Re: [civilwarwest] Re: More On Mississippi Rate-of-Flow &c in 1863
- 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
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...>
> --- In email@example.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
> > 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
> > 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
> Mississippi River during the Civil War. I have trouble acceptingfrom
> this because of reports that these vessels moved back and forth
> Memphis to just above Vicksburg.I seem to recall Porter telling Grant that the trip downstream would
> However, I suppose it's possible the Union Navy could have been
> towing these vessels back upstream.
be one-way past Vicksburg.
Of course, the CSA batteries may have had something to do with that
- 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
- 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
> Part of the reason Farragut couldn't take Vicksburg (aside fromfalling water
> levels) would have been the difficulty of holding and maneuveringagainst the