Sp 3 sess. 4 usn transition

Ex Scientia Tridens

American Sea Power Unprecedented Global Reach

session iv USN in Transition, 1815-1860

part 2

“….during the period covered by this final volume the United States picked up from Great Britain the baton of maritime and world supremacy, while Germany and Russia replaced France as expressions of territorial power and extreme martial values. Both were humbled. So too was Japan, an island nation rather like Britain yet imbued with the territorial ethic. The question is whether the opposition of ‘merchant’ and ‘territorial’ power as described in the previous volumes holds good for this period…; if so, whether it is likely to continue as a universal principle of indefinite duration, or whether, as seems more likely, pollution, damage to ecosystems and depletion of essential natural resources resulting from the success of the global trading system will force radical change which alters the power equations. “This volume begins [in 1852] with Great Britain as the world’s only superpower, still grounded in the Christian faith and convinced of an earthly mission to civilize the world.”

Peter Padfield, Maritime Dominion and the Triumph of the Free World; Naval Campaigns that Shaped the Modern World, 1852-2001. p. 4.

Introduction

Manifest Destiny?

The US Navy finished the War of 1812 with determination to build a force capable of defending the interests of our rapidly growing nation.

In the relative peace of the first decades the mission appeared to be protecting our burgeoning maritime commerce.

But by the 1840s America had come to share the British belief in the Christian civilizing mission as her destiny. Territorial expansion would bring with it war with Mexico and the USN would gain experience in supporting our army.

In the next decade, as the ‘irrepressible conflict’ over slavery loomed at home, the European powers went to war. More data was generated on the role of naval power in the industrial age.

Here, once again, American sea power is about to be transformed along with every other facet of material existence.

jbp

Major Topics

I. Operations post-1815

II. Mexican War, 1846-1848

III. Crimean War, 1854-1856

IV. Technological Change

V. Adaptations

Operations post-1815

The modern term for what both the USN and its European counterparts carried on during this period is “small wars”

Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs, 1905. An illustration from the Second Barbary War (1815-1816)

12:Navies in Transition,

1815-1860

Potter & Nimitz, eds., Sea Power, p. 225.

United States Naval OperationsAfter 1815

“The War of 1812 fostered in the US a spirit of nationalism and a renewed appreciation of the Navy. Though the [Jeffersonian] Republicans remained in office, there was no return to narrow sectionalism, and no immediate slashing of the naval forces—as had occurred following each of the nation’s preceding wars. On the contrary there was, for a while at least, widespread support for naval expansion. The war had clearly revealed that the Navy was both inadequately administered and too weak to protect American interests. Something would have to be done about both of these defects. “The principal weakness in the naval administration was that there was no clear distinction between logistic control and operational control. Both moreover were assigned to a harassed and inexperienced civilian Secretary, with no professional officers specifically appointed to advise or assist him in either.….”


1815-1860

Ibid,.


“…in either. In 1815 Secretary Benjamin Crowninshield easily induced Congress to establish a Board of Naval Commissioners, composed of three senior captains, to handle logistics and advise him on operational and policy problems. “To strengthen the Navy, Congress during the war had authorized the building of four ships of the line, six frigates and six sloops-of-war….”


1815-1860

op. cit., pp. 225-226.


“…sloops-of-war. Following the Peace of Ghent nine more ships of the line were authorized. Though this ambitious building program was subsequently cut back, the US in the postwar period acquired a respectable fleet. In line with the American policy of building outsize versions of each type, the standard armament for the heavy ships completed after 1820 was 86 guns. One, the gigantic Pennsylvania, carried 120 guns and was the largest warship afloat at the time of her launching in 1837….”


1815-1860

op. cit., pp. 225-226.


“…in 1837. “The chief task of the USN between 1815 and 1860 was promoting and protecting America’s growing overseas commerce, which nearly quintupled in the period. American traders operated in all quarters of the globe, many in areas where political upheaval was normal and where piracy flourished. Hence the Navy early established semi-permanent squadrons in the Med, in the Pacific, off Brazil, in the WI, and in the East Indies. The African Squadron, organized during the same period, was established chiefly to control the commerce in slaves. “The Med Squadron was revived shortly after the Peace of Ghent specifically to carry on the work of earlier squadrons sent to the area, i.e., to deal with the perennial nuisance of the Barbary corsairs. The treaty of 1796 with Algiers, providing an annual tribute payment in return for immunity of American ships from capture, had not been fully honored by either party since 1807….”


1815-1860

op. cit., pp. 225-226.


“…since 1807. In 1812 the US government had broken off diplomatic relations. In 1815, soon after restoration of relations peace with England, Congress declared war on the Algerians.• “In May 1815 Commodore Stephen Decatur shaped course for the Med with three frigates and several lesser sail. After capturing the Algerian flagship and a brig while at sea, Decatur put in at the port of Algiers….”

op. cit., pp. 225-226.

“…of Algiers. Here he opened negotiations that led to a treaty guaranteeing American vessels from Algerian molestation without further payment of tribute. Decatur next visited Tunis and Tripoli, where he demanded and received indemnity for unfriendly acts committed during the War of 1812.• To underscore the warning, three separate American squadrons appeared off the Barbary coasts in the year following Decatur’s cruise. Thereafter the US Navy maintained its Med Squadron regularly until the American Civil War, using leased base facilities at Port Mahon, Minorca. In the 1820s the squadron had its hands full in the eastern Med combating piracy growing out of the ten-year-long Greek War of Independence. “The revolt of the Central and South American states against Spanish rule provided the USN with both opportunities and problems….”

op. cit., p. 226.

“…and problems. On the one hand, the decision of the British government to back the Monroe Doctrine [remember it had been their proposal in the first place. They wanted access to the former Spanish colonies’ markets] , closing the Americas to further [re-] colonizing, interposing the RN as a shield between the Americas and colony-hungry western Europe. On the other, the revolutions in Latin America led to wars among the victors and also released into the Caribbean and adjacent waters a swarm of privateers that readily resorted to piracy. This became a serious problem for the US because, with heavy western migration, New Orleans, principal outlet for the Mississippi Valley, soon grew to be the second largest port in the US, surpassed only by NYC. To deal with the problem of piracy and yet to retain the friendship of the new Latin republics required a deft combination of firmness and diplomacy. The task fell mainly to the Navy, which here and elsewhere virtually took over the functions of the State Department.• Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry in 1819 elicited from Venezuela a guarantee against attacks on American merchantmen, but the WI Squadron was obliged to use more direct methods. For several years it was fully occupied in running down pirate craft and in extirpating the hundreds of pirate nests infesting the Caribbean islands and even the Gulf coast of the US….”

op. cit., pp. 226-227.

“…the US. “Commodore James Biddle, first commander of the WI Squadron, found himself hampered by a lack of small craft to get at the pirate hideaways. And even when he captured a gang of pirates, American courts were likely to release them for a lack of evidence [sound familiar?]. Biddle’s successor,• Commodore David Porter, was more successful because he demanded and got enough light-draft vessels for the work at hand, and when he caught a pirate, he usually found legal reasons for turning him over to the British pirate hunters in the area, [can you say ‘rendition’?] who promptly hanged him without resort to civilian courts. But the bellicose Porter overreached himself at Foxardo [Fajardo] in Puerto Rico….”

op. cit., pp. 226-227.

“…Puerto Rico. One of his officers having been briefly imprisoned by the local Spanish authorities, he obtained an apology by sending a landing party ashore and threatening to destroy the town. The Spaniards complained and a court-martial found that Porter had exceeded his authority. At that he resigned from the service and accepted a commission as CinC of Mexico’s navy.1 In 1841 the WI Squadron, having successfully completed its mission, was absorbed into a new Home Squadron….”______ 1 As a result, his son, the future Admiral David Dixon Porter, began his naval career under the Mexican flag.

op. cit., p. 227.

“…Home Squadron. “By the 1830s expanding American trade with the Orient required more protection than could be afforded by the occasional visit of a man-of-war. The need was emphasized in 1831 when the inhabitants of Quallah Battoo on the [SW] coast of Sumatra • plundered an American m e r c h a n t m a n a n d slaughtered a number of her crew….”

op. cit., p. 227.

“…her crew. The following year a US frigate put ashore a landing party that stormed the fortifications and burned the town.• The US E India Squadron, established in 1835, not only protected American commercial interests from China to Arabia but also engaged in some of the most fruitful diplomacy of the century….”

op. cit., p. 227.

“…the century. At the conclusion of the First Sino-British Opium War in 1842,• Commodore Lawrence Kearny set out to obtain for the US commercial privileges similar to those acquired by the victorious Britons. By alternating courtesy and tact with a show of force [later decried as ‘gunboat diplomacy’] , Kearny not only obtained the assurances he sought but was offered a treaty putting the US on a ‘most favored nation’ basis. Kearny refused to formalize the treaty, believing that beyond his authority, but he had laid the foundation for subsequent s u c c e s s f u l d i p l o m a t i c negotiations….”

op. cit., p. 227.

“…diplomatic negotiations. In the next decade, Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry,• employing means similar to those used by Kearny, opened the ports of Japan to American shipping.2….”______ 2 The story of Perry’s negotiations with Japan is told in chapter 19.

op. cit., p. 227.

“…American shipping. “Closely related to the Navy’s trade-protecting function were important contributions to exploration, survey, and research made by American naval personnel. No voyage of the first half of the 19th century aroused wider interest than that of the US Exploring Expedition of 1838-42, and none added more to man’s knowledge of the Pacific Ocean area. [Darwin had returned from his voyage on HMS Beagle in 1836 exciting scientists worldwide] Carrying scientists with elaborate equipment, the squadron of six vessels, commanded by Lt Charles Wilkes USN,• skirted Antarctica, touched at the Tuamotu, Society, and Fiji Islands, and surveyed what is now the W coast of the US. Wilkes’ book about the expedition became a best seller and brought the Navy much favorable publicity….”

Wilkes Expedition & the Smithsonian

“British scientist James Smithson (d. 1829) left most of his wealth…’to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge among men’ “—Wiki.•

jbp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Smithson

Wilkes Expedition & the Smithsonian

“British scientist James Smithson (d. 1829) left most of his wealth…’to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge among men’ “—Wiki.•

“The ‘US Ex. Ex.’…circumnavigated the globe between 1838 and 1842. The voyage amassed thousands of animal specimens, an herbarium of 50,000 plant specimens, and diverse shells and minerals, tropical birds, jars of seawater, and ethnographic artifacts from the South Pacific Ocean. These specimens and artifacts became part of the Smithsonian collections.…”—Wiki

“With the help of the expedition's scientists, derisively called ‘clam diggers’ and ‘bug catchers’ by navy crew members, 280 islands, mostly in the Pacific, were explored, and over 800 miles of Oregon were mapped. Of no less importance, over 60,000 plant and bird specimens were collected. A staggering amount of data and specimens were collected during the expedition, including the seeds of 648 species, which were later traded, planted, and sent throughout the country. Dried specimens were sent to the National Herbarium, now a part of the Smithsonian Institution. There were also 254 live plants, which mostly came from the home stretch of the journey, that were placed in a newly constructed greenhouse in 1850, which later became the United States Botanic Garden.”—Wiki

jbp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Smithson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbarium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnographic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_Ocean

A Sketch fromthe Ex Ex

MAP OF THE

OREGON TERRITORY BY THE

U. S. Ex. Ex.

“54º40’ or Fight!”

Less remembered than the Mexican War was the conflict with Britain over the Oregon Territory.

jbp



The Convention of 1818 settled most of the issues from the War of 1812, extending the US-Canadian border along the 49th parallel to Oregon and compromising with a ten-year joint occupation.

jbp



The Convention of 1818 settled most of the issues from the War of 1812, extending the US-Canadian border along the 49th parallel to Oregon and compromising with a ten-year joint occupation.•

American Settlers began organized efforts to hold the Oregon country in 1841, pioneering the Oregon Trail.•

Then in the presidential campaign of 1844, the Democrats introduced “Manifest Destiny” aiming at two sections of the Pacific coast.

jbp

Ibid.

“…favorable publicity. “The contributions of Lt Matthew Fontaine Maury USN to the science of oceanography were unique, justly earning him the title Pathfinder of the Seas. On duty in charge of the Depot of Charts and Instruments (the antecedent of the US Naval Observatory and Hydrographic Office), Maury studied old log books. In these he found his first clues to the habits of wind, weather, current, temperature, and barometric pressure from season to season and from area to area in the world’s oceans. Aided by information supplied by mariners of many nations, Maury prepared charts showing the best whaling grounds and the prevalent temperatures, winds, currents and weather conditions at all seasons. His Sailing Directions, which appeared as a ten-page pamphlet in 1848 but rapidly expanded in succeeding editions to more than a thousand pages, indicated the best sea routes for maximum speed and optimum conditions. The Sailing Directions enabled mariners to cut the average sailing time from NY to CA, for example, by 47 days, at a saving of $2 million a year….”

“…a year. “Despite these solid contributions, all was not well with the Navy during the period following the War of 1812. One basic trouble was the usual log jam in promotions that follows a war. The situation was aggravated in this instance by the fact that the young USN had been led for the most part by young officers. These regulars, remaining in the naval service, monopolized the higher ranks through the long period of peace after 1815. The result was stagnation in the rank structure, which Congress intensified by refusing to establish any higher naval rank than captain, with ‘commodore’ as a courtesy title for squadron commanders. Because there were so many lieutenants, midshipmen of 30 became commonplace, and at least one reached the age of 50 without being promoted. The naval hierarchy became divided into a large body of very junior officers and a comparatively small body of lieutenants, commanders, and captains. The ageing midshipmen were in fact scarcely officers at all. They messed with the crew and had little association with their seniors. Their education, carried out generally at sea, was entrusted to chaplains and politically appointed schoolmasters….”

op. cit., pp. 227-228.

“Mutiny” Aboard the Brig Somers

“Mutiny” Aboard the Brig Somers

One of the “legends” during my midshipman days was that USNA had been founded because an ageing midshipman had agitated mutiny, thus bringing the ‘on-the-job’ training regime into disrepute.—FALSE

We were also told that it was the only mutiny in the service’s history.—TRUE, no other mutinies, but…

Herman Melville, first cousin to one of the Somers’ officers, heard about the affair and turned it into Billy Budd, a story set in the RN and with many different details.

The facts are confused at best, probably due to subsequent CYA attempts. It seems to me a terrific miscarriage of justice. We report. You decide.

jbp

“…appointed schoolmasters. “At the other end of the scale, the elderly heroes of 1812-15 squatted on their rank. These veterans took turns on the Board of Navy Commissioners, which for 20 years was dominated by Commodore John Rogers.• Misreading the history of the American Revolution and the War of 1812, they accepted the view widely held in political and military circles that national security should be based on a strategy of coast defense and commerce raiding. Coast defense was to be a function of the Army, using elaborate fortifications. Few remembered that the Navy’s guerre de course in the two wars against England, while producing some brilliant exploits, had no important effect on the outcome, or that commerce raiding had been wholly ineffective against strongly defended convoys.…”

op. cit., p. 228.

“…defended convoys. “But while the Navy languished strategically, it became increasingly receptive to new technological ideas. This was the result mainly of the energies of a few men with the intellectual flexibility to see that naval weapons had to keep pace with the new scientific revolution. Chief among these were Matthew Calbraith Perry3 and the officer-politician Robert F. Stockton,• both veterans of the War of 1812;…”

op. cit., p. 228.

______ 3 Younger brother of the victor of Lake Erie, who died in 1819.

Ibid.

“…of 1812; the ordnance expert John A. Dahlgren, who by sheer merit broke through the promotion deadlock;• and John Ericsson, the Swedish inventive genius, whose services were procured by the USN through intercession of Stockton. “To men of this caliber it was apparent that the naval officers at last succeeding to positions of command were all too frequently unprepared for their responsibilities.…”

Ibid.

“…of 1812; the ordnance expert John A. Dahlgren, who by sheer merit broke through the promotion deadlock;• and John Ericsson, the Swedish inventive genius, whose services were procured by the USN through intercession of Stockton. “To men of this caliber it was apparent that the naval officers at last succeeding to positions of command were all too frequently unprepared for their responsibilities.…”

Ibid.

“…their responsibilities. Obviously the system of schoolmasters-at-sea was inadequate.• Maury, Perry, and Perry’s brother-in-law Alexander Slidell Mackenzie, among others, advocated a school ashore to provide midshipmen with a complete uninterrupted education—a school in every way the equal of the Army’s Military Academy, which had been operating at West Point since 1802. Congress, unwilling to go so far, at first merely authorized schools at Norfolk and Philadelphia which midshipmen could attend between voyages.…”

Ibid.

“…between voyages. It remained for the historian George Bancroft,• who became SecNav in 1845, to initiate the necessary action. He obtained from the Naval Board of Examiners a report recommending the establishment of a naval academy at Annapolis, Maryland. The absence of the Secretary of War from Washington gave him his opportunity. Acting temporarily as secretary for both services, Bancroft signed over to the Navy the Army’s old Annapolis post, Fort Severn. By the time Congress returned from recess in the fall of 1845, the USNA was in operation. Since war with both Britain and Mexico then seemed imminent, Congress was in no mood to haggle over military expenditures. It accepted Bancroft’s actions and appropriated funds for the Academy.”

Naval School Founded October 10th 1845

JAMES K. POLK President of the U. States

GEO. BANCROFT Secretary of the Navy

The original Bancroft Hall (1906)Home to the Midshipmen

Theodore Roosevelt, PresidentErnest Flagg, architect


1815-1860

European Naval OperationsAfter 1815

“Following the downfall of Napoleon, European powers also turned their attention to the lawless practices of the Barbary corsairs. An international commission of the Congress of Vienna concluded that the time had come trend this nuisance forever. Britain, which had profited most from Barbary raids against her commercial rivals, undertook to execute the decision and in 1816 demanded that Algeria abolish enslavement of Christians. Rebuffed, the British government dispatched Adm Viscount Exmouth [Edward Pellew] • to the Med with a force including five of the line. Exmouth attacked the port of Algiers, concentrating his main force against the weakest point of the city’s defenses. The Algerian Dey, after seeing his shipping burned, his capital bombarded, and his coastal fortifications battered out of action, accepted the British terms….”

op. cit., pp. 228-229.


1815-1860European Naval Operations

After 1815

“…British terms. “Exmouth’s attacks ended the formal system of protection money, but the profits of piracy were too rich a temptation for the Barbary monarchs to resist for long. European and American squadrons were obliged to make periodic visits to the Barbary coast, until France in the 1830s conquered Algeria, citing as a justification the necessity of abolishing piracy. Actually it was not entirely ended until the 20th century, when the almost universal use of steam propulsion enabled merchantmen to outrun any raiding ships the technologically backward Barbary powers could send to sea….” op. cit., pp. 228-229.

Ibid.

“…to sea. “Scarcely had Exmouth settled accounts with Algeria when clandestine resistance of the Greeks to their Turkish masters at length turned into open revolt. Numerous Greek privateers soon made the eastern Med a nest of piracy. When the Egyptian viceroy sent his army and fleet to Greece to aid his overlord the Sultan of Turkey, Britain, France, and Russia sent thither an international fleet, including ten of the line, under British VAdm Sir Edward Codrington • to suppress Greek piracy and to ‘prevent the spread of hostilities.’….”

Ibid.

“…of hostilities.’ On the mistaken assumption that the Turks would not dare attack his fleet, Codrington carried his ships into the Greek harbor of Navarino • and anchored alongside the Turkish naval force, which now included a number of Egyptian men-of-war….”

Ibid.

“…men-of-war. “The British admiral had miscalculated. In the tense situation an exchange of small-arms fire quickly developed into a general engagement, in which the Turco-Egyptian fleet was practically annihilated by superior firepower and seamanship.• As a result the Egyptians withdrew their army, and the Russian Czar • [Nicholas I] was encouraged to intervene openly as a ‘defender of the faith.’ In 1830 the Sultan was forced to acknowledge Greek independence. Once more, land power unsupported by adequate sea power had proved insufficient to sustain a campaign in hostile country….”

Ibid.

“…hostile country. “In the next quarter century Europe’s navies engaged in no important campaigns. Operating on decreased budgets, uncertain whether the future of naval warfare lay with sail or steam propulsion, with solid shot or shell, the sea services nevertheless kept busy. They protected commerce, looked after imperial interests, conducted voyages of exploration and scientific research, and, in the language of the day, ‘showed the flag’ and ‘chastised native insolence.’ “The scientific expedition of the greatest long-range influence was that undertaken by a tiny surveying vessel, HMS Beagle was surveying the coast of Patagonia, the Falkland Islands, the Galapagos Islands, and the W coast of South America,• Charles Darwin, a civilian naturalist attached to the expedition, was collecting many of the specimens and data on which he later based his theory of biological evolution….”

Ibid.

“…biological evolution. “Around 1840, both the French and the British navies took part in military expeditions, all trifling as far as fleet ops were concerned. In reprisal for a riotous looting of a French bakery in Vera Cruz, Mexico, French warships turned their new shell guns on the harbor fortress, which soon surrendered.…”

Ibid.

“…soon surrendered. Units of the RN again bombarded St. Jean d’Acre—again as in 1799, in support of the Turks and in opposition to the French and the Egyptians.• In the Opium Wars with China, both RN and HEIC warships participated. The main long term effect of these ops was that they convinced a few naval officers of the value of shells, iron hulls, and steam propulsion.”

War News from Mexico, Richard Catton Woodville, 1848

Mexican War 1846-1848

Controversial then as now, an American “war of choice.”


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“As early as 1836 Texas had achieved de facto independence by defeating the Mexican army at San Jacinto and capturing President-General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna….”

op. cit., pp. 229-230.

“…Santa Anna. Although Mexico had repudiated Santa Anna’s treaty and had never officially recognized Texan independence, the Mexican army had not made any serious attempt at reconquest. Even the tiny Texas navy had held its own against the forces of Mexico. When Mexico City announced a blockade of the Texas coast, the Texas fleet blockaded Mexico instead, closing the port of Vera Cruz, capturing the town of Tabasco, and defeating Mexican squadrons….”

op. cit., pp. 229-230.

“…Mexican squadrons. “California was almost equally free of Mexican control. Armed revolt here had driven out the central government’s representatives. In 1845 the two chief officials were Californians, virtually self-appointed to office. The military commandant maintained his capital at Monterey. The civil government ruled southern California from Los Angeles. Antagonism between these two leaders, plus factional strife between the natives and American settlers, so complicated the governmental situation that intervention by the US probably prevented civil war….” op. cit., pp. 229-230.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“…civil war. “In the closing days of President Tyler’s administration, Mar 1845, Congress, at the request of the Texans, voted the annexation of Texas….”

op. cit., p. 230.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“…of Texas. The first task of President Polk’s incoming administration was to deploy the armed forces of the US for maximum effectiveness in anticipation of war.• George Bancroft issued most of the key orders….”

op. cit., p. 230.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“…key orders. As SecNav, he ordered Commodore • John Sloat’s Pacific Squadron to prepare to seize San Francisco and such other California ports as he could….”

op. cit., p. 230.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“… he could. As Acting Secretary of War, he ordered Gen • Zachary Taylor to advance into Texas and take position near the Rio Grande….”

op. cit., p. 230.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“… Rio Grande. As SecNav, he ordered Commodore • David Conner’s Home Squadron to support Taylor by transporting troops, convoying supply ships, and protecting Taylor’s bases….”

op. cit., p. 230.

“…home bases. Informally he arranged for a small’ ‘exploring expedition’ of frontiersmen and scouts under Brevet Capt • John C. Frémont to cross the Rockies and advance into northern California….”

op. cit., pp. 230-231.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“… northern California. Later a column of soldiers under Brevet BGen • Stephen W. Kearny set out from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for New Mexico….”

op. cit., pp. 230-231.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“… New Mexico. “Taylor’s advance to the Rio Grande met resistance by Mexican troops, and in the spring of 1846 first Mexico then the US declared war….”

op. cit., pp. 230-231.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“… declared war. Commodore Sloat thereupon moved his squadron of four sailing vessels, including a frigate, from his temporary base at Mazatlan, Mexico to the California coast.• In Jul he hoisted the American flag without opposition in both Monterey and San Francisco….”

op. cit., pp. 230-231.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“…San Francisco. Capt Frémont meanwhile had reached California where he incited revolt among American settlers N of San Francisco. Under his leadership they seized the town of Sonoma, proclaimed California an independent republic, elected Frémont governor, and adopted a flag carrying the picture of a bear.….”

op. cit., p. 231.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“… a bear. Learning that Sloat had taken possession of Monterey, Frémont marched the Bear Flag army, 160 strong, to join him….”

op. cit., p. 231.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“… join him. Commodore Robert F. Stockton, who had succeeded the ailing Sloat in command of the Pacific squadron, gladly accepted the cooperation of Frémont’s men. Forming the crew of his flagship into a little army of his own, he joined Frémont in an unopposed march into Los Angeles….”

op. cit., p. 231.


1815-1860

Ibid.

The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“…San Francisco. “Gen Kearny, having captured Santa Fe and annexed New Mexico, now headed for southern California, but receiving over-optimistic information that California was securely in American hands, he sent back all but a hundred of his men. By this time however the native Californians had risen in revolt, thrust the Americans out of Los Angeles and surrounded Stockton’s force at San Diego.• Kearny on entering southern California came under attack, lost 18 men, and found himself besieged. Stockton, victorious at San Diego, was soon able to relieve Kearny, and their combined forces recaptured Los Angeles.•The subsequent Treaty of Cahuenga, signed early in 1847, ended the war on the Pacific coast. “Though the conquest of California added to the US some of its richest territory, it was militarily a small-scale affair involving only a few hundred combatants. The faintly comic-opera tone of the whole campaign was accentuated by the confusion that followed….”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…that followed. Because the conquest had been achieved by three different forces in informal cooperation, no clear channels of command had been established. And because the Navy had no admirals, it was difficult to determine how a senior navy capt ranked with a junior army gen, particularly when the navy capt held the courtesy title of commodore, and the gen was actually a col with the courtesy brevet rank of BGen. As a result, Stockton and Kearny each regarded himself as senior officer in California.• Stockton appointed Frémont governor, but Kearny disregarded the appointment and gave Frémont orders which Frémont refused to obey. When the confusion was compounded by the arrival of another commodore to relieve Stockton,• Stockton went home in disgust. Kearny then managed to remove Frémont as governor and bring him to Washington under virtual arrest.• Here a court-martial found Frémont guilty of insubordination, whereupon he resigned his commission.….”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…his commission. “Though Gen Taylor had meanwhile penetrated deep into Mexico, he was still too far N to threaten the capital….”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…the capital. To bring the war to a quick close therefore President Polk dispatched an army of some 12,000 troops under LGen Winfield Scott to land at Vera Cruz and march directly to Mexico City….”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…Mexico City. “Such an ambitious undertaking would of course have been impossible but for the presence of • Conner’s Home Squadron in the Gulf of Mexico. Conner, operating out of Pensacola, was at first hampered by lack of a coaling base in Mexican waters, for his squadron included steamers as well as sailing vessels….”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…sailing vessels. He had early found an ingenious solution to his problem however by establishing a floating advanced base behind protecting reefs of Anton Lizardo 13 miles S of Vera Cruz.• Here he kept a store-ship anchored, and here colliers [ships designed as coal bunkers] could rendezvous periodically with his steamers….”


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“…his steamers. Conner thus anticipated by a century the mobile squadrons that serviced the US Pacific Fleet in the lagoons of atolls during WW II. His attempts to close Mexican ports had been uniformly unsuccessful for lack of occupation forces to follow up and make good his captures. Nevertheless by the time Gen Scott’s expedition got underway, his blockade of the Mexican coast was very nearly impenetrable, and the Home Squadron held undisputed command of the sea off Mexico’s E coast.

op. cit., pp. 231-232.

“Scott’s planners at first thought of the Vera Cruz landing as primarily an army job. They expected a fleet of army transports to carry the landing force directly to the beachhead, whereupon the troops would enter specially constructed boats and row ashore. The Navy’s role, in their opinion, should be limited to fire support. Luckily somebody, probably Conner, convinced Scott that the landing should be a carefully worked out joint op, and that the ship-to-shore movement could best be planned and executed by navy personnel….”


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“…navy personnel. “Reconnoitering the Mexican coastline in a small steamer, Scott, Conner and their staffs decided to land on a strip of beach three miles S of Vera Cruz. At the Anton Lizardo anchorage the landing force, early on 9 Mar 47, transferred from their transports to the vessels of the Home Squadron. The squadron then proceeded up the coast, towing the 65 surfboat that were to serve as landing craft. “Off the selected beachhead the troops of the first wave transferred to pre-assigned boats, a half-company [40 (?) men] of soldiers to each craft. The entire ship-to-shore op was commanded by a navy capt, each division of boats was commanded by a navy lt and each boat was commanded by a navy junior or petty officer and manned by seaman rowers. When the landing craft were filled, they advanced in divisions to the LOD, marked by a steamer anchored near the beach. Here they took station in double lines parallel to the coast, with each company of soldiers so boated as to be in prescribed order of battle for combat ashore. Between the lines and the beach were stationed seven light-draft gunboats armed mainly with 32-pounder shell guns. Like the LCI gunboats in the Pacific campaigns of WW II, these vessels were to provide close gunfire support to the landings. “On signal, the lines of boats headed toward the beach, and all guns of the fleet were trained to knock out resistance.…”

op. cit., p. 232.

Fortress of San Juan de Ullua

The amphibious landing at the Battle of Veracruz—Currier & Ives, 1840s- Wikipedia

Vera Cruz


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“…knock out resistance. As it turned out however the invasion was entirely unopposed. A rising against the government had drawn local military forces to Mexico City. The first wave of invaders made an almost simultaneous landing, not under fire but to the accompaniment of cheers and band music from the fleet. Promptly upon discharging their passengers, the landing boats hurried back to the ships to pick up the second wave. by 2200, 10,000 Americans were on the beach. The rest came ashore at leisure the next morning.…”

op. cit., p. 232.


1815-1860The Mexican War, 1846-1848

“…next morning. “Conner and his staff had provided an excellent model, unfortunately overlooked or forgotten for future American amphib ops. It was, to be sure, in most respects not unlike the invasion carried out by Keith and Abercrombie at Aboukir in 1801,• but in one aspect it was unique. At Vera Cruz, for the first time in the history of amphib warfare, the ship-to-shore movement was entirely navy planned and navy controlled, a practice not to become general until WW II. “In the subsequent assault on the city of Vera Cruz, the Navy assisted both afloat and ashore. A flotilla of two steamers and five gunboats battered at the sea wall and fort.…”

op. cit., p. 232.


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…and fort. At the same time navy gunners under the general supervision of Capt Robert E. Lee USA [here the designation is service branch, not nationality. c.f. USN], used a battery of six naval guns to breech the land face of the city wall.…”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…city wall. When Vera Cruz surrendered, the conference of capitulation was attended by a representative of Commodore Mathew Calbraith Perry, Connor’s successor in command of the Home Fleet. It had been a joint Army-Navy victory. “Scott now marched inland on Mexico City.…”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…Mexico City. Accompanying his army were 300 US marines, who at Chapultepec fought the first inland battle in USMC history.…”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…USMC history. When Mexico City fell,…”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…City fell, Scott, desiring to impress the populace, selected the brightly uniformed marines to mount guard in the halls of Montezuma.”

Crimean War 1854-1856

In the Battle of Sinop (Sinope), Russian wooden sailing ships with shell guns annihilate Turkish wooden sailing ships. Naval authorities take note.

Синопский бой 18 ноября 1853 года—by Alexey Bogolyubov (1860)—Wikipedia

“Britain was now virtually a free trade nation, yet relations between the great powers hardly supported the school of economists predicting an era of universal peace following the expansion of international trade. One factor that caused the British government anxiety throughout the century was Russia’s southward expansion. The great land empire of the tsars spreading by conquest and absorption was the antithesis of Britain’s sea trading empire and its chief rival for world power. It was of particular concern to British generals that Russia should not gain a foothold in the Ottoman Empire stretching around the eastern Mediterranean across the overland routes to India.”

op. cit. p. 19.

2The Russian (Crimean) War, 1854


1815-1860

The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“The causes of the Crimean War were both complex and obscure. A dispute over who should administer the Christian shrines in the Holy Land strained relations between Roman Catholic France and Eastern Orthodox Russia.• Napoleon III needed a touch of military glory to consolidate his dynasty. Britain grew alarmed when Czar • Nicholas I cast covetous glances at the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. In 1853 the Russians violated Turkish territory and brought on hostilities by marching an army into what is now Romania. To prevent any sudden Russian descent on Constantinople, Britain and France dispatched strong naval squadrons to the Sea of Marmora—in the belief that their mere presence would discourage any Russian naval ops in the Black Sea….” op. cit., pp. 232-233.


1815-1860


“…Black Sea. “But Russia’s VAdm Nakhimov, far from being awed into inactivity, cruised freely in search of Turkish ships. In Nov 1853 he discovered Osman Pasha’s winter squadron of seven frigates and several lesser sail off the ill-fortified Turkish port of Sinope, where it had taken refuge from a gale. Nakhimov had three ships of the line but, wishing to make a sure thing doubly sure, he sent to Sevastopol for three of Russia’s most powerful men-of-war, 120-gun three-deckers with main batteries of 68-pounder shell guns. Then, stationing a line of auxiliaries from Sinope toward Constantinople to warn him if the British and French fleets came through the Bosphorus, Nakhimov on the morning of 20 Nov took his six ships of the line through rain and fog into the roadstead of Sinope….”

op. cit., pp. 232-233.


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…of Sinope. In several hours of shelling, he sank all seven of the Turkish frigates, silenced the shore batteries, and set fire to the town. At a cost of fewer than 40 fatalities, he had killed nearly 3,000 Turks….”

op. cit., p. 233.


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…3,000 Turks. “Western Europe was shocked by the ruthlessness of the Russians, who not only flouted tradition by attacking frigates with ships of the line but turned their guns indiscriminately on vessels trying to surrender, on boats, and on men struggling in the water. The British and French admiralties, which still preferred wooden construction to iron, were jarred into reappraising their naval weapons. Evidently wooden hulls had been rendered obsolete by the shell gun, which not only shattered them but set them afire….”

op. cit., p. 233.


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…them afire. “Since Britain and France had informally undertaken to protect Turkey, the Battle of Sinope practically obliged them to declare war. Thus in the same sense that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was a tactical triumph but a strategic blunder, Sinope won Russia a brief advantage but brought forces against her that made her defeat inevitable. Yet defeating the Russians was not nearly so easy as the British and French, in unaccustomed alliance, assumed it would be. Their armies and navies, like those of the US, were dominated by veterans of the Napoleonic period [Raglan, such a veteran, now quite senile, kept calling the Russians “French”], men hostile to change, wedded to bureaucracy and red tape, and made hesitant by age….”

op. cit., p. 233.

Field Marshal FitzRoy James Henry Somerset, 1st Baron Raglan, GCB, PC (1788 – 2 1855)

lost his right arm at Waterloo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Grand_Cross_of_the_Order_of_the_Bath

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…by age. The British army was further hampered by the system of buying and selling commissions.In the 1850’s whole regiments had become the playthings of spoiled sons of the aristocracy.4….”

op. cit., pp. 233-234.

______ 4 The system of commission by purchase grew out of the English Civil War (1642-60) , to assure that the army would never again fall into the hands of men hostile to the wealthy aristocracy, which supported the Crown.


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“… the aristocracy.4 “The title Crimean War obscures the fact that initially both Britain and France expected to make their main naval attack on Russia via the Baltic Sea.• There in the summer of 1854 a major British fleet under VAdm Sir • Charles Napier joined a powerful French fleet under VAdm Parseval Deschênes.• In the face of such overwhelming force, the Russian Baltic fleet prudently remained in port. Napier and Deschênes, lacking specific orders covering such a situation, considered destroying shore installations at the principal Russian ports on the Gulf of Finland. When reconnaissance showed these to be impregnable, the combined fleet, in joint ops with 10,000 troops sent from France, seized the Aland Islands controlling the Gulf of Bothnia.• With the approach of winter, and the possibility that the Russians might march over the ice and retake the islands, the allied fleet withdrew from the Baltic….”

op. cit., pp. 233-234.


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…the Baltic. Though these inconclusive ops aroused public outcries in both Britain and France, the expedition at least served to hold Russian troops away from the decisive theater in the Crimea. In 1855 an allied fleet of steamers went to the Baltic and won a propaganda victory of sorts by bombarding the fortifications of Helsingfors (Helsinki), but for want of a landing force the expedition could not exploit its success and so, like its predecessor, came home empty-handed….”

op. cit., p. 234.


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…empty-handed. “Meanwhile in the late spring of 1854 another allied fleet, by landing 60,000 troops at Varna • on the Black Sea, had taken the pressure off the Turkish army and induced the Russians to retreat across the Danube.• The British and French commanders, casting about for something to do next, concluded that if they could transport their troops across to the Crimean Peninsula and seize the big Russian naval base of Sevastopol from its 45,000 defenders, they would avenge Sinope, humiliate Russia, and bring the war to a close before winter. The summer passed however before the commanders could concert their plans and obtain agreement from London and Paris….”

op. cit., p. 234.


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…and Paris. “The passage from Varna to the Crimea was unopposed, the heavily outnumbered Russian Black Sea fleet choosing to remain at Sevastopol. The Russian reticence was fortunate for the allies because the French warships were so crowded with troops that they could hardly have fired a shot in self-defense. En route it became apparent that the allied commanders had not reached a meeting of the minds after all. VAdm Sir James Dundas RN, in command of the naval expedition, had recommended going ashore just N of Sevastopol. But by the time the French leaders reached the Crimea, they had decided that landing so near the enemy’s base would be rash. Hence, while the fleets idled at anchor, the commanders cruised up and down the Crimean coast threshing out the matter afresh….”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…matter afresh. At length, after much study of the shoreline and of maps of uncertain accuracy, they agreed on a stretch of beach 27 miles N of Sevastopol. Although the terrain surrounding the selected landing point was flat and hence favorable to advance, the beachhead proved a logistic nightmare. There was little or nothing to forage in the area, and except for a single spring all available water was salt or brackish. Because there was no harbor at or near the invasion beach it could not possibly serve as a base of ops. “The actual landings, on an operational level, were smoothly carried out. To counter opposition, which never appeared, the French drew up a line of rocket-firing boats. To bring artillery ashore they used specially- constructed landing craft,…”


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…landing craft, and the British did almost as well with small steam paddle launches and decked-over pairs of boats. Yet the dilatoriness and indecision that had hampered the expedition from the beginning was nowhere so apparent as at the beachhead, where of all places movement should be well planned, swift and decisive. Merely getting the men and their equipment ashore took from 14-18 Sept, and the British troops waited through rain and blazing sun for nearly three days before their tents were disembarked. Lacking adequate medical facilities, hundreds of men died of cholera and dysentery. The fault again was non planning rather than execution—materials moved back and forth between fleet and shore, while the commanders tried to make up their minds just what equipment the troops really needed.…”

op. cit., pp. 234-235.

Battleof theAlma


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…really needed. “When at last on the 19th the expedition got moving toward Sevastopol, the Russian defenders had interposed themselves on the Alma River.…”

op. cit., p. 235.

The Allied staff at the Alma crossing. Here is where Raglan calls the Russian enemy “the French” in the

presence of his French allies, who were not impressed

“…Alma River. Here the allied infantry, displaying an élan and verve little merited by their incompetent leaders, stormed the heights thought impregnable and hurled the Russians back to the city.…”


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“… the city. Then, true to form, the high command paused overlong to decide what to do next. Taking advantage of their hesitation, Prince Menchikov, commanding the defenses of Sevastopol, scuttled a row of warships, including five of the line, across the mouth of the long, narrow harbor N of the city.• Then, leaving Sevastopol garrisoned by the sailors from the sunken vessels, he withdrew his army to the NE, hoping to take the invaders from the rear. “With Sevastopol harbor blocked against British and French warships, an allied attack from the N had become too risky. Lord Raglan, commanding the British army, and Gen Canrobert, commanding the French, therefore marched their forces around to the S side of the city. This was a move long contemplated. Indeed, had not the beaches here been narrow and backed by steep hills, the Allies would have landed S of Sevastopol in the first place. In this area there were harbors, none too good, but capable in a pinch of serving as logistic bases.…”

op. cit., p. 235.

French base

British base


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…logistic bases. The British established their supply base on a narrow inlet at Balaclava;• the French, on two open bays on the W coast.• “While the allied leaders paused again, Menchikov brought his army back and locked the invaders in position by occupying the heights to the E,• on the British right flank. Inside Sevastopol engineers, sailors, and civilians, including women, rapidly repaired neglected fortifications on the S side of the city.…”

Magnificent panorama painting of the siege of Sevastopol by Franz Alexeevich Roubaud. Unveiled, 1905; damaged during the Nazi siege of 1942; restored in the 1950s.


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…harm’s way. “The failure to assault when assault was relatively easy turned the op against Sevastopol into a siege and doomed the British and French to spend the winter in the Crimea. Before cold weather set in, the Russians under Menchikov,• heavily reinforced, struck first toward Balaclava,…”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…toward Balaclava, eliciting the magnificent but futile charge of the British Light Cavalry Brigade.…”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…Cavalry Brigade. Then they attacked farther to the N, but were repulsed by the Allies in the Battle of Inkerman.…”


1815-1860

Ibid.


“…of Inkerman. A severe storm in Nov tremendously complicated the allied supply problem by wrecking 21 store ships, including one laden with winter clothing. The result of this gale, plus defective logistic planning, made the winter of 1854-55 one of abject misery for the invaders.…”

HUTS AND WARM CLOTHING FOR THE ARMY

“…they settled in for a siege. This was to last throughout the winter and to be immortalized through the reports of the world’s first war correspondent,• William Howard Russell of The Times of London as an epitome of medical and logistical incompetence.…”

op. cit. p. 19.


“…they settled in for a siege. This was to last throughout the winter and to be immortalized through the reports of the world’s first war correspondent, William Howard Russell of The Times of London as an epitome of medical and logistical incompetence. “The shortcomings of the British army were in a sense, as Paul Kennedy has pointed out, consequences of the country’s unique strengths of small government, reliance on a dominant navy and suspicion of a standing army at home as a danger to individual liberty.6 They were also caused by the closed, club-like—or amateur—oligarchy of army officers and the strict economy applied to government spending in the belief that the country’s real strength lay in expanding trade and industry and that this was best achieved in Adam Smith’s terms by allowing individuals maximum use of their own income and savings unrestrained by taxes or official interference. The resultant striving for economy had seen the departments responsible for the provisioning and health of the British army cut to mere skeletons.”

op. cit. p. 19.


______ 6 Paul Kennedy , The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers; Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, Unwin Hyman, 1988. p 226.


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…the invaders. “Sevastopol fell at last on 9 Sept 1855, a year almost to the day after the initial landings in the Crimea…. op. cit., pp. 235-236.


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…to Kinburn. Here at the end of a long spit of land three forts guarded the entrance to an estuary into which flowed the Bug, the Ingul, and the Dnieper rivers.• Capture of the Kinburn forts would permit the allies to close all three rivers, thereby cutting off from the Black Sea the naval base and arsenal at Nicolayev and the rich commercial city of Kherson.….

op. cit., pp. 235-236.

Three FrenchIronclads


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…of Kherson. In mid-Oct the expeditionary force isolated the forts by landing troops on the spit above them.• Two days later the Russian garrisons surrendered after a bombardment from land and sea. “Chiefly responsible for this quick victory were three ungainly little armored floating batteries, the Tonnante, the Dévastation, and the Lave. Hurriedly built by the French in reaction to the Battle of Sinope, they were the world’s first ironclads to go into action. With sufficient steam power for maneuvering, but …”not for cruising, they had 17-inch-thick wooden hulls covered above the water line with 4 ½-inch-thick iron plates.• As they battered the forts from a range of less than a thousand yards, solid shot merely bounced off their plates, and shells burst on impact, doing no damage at all.• The fall of Kinburn had little effect on the outcome of the war, but the bombardment of the forts, viewed by officers of several nations, ushered in the age of naval armor….

op. cit., pp. 235-236.

Bombardment of the Kinburn Fort


1815-1860The Crimean War, 1854-1856

“…naval armor. “The story of the Crimean War is one of tragic frustration. The Russians, constrained at last to capitulate, were obliged to leave Sevastopol dismantled, yet they received credit for an effective defense. The Allies won the war but lost their military reputations. Luckily for the Allies, the hesitation, poor planning, and lack of coordination that handicapped their armies in nearly every op were less evident in the British and French fleets. For without naval command of the Black Sea, the allied armies could not have expelled the Russians from the Balkans, crossed to the Crimea, or maintained the siege of Sevastopol.

op. cit., p. 236.

New Technology“The USS Princeton disaster of 1844 occurred …aboard the newly built [steam frigate] when one of the…guns, the "Peacemaker", then the world's longest naval gun, exploded during a display of the ship. Twenty people were injured and six people died. President Tyler survived…because he was below decks. [His SecNav and State were not so lucky]” —Wikipedia

Currier and Ives lithograph, 1844


1815-1860

Ibid.

Undersea Warfare

“We have already noted the appearance of some of the technological innovations that in the 19th century revolutionized the navies of the world. One area of development, undersea warfare, has thus far not been mentioned because it made little impact in the period 1815-60 now under consideration. Yet as early as the American Revolution,• David Bushnell, a Connecticut Yankee, had invented a practical marine mine and a practical submarine.…


1815-1860

Ibid.

Undersea Warfare

“…practical submarine…. “During the War of the French Revolution, the American marine engineer • Robert Fulton [America’s minister to France] obtained the backing of Bonaparte, First Consul…. For Napoleon, Fulton in 1801 built the Nautilus,• a fish-shaped, four-man submarine with horizontal diving rudders and a sail for surface cruising…. “For William Pitt’s government, to which he now [1803] turned, Fulton devised a system of using small surface craft to attach clockwork mines to the anchor cables of moored ships. Five such craft attacked the invasion flotilla at Boulogne in Oct 1805 and sank a pinnace, but the British naval victory at Trafalgar, coming a few days later, caused the Admiralty to abandon experiments in undersea warfare, which it never liked anyway….


1815-1860Undersea Warfare

“…liked anyway. ‘Pitt was the greatest fool that ever existed,’ grumbled Lord St Vincent, ‘to encourage a mode of war which they who command the sea do not want and which if successful would deprive them of it.6 “After 1805 the British and French had little to do with undersea warfare, calling it barbarous and recognizing it as contrary to their interests. The Americans however in the War of 1812 made ingenious if not particularly successful experiments with mines. The Russians too used mines in the Crimean War, with indifferent success to defend their Baltic harbors. But little real progress in mine warfare was made until the American Civil War [Farragut’s “Damn the torpedoes!”] The development of the sea-going submarine had to await the eve of WW I.

op. cit., pp. 236-237.

______ 6 Quoted in Farnham Bishop, The Story of the Submarine (NY, 1916), 33.

Steam Propulsion

“Naval officers were generally receptive to the idea of steam propulsion for fleets.• Lord Nelson was one among many who, after unhappy experiences with calms and contrary winds, advocated naval experiments along this line. Yet nearly 40 years elapsed between the appearance of Fulton’s commercially successful steamboat Clermont on the Hudson in 1807 and the widespread adoption of steam by the major navies.7…”

7 Fulton’s main contribution to the development of the steamboat, besides demonstrating that it could be made to pay dividends to investors, was his adaptation of the side paddle wheel.


1815-1860

“…major navies. “The reasons for the long delay were many, and not the least was the huge investment in sailing ships that the navies had made during the Napoleonic Wars. Even more valid was the argument that steam in the early 19th century was even less efficient than sail propulsion. Early engines were liable to breakdowns that could be fatal in action. The use of steam drastically cut down a ship’s cruising radius. Whereas a sailing vessel, once laden with stores, could go thousands of miles without touching port, an early steamer would burn up all her fuel in less than a hundred [hence the awkward sail/steam designs]. Moreover the paddle wheels masked as much as a third of the broadside, and while the superior mobility of the steamer was certainly an advantage in battle, one lucky shot could disable her paddle wheel or engines and leave her outsailed and outgunned. Hence naval officers preferred to let commercial vessels make the first, costly trial-and-error experiments that would at length produce dependable, high-speed steam engines that were economical of fuel….

Steam Propulsion

op. cit., pp. 237-238.


1815-1860

“… of fuel…. “At length, in 1837 the USN launched its second steam-driven man-of-war, the Fulton II.•… Her most important service…was interesting her captain, Matthew Calbraith Perry,• in the possibilities of the steam warship. Partly through his influence, the USN in 1842 took a strong, if temporary, lead over the rest of the world’s navies by launching the 3,200-ton side-wheelers Mississippi and Missouri.”

Steam Propulsion

op. cit., pp. 237-238.


1815-1860

“The widespread reluctance to adopt steam propulsion for combat vessels was eventually overcome by the development of a really practical screw propellor….”

op. cit., p. 238.

The Screw Propellor


1815-1860

“…screw propellor. This was achieved…in England by John Ericsson•….but the British Admiralty could not at first be convinced….Ericsson was easily persuaded by Capt Robert Stockton USN• to come to the US….Stockton…got the Navy in 1842 to authorize the building of a screw steamer to Ericsson’s specs….Princeton•…the first warship to have all her machinery below the water line and thus out of reach of shot….”

op. cit., p. 238.

The Screw Propellor


1815-1860

“…of shot. “The RN…launched the screw-sloop Rattler shortly after….Rattler, by triumphing over a paddle-wheeler of the same horsepower in a tug-of-war and several speed trials, firmly established screw propulsion….”

op. cit., p. 238.

The Screw Propellor


1815-1860

“…screw propulsion…. In 1850 France launched her first screw battleship [“originally to be named Prince de Joinville, in honour of François d'Orléans, Prince of Joinville, but was renamed 24 Février during the French Second Republic to celebrate the abdication of Louis Philippe I, and later to Napoléon in May 1850, a few days after her launch.—pc in 1850]….” op. cit., p. 238.

The Screw Propellor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_d%27Orl%C3%A9ans,_Prince_of_Joinville

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Second_Republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Second_Republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Philippe_I


1815-1860

“…in 1850]. Two years later Britain followed suit with the Agamemnon….”op. cit., p. 238.

The Screw Propellor


1815-1860

“…the Agamemnon. In the mid-1850s the US began launching the Merrimac class of fast steam frigates that were to play an important part in the…Civil War….”

op. cit., p. 238.

The Screw Propellor


1815-1860

Ibid.

“…Civil War. “By 1860, largely because of the lessons of the Crimean War and the steady progress of steam engineering, the navies of Britain, France and the US had come to regard warships without steam power as already obsolescent. But while floating batteries, coast defense vessels and river boats might be powered by steam alone, steam continued for many years to be used as merely auxiliary to sail in seagoing ships. Not until the 20th century were sails everywhere entirely removed from warships.

The Screw Propellor


1815-1860

Ibid.

“…from warships.

The Screw Propellor

The Iron Hull

“In the first Opium War the British EIC used a pair of iron-hulled steam gunboats • built by the famous English ship building firm of William Laird & Sons. As relations became strained between the US and Mexico in the early ‘40s, the Mexican government ordered from the Lairds two iron-hulled frigates….But just when it appeared that iron was about to be universally adopted for naval hulls, a series of tests convinced the British Admiralty that iron, in its current state of metallurgical development, was even more vulnerable than oak….”


1815-1860

“…than oak. The RN thereupon converted its new iron frigates into troop transports, and iron construction of naval vessels was virtually abandoned for several years. No iron ships fought in the Crimean War. “Britain was spurred into resumption of iron construction by the appearance in 1859 of the 5,600-ton French frigate Gloire,• a wooden ship armored with 4¾ inches of iron plates”

op. cit., pp. 238-239.

The Iron Hull


1815-1860

“…iron plates. The RN countered by contracting for an armored battleship, HMS Warrior.• The Warrior, launched in 1860, was 380 feet long, displaced 9,000 tons, and had a 4½ - inch armor belt backed with 18 inches of teak. To wooden hull could have stood the strain of such length or carried the weight of her armor, her necessarily powerful engines, and her 40 guns, all immensely heavier than any regularly used afloat in the age of sail. Recognizing this, her architects had made her hull completely of iron. “The launching of the Warrior ended the era of wooden warships. There remained of course numerous veterans of earlier years that were to see some service. Wooden steam sloops and frigates, for example, were to play a major role in the impending American Civil War. But after 1860 Britain built warships only of iron or, later, steel. And though there was some backtracking in other navies, all eventually followed Britain’s example.”

op. cit., pp. 238-239.

The Iron Hull


1815-1860

“The idea of so strengthening the decks or sides of a ship as to make her invulnerable to enemy shot is almost as old as the naval gun. In 1592 the Koreans under Adm Yi Sun Sin defeated a Japanese [invasion] fleet by using a galley[six gallies] with an iron plated turtleback deck….”

op. cit., p. 239.

Armor


1815-1860

“…turtleback deck. The French in their siege of Gibraltar in 1782 used floating batteries protected with sloping casemates of five-foot-thick timbers….”

op. cit., p. 239.

Armor

French “woodenclads” in 1782!


1815-1860

“…five-foot-thick timbers. Fulton’s thick-sided Demologos was in a sense the first steam armorclad….” op. cit., p. 239.

Armor


1815-1860

“…steam armorclad. “The 19th century term ironclad referred to a warship whose hull, whether of wood or iron, was armored with thick plates of iron. The first vessel to fit this description was the USN’s Stevens Battery of 1843. In early tests her four to six inches of iron armor resisted the fire of the heaviest naval ordnance, but before she was completed the versatile • Ericsson had invented a gun that could easily pierce plates of that thickness. Plans were made to install heavier armor, but before the plans could be carried out, still more powerful ordnance was available, and completion of the battery was indefinitely suspended. “The experience of the Stevens Battery foreshadowed a race of several decades between protection and penetration….By mid-century guns were in the ascendant, and both armor and iron hulls were in disfavor. then came the shock of the Battle of Sinope….”

op. cit., p. 239.

Armor


1815-1860

“…of Sinope. Evidently wooden hulls—or for that matter unarmored iron hulls—simply could not stand up to the newest shell guns. The French navy reacted by ordering five ironclads, the first ever to be completed. Britain built four more in time to participate in the concluding campaigns of the Crimean War. The ops of the three new French ironclads…against the Kinburn forts so impressed the British that they ordered four more armored batteries, three with iron hulls. “After the war the French built the Gloire,• the first seagoing ironclad. Britain, as we have seen, replied with Warrior,• the first iron-hulled, iron clad steam-driven battleship. For all their defensive strength, the Gloire and the Warrior were vulnerable the day they were launched,• for ordnance capable of penetrating their plates had been developed. This was but another stage in the long race between offense and defence. As guns became more and more powerful, iron armor increased in thickness to 8, 12, 14, and 24 inches. Then, when progress in the science of metallurgy permitted, these super-thick plates were replaced by steel of increasing hardness.”

Armor

Ibid.


1815-1860

“At the end of the Napoleonic Wars naval guns were little different in construction and performance than those used in the Spanish Armada campaign.• There had been some improvements in loading and aiming, and better carriages had been devised, but the gun itself was still the cast iron, smoothbore, solid-shot-firing muzzleloader used of old. Ranges were about the same….Attempts at improving accuracy were largely nullified…solid shot was only roughly spherical….the ball went bouncing along the sides of the barrel to emerge at unpredictable angles.…”

op. cit., pp. 239-240.

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

“…unpredictable angles. The carronade, with even shorter ranges and less accuracy than the long gun, was widely used in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, but was discredited in the War of 1812, when both…learned to stand off beyond carronade range and batter enemy vessels with their long guns. Thus in 1815 warships found themselves armed much as they had been for the past two centuries. “The introduction of the paddlewheel, by cutting down the number of guns a vessel could carry, stimulated experiments toward developing more effective gunfire with fewer guns.”

op. cit., pp. 239-240.

Heavy Ordnance

(1)

(5)(4)

(3)(2)


1815-1860

“…for use. “During the War of 1812 Maj George Bomford USA had attacked the problem of providing bigger guns by inventing the Columbiad,• a compromise in weight, length and diameter of bore between the long gun and the carronade. Experiments after 1815…were directed chiefly to strengthening gun barrels to enable them to fire heavier projectiles with heavier charges without bursting….”

op. cit., p. 240.

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

“…without bursting. “In the early ‘40s Ericsson developed a stronger gun barrel by shifting from brittle cast iron to wrought iron. His 12-inch gun Oregon installed aboard USS Princeton, was apparently a complete success.• But Capt. Stockton put an end to this line of experiment when, without a tenth of Ericsson’s knowledge of metals, he designed a deceptively similar gun, the Peacemaker, which he also installed in the Princeton….”

op. cit., p. 240.

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

“…the Princeton…. The USN thereupon barred further use of wrought-iron guns, and ordnance experts everywhere viewed them with suspicion. “Capt Thomas Rodman of the US Army tackled the problem from a different angle. Using Bomford’s Columbiad as his basic gun type,…”

op. cit., p. 240.

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

“…gun type, he cast it hollow around a sand core and then cooled the interior first, so that the outer metal shrank gradually onto the hardened inner core.• To take the strain off the barrel, he developed a slow-burning powder….”

op. cit., p. 240.

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

Ibid.

“…slow-burning powder. Compressed into solid cakes, with holes to regulate the burning speed, it produced much lower gun pressures than the prevailing fine-grained, fast-burning powder….”

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

Ibid.

“…fast-burning powder. “During the early 1850’s Cdr John A. Dahlgren, USN improved upon Rodman’s work by discarding the Columbiad as his basic gun and developing a smoothbore gun of a new shape….”

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

Ibid.

“…new shape….Built to offset his derived ‘curve of pressures,’ Dahlgren’s guns were very thick at the breech with considerable taper toward the muzzle.• An obvious improvement…the Dahlgren gun was quickly adopted by the USN.….”

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

Ibid.

“…the USN. “Ironically, the Dahlgren, though widely used for a quarter century, was outmoded at last by a principle of gun construction…recommended by Capt de Thiery of the French army back in the 1830s. De Thiery suggested making gun barrels of two concentric tubes, the inner of cast iron, the outer of wrought iron. The outer tube was to be slipped over the inner while glowing hot and left to shrink firmly into position. This…is the principle of the built-up gun, which proved the ultimate solution for strengthening gun barrels. The USN had ordered a few guns built on the Thiery plan but refused to use them when the Princeton explosion made wrought-iron ordnance temporarily unacceptable….”

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

Ibid.

“…temporari ly unacceptable . Thereafter for 15 years the built-up gun was neglected until the RN, alarmed at the building of the Gloire, reappraised available ordnance and began ordering them in quantity. The Admiralty’s choice was the British-designed Armstrong gun.…”

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

Ibid.

“…Armstrong gun. Its inner barrel was a wrought iron bar, coiled and welded into tubular form.• Thus the metal received the stresses of firing along its length instead of across its width.• But even the Armstrong gun was on its way to obsolescence, for in Prussia the Krupp works had begun producing guns of steel.”

Heavy Ordnance


1815-1860

”Explosive-filled projectiles, called bombs, shells, or grenades, are almost as old as the gun. For centuries they were used mainly in attacking fortifications, into which they were lobbed by mortars. Fleets operating against shore installations used…• bomb-ketches for this work….”

op. cit., pp. 240-241.

Shells, Shell Guns, and Rifling


1815-1860

“…this work. Around 1700 armies began using howitzers to fire fused shells with a flatter trajectory directly at the target. Naval officers early recognized the advantage of shellfire, but they long considered shells too dangerous to carry in the main fleet, and those that could be fired by standard 24- and 32-pounder guns were too small to be very effective. The carronade with its light charge and large bore was well adapted to shell, but gunners found its heavy shot so useful for splintering wooden hulls that they neglected its possibilities as a shell gun. “After the Napoleonic Wars the problem of naval shellfire came under study by a visionary French artillery officer,• Henri-Joseph Paixhans [French

pronunciation: [pɛksɑ̃]],...”op. cit., pp. 240-241.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_French


1815-1860

“…[French pronunciation: [pɛksɑ̃]], who saw in the combination of shell gun and paddle-wheeler a means of wresting command of the sea from the RN. He designed a shell gun, shorter, lighter using smaller charges than guns of the same caliber designed for solid shot, and in 1824 demonstrated its potentiality by splintering an old two-decker….”

op. cit., pp. 240-241.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_French


1815-1860

“…old two-decker. Though both the French and British navies adopted the Paixhans guns • in the late 1830s, it was regarded as a special-purpose weapon, secondary to solid-shot ordnance. It required the annihilation of the Turkish fleet at Sinope in 1853 to convince everyone in naval circles that the shell for offense, as well as iron hulls and armor for defense, had come to stay. “Until the middle of the 19th century, shells as well as solid shot were spherical. The fuse was a hollow cylinder filled with hardened gunpowder. Cut to burn for a period of time roughly corresponding to the range of the target, the fuse was pounded or screwed into a hole in the shell until the after end was flush with the outer surface. The shell was then inserted through the muzzle into the barrel of the gun,…”


op. cit., p. 241.


1815-1860

“…the gun, where it was held in place, fuze pointed outward, by a collar called a sabot.•When the gun was fired, the flames flashed around the shell and ignited the fuse as the projectile passed along the barrel.• “Understandably, such time-fused shells tended to explode too soon or too late. The alternative was the percussion fuse, to set off the explosion on contact, but the projectile would have to strike fuse-first, and that was impossible to control with spherical shells….”


op. cit., p. 241.


1815-1860

Ibid.

“…spherical shells. An elongated shell tended to tumble end-over-end—unless it were made to rotate on its long axis. Such rotation could be imparted by rifling the gun barrels as makers of small arms had long since demonstrated. for the rifling to be effective the shell would have to fit snugly in the barrel, thereby building up the pressures that could burst contemporary ordnance…. “The built-up Armstrong was the first gun in general use that could safely withstand the pressures produced by rifling. It fired elongated projectiles coated with lead that engaged the rifling on firing…and it was breech-loading….Adopted by the British armed forces in 1859, the Armstrong gun revolutionized the science of gunnery.…”



1815-1860

Ibid.

“…of gunnery. “The USN long resisted the trend toward rifling. Throughout the Civil War and for 20 years thereafter, the smoothbore Dahlgren was standard on American naval vessels. There were good reasons. Dahlgrens, with their round shot and heavy charges were better at penetrating armor than contemporary guns using smaller caliber elongated projectiles. The greater range conferred by rifling was considered a standing temptation to shoot off one’s ammunition before closing with the enemy. American naval officers were confirmed in their prejudice by their experience with the Parrott gun.• This was merely a rifled Rodman with a heavy wrought-iron band shrunk around the breech. Lacking reinforcement along the whole length of its barrel, the Parrott had a notorious tendency to blow off its own muzzle.”



1815-1860

“The first completed turret ship was Ericsson’s Monitor, which fought the Virginia in the Battle of Hampton Roads in 1862.• The idea of a revolving turret however was not new. It had long before been tried ashore and suggested for use at sea…In 1859 a British naval officer, Capt Cowper Coles,• patented drawings and specifications for a turret with a revolving hemispheric shield and interested the British Admiralty in his design. Experimental models were built and tested with such complete success that the Admiralty ordered the construction of a mastless ironclad, HMS Prince Albert, mounting 12 guns in six of Coles’ cupolas. Before construction got underway, news arrived in England of the Battle of Hampton Roads. Ericsson was thus recognized as the first to get an armored turret into operation….”

op. cit., pp. 241-242.

The Turret

AdaptationsGeorge Bancroft, President Polk’s Secretary of the Navy Mar 45- 46. During this brief period he established the US Naval Academy at Annapolis—jbp

John Plumbe, photographer. 1846 National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution


1815-1860

“The advent of steam propulsion stimulated naval theorists into extensive and sometimes far-fetched speculation about its impact on tactics. As seamen of the last days of sailing ship warfare had largely abandoned the conterminous line, certain early steam tacticians advocated abandoning the line altogether. The simple column had been imposed upon earlier navies by the difficulties of keeping station under sail, but with the advent of steam, so the theorists believed, there was no longer any limit to maneuver—any sort of formation had become possible. What was needed, said they, was a formation that provided defense in depth, that permitted massing of gunfire for close mutual support, that uncovered bows and sterns so as to permit fore-and-aft fire and the ready use of rams, and that avoided fouling of screws by lines, spars, and sails shot away from ships ahead. An early solution, providing only a partial answer, was the indented line—a double column, with vessels staggered so as to cover the distances between ships in the adjacent column. More favored was the echelon formation. Most favored was the double echelon or inverted V formation, with ships in two lines of bearing led by the flagship at the apex.This last was to have a trial in battle before navies reverted to the single column as best of all.”

Tactical Theory

op. cit., p. 242.


1815-1860

Ibid.

“It was early evident that the naval organization of the age of sail was inadequate to deal with the problems posed by the new technology. To meet the challenge, the leading navies made major changes in administration and command. Because the period was one of comparative peace, the emphasis everywhere was on logistics; little was done to improve overall operational command. Changes in the navies of Britain and the US illustrate the trend. “The British Admiralty was completely reorganized in 1832, when Sir James Graham, then First Lord, broke up and redistributed the top administrative commands. In the new set-up, five Sea Lords, all officers, reported to him directly in the Board of Admiralty. Each of the Sea Lords superintended the work of one of the five Civil Departments of the Admiralty.Each department was headed by an executive officer who reported to the cognizant Sea Lord. The executive officers bore the titles Surveyor of the Navy, in charge of materials and design; Accountant General, or treasurer; Storekeeper General; Controller of Victualing; and Physician General. Ten years later the USN replaced the Board of Navy Commissioners with a similar departmental system, which was even more closely adapted to the navy of iron and steam….”

Administrative Changes inResponse to the New Technology


1815-1860

“…and steam. The organization set up in 1842 provided for five bureaus, each headed by an officer: Yards and Docks; Ordnance and Hydrography; Construction, Equipment, and Repair; Provisions and Clothing; and Medicine and Surgery. “The only means of coordinating the new departments or bureaus was, in the RN, through the First Lord of the Admiralty; in the USN, through the SecNav. Both were political appointees and members of the cabinet. In the US the Secretary has traditionally been a civilian. Since the incumbency of Lord Barham in Trafalgar days, this has been true also of the First Lord, though a few retired officers have held the position. Neither navy had an officer in over-all command of ops, and the British Sea Lords and the American Bureau Chiefs were too involved in logistics to advise the civilian head of the navy on the conduct of war.Except for certain temporary, make-shift arrangements this was the situation until after the end of the century. “On the operational level, changes were equally necessary to meet the new challenge. Hence in 1837 the Engineer Officer appeared in both the RN and the USN. [Much as previous warships employed Sailing Masters to free captains for war fighting duties.]….”

op. cit., pp. 242-243.



1815-1860

“…fighting duties.] But there was a difference. In the USN the Engineer was from the beginning a commissioned officer. In the RN aristocratic tradition, which put the warrior on a higher plane than the ship handler, kept the Engineer in the status of warrant officer for ten years. When in 1847 senior British engineers received commissions, they assumed the curious title Inspector of Machinery Afloat.

“The years 1815-60 were a period of minor military ops. The American and British navies, to be sure, humbled Algiers. British and French fleet units were involved in imperialistic wars against China. The US Pacific and Home Squadrons participated in the Mexican War of 1846-48. The RN and the French Marine operated in both the Baltic and the Black Sea during the Crimean War of 1854-56. None of these however were major wars, and none produced fleet battles at sea. “The period nonetheless was momentous in naval history….”

Summary

op. cit., p. 243.



1815-1860

“…naval history. After 2,000 years of oar propulsion and 300 years of sail propulsion, the navies of the world now made their third great shift to steam propulsion. at the same time they began adopting armor; the iron hull; rifled built-up guns; and the percussion-fused shell. The world’s armies, while not so completely revolutionized by the new technology, also found themselves with an arsenal of new weapons.…”

Summary

Ibid.


1815-1860

“…new weapons. “No one doubted that the technological changes would have a great impact upon the nature of warfare. Armchair tacticians filled the military journals with their theories. But in 1860,• when HMS Warrior was launched, few of the new weapons and few of the new theories had been put to the test of combat. Hence the outbreak of civil war in the US the following year drew the prompt attention of military thinkers all over the world. As the war developed into a major conflict, various governments sent observers to report on how the new weapons performed undef fire. The American Civil War thus became, among other things, a testing ground for the new military technology.”

Summary

Ibid.

But that’s another story…

To be continued

Date post:	23-Jan-2018
Category:	Education
Upload:	jim-powers
View:	128 times
Download:	0 times

Sp 3 sess. 4 usn transition

Education