Confederate 68 pdr SBs

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
4,194
Location
Kent ,England.
#21
Saproneth, I've mentioned the US 64pdr elsewhere. If they had but known it both sides had the near equivalent of the 68pdr, and a **** sight simpler to manufacture than Brooke's MLR and Dahlgrens bottles. Britain looked to continue the development of the high velocity SB too with the 100pdr Somerset SB and Armstrong's 10.5" SB.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

Saphroneth

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
4,056
#22
If they had but known it both sides had the near equivalent of the 68pdr, and a **** sight simpler to manufacture than Brooke's MLR and Dahlgrens bottles. Britain looked to continue the development of the high velocity SB too with the 100pdr Somerset SB and Armstrong's 10.5" SB.
I think it's a case of fashion. Dahlgren's new Dahlgren guns seemed like the big new thing, and US doctrine emphasized large broadsides of slow moving shells (and to some extent the use of a slow moving shell is a good idea when you're working with shells, because you don't want overpenetration); the British didn't have a new generation of slow moving shell guns replacing their long guns, partly because of sheer volume of long guns they had on ships. (This is also a good argument as to why the HV smoothbore wasn't replaced by the rifles - they were certainly trying to roll out the Armstong gun, but it took ages simply because of the sheer volume of guns that needed replacing.) Thus the 64 pounder was seen as the "old style" gun if thought of at all, while obviously the solution was with the "new style" guns - and the British did think in a similar way, reportedly it was quite a surprise when they tested it and found the 110 pounder much inferior to the 68 pounder (even though the powder charge of the 110 pounder was considerably smaller).

It's a similar argument as to why the Monitor design became the preferred one for US ironclads - it wasn't really because the Monitor type was the better option per se, because the massive orders for the other Monitor types were placed within weeks of Hampton Roads (and thus before the Galena and the New Ironsides had been tested at all) but because the Monitor was new and different and fashionable. It's like the fashion for rams and "naval squares" and other such silliness that dominated post-Lissa for about 20 years.
 

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
4,194
Location
Kent ,England.
#23
I checked Olmstead ,Stark & Tucker. there is one surviving 68pdr of 95cwt, this one rifled and banded on the Blakely pattern. Manufacturer is a shown as Low Moor Iron Company, Bradford England dated 1862. Captured at Fort Morgan 23rd august 1864. It is marked, left trunnion: Low Moor 1862, upper breech: crown /P/1158. It has 3 groove right hand twist rifling and was or maybe still at West Point. Where there is only one now ,it was unlikely to have been a lone shipment. Interestingly it is not one of the 20 guns from the Assaay and Punjaub, but a "new piece".
I just realised that this gun is next in the same numerical series as the 68pdr aboard CSS Alabama, /P/1157.
 

Saphroneth

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
4,056
#24
I just realised that this gun is next in the same numerical series as the 68pdr aboard CSS Alabama, /P/1157.
That's interesting, I wonder if there was a "production lot" that they ended up getting hold of. Wonder where 1156 and 1159 are/were?
 

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
4,194
Location
Kent ,England.
#25
They were both in the 1862 series, I'm sure they weren't being produced for the RN by that date, but three guns,now rifled by sleeving to 7" are in Australia, I will try to find out what their serial numbers are.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top