ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on May 26, 2021 21:06:47 GMT
Like it says on the tin. I just spent the day yesterday crawling around Fort Knox on the Penobscot River in Maine (if anyone hasn't seen it, it is a gorgeous and beautifully preserved example of American Third System forts). While I was there, I began to wonder, what would US history have looked like had all of the nearly 200 forts, towers, etc been completed? In particular, what would the Civil War have looked like?
As proven multiple times in the War, the Third Systems forts were unable to stop ironclad warships and their walls were very vulnerable to the high velocity guns of the period (Fort Pulaski was forced to surrender after only a 30 min bombardment and Fort Sumter was reduced to nothing but ruble). But each major Fort was expected to mount some 100 guns or more between the casemates in the walls and the outlying batteries. In the South, that could have given the CSA a ton of heavy artillery, gunpowder and shot (the forts were planned to be armed with 32 pounder, 42 pounder or 10" Columbiads depending on the time period).
So what would have happened if all the planned fortifications been completed and armed?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856 
Likes: 13,237
|
Post by stevep on May 27, 2021 13:46:22 GMT
Like it says on the tin. I just spent the day yesterday crawling around Fort Knox on the Penobscot River in Maine (if anyone hasn't seen it, it is a gorgeous and beautifully preserved example of American Third System forts). While I was there, I began to wonder, what would US history have looked like had all of the nearly 200 forts, towers, etc been completed? In particular, what would the Civil War have looked like? As proven multiple times in the War, the Third Systems forts were unable to stop ironclad warships and their walls were very vulnerable to the high velocity guns of the period (Fort Pulaski was forced to surrender after only a 30 min bombardment and Fort Sumter was reduced to nothing but ruble). But each major Fort was expected to mount some 100 guns or more between the casemates in the walls and the outlying batteries. In the South, that could have given the CSA a ton of heavy artillery, gunpowder and shot (the forts were planned to be armed with 32 pounder, 42 pounder or 10" Columbiads depending on the time period). So what would have happened if all the planned fortifications been completed and armed?
I think the key issue would be the 2nd point. Most of the forts that were completed, from what I've read on a USCW site, often had only a relatively few of their total guns. Largely for fiscal reasons as canon are expensive to buy and even more so to maintain and man. If they had been fully equipped then both sides would have have a lot more starting artillery and of course men to operate them. The change might be bias towards the union however as that would make union outposts such as Sumter tougher and you might have seen more such locations having to be attacked, especially since with their greater military value Washington is more likely to oppose them being given up to the rebels. Many in the south might be occupied without resistance but you could see a few others causing some problems before their overwhelmed. As such the south would have more artillery and also men trained in their use but that could be a wasting asset, especially if main sources of production are in the union territory. It could make the war less mobile, at least in the east where the greater concentration of such forts and their artillery would be.
The other issue might be, with a fixed garrison in terms of fort garrisons which might be less easy to move as it would mean leaving most of the artillery behind, is might New Orleans not be left vulnerable to what I think was basically a sudden landing? If the north has to blockade it as well and more importantly could only open the Mississippi from the north that would be a much slower job and that could make a large difference.
|
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on May 27, 2021 16:34:55 GMT
As I understand it, the forts, even when fully armed, usually only had a small caretaker garrison to maintain everything and would only be fully manned during times of war. (For a point of reference, a 10" Colimbiad required an 8 man gun crew, so each large fort would have a roughly 1,000 man garrison at full strength).
So I'm not quite sure how that would play out in the lead up to the Civil War. It could mean more forts remain in Union hands longer, requiring the Confederates to force them out. Or it could mean that they fall quickly and give the South a lot of guns and powder.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,237
|
Post by stevep on May 28, 2021 12:17:59 GMT
As I understand it, the forts, even when fully armed, usually only had a small caretaker garrison to maintain everything and would only be fully manned during times of war. (For a point of reference, a 10" Colimbiad required an 8 man gun crew, so each large fort would have a roughly 1,000 man garrison at full strength). So I'm not quite sure how that would play out in the lead up to the Civil War. It could mean more forts remain in Union hands longer, requiring the Confederates to force them out. Or it could mean that they fall quickly and give the South a lot of guns and powder.
That definitely sounds like a possibility, i.e. more are fully equipped but with only small caretaker garrisons. That would mean that both sides would have a lot more artillery and probably powder, shells etc but would have limited trained men to use them effectively. Actually thinking about it given its longer coastline in the east the south would likely benefit more from this as there would presumably be many more such forts rather than the shorter union coastline. Probably very few along the Pacific coastline and it would take some time to move them to the east coast, which would almost certainly have to be by sea without a trans-continental railway at this stage.
|
|
jjohnson
Chief petty officer
Posts: 144
Likes: 219
|
Post by jjohnson on Jun 3, 2021 21:30:06 GMT
Like it says on the tin. I just spent the day yesterday crawling around Fort Knox on the Penobscot River in Maine (if anyone hasn't seen it, it is a gorgeous and beautifully preserved example of American Third System forts). While I was there, I began to wonder, what would US history have looked like had all of the nearly 200 forts, towers, etc been completed? In particular, what would the Civil War have looked like? As proven multiple times in the War, the Third Systems forts were unable to stop ironclad warships and their walls were very vulnerable to the high velocity guns of the period (Fort Pulaski was forced to surrender after only a 30 min bombardment and Fort Sumter was reduced to nothing but ruble). But each major Fort was expected to mount some 100 guns or more between the casemates in the walls and the outlying batteries. In the South, that could have given the CSA a ton of heavy artillery, gunpowder and shot (the forts were planned to be armed with 32 pounder, 42 pounder or 10" Columbiads depending on the time period). So what would have happened if all the planned fortifications been completed and armed? Cool question. Do you know of a map of where all the forts would have been? Edit: Check this out |
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Jun 3, 2021 23:51:10 GMT
Like it says on the tin. I just spent the day yesterday crawling around Fort Knox on the Penobscot River in Maine (if anyone hasn't seen it, it is a gorgeous and beautifully preserved example of American Third System forts). While I was there, I began to wonder, what would US history have looked like had all of the nearly 200 forts, towers, etc been completed? In particular, what would the Civil War have looked like? As proven multiple times in the War, the Third Systems forts were unable to stop ironclad warships and their walls were very vulnerable to the high velocity guns of the period (Fort Pulaski was forced to surrender after only a 30 min bombardment and Fort Sumter was reduced to nothing but ruble). But each major Fort was expected to mount some 100 guns or more between the casemates in the walls and the outlying batteries. In the South, that could have given the CSA a ton of heavy artillery, gunpowder and shot (the forts were planned to be armed with 32 pounder, 42 pounder or 10" Columbiads depending on the time period). So what would have happened if all the planned fortifications been completed and armed? Cool question. Do you know of a map of where all the forts would have been? Edit: Check this out Those are the ones that were actually built. The original plan called for nearly 200 forts, towers and batteries of various sizes to be constructed along the East, Gulf and West Coasts. |
|
jjohnson
Chief petty officer
Posts: 144
Likes: 219
|
Post by jjohnson on Jun 12, 2021 6:23:50 GMT
Is there a map of the full 200 fort system?
|
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Jun 12, 2021 11:55:46 GMT
Is there a map of the full 200 fort system? I'm sure there is somewhere. But I haven't been able to find one online yet |
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Jul 6, 2021 14:15:45 GMT
Cool question. Do you know of a map of where all the forts would have been? Edit: Check this out
Thanks for that link. Its given me some entertainment whilst I wait for the contractor to show up at the job site. Belushi TD |
|
