An interesting proposal from James B Eads

[rebelatsea]

 

[Carronade]

Slightly larger than HMS Warrior - was there anything bigger at that time other than Great Eastern? Wonder what the rationale was for putting all four guns in one turret. Four guns, even as big as they were, doesn't seem like a lot of armament for something that size.

 

[AndyHall]

There wasn't anything bigger than Great Eastern for a long time. Great Eastern herself was the first vessel larger than Russell Crowe's Noah's Ark, as described in the Bible.

That would be an amazing ironclad, @rebelatsea.

Added: My refs say the first ship to exceed the length or displacement of Great Eastern (680 feet, 27,000 tons) was the White Star Liner Oceanic of 1899 (685 feet and 28,500 tons).

Expired Image Removed

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Great concept, but could it sail the seas ?

I still have a hard time understanding how a few coastal defense monitors made it across the Pacific during the Spanish-American War.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-t/bm4.htm

 

[AndyHall]

"Terror" for whom seems to be a fair question.

 

[rebelatsea]

There wasn't anything bigger than Great Eastern for a long time. Great Eastern herself was the first vessel larger than Russell Crowe's Noah's Ark, as described in the Bible.

That would be an amazing ironclad, @rebelatsea.

I thought about building the model, but those deck curves put me off !

 

[rebelatsea]

Slightly larger than HMS Warrior - was there anything bigger at that time other than Great Eastern? Wonder what the rationale was for putting all four guns in one turret. Four guns, even as big as they were, doesn't seem like a lot of armament for something that size.

I don't know, I suspect it had something to do with mounting the full rig, unless he had a touch of the Ericson "two suns in one sky" syndrome.

 

[Drew]

Wonder what the rationale was for putting all four guns in one turret. Four guns, even as big as they were, doesn't seem like a lot of armament for something that size.

I'll second that. This would have been a huge vessel and slow. It would have been defenseless before a smaller, quicker adversary coming up behind it.

 

[AndyHall]

@rebelatsea , the more I think about that design, the more I'm convinced it has all of the liabilities of a monitor with none of the advantages. More later.

 

[AndyHall]

John, your notes refer to a 60-foot length of 1.5-inch armor plate amidships -- do you have any thoughts on how that was arranged? Was the remainder planked?

 

[rebelatsea]

Andy, all the latter says is exactly that. I would surmise it covers the top of the boiler rooms. I would imagine the whole weather deck would be iron ,same thickness as the hull plating ,and covered with timber ti give the crew's feet something to grip.

 

[Elennsar]

When I look at the masts, I can't help but think of HMS Captain.

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/captain.htm

Sure, it sounds like a good idea given the limits of steam engines of the day, but . . .

 

[AndyHall]

When I look at the masts, I can't help but think of HMS Captain.

Captain seems to have done a better job of dealing with the firing arcs.

 

[Elennsar]

Captain seems to have done a better job of dealing with the firing arcs.

True enough. This design doesn't seem to have any superior seaworthiness to make up for it.

 

[AndyHall]

She would drive right into a heavy sea instead of riding over it. Not good.

Added: Clyde steamers had that same problem, and were commonly fitted with turtlebacks forward to shed the green water coming over the bow. Still, as good as they were for blockade running, not many would call them good sea boats.

 

[rebelatsea]

There is no indication that the masts would have been tripods, I don't think such a vessel could have stood under sail anyway. First strong blow and goodbye. Even without rig I think it would have rolled heavily.

 

[rebelatsea]

I've just realized that the hull configuration strongly resembles that of the Kalamazoo class

 

[AndyHall]

How do you see that hull in cross-section? I've been reading that as having a very narrow weather deck and wide, sloping sides -- rather like a squat CSS Virginia with a turret on top. But I may be seeing it incorrectly.

 

[rebelatsea]

Andy, dead right, but not enough beam to prevent or minimise the roll, she was only to draw 19ft which strongly suggests a square cross section with an almost flat bottom in order to accommodate the machinery and boilers.

 

[AndyHall]

Needs more detail, but this is a start. The run-in may be too fine, but I really don't know the hull shape. Also note that the waterline (not shown here) is about 1/3 up the sloped casing.