Page 2 of 4
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:14 am
by Director
The Union Navy comprised different ships for different jobs, using deep-water frigates and sloops for heavy combat power (New Orleans, Mobile Bay) and everything from heavily-armed ferryboats to purpose-built shallow-draft double-enders for close-in blockade work. Some of these 'small-boys' were heavily armed for the period with 9" and 11" Dahlgrens and Parrott rifles from 20pdrs to 150 pdrs, and many of them were rapidly brought into service (the first gunboats were called '90-day' for their construction time, and the Eads river ironclads took little longer).
So it really isn't possible to say 'a ship is a ship' if you are comparing a 50-gun 'Merrimack'-class frigate to the gunboat 'Commodore Jones'. If you have to quantify for game terms count the big frigates and sloops as one ship each and the merchant conversions and gunboats as one-half or one-third. Given the forces off Charleston when the Confederate ironclads sortied, that's about 6 'ships'. If you add in the vessels at Port Royal, etc the number is of course higher.
Logically the solution is to give the Union several Fleet structures and allow a 'draft' of commercial vessels into military service. The same one-time 'draft' could be used to create the Confederate river squadrons that fought at Memphis and New Orleans. If that isn't possible by mechanics, then reduce the CS Navy to almost zero (allow some Virginia state ships) and allow the US several naval containers but few ships, or the ability to immediately build containers.
Three good sources: 'Arming the Fleet' by Spencer Tucker. 'The Old Steam Navy' by Donald L Canney )2 volumes), 'Confederate Shipbuilding' by William N Still, Jr.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:29 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Director
The Union Navy comprised different ships for different jobs, using deep-water frigates and sloops for heavy combat power (New Orleans, Mobile Bay) and everything from heavily-armed ferryboats to purpose-built shallow-draft double-enders for close-in blockade work. Some of these 'small-boys' were heavily armed for the period with 9" and 11" Dahlgrens and Parrott rifles from 20pdrs to 150 pdrs, and many of them were rapidly brought into service (the first gunboats were called '90-day' for their construction time, and the Eads river ironclads took little longer).
So it really isn't possible to say 'a ship is a ship' if you are comparing a 50-gun 'Merrimack'-class frigate to the gunboat 'Commodore Jones'. If you have to quantify for game terms count the big frigates and sloops as one ship each and the merchant conversions and gunboats as one-half or one-third. Given the forces off Charleston when the Confederate ironclads sortied, that's about 6 'ships'. If you add in the vessels at Port Royal, etc the number is of course higher.
Logically the solution is to give the Union several Fleet structures and allow a 'draft' of commercial vessels into military service. The same one-time 'draft' could be used to create the Confederate river squadrons that fought at Memphis and New Orleans. If that isn't possible by mechanics, then reduce the CS Navy to almost zero (allow some Virginia state ships) and allow the US several naval containers but few ships, or the ability to immediately build containers.
Three good sources: 'Arming the Fleet' by Spencer Tucker. 'The Old Steam Navy' by Donald L Canney )2 volumes), 'Confederate Shipbuilding' by William N Still, Jr.
Some good points here, but mostly dealing with later on in the war when the "ships" (in game terms" would have been purchased through the game's economic system. What we're really interested in is what each side should recieve in the "Scenario Start OB's" (the stuff they don't have to "buy"). Should the South start with any "ships" and "fleets" at all? And how many "ships" and "fleets" should the United States Navy have at the start of the scenarios? I'm saying the South really doesn't qualify for an "ocean-going Navy" at all (just raiders and runners), and other's are defending the Scenario Stats which give the South five "ships" to the North's nine, and both sides two "Fleet" counters. You seem to have some good sources available..., please feel free to join in on the "how much do you start with" question. We can assume anything about what is built later, as both sides will have had to "pay" for those.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:41 am
by chris0827
On april 19th, 1861 the US navy consisted of 42 ships carrying 555 guns and 7600 men. By jan 1st 1862 it had grown to 264 ships carrying 2557 guns and 22000 men.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:57 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: chris0827
On april 19th, 1861 the US navy consisted of 42 ships carrying 555 guns and 7600 men. By jan 1st 1862 it had grown to 264 ships carrying 2557 guns and 22000 men.
These being vessels actually "in commission". What about those "laid up in ordinary" which could be re-commissioned in three months or so? We know the Navy had a lot of "spare guns" ashore, because that's where the Confederates got most of what they had during the war (from Norfolk and the like) and which armed many of their fortifications. Do you have equivelent numbers and arms for the South in April of 1861? Or July? or 1 January, 1862? Hard facts and a solid breakdown by ship type or tonnage and of armament afloat/ashore in the early days of the war would be of real use in this discussion.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:23 am
by chris0827
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: chris0827
On april 19th, 1861 the US navy consisted of 42 ships carrying 555 guns and 7600 men. By jan 1st 1862 it had grown to 264 ships carrying 2557 guns and 22000 men.
These being vessels actually "in commission". What about those "laid up in ordinary" which could be re-commissioned in three months or so? We know the Navy had a lot of "spare guns" ashore, because that's where the Confederates got most of what they had during the war (from Norfolk and the like) and which armed many of their fortifications. Do you have equivelent numbers and arms for the South in April of 1861? Or July? or 1 January, 1862? Hard facts and a solid breakdown by ship type or tonnage and of armament afloat/ashore in the early days of the war would be of real use in this discussion.
I don't have any confederate numbers. I don't think they captured any warships intact. They had to improvise everything. In my opinion the only navy they should have at the start of the game is blockade runners. They had no real warships and only the shipyards at Norfolk were capable of producing any.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:40 am
by chris0827
28 of the 42 union ships were on foreign station. In addition there were 21 ships unfit to go to sea and 27 ships undergoing repairs or not yet completed. In february the confederate navy consisted of 10 ships carrying 15 guns.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:11 am
by Jonathan Palfrey
Battle Cry of Freedom:
The Confederacy began life with no navy and few facilities for building one. The South possessed no adequate shipyards except the captured naval yard at Norfolk, and not a single machine shop capable of building an engine large enough to power a respectable warship ...
... Mallory proved equal to the task of creating a navy from scratch. He bought tugboats, revenue cutters, and river steamboats to be converted into gunboats for harbor patrol. Recognizing that he could never challenge the Union navy on its own terms, Mallory decided to concentrate on a few specialized tasks that would utilize the South's limited assets to maximum advantage. He authorized the development of "torpedoes" (mines) to be planted at the mouths of harbors and rivers; by the end of the war such "infernal devices" had sunk or damaged forty-three Union warships. He encouraged the construction of "torpedo boats", small half-submerged cigar-shaped vessels carrying a contact mine on a bow-spar for attacking blockade ships ...
The commerce raiders built in Britain represented an important part of Confederate naval strategy ... At first the South depended on privateers for this activity ... On April 17 [1861], Davis offered letters of marque to any southern shipowner who wished to turn privateer. About twenty such craft were soon cruising the sea lanes off the Atlantic coast, and by July they had captured two dozen prizes.
[By early 1862] Confederate privateers as such had disappeared from the seas ... the Union blockade made it difficult to bring prizes into Southern ports, and neutral nations closed their ports to prizes. The Confederacy thence turned to commerce raiders -- warships manned by naval personnel and designed to sink rather than to capture enemy shipping ... began in June 1861, when the five-gun steam sloop C.S.S. Sumter evaded the blockade ... During the next six months the Sumter captured or burned eighteen vessels before Union warships finally bottled her up in the harbor at Gibraltar in January 1862. Semmes sold the Sumter to the British and made his way across Europe to England, where he took command of the C.S.S. Alabama and went on to bigger achievements.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:28 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Battle Cry of Freedom:
The Confederacy began life with no navy and few facilities for building one. The South possessed no adequate shipyards except the captured naval yard at Norfolk, and not a single machine shop capable of building an engine large enough to power a respectable warship ...
... Mallory proved equal to the task of creating a navy from scratch. He bought tugboats, revenue cutters, and river steamboats to be converted into gunboats for harbor patrol. Recognizing that he could never challenge the Union navy on its own terms, Mallory decided to concentrate on a few specialized tasks that would utilize the South's limited assets to maximum advantage. He authorized the development of "torpedoes" (mines) to be planted at the mouths of harbors and rivers; by the end of the war such "infernal devices" had sunk or damaged forty-three Union warships. He encouraged the construction of "torpedo boats", small half-submerged cigar-shaped vessels carrying a contact mine on a bow-spar for attacking blockade ships ... This is exactly the point I've been trying to make..., that in game terms the South had no "Fleets" or "ships"..., and no real means to build a "blue water Navy". And that what they did have and build is better represented as "improvements" to harbor and fort defenses. Giving the South a "High Seas Fleet" destroys the Civil War "flavor" of the game and just "feels" totally wrong because nothing like "fleet actions" ever occurred during that struggle. Thanks.[/b]
The commerce raiders built in Britain represented an important part of Confederate naval strategy ... At first the South depended on privateers for this activity ... On April 17 [1861], Davis offered letters of marque to any southern shipowner who wished to turn privateer. About twenty such craft were soon cruising the sea lanes off the Atlantic coast, and by July they had captured two dozen prizes.
[By early 1862] Confederate privateers as such had disappeared from the seas ... the Union blockade made it difficult to bring prizes into Southern ports, and neutral nations closed their ports to prizes. The Confederacy thence turned to commerce raiders -- warships manned by naval personnel and designed to sink rather than to capture enemy shipping ... began in June 1861, when the five-gun steam sloop C.S.S. Sumter evaded the blockade ... During the next six months the Sumter captured or burned eighteen vessels before Union warships finally bottled her up in the harbor at Gibraltar in January 1862. Semmes sold the Sumter to the British and made his way across Europe to England, where he took command of the C.S.S. Alabama and went on to bigger achievements. "Raiders" and "Runners" were the South's "blue water naval effort", not traditional fleets..., and the game handles such efforts in other ways. "Ships" and "Fleet Containers" just don't represent the South's naval policy in any realistic way. Again, thanks.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:44 am
by Ironclad
Whilst acknowledging different counts for the initial number of Confederate ships. Spencer Tucker in the "Blue and Gray Navies" gives them as - 5 ships inherited from the seceded states and through seizure or purchase 4 revenue cutters, 3 slavers, 2 privately owned coastal steamers and the old side-wheeler Fulton laid up at Pensacola Navy Yard. Only the latter was a purpose built warship.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:57 am
by Jonathan Palfrey
Yes, Mike, I agree with you. What struck me particularly was that the Confederacy had "not a single machine shop capable of building an engine large enough to power a respectable warship".
For the ironclad Virginia: "Unable to build new engines of adequate horsepower, the rebels reconditioned the two old Merrimack engines that had been condemned by the prewar navy and slated for replacement. The weight of the Virginia's armor gave her a draft of twenty-two feet. This prevented operations in shallow water while her unseaworthiness prevented her from venturing into the open sea."
She sank two full warships, but she was a weapon with severe limits. And the Confederacy hadn't the capability to build engines to power more ships of the same kind -- though it built smaller ironclads for use on rivers.
It seems to me that (a) the Confederacy shouldn't start with a navy, and (b) it probably shouldn't be able to build one, either. Torpedoes and torpedo boats can be factored into coastal fort defences.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:14 pm
by Ironclad
The South never had a chance alone of overturning the North's massive superiority in naval force and power projection. There was the brief moment with the Virginia but even if it had been the only operational ironclad in northern waters for more than one day it was in no condition to break the blockade (lack of sea worthiness and poorly powered) and its large draft even limited its scope in coastal waters.
In practice of course that opportunity never arose. Just like Britain in its naval competition with France, but to a massively greater extent, the Union could outbuild, more rapidly and to a higher quality anything that the Confederacy could come up with. Furthermore it could do this without having to turn down the tap on its other weapons production. Again in marked contrast to the South, where for example the Tredegar Works rolling mills were monopolised for almost 5 months in producing the iron plate for the Virginia's protection.
The only way in which the Confederacy could have matched the US Navy throughout the war was through British and to a lesser extent French actual participation in the fighting war.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:33 pm
by Jonathan Palfrey
Wikipedia has a list of ships of the Confederate Navy, with details on each:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Confederate_States_Navy
Clearly, the Confederacy had a navy, in the sense that it had vessels that could travel on water, carry some armament and some naval personnel, and attack other unarmed or lightly-armed vessels.
What it didn't have were warships capable of fighting the US Navy.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:32 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Wikipedia has a list of ships of the Confederate Navy, with details on each:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Confederate_States_Navy
Clearly, the Confederacy had a navy, in the sense that it had vessels that could travel on water, carry some armament and some naval personnel, and attack other unarmed or lightly-armed vessels.
What it didn't have were warships capable of fighting the US Navy.
THANK YOU, JONATHAN! Some folks are finally understanding what I've been saying. The only real naval warships the South ever had were those few built overseas for her..., and used as commerce raiders, not warships. We all know what happened when
ALABAMA decided to try her luck in a stand-up fight with the
KEARSAGE. Virtually all her home-built efforts were really "coast defense" adjuncts. Giving the South a real Fleet is turning the game into something that feels totally wrong for the American Civil War. Please, Matrix, remove these things from the Starting OB's of the scenarios...
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:23 pm
by Warfare1
Here are many articles detailing the Naval War in the Civil War:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/navalwar.htm
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:55 pm
by MorningDew
ORIGINAL: Gil R.
And as I mentioned elsewhere, you can modify the start file so that each CSA ship unit has a strength of 1, which will take nine turns sitting in a shipyard to get up to full strength. It's a way of hamstringing the CSA navy initially.
Can you point me to where this is mentioned elsewhere? Been looking but haven't found it.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:41 pm
by jimwinsor
Well, anyone can mod the oob to delete the CSA navy, you know...it's not difficult. You don't really need to beg Matrix to do it!
The only point I've been making is, if you consider the bulk of the CSA ships represented to not be ship-worthy for inclusion in the game...the same judgment has to be given to the 50 obsolete ships of the Union sail navy. Which in game terms would slash the Union navy from 9 starting ships to 4.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:14 pm
by tc237
You should of quit while you were ahead.
ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
...the same judgment has to be given to the 50 obsolete ships of the Union sail navy. Which in game terms would slash the Union navy from 9 starting ships to 4.
Exactly,
And make the CSA Navy zero. Why couldn't that have been done in the first place?
...it's not to difficult. You don't really need to beg Matrix to do it!
[:-] your just diging yourself a bigger hole buddy.
I suggest you just post: "This is an abstract beer and pretzels game of the ACW, it is not historicaly accurate. Enjoy it for what it is and don't stress out on the small stuff"
That would be alot better than continuing to post nonsense.
Well, anyone can mod the oob...
Glad I paid $50 for an ACW SDK.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:29 pm
by jimwinsor
"[:-] your just diging yourself a bigger hole buddy.
I suggest you just post: "This is an abstract beer and pretzels game of the ACW, it is not historicaly accurate. Enjoy it for what it is and don't stress out on the small stuff"
That would be alot better than continuing to post nonsense. "
I said pretty much that much earlier in this thread, actually. If you had been paying better attention you would have noticed that.
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:33 pm
by Hard Sarge
I don't understand posts like this
not to knock Jim, I think he is a good guy, but who is Jim ?, he is not the designer and he is not Matrixs, he is a gamer like the rest of you
and along the same lines, who am I ?, I am also just a gamer too
Jim just points out, that the game can be modded if you disagree with what the designer put in, Matrix does not have to do the modding (for me, I would rather have a standard mod or fix, then to do it myself, as then it feels like I am cheating the design)
Mike has stated his point and Jim has countered with what he thinks
I think we getting better info, and will be able to talk about what should be done or not done (but you got to give them a chance to do something)
RE: Naval Question.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:51 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
"[:-] your just diging yourself a bigger hole buddy.
I suggest you just post: "This is an abstract beer and pretzels game of the ACW, it is not historicaly accurate. Enjoy it for what it is and don't stress out on the small stuff"
That would be alot better than continuing to post nonsense. "
I said pretty much that much earlier in this thread, actually. If you had been paying better attention you would have noticed that.
Jim. This wasn't my point. I said "
Well, some suggestion of compromise is welcome. But I still think we're talking "apples and oranges". Like I said, if you include in the Union Fleet all the various miscellaneous support vessels you want to count for the South, the North is going to have 900 ships. What we need to establish is some base line as to what constitutes a "ship" in game terms? Are we talking armed, sea-going, warships or just everything that floats? Obviously the modern screw frigates count as one..., but where do we draw the line? Is a Revenue Cutter 1/10th of a "ship"? How much is a "coal barge"? 1/1000th? Or do we just establish a cut-off point, and everything below that doesn't count? Does sail power automatically halve the value?
And I think if you look at it from the perspective deleating the small "Coastal" and "Support" vessels of both sides and only counting the "Sea-going Warships" it will be something on the order of "nothing" for the South and 7-8 "Ships" and the 2-3 "Fleets" for the North. And it will "feel" more like the Civil War (during which the only significant High Seas Naval Engagement was the
Alabama and the
Kearsage, two single vessels).
The most significant quote that's come up was
"... Mallory proved equal to the task of creating a navy from scratch. He bought tugboats, revenue cutters, and river steamboats to be converted into gunboats for harbor patrol. Recognizing that he could never challenge the Union navy on its own terms, Mallory decided to concentrate on a few specialized tasks that would utilize the South's limited assets to maximum advantage. He authorized the development of "torpedoes" (mines) to be planted at the mouths of harbors and rivers; by the end of the war such "infernal devices" had sunk or damaged forty-three Union warships. He encouraged the construction of "torpedo boats", small half-submerged cigar-shaped vessels carrying a contact mine on a bow-spar for attacking blockade ships ... Which basically places the South's naval effort in the category of "harbor defense" (which in game terms is more accurately represented by the "coastal forts" having better armament than by giving the South an "offensive fleet" and capability it never had). I respect your views, but as I said I think we're getting the apples mixed with the oranges....