CS ironclad construction

[Rhea Cole]

The plan of the ship by Robert Holcombe, which I have an original copy of from Bob, showed a conventional rounded stern. Then some years later, after Bob had retired from the Curator's post, the Museum decided that it had the same porpoise stern as the "Wilmington". I pointed out that the vessel remains did NOT fit that configuration ("Wilmington" was a conversion from a Porter 189ft pp plan with the "porpoise bit added). Eventually they reluctantly agreed.

Received wisdom is that Jackson was a rebuild of a centre wheel ironclad which Lt Augustus McLoughlin (spelling?) insisted be called Muscogee after the local Native Americans. When John L porter arrived as the vessel was under "reconstruction" he peremptorily told the Lt "Your ship is called Jackson" - and that was that.

Porter is credited with the design of the centre wheeler , but there are so many differences between a Porter ironclad and the Jackson that I think it was Chief Engineer James H Warner's project as completed. the hull bears a distinct resemblance to his plan for a monitor type turretship..
The photograph of her afloat after launching was taken in December 1864.

View attachment 581094

View attachment 581095

View attachment 581096

GOOD DESIGN IS SIMPLE DESIGN.

My new vocabulary word is, сцампавиа

As the drawings above vividly demonstrate, the Monitor is the epitome of simple design triumphant. Erickson built the Monitor from keel laying to launch in 101 days. See link for details.

Link

History of the USS Monitor | Monitor National Marine Sanctuary

The year was 1861. The nation was in turmoil as the Civil War ravaged the country. The Union had blockaded the important port city of Hampton Roads, Virginia, but word was that the Confederate Navy was constructing an impenetrable ironclad that could break the blockade.

monitor.noaa.gov

That is in contrast to the repeated long, drawn out more often than not impossible to finish Confederate casement ironclads. The vessels that were completed to any degree shared certain characteristics.

One: They took too long to build & required massive amounts of scare material. Armies of skilled craftsmen were kept from vital industrial work.

Two: Because of the inevitable weight & size, the available engines were inadequate. This left them vulnerable to faster more nimble Monitors.

Three: The vacuum at the top of Confederate command meant that every CSA ironclad was a one off. No economy of scale or shared innovation occurred.

Four: Absent a coherent national strategy, the CSA ironclads that were completed were destroyed / captured / burned by their crews.

Apparently nobody with any authority ever came up with a strategy to defeat the U.S.Navy's superior numbers. Nobody had studied naval history, either, for that matter.

•

"The state which possesses only land forces, has only one hand, the state which also possesses a fleet, — has both hands"

Tsar Peter the Great.

The template for a Confederate naval victory already existed.

Russian scampavias loaded with men overwhelm the Swedish vessels.

In 1701 the Swedish navy was world class. Analogous to the USN vs CSA forces.

There was no way a conventional Russian navy could defeat the Swedes. Peter the Great came up with an ingenious asymmetrical solution.

That solution was the сцампавиа - scampavia. ( A word I have only recently learned, also.)

The CSS Virginia was the template that all future Confederate ironclads would emulate. It chuffed out into Hampton Roads & sank a couple of grounded vessels. I can hear Peter the Great snorting through his nose… his eyes would have rolled…
дураки !!! ( durak, fools )

There were hundreds of steam driven coastal vessels along the East Coast. Exactly the same vessels 74 U.S. tin clads were converted from. A swarm of a hundred crude torpedo boats consisting of cut down to the minimum hulls could have overwhelmed, sunk or captured the warships grounded at low tide. Don't say it count be done because the scampavia had already done it.

A brief history.

Link

Loading…

www.warhistoryonline.com

•

Conclusion: Strategically, the Confederate ironclad casement gunboats were a colossal waste of manpower & material. The historical evidence is irrefutable. The scattered, more often than not uncomplicated Confederate casement ironclads could never have defeated the blockade. That was, after all, the only strategic purpose they could have served.

•

Note: It isn't as if somebody didn't reach this conclusion. Only problem was that they took Peter the First too literally.

In Charleston harbor a flotilla of scampavia was organized, armed with torpedo booms & ready to swarm Monitors when they entered the restricted channel of Charleston harbor.

The plan was to overwhelm the Monitors with torpedoes ( barrels of powder on a boom ) & boarding parties. A Peter had demonstrated, it could have worked.

We will never know because, like the scampavia, the Charleston torpedo boats were oared. Wind, tide & weather conspired to prevent the Confederate scampavia from approaching the Yankee gunboats.

As a contemporary opined, "The Most High ordained otherwise."

•

For a brief history of Peter the Great's scampavia triumph, read more here.

Link

Loading…

www.warhistoryonline.com

•

In the spirit of could have should have, a list of the "exactly 74" Union tinclads. Read more here.

Link

List of tinclad warships of the Union Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Piedone]

GOOD DESIGN IS SIMPLE DESIGN.

My new vocabulary word is, сцампавиа

As the drawings above vividly demonstrate, the Monitor is the epitome of simple design triumphant. Erickson built the Monitor from keel laying to launch in 101 days. See link for details….

Once more you see me completely baffled.

We are having here a nice little thread with about 80 posts….some people said this…some people said that….
we got a bit more enlightened….we were shown certain things….learned a bit….got insights….

…and then you just completely ignore everything which was said…

I bow in respect before such persistence.

The vocabulary word would be: Упрямство….

 

[Old Soldier]

GOOD DESIGN IS SIMPLE DESIGN.

My new vocabulary word is, сцампавиа

As the drawings above vividly demonstrate, the Monitor is the epitome of simple design triumphant. Erickson built the Monitor from keel laying to launch in 101 days.

Triumphant? The only reason his design was selected in preference to the other two selected from the other designs is that the USN needed an ironclad monitor QUICK. Since it was completed within the promised 100 days, it was the only one available to take on the CSS Virginia. It was completed in January 1862.

The other two were wooden broadside ironclads and would take longer to complete, being commissioned several months after the March 1862 Battle of Hampton Roads. USS Galena and USS New Ironsides were classed as broadside ironclads. Both were successful being used more as floating batteries in the blockades and lasted until the end of the civil war.

Yes, Monitor was a success but despite the battle, Virginia was not sunk, just damaged and prevented from upsetting the blockading force further. It was more of a Union action "saving the day", doing more for morale and publicity than anything else. (Virginia was scuttled in May 1862)

As a seaboat, Monitor was a complete disaster, (as was Virginia) despite Erikson's pledge that it would take to the water like a duck. Yes the turret was an innovation as was the all-iron construction, but it leaked like a sieve. Monitor sank after being towed (!) to join the Blockade off Charleston on 31st December 1862 in heavy weather off Cape Hatteras. Which was the better buy?

There were other monitors built afterwards and were successful river and estuary boats, but the type died out very quickly due to poor seaworthiness.

 

[Piedone]

Triumphant? The only reason his design was selected in preference to the other two selected from the other designs is that the USN needed an ironclad monitor QUICK. Since it was completed within the promised 100 days, it was the only one available to take on the CSS Virginia. It was completed in January 1862.

The other two were wooden broadside ironclads and would take longer to complete, being commissioned several months after the March 1862 Battle of Hampton Roads. USS Galena and USS New Ironsides were classed as broadside ironclads. Both were successful being used more as floating batteries in the blockades and lasted until the end of the civil war.

Yes, Monitor was a success but despite the battle, Virginia was not sunk, just damaged and prevented from upsetting the blockading force further. It was more of a Union action "saving the day", doing more for morale and publicity than anything else. (Virginia was scuttled in May 1862)

As a seaboat, Monitor was a complete disaster, (as was Virginia) despite Erikson's pledge that it would take to the water like a duck. Yes the turret was an innovation as was the all-iron construction, but it leaked like a sieve. Monitor sank after being towed (!) to join the Blockade off Charleston on 31st December 1862 in heavy weather off Cape Hatteras. Which was the better buy?

There were other monitors built afterwards and were successful river and estuary boats, but the type died out very quickly due to poor seaworthiness.

Thank you for your clarification.

The problem is the recipient won't listen, I presume.

Some people are not able to even consider viewpoints different to their own.
And to bear cognitive dissonance is even harder (for them)…,

 

[CowCavalry]

Thank you for your clarification.

The problem is the recipient won't listen, I presume.

Some people are not able to even consider viewpoints different to their own.
And to bear cognitive dissonance is even harder (for them)…,

 

[rebelatsea]

Having researched and studied the CSN ironclads for well over thirty years. and put so much information both new and in correction on this forum, I can no longer be a****d to write reams refuting ignorance and received wisdom form those who claim to know better.
It only irritates me but bores the reader.