Re: More On Mississippi Rate-of-Flow &c in 1863
- --- In email@example.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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