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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.