Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: More On Mississippi Rate-of-Flow &c in 1863

Expand Messages
  • Tony Gunter
    ... effect of the ... is roughly ... channel ... slower water. ... the Alleghenies to ... Memphis ... character in the ... not enough to ... What this suggests
    Message 1 of 30 , Nov 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@... wrote:
      >
      > In a message dated 10/31/2006 3:56:45 PM Central Standard Time,
      > nickrelee@... writes:
      > would think though that the upriver dams probably evens out the
      effect of the
      > levees forcing into into a channel. I would guess that the river
      is roughly
      > the same as it once was, but I could be worng.
      > And you could be right. Levee's control high water and promote
      channel
      > maintenance -- faster flow. Dam's even out the seasonal flow --
      slower water.
      > Keeping in mind that the Mississippi drains an enormous area from
      the Alleghenies to
      > the Rockies, what happens upstream dictates the river condition at
      Memphis
      > and Vicksburg. The river may have borne a totally different
      character in the
      > spring of '62 than it did in '63, but it remains that 8 knots is
      not enough to
      > beat upstream and maneuver.

      What this suggests is that the city class ironclads of the Union
      Navy, with a top speed of 6 knots, could not navigate upstream on the
      Mississippi River during the Civil War. I have trouble accepting
      this because of reports that these vessels moved back and forth from
      Memphis to just above Vicksburg.

      However, I suppose it's possible the Union Navy could have been
      towing these vessels back upstream.
    • keeno2@aol.com
      In a message dated 11/1/2006 8:46:30 AM Central Standard Time, tony_gunter@yahoo.com writes: However, I suppose it s possible the Union Navy could have been
      Message 2 of 30 , Nov 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 11/1/2006 8:46:30 AM Central Standard Time, tony_gunter@... writes:
        However, I suppose it's possible the Union Navy could have been towing these vessels back upstream.
        Anything is possible. Are you sure the city class could do only 6 knots? Sounds pretty sloy for a vessel designed for river duty.
         
        At any rate, upstream travel was possible but would have been painfully slow. Part of the reason Farragut couldn't take Vicksburg (aside from falling water levels) would have been the difficulty of holding and maneuvering against the current.
        Ken
      • hank9174
        ... at ... the ... from ... I seem to recall Porter telling Grant that the trip downstream would be one-way past Vicksburg. Of course, the CSA batteries may
        Message 3 of 30 , Nov 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@ wrote:
          > >
          > > In a message dated 10/31/2006 3:56:45 PM Central Standard Time,
          > > nickrelee@ writes:
          > > would think though that the upriver dams probably evens out the
          > effect of the
          > > levees forcing into into a channel. I would guess that the river
          > is roughly
          > > the same as it once was, but I could be worng.
          > > And you could be right. Levee's control high water and promote
          > channel
          > > maintenance -- faster flow. Dam's even out the seasonal flow --
          > slower water.
          > > Keeping in mind that the Mississippi drains an enormous area from
          > the Alleghenies to
          > > the Rockies, what happens upstream dictates the river condition
          at
          > Memphis
          > > and Vicksburg. The river may have borne a totally different
          > character in the
          > > spring of '62 than it did in '63, but it remains that 8 knots is
          > not enough to
          > > beat upstream and maneuver.
          >
          > What this suggests is that the city class ironclads of the Union
          > Navy, with a top speed of 6 knots, could not navigate upstream on
          the
          > Mississippi River during the Civil War. I have trouble accepting
          > this because of reports that these vessels moved back and forth
          from
          > Memphis to just above Vicksburg.
          >
          > However, I suppose it's possible the Union Navy could have been
          > towing these vessels back upstream.

          I seem to recall Porter telling Grant that the trip downstream would
          be one-way past Vicksburg.

          Of course, the CSA batteries may have had something to do with that
          conclusion...


          HankC
        • Carl Williams
          Hank, for sure, Porter was referring to the batteries... it would have been suicidal for the transports to try to go back, and basically he told Grant to *be
          Message 4 of 30 , Nov 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hank, for sure, Porter was referring to the batteries... it would have
            been suicidal for the transports to try to go back, and basically he
            told Grant to "*be sure* this is what you want to do" [paraphrasing].
            Really points out what a disaster a Grant failure would have been.

            >
            > I seem to recall Porter telling Grant that the trip downstream would
            > be one-way past Vicksburg.
            >
            > Of course, the CSA batteries may have had something to do with that
            > conclusion...
            >
            >
            > HankC
            >
          • Carl Williams
            This is also why Farragut fizzled at Port Hudson in 1863, getting only his flagship [IIRC]past those batteries in a night run... suffering at least one
            Message 5 of 30 , Nov 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              This is also why Farragut fizzled at Port Hudson in 1863, getting only
              his flagship [IIRC]past those batteries in a night run... suffering at
              least one outright sinking, an ocean-going cruiser at that


              >
              > At any rate, upstream travel was possible but would have been
              painfully slow.
              > Part of the reason Farragut couldn't take Vicksburg (aside from
              falling water
              > levels) would have been the difficulty of holding and maneuvering
              against the
              > current.
              > Ken
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.