Golden Thread Aye Candy: C.S.S. Manassas

John, I personally can't answer that question maybe @AndyHall or @rebelatsea could? I had kinda wondered what if the Hunley had a torpedo installed as the example of the "Sea Miner"? But just total speculation.
Well, I think Kaz could provide a complete answer but here goes . Manassas was a conversion, albeit quite a good one starting with a strong hull and powerful engines. What must be borne in mind is that she took the USN squadron by surprise (as they knew about her it shouldn't have been) in a relatively confined area. Subsequently it was proved over and over again that given maneovering room a ram was a very ineffective weapon, Lissa not withstanding. Even there Admiral Persano charged about with Affondatore trying to beak ships, every one of which avoided him except the one which was unable to get out of the way. In reality fully powered ships with rams were more of a danger to their consorts than the enemy.
 
Thanks @OwenEgan , there were so many records destroyed on the Confederate Navy side I have dreamed of someone finding missing CSS Ironclad plans in a old attic somewhere in Southern States. Hey who knows stranger things have been found. :smile:
Indeed they have. The plans of CSS Nashville (the ironclad) are known to have been stolen form a collection in the 1930s, hopefully they are in a private collection somewhere, and the copy plans of CSS Richmond which Cdr Tucker took to Peru are now thought to be in private hands in Chile.
 
@OwenEgan, I don't know if GPR will penetrate saturated soil like that, or give a sufficient resolution to determine that configuration.
 
I've not come across that name before. Manassas is Kaz's favourite, he will have views on this no doubt. In the meantime here is the plan I settled on, based on Robert Holcombe's original.
View attachment 186079
Hi Rebel: Your depiction is consistent with the latest version of Manassas. Her ram was replaced after Head of Passes with a vertical cleaver type ram versus the "punch" ram of the first version. I think your upper deck may be a little high. A former crewman stated after the war that the head clearance from the main deck was about 7 feet. You add the timber carapace and iron above that. It is not clear whether the main deck was at the waterline or now below the waterline when loaded. With full coal bunkers (300 barrels) I would expect the incline to be a bit flatter. I believe that you are correct that the mid-section of the shield was more cylindrical than generally depicted. At least two Union observers sketched her as such. This would minimize the amount of bending for the long runs aft. The bow and stern areas would probably have been bent over molds. There is strong evidence that the iron was bolted, not spiked in place.
 
@OwenEgan, I don't know if GPR will penetrate saturated soil like that, or give a sufficient resolution to determine that configuration.
Is the wreck on reclaimed land or submerged? If submerged, GPR would not... it's a terrestrial technology- hence the name (Ground Penetrating Radar). However, a sub-bottom profiler/ magnetometer combo, tuned correctly, could yield some very interesting results IF the wreck is deep enough to allow good coverage.

EDIT: from http://www.numa.net/expeditions/november-1981/
"Her suspected hulk lies about half a mile above the Boothville high school on the southwest bank of the river. Note; the mag survey by Texas A & M shows her to be almost completely under the levee. It’s best to look during low water. There is a flat reef-like barrier edged with a small rock breakwater that extends into the river from the base of the levee for about fifteen feet. If you can walk this area, you can easily detect her iron mass, but can only pick up a piece of her from a boat running parallel to the breakwater. She is buried nine feet under the mud and could be very well preserved."

So, if the info above is correct, the wreck is too shallow for a sub-bottom profiler and submerged in water rendering a GPR useless. (Unless there is a way to pull the GPR on a raft over the site and some how filter out the raft material- not sure if this is possible or not.
Shallow water excavation seems the only feasible option IF
1) permits could be obtained
2) boat traffic is light enough to allow for excavation
3) lots of bureaucratic red tape can be cut and
4) funds could be raised (which I feel is very possible)
5) 25 other reasons I can't think of at the moment :-()
 
Last edited:
Hi Rebel: Your depiction is consistent with the latest version of Manassas. Her ram was replaced after Head of Passes with a vertical cleaver type ram versus the "punch" ram of the first version. I think your upper deck may be a little high. A former crewman stated after the war that the head clearance from the main deck was about 7 feet. You add the timber carapace and iron above that. It is not clear whether the main deck was at the waterline or now below the waterline when loaded. With full coal bunkers (300 barrels) I would expect the incline to be a bit flatter. I believe that you are correct that the mid-section of the shield was more cylindrical than generally depicted. At least two Union observers sketched her as such. This would minimize the amount of bending for the long runs aft. The bow and stern areas would probably have been bent over molds. There is strong evidence that the iron was bolted, not spiked in place.
Thanks Georgew. The plan is Bob H's basically, I didn't alter his hull lines at all.
 
Is the wreck on reclaimed land or submerged? If submerged, GPR would not... it's a terrestrial technology- hence the name (Ground Penetrating Radar). However, a sub-bottom profiler/ magnetometer combo, tuned correctly, could yield some very interesting results IF the wreck is deep enough to allow good coverage.

EDIT: from http://www.numa.net/expeditions/november-1981/
"Her suspected hulk lies about half a mile above the Boothville high school on the southwest bank of the river. Note; the mag survey by Texas A & M shows her to be almost completely under the levee. It’s best to look during low water. There is a flat reef-like barrier edged with a small rock breakwater that extends into the river from the base of the levee for about fifteen feet. If you can walk this area, you can easily detect her iron mass, but can only pick up a piece of her from a boat running parallel to the breakwater. She is buried nine feet under the mud and could be very well preserved."

So, if the info above is correct, the wreck is too shallow for a sub-bottom profiler and submerged in water rendering a GPR useless. (Unless there is a way to pull the GPR on a raft over the site and some how filter out the raft material- not sure if this is possible or not.
Shallow water excavation seems the only feasible option IF
1) permits could be obtained
2) boat traffic is light enough to allow for excavation
3) lots of bureaucratic red tape can be cut and
4) funds could be raised (which I feel is very possible)
5) 25 other reasons I can't think of at the moment :-()

John, just curious what would it actually cost to do a full recovery and preservation for display at a museum? If you can answer those questions?
 
John, just curious what would it actually cost to do a full recovery and preservation for display at a museum? If you can answer those questions?

It's difficult to say without a lot more details about the site, but I can say this- the excavation is the lesser expensive part of a recovery project. If an academic institution took on this project it would most likely be done by volunteer graduate students. Funds for the excavation would be raised privately or through public educational and scientific grants & tooling/supplies would likely already be owned. This would be a HUGE savings over doing an excavation through a private CRM (Cultural Resource Management) firm or a government agency and I am certain the work would be of equal or greater quality.
The real expense of a project like this is the conservation & preservation of the craft after recovery. This part could easily run one to two million dollars, if not considerably more.

The project shares a couple details with that of Vasa, but it would also be considerably different. Like Vasa, Manassas would need to be raised as a unit, but the environment is totally different. Also the conservation would be completely different- Vasa is a wooden hull with some iron dispersed (mostly nails) and Manassas has considerably more iron. Because of the composite materials (iron and wood mostly) the entire vessel would have to b disassembled and each material type conserved before re-assembly. This is a remarkably expensive process (probably prohibitively so) and requires great skill of the conservation team. Vasa was not disassembled but treated with Polyethelene Glykol (PEG) as a unit. The chemical reaction between the iron nails/wood/and PEG has created a sulfuric reaction that is really giving the conservators a fit.
 
Last edited:
Raising the ship (s) would be horrifically expensive. Not just the raising of the hulls, but the long-term conservation of the ships is probably beyond the amount of money that could be raised by private means. There is no apparent impetus to spend that amount of money from public coffers either.

I'm suggesting that it would be best, at first, to do a detailed survey of the wreck with some excavation if possible, to determine the structure of the vessel (s). Especially with the Manassas, there are so many questions on her construction. Maybe recover a few items, but at the end of the day, record as much as you can and then re-bury in case future generations can afford to recover the complete hull (or what is left of it).

As to the deck height, we went through all of that, including superimposing cubes with various sizes of reported height of the casement over plans of the Enoch Train to try and get a 'real' shape of how high she would sit out of the water.
 
Here is a computer model I made to try and work out how high the casemate would be if it stood six feet above the deck as described in one account. As I found out, there were a few problems with this scenario!
4xRjO82.jpg

DPpLN5v.jpg

cFhndGn.jpg
 
It's difficult to say without a lot more details about the site, but I can say this- the excavation is the lesser expensive part of a recovery project. If an academic institution took on this project it would most likely be done by volunteer graduate students. Funds for the excavation would be raised privately or through public educational and scientific grants & tooling/supplies would likely already be owned. This would be a HUGE savings over doing an excavation through a private CRM (Cultural Resource Management) firm or a government agency and I am certain the work would be of equal or greater quality.
The real expense of a project like this is the conservation & preservation of the craft after recovery. This part could easily run one to two million dollars, if not considerably more.

The project shares a couple details with that of Vasa, but it would also be considerably different. Like Vasa, Manassas would need to be raised as a unit, but the environment is totally different. Also the conservation would be completely different- Vasa is a wooden hull with some iron dispersed (mostly nails) and Manassas has considerably more iron. Because of the composite materials (iron and wood mostly) the entire vessel would have to b disassembled and each material type conserved before re-assembly. This is a remarkably expensive process (probably prohibitively so) and requires great skill of the conservation team. Vasa was not disassembled but treated with Polyethelene Glykol (PEG) as a unit. The chemical reaction between the iron nails/wood/and PEG has created a sulfuric reaction that is really giving the conservators a fit.
Thanks, Rebelatsea and John for the information. Is this possible to start? What would be the name of the grants? I understand there would be a stiff competition for them would a type of basic site excavation even be considered?
 
Raising the ship (s) would be horrifically expensive. Not just the raising of the hulls, but the long-term conservation of the ships is probably beyond the amount of money that could be raised by private means. There is no apparent impetus to spend that amount of money from public coffers either.

I'm suggesting that it would be best, at first, to do a detailed survey of the wreck with some excavation if possible, to determine the structure of the vessel (s). Especially with the Manassas, there are so many questions on her construction. Maybe recover a few items, but at the end of the day, record as much as you can and then re-bury in case future generations can afford to recover the complete hull (or what is left of it).

As to the deck height, we went through all of that, including superimposing cubes with various sizes of reported height of the casement over plans of the Enoch Train to try and get a 'real' shape of how high she would sit out of the water.
Thanks Owen, very interesting. Please see my reply to John, any input for actually getting this started would be welcome. I'm sure there are many of us whom would volunteer time to help.
 
Thanks, Rebelatsea and John for the information. Is this possible to start? What would be the name of the grants? I understand there would be a stiff competition for them would a type of basic site excavation even be considered?
It would be a major undertaking and as I mentioned, IMO, one that might best be carried out by a major research university. However, it would be very expensive and these types of university research projects usually do not generate the high amounts of money that would be needed for this project. - very few uni projects exceed a couple hundred thousand dollars and tend to be limited to 1 to 5 years commitment (think about student turn around- they need to graduate at some point). A project like Manassas would require a much larger time commitment simply because of the complicated conservation process (think about Hunley and the time she has been in conservation/study- 18 years thus far!) and as mentioned, a LOT of money. As far as the grants are concerned, no single grant would cover the guestimated costs. It would take multiple grants of many years and most likely a lot of private donation as well.
On the other hand, IF the state and fed governments were involved, the money could potentially be less of a problem, but the costs would also rise considerably. See where this is going? This is likely why she remains submerged.
 
I'm not technically familiar with the process of surveying a wreck site. Short of actually trying to recover the ship, what sort of options are feasibly open to pursuit?

As I said before, I think some kind of site survey is probably a lot more realistic, especially in the short term, rather than a full-blown recovery of the vessel. Raising the Manassas would be amazing, but would also be a huge undertaking. As you said, not just the physical removal of the wreck from it's resting place, but after-care and conservation of the remains would be an on-going effort requiring considerable expense.

As a starting project, some kind of wreck survey should be done. Again, I'm not aware of the different types of survey and what could be achieved with modern technology. A scan of some kind would be amazing. Either a radar or sonar scan of the remains of the vessel would answer a lot of questions. Whether this would work would depend on the location of the wreck. Is there a solid surface to stand on? Is it water over her, soil or swamp? Will any of the available scanning methods penetrate to the wreck through what is above her?

Some sort of scanning pass is a much more realistic initial survey of the wreck.

After that, you could, again, based on the site's location and what the scan revealed, decide if a dig down to the remains could be attempted. That would be a great project for a University that could be structured over a few years. Either direct recovery of certain items (engines, cannons) or a general site survey of the remains. Like the CSS Georgia, document and re-bury. This would provide the maximum amount of information about the vessel, and not involve anything like the level of expense and long-term planning required for a full recovery of the ship.
 
I tend to agree with OwenEgan. The possibilities of non invasive surveying must be examined first. If such a survey can be done ,then the next stage would depend on the results. If a clear picture of the vessel emerges then I would ask - is a recovery really necessary- can we learn enough from the survey?
 
Thank you gentlemen for the detailed responses on my questions. I have worked on sites of fossil recoveries which were astounding but were never published because of location and science oddity. The owner had paid for the basic excavation and volunteers did the work along with students for 4 years at the site I'm speaking of. The state had given a huge tax credit for the owners involvement, which since he owned a lot of land he was very happy to allow a bunch of us on property and unearth multiple species. I can say that it was the most US southern find of large mammals ever found and had baffled the professors because of the amount we found at the location. They were leaning toward a massive die off at the old spring from some sort of disaster but really didn't know why the animals were so plentiful and in such a odd wrong location.

Its to bad that cost prohibits these kind of investigations for ship wrecks, so many are still waiting to give up their historical secrets.
 
Back
Top