View single post by Hellcat
 Posted: Tue Jun 4th, 2013 02:24 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Root Beer Lover

Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 981

  back to top

And that's my point, TD. Both cases Butler could claim a victory. BUT if you look at it in both cases it looks like there was really no need for Butler's troops other than to occupy once the Navy had done it's job. Though ironically the occupying force was more in danger from it's own side than from enemy fire in the first instance as some of Butler's men, moving in to hold one of the forts during the battle after the Confederates retreated from it, came under fire from Stringham's ships.

Actually Stingham's strategy is of note as it was used again against Port Royal and brought into question the value of fixed forts against naval guns. Which itself is ironic as we certainly were developing fixed forts during the Endicott period. Though the guns were more rifled cannon mounted in something a bit more like a turret.

 Close Window