CSS Manassas' Gun

[Grendel1367]

Various sources state that the gun on the CSS Manassas was a 64-lb gun, which could have been either a 64-lb US Army ordnance gun or a 8" Dahlgren smoothbore, and later a 32-lb gun. Presumably the gun was changed out after the Battle of Head of Passes? Was the 32-lb gun actually a smoothbore that had been converted to a rifle, which would make sense - a smaller gun with more power?

Does anybody know the correct story on this?

[5fish]

The CSS Manassas for the Battle of New Orleans had a 32 pounder carronade. Here a couple of links stating the following...

http://books.google.com/books?id=vTR...ounder&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=M1Z...ounder&f=false

A Carronade was an unusual type of smooth-bore weapon which I do not know if gave the CSS Manassas any advantages in a battle...a couple links about Carronade...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carronade

http://www.search.com/reference/Carronade

The first gun on the CSS Manassas was a 64 pounder Dahlgren which was replaced by the 32 pounder carronade. I ask which was a better weapon???

A link...

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/CSS:Manassas.html

[bama46]

Various sources state that the gun on the CSS Manassas was a 64-lb gun, which could have been either a 64-lb US Army ordnance gun or a 8" Dahlgren smoothbore, and later a 32-lb gun. Presumably the gun was changed out after the Battle of Head of Passes? Was the 32-lb gun actually a smoothbore that had been converted to a rifle, which would make sense - a smaller gun with more power?

Does anybody know the correct story on this?

I do not know the specifics of the armament on the Manassas,but in general the rifling of smoothbore canon was met with limited success and the practice cost many confederate lives when the guns exploded

[Grendel1367]

I ask which was a better weapon???[/B]

A 64-pounder has a shot twice the weight of a 32-pounder, So, it would be more distructive to an enemy ship if a hit were to occur. Also, a 64-pounder would have a more forcefull recoil within the Manassas. On this point I do recall reading that some internal structural damage occurred within the Manassas during the Battle of the Head of Passes. A 32-pounder, especially if a carronade, would be somewhat faster and easier to reload, especially in the cramped quarters of the Manassas.

[5fish]

A 64-pounder has a shot twice the weight of a 32-pounder, So, it would be more distructive to an enemy ship if a hit were to occur. Also, a 64-pounder would have a more forcefull recoil within the Manassas. On this point I do recall reading that some internal structural damage occurred within the Manassas during the Battle of the Head of Passes. A 32-pounder, especially if a carronade, would be somewhat faster and easier to reload, especially in the cramped quarters of the Manassas.

When one reads the account of the Manassas in battle. The gun is usually fired as the ship pulls away after it has rammed its target. I figure the 32 pounder carronade worked better then the 64 Dahlgren in this purpose. The 64 Dahlgren may have been two big for the space it was located in or too slow to reload....

[Susquehanna River Rat]

Grendel,
I was doing some research on Civil War Naval Artillery and stumbled upon an article that describes an interview with Capt. J.J. Peetz who apparently designed and supervised the construction of the CSS Manassas. In the article, it states that the Manassas was armed with two 68 pounders. One facing foward over the stem and the other facing aft. Not sure if you have seen this article before but here is the link:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...000/h79600.jpg

Very interesting if it tells the real story.

Bill

[DaveBrt]

Good find!! The iron, as described, would have been 1 1/4 inch thick over the wooden backing.

[Grendel1367]

Grendel,
I was doing some research on Civil War Naval Artillery and stumbled upon an article that describes an interview with Capt. J.J. Peetz who apparently designed and supervised the construction of the CSS Manassas. In the article, it states that the Manassas was armed with two 68 pounders. One facing foward over the stem and the other facing aft. Not sure if you have seen this article before but here is the link:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...000/h79600.jpg

Very interesting if it tells the real story.

Bill

This is a remarkable find since it refutes other accounts, both on the number of guns and on the type!

[5fish]

My only concern about the article is Capt. Peetz is quit old and I do not remember seeing his name during any of my researches on the CSS Manassas. I guess his memory forty years later is not as sharp as we all would like to hope...