Crimea river: Landings in the Crimea and in BROS

There are two major landing operations that take place in Burnished Rows of Steel, and one from the Crimea which is referenced.


The Union Landing at Norfolk

In the setup of the TL, either in late December or early January, it is mentioned as an aside that:

In late December, there had been a rumor they were going to be attached to the expeditionary division being gathered at Annapolis under Rhode Island’s own Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside; instead, they remained with Sumner’s newly-formed division, while Burnside’s had moved down the Chesapeake to Hampton Roads, in the Department of Virginia, gone ashore, stormed Norfolk, and then destroyed the navy yard.

This is of course outrageous for more than one reason.


The first reason is that this was never done historically – despite there being a very good reason to do it, which is that the Virginia was being constructed at Norfolk. This ironclad led to all kinds of massive expenditures of effort to prevent her entering action, but for some reason the Union never just thought of attacking the port directly.

The second reason is why the Union never attacked Norfolk directly, historically – it's because it was defended. Very heavily defended, in fact, with 13,451 troops present for duty in the November returns and about 192 heavy guns in several batteries and forts. In short, to land in the way described Burnside would have to land troops in the face of superior numbers of defenders equipped with heavy artillery.

And the third reason is why it was done – it's possible to work backwards, thus:

• If the Virginia was launched in this timeline, then it might mean the Union suffers serious defeats, while the Norfolk Navy Yard would offer the British a useful safe harbour for repairs and logistics support. (It has coal, water, food and even a graving dock).
• In addition, without the Monitor available (penned in by the blockade or sunk on transit) it would be possible for the Virginia to have a completely free hand to aid in the blockade and capture of Fort Monroe - and, for that matter, to sail to and up the Potomac. (The limiting water depth of the Potomac is essentially that of the draft of the Virginia, and with a good high tide it would be theoretically possible for the ironclad to make her way up to Washington.)
• Therefore, Norfolk Navy Yard must be attacked and destroyed before the Virginia is launched.

There is no realistic driver for it; instead, it is something that has to happen for the Union to win. So it happens.


Later on we are told, instead, that Norfolk was abandoned before Burnside attacked (the troops are sent to the Peninsula, and the troops at the Peninsula are sent to the main field army). This is at odds with the description of “stormed”, and makes even less sense for the Confederacy – it is pure ahistorical decision making, and completely pointless.

Not even wrong
There are two reasons to hold the Peninsula - to stop the Union attacking Richmond, and to protect Norfolk. But by abandoning Norfolk to hold the Peninsula the Confederates here make one task impossible and the other much more difficult, since it is now possible to move troops up the James river and bypass the Yorktown line.
In the OTL, Norfolk was only abandoned after McClellan had forced the abandonment of the Yorktown line itself - here it is backwards.


The Allied landing at the Crimea


In reality, on the 13th September 1854 transports arrived off Eupatoria. The Allies began landing on the 14th, and within an hour several French regiments had landed, with a division ashore by noon; The British (due to a major muddle) did not begin landing until 9am, on a mile-wide front some way south of the intended landing position.

The landing was fraught with logistical problems, being distinctly a new experience in recent memory for the British at least, and by the end of the first day the full infantry complement and some of the artillery had been landed but the tents had not, and the soldiers spent an uncomfortable night exposed in the rain (these including many of the commanders who would later on be described as pampered or otherwise unused to the realities of war in Burnished Rows of Steel)

Despite a storm overnight and into the next morning, the main difficulty was in landing the cavalry horses on the 15th (mainly due to the rough weather) and the stores were got ashore but unorganized. This is hardly a great and notable achievement, but the salient point is that the entire British (and French) infantry complement got ashore on the first day, along with some of the guns.

Once properly organized, the British-French allied force marched south on the 19th, and fought the Battle of the Alma on the 20th September.


The British Landing in Maine


The British landing in Crescent Beach is far worse than Calamita Bay. Quite apart from one of the transports striking a rock well into the morning and sinking (it is described as sinking at dawn, but dawn at this time is 5AM and the grounding is also described as taking place at 8AM), it takes until noon for the landing to commence - seven hours after dawn, instead of 2 hours 40 minutes as at Calamita Bay, despite the lack of some of the mistakes which did take place in the Crimea. (Certainly the French are not described as showing up and blagging the entire original landing spot).

the remaining transports, with Kingcome’s frigates in support, made their turn to the south and began putting troops ashore on Crescent Beach by noon

We are later told the following details:

Now, even as the sun dropped to the west over the mainland and dusk fell across the water, the bays, beaches, and shore were filled with ships and boats, marching troops, and guns and horses being manhandled ashore…

however, it was – at least in comparison with the landings at Kalamita Bay in 1854 - a triumph.

Since troops are still being landed at dusk (8pm) despite 1/3 the number of troops being landed by the British, this is clearly not a triumph compared to Calamita Bay. At Calamita Bay all the infantry were landed from 9am to 7pm (10 hours to land 30,000 troops and some guns), so after eight hours here as many as 24,000 infantry could have been landed at the same scale of time.

“I daresay, colonel, your concerns are appreciated, but are misplaced,” Lane Fox replied, a bit sharply. “In ’54, at Eupatoria, the Allies put 67,000 infantry, 1,200 cavalry, and one hundred forty pieces of artillery ashore in five days; today, we have landed some 10,000 men and two dozen guns, including the naval brigade, which will service as siege artillery against Fort Preble

As we have seen, the Eupatoria (Calamita) landing described is incorrect. Even if the Eupatoria landing had indeed taken five days (rather than being mostly complete for infantry and partially complete for artillery on the first day) then a single day should have seen 12,000 men and 28 guns landed pro rata – if not more, due to the lack of the cavalry.


At best, the British are doing worse than they did at the original Calamita Bay, despite better experience. At worst they are doing several times as badly.