RN's support bases would have been Halifax, Bermuda, Nassau, and Kingston.
84

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

Certainly. And among the aggrieved would be numerous British citizens that had relatives in the US, and investors in US railroads that were making money on railroads that had more traffic then they could handle. At the same time there would a clear opportunity for Prussia to unify some or all of Central Europe. There were better ways to restore the flow of inexpensive cotton.

 

[gary]

I have only one word for that "Rubbish" Even without the ironclads, the RN had a modern purpose built fleet of steam line of battleships, frigates, and smaller ships, plus all the screw conversions.

Ever hear of War Plan Orange? The USN knew that Japan could not invade the mainland U. S. in WW . II. Likewise, even if Red sailed its fleet here, it needed a huge logistical train to sustain itself. Lots of colliers or staging in Canada or the Caribbean. USN has the advantage of interior lines with local harbors. Additionally there was no shortage of far flung ships that could prey on British commerce or supply convoys. No fuel, no fleet.

 

[rebelatsea]

Ever hear of War Plan Orange? The USN knew that Japan could not invade the mainland U. S. in WW . II. Likewise, even if Red sailed its fleet here, it needed a huge logistical train to sustain itself. Lots of colliers or staging in Canada or the Caribbean. USN has the advantage of interior lines with local harbors. Additionally there was no shortage of far flung ships that could prey on British commerce or supply convoys. No fuel, no fleet.

Yes, I have heard of war plan orange thank you. The RN had enough vessels to protect it's supply lines in the period and depots. The interior supply lines were there, but local harbours and rivers are no good if they have been sacked by RN and RM landing parties. The "Red" Fleet was already there, the North American and West Indies Squadron, with well laid plans for reinforcement in the event of hostilities.

 

[rebelatsea]

I'm sure this is a gross over simplification - but if that modern fleet of battleships and frigates didn't have iron plates, weren't they for all intents and purposes, obsolete? Or did these larger ships have a sufficient complement of large caliber weapons that they could punch through a Union monitor's iron plating?

The steam battlefleets of Britain and France were not obsolete until sufficient seagoing ironclads were available to replace them. Why would they need to engage a Monitor and how would such vessels reach the fleet ? The frigates never became obsolete, they morphed into cruisers.

 

[rebelatsea]

There is even now, with the plethora of information available in print and on line, a continuing belief in the myth of ironclad invincibility. The early ironclads were certainly not. In Britain and France an iron covering was primarily initially concerned with protection from shell fire not penetration. French and US armour (both sides) would not have stood up to the 68pdr 95cwt with full charges. While British armour started as the best in the world ,others caught up, likewise with guns - hence the race for thicker iron and ever bigger guns, but that is out of our time period.