"The Ironclads Attack Fort Sumter" Topic

"At noon on April 7, 1863, the largest concentration of ironclad warships yet seen in the Civil War prepared for action in the main ship channel leading to Charleston harbor.

The attack which was the culmination of several months of planning, debate, and no small amount of political pressure. One might argue that Charleston, South Carolina was not a significant objective for the northern war effort. But it was a port which had to be blockaded. And more importantly, it was symbolically important as the place where secession first took root. Capturing the city would provide a major boost against war weariness in the north, while dispiriting the south.

The overall plan was for an Army-Navy team to move on Charleston in the spring of 1863. Ironclads assembled at Hilton Head throughout the winter (minus of course the USS Monitor which was lost at sea). By late March, the force included seven monitors, and the the USS New Ironsides and USS Keokuk, of competing ironclad designs. On land, the Army had roughly 25,000 men on the South Carolina coast under Major General David Hunter to cooperate with DuPont's ironclads. Sounded good on paper, but more than a few obstructions lay in the way. DuPont was not confident the ironclads could achieve what was planned. And at the same time Hunter was less than predicable with his support.

The ironclads crossed over the bar into the main ship channel at Charleston on April 5. The force waited on tide, wind, and weather to move at the most opportune hour. DuPont arranged his ironclads into a line ahead – USS Weehawken, USS Passaic, USS Montauk, USS Patapsco, USS New Ironsides (also DuPont's flagship), USS Catskill, USS Nantucket, USS Nahut, and USS Keokuk. The Weehawken carried a "jack boot" raft fixed to the bow as a means of dealing with harbor obstructions and torpedoes known to be in the channel.
DuPont's orders called for the ships to close within 600 to 800 yards of Fort Sumter before opening fire. The gunners were told to focus on the center embrasure of the fort's northeastern face. The intent was to reduce the fort.
The term "reduce" indicated DuPont's objective was to not only silence the guns of Fort Sumter, but to render it useless as a defense. By concentrating fires on the center of the wall of the fort which most closely fronted the ship channel, this would ensure follow on, non-armored, ships could more easily pass. The instructions assumed the XV-inch and XI-inch Dahlgrens along with the 150-pdr Parrott rifles of the ironclads could make short work of the brick structure. After all, didn't heavy artillery of this sort breach Fort Pulaski only a year earlier?

The ironclads pulled anchors at around noon. But almost immediately the movement fell behind schedule. The chain of the Weehawken, commanded by Captain John Rodgers, became entangled with the raft on the front of the ship. Not until 2 p.m. did the ships proceed. About an hour later, the Weehawken came under long range fire from the guns of Fort Moultrie. Rodgers reported "The accuracy of the shooting on the part of the rebels was very great, having been attained, no doubt, by practice at range targets, since I remarked that as we passed a buoy all the guns opened at once…"
Full article here
link

link

Some questions:

a) Why the Ironclads didn't reduce the shooting distance from the fort?

b) How many torpedoes the Rebels had and if they had more than one why they didn't used them?

c) Were there any water mines?
Or any ship with explosives which could be send against a Ironclad?

d) Anyone had wargame this battle?

Thanks in advance for your guidance.

Amicalement
Armand

Thanks. That is an interesting site.

Tango, water mines were called torpedoes back then and the were very unreliable. They were just basically a keg of gunpowder under water with a friction primer. You can guess how long one of those could sit under water without getting wet and therefore useless.
I found the ranging buoys very interesting, that would certainly help in getting some hits on the ironclads.

> a) Why the Ironclads didn't reduce the shooting distance from the fort?

If you mean to ask why they stayed so far away, the closer they got the easier it was for the fort to hurt them.

I have a book on the campaign at home (recommended by someone here). There was quite a bit of "friction" among the naval commanders during the campaign as well. Some wanted to get in close and others did not.

The Keokuk was pretty battered at the long distance as it was. IIRC several of the monitors took some pretty solid hits.

The union did better later on when they had better leadership and more confidence in their ships.

I was surprised that one monitor sunk because of the Rebel artillery.

Glad you had enjoy the article and site boys, and much apreciated for your guidance.

Amicalement
Armand

"a) Why the Ironclads didn't reduce the shooting distance from the fort?"

How much closer do you want? 600 yards is not very far. Tactically, at this range, you can skip the rounds across the water like a rock on a pond. The gunners on New Ironsides were renown for this ability.

The real issue is that they jumped the gun so to speak in April. You cannot just approach Sumter from the sea. There is a sandbar about a mile or 2 out. You must either approach from the south as they did or from the north. They entered the channel between the Sandbar and Folly/Morris Island at the mouth of light house inlet, travelled north past Wagner and Gregg, then swung around on the north side of Sumter. (The south side of Sumter is really shallow). So, they got pounded by Rebel guns the whole way. Then, at Sumter, they got pounded by Sumter from 3 sides of the fort, Ft Johnson, Ft Moultrie and potentially two ironclads. Not a good day. While the Monitors can take a beating (note Keokuk was not a real monitor), the rebels have, what 3 times as many guns firing at you than you have to fire back, plus they are on stable mounts with pre-plotted fire tables. Finally, the big Monitor guns were really slow to load. So, the Monitors did what they could, but eventually their gun crews got wore out. (I'm sure feeling the vibrations of all those enemy shots hitting the turrets didn't help.) Keokuk, was clearly being holed. So, they pulled back, while Keokuk floundered.

The difference later on was the navy learned they had to reduce the gun to gun odds against them, first. To do this they (and the Army) had to reduce Wagner and Gregg. In September, After the fall of Wagner, the Navy and Army truly went to work on Sumter and Moultrie.

This culminated in a small boat assault on the ruins of Sumter. However, miscommunications, approaching rebel ironclads and the misfortune of USS Weehawken running around while providing fire support (in the shallows south of Sumter) doomed the assault.

c) Were there any water mines?

January 15, 1865, While clearing a rebel torpedo field near Sumter, the monitor USS Patapsco struck a mine and sank in 30 feet of water in under 30 seconds. 64 men died in the explosion (out of a crew of 105).

link

We played this battle last October, using 1/600 ships, Peter Pig's Fort Sumter, ‘Smoke on the Water' rules and a big table. The Union OOB is straightforward enough, but I spent a lot of time trying to ascertain just how many guns were still at the fort, and of what type and size. I could not find a definitive record for the day of the battle, but by tracking the changes I think I got somewhere near. I also included Fort Moultrie in the game, though the fort itself was off table.

In the game DuPont sailed his squadron too close to Fort Sumter and paid the price. I can't remember now what precise damage was suffered by each ship. However, Keokuk was sunk very early on. In competent sailing by one Union player resulted in him ramming another ship of his own sub-command, with one of them sinking. Nantucket caught fire and went out of action. Finally, New Ironsides was sunk through mortar fire. Her sides may have been invulnerable but her deck wasn't!

Since no report I've read even mentions mortars being fired I may have been amiss in placing some in the fort. But some were there prior to the battle, and some were there later in the war, so it seemed reasonable at the time to give the Confederates some for the game.

This was a very clear victory for the South.

I have read that by the time Fort Wagner fell in 1863, Fort Sumter only had a single remaining gun. Many of the fort's guns were either destroyed or were removed between Union attacks and placed in the defences around Charleston. I think there is a period painting or illustration of the single remaining gun in the fort. Not sure what type of gun it was or how long it remained. I think it would have taken a brave crew to man it during subsequent Union attacks -- there were infantry present in the fort to repulse attacks, which they did quite well in 1863.

Interesting, thanks!