American Civil War what if

[Hawe Hawe]

From all those european countries mentioned to me only Great Britain seemed to have rational reasons to intervene in this war actively: Keep or retain influence in North America. They also had the needed infrastructure (navy, ports and canada).
But all others, why should they care for such a bloody war that has been fought for mainly US (and CS) internal interests? Cotton and anti-slavery? No Bismarck no Napoleon III and no Tzar Alexander would have waged an oversea-war for those reasons. And if they did it wouldn't matter, maybe thousand soldiers and some money, but how should these countries ship a big expedition force across the ocean?
You know Galeons have only cargo space of 3? Prussia only has one (under construction, ready in 1865), France three, and from the four russian ones three are stuck at Sevastopol in the Black Sea because they don't have Open Borders with the Ottoman Empire!
Only Great Britain matters in this "what if" discussion.

 

[Adler17]

Prussia's navy was tiny and not able to conduct an oversea expedition. At least without help. The US could have used their ships to make convoys. But the effort would have been much bigger than the gains. The USA had never a man shortage. The alliance would only be interesting in the case of an intervention by France and Britain. Binding their troops in Europe could be decisive. But again also the US would not be able to intervene in Europe after the war with the south was won.
Such a war would only be the first step leading to an even bigger war later.

Adler

 

[rilnator]

But the French and British already had ironclads- the French were the first to field them with the La Gloire in 1859, and the British responded with the HMS Warrior in 1960.
True, the early British Ironclads tended towards traditional broad-side firing designs that would soon be replaced, but, at the time, Britain still fielded a navy which could combat that of the US with relative ease.

The early Ironclads were not very seaworthy and could have had problems making it all the way across the Atlantic.

I don't know what the dockyards in the West Indies or eastern Canada were like at the time but I don't think they could have reached the production level of the North.

 

[Disenfrancised]

The early Ironclads were not very seaworthy and could have had problems making it all the way across the Atlantic.

I don't know what the dockyards in the West Indies or eastern Canada were like at the time but I don't think they could have reached the production level of the North.

i)The British Ironclads (see my post on HMS Warrior) could make it across the Atlantic.
ii)The American shipbuilding industry, whilst unparralleled leader in wooden Sailing ship construction, was really not set up for iron construction, and British (and Canadian shipyards suprisingly) had many times the production capacity and efficency for iron ships.
iii)nearly all American iron plate that was used in shipbuilding was imported from Britain during the mid century, it would take some years and cost to bring native industires online.
iv)Those said native industries were also pretty busy what with the civil war and all.

 

[Traitorfish]

The early Ironclads were not very seaworthy and could have had problems making it all the way across the Atlantic.

Considering that the British Ironclads were adapted from steam-powered ships of the line- the sort that could cross the Pacific with ease- I'm inclined to doubt that assertion.
Besides, you're confusing design intention with technological capabilities- the early US ironclads, such as the USS Monitor, were designed for fighting in rivers or coastal waters, they were never intended as ocean-going ships.

 

[Adler17]

US ironclads were build to fight in the shore waters and unable to move far away from the coast. Some CSA ironclads were able to cross the Atlantic because of being built in France or Britain. Perhaps some later US ironclads could do the same, but I am not sure about this.
Britain and France built so called armoured frigates. These ships were steam engined (although still having sails) and armoured and very well able to cross the Atlantic and also operate on the Atlantic. As example: The German Armoured Squadron, consisting of the French resp. British built SMS Friedrich Carl, SMS Kronprinz, SMS König Wilhelm (all armoured frigates), SMS Prinz Adalbert (monitor), SMS Renown (screw ship of the line (not armoured)) and gunboat SMS Delphin, were en route to train on the open Atlantic when getting the news about the trouble with France. So yes, what the small German Navy could was also possible for France and Britain. Only with many more ships.
To see the dimensions of that time ironclads: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158523

In summer 1870 the German fleet was still in the phase of building up. 16 armoured frigastes, 22 corvettes and a number of gunboats shpould have been built until a war with France. The main core of the fleet were 5 armoured ships, 3 armoured frigates and 2 ironclads. The two armoured frigates SMS Kronprinz and SMS Friedrich Carl were both built in 1867 on British and French yards for Prussia. They were both about 7.000 t big and carried 16 21 cm guns. They were equivalent to the ships of other navies. Then there were two ships called armoured ships, but the terminus ironclad fits better. SMS Prinz Adalbert (1560 t) and SMS Arminius (1829 t). While latter was designed as monitor after the influence of the American Civil War, SMS Prinz Adalbert was built for the CSA as ram ironclad (Widderschiff). It was laid down as Cheops for Egypt but should go to the Confederate navy. Because of diplomatic pressure by the USA the French government gave the order not to sell this ship and her sister Sphinx to the CSA, so the French yard had to find new buyers. And so to belligerent powers tried to buy them in 1864: Denmark and Prussia. Denmark rejected finally the CSS Sphinx, which was then given to the CSA, being in service as CSS Stonewall. She was given to the US by Spain after the war ended as the ship was in Havanna. Later it was sold to Japan. In 1865 however the ship was finally sold to Prussia with a price reduction of 100.000 Fr., but because of several reasons there were still problems to be solved. One of them was the danger to be captured and seized by the CSA in neutral waters as the ship was built originally for them. So Korvettenkapitän Schau, Kapitänleutnant Mac Lean and a German engineer director, Jansen, had to be as passengers there to prevent that on the maiden voyage to Germany, where she arrived without problems.
SMS Arminius was armed with 4 21 cm guns and a brand new 35 cm torpedo tube, a new weapon the Germans had to test. It was not before 1880 when the weapon was recognized as the potential it had, when Kapitänleutnant Tirpitz, the later Grand Admiral, commandeered the torpedo test cruiser SMS Blücher.
SMS Prinz Adalbert was armed with one 21 cm and 2 17 cm guns. It was known as the lame Prince as due to bad wood it tended to have leakages.

Adler

 

[CivActuary]

US ironclads were build to fight in the shore waters and unable to move far away from the coast. Some CSA ironclads were able to cross the Atlantic because of being built in France or Britain. Perhaps some later US ironclads could do the same, but I am not sure about this.

Most of the US ironclad fleet were Monitor-type vessels. The early ones were by no means able to navigate the oceans (the prototype USS Monitor foundering off Cape Hatteras), but later monitor types were ocean-going. The first crossing was in 1866 to Europe, causing quite a stir. see here for the USS Miantonomoh.

Though since all monitors have very low freeboard, there is some question of them being able to work their guns in ocean waters.

Also, the USS New Ironsides, built in 1862 and serving off Charleston SC, was a broadside ship more like what Britain and France were building.