Jaycee Woods

One player in Boudica and The Butcher is Admiral Porter operating US naval forces on Lake Erie. However, what does his ad hoc navy look like? I bounced some of my ideas against Copilot to test options.

Prompt: What treaty constraints does the US have for navy vessels operating on the Great Lakes? I am assuming that Canadian control of the St Lawrence seaway would allow Canada to block moving warships from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes, correct?

Copilot: Yes, your assumptions are correct. The Rush–Bagot Treaty of 1817 between the United States and Great Britain (now Canada) significantly limits naval armaments on the Great Lakes. According to this treaty:

Each country is allowed to maintain only a few small military vessels on the Great Lakes. Specifically, they can each have one vessel on Lake Ontario and Lake Champlain, and two vessels on the remaining Great Lakes, with each vessel not exceeding 100 tons and armed with no more than one 18-pound cannon.

This treaty effectively demilitarizes the Great Lakes, preventing the deployment of larger warships and maintaining a peaceful border between the U.S. and Canada.

Regarding the St. Lawrence Seaway, Canada controls this crucial waterway, which connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. In a conflict scenario, Canada could indeed block the movement of U.S. warships from the Atlantic into the Great Lakes, further complicating the federal government’s ability to deploy naval forces in the region.

This setup adds a strategic challenge for the Union forces in your story, emphasizing their reliance on ground and air operations within the Great Lakes region.

Prompt: In this scenario, could the Navy improvise to create a lightly armed speed boat force from private boats? Thus, similar to Iranian tactics. Such ships would mainly be used in an attempt to blockade rebel lake ports, does that make sense? Would that create enough of a fig leaf of treaty compliance to prevent a Canadian response?

Copilot: Yes, the Navy could indeed improvise by converting private boats into lightly armed speed boats, similar to tactics used by Iran. This approach would involve:

Acquisition of Private Boats: Requisitioning or purchasing fast, maneuverable private boats that can be easily modified for military use.

Armament: Equipping these boats with light weapons such as machine guns, grenade launchers, or even portable anti-tank missiles. The focus would be on speed and agility rather than heavy firepower.

Tactics: Using these boats for hit-and-run tactics, patrols, and blockades of rebel-controlled lake ports. Their speed and maneuverability would make them effective in the confined waters of the Great Lakes.

Treaty Compliance and Canadian Response

The Rush–Bagot Treaty limits the number and armament of military vessels on the Great Lakes. However, using lightly armed speed boats could be seen as a way to operate within the spirit of the treaty while addressing immediate tactical needs. Here are some considerations:

Fig Leaf of Compliance: By using small, lightly armed boats, the Navy could argue that these vessels are not traditional warships and thus fall into a gray area of the treaty. This might provide enough of a fig leaf to avoid outright treaty violations.

Canadian Response: Canada might still view this as a provocative move, especially if the boats are used aggressively. However, if the U.S. can diplomatically frame the use of these boats as necessary for maintaining order and not as an escalation, it might mitigate the risk of a strong Canadian response. This strategy would allow the Navy to maintain some level of operational capability on the Great Lakes without directly violating the treaty, though it would require careful diplomatic handling.