CSS Atlanta question

[rebelatsea]

Mallory actually wanted both Atlanta and Savannah out, but Savannah wasn't ready, so Webb told Mallory he would attack the two monitors, and wait for Savannah. as the letter says.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Regardless of eventual intentions, it's quite clear that on the occasion in question, Atlanta was expected to attack (and presumably overwhelm) the monitors, and then fall back to Savannah.

 

[andy19k10]

I think he would have been well advised not to depend on Savannah if he had gone out to sea. I dont think she would have done well in open ocean.

 

[georgew]

WE could roll 6" by 1863, the problem was designing ships to carry it !
The quality of CS 2" plate was very variable, Tredegar and Schofield and Markham could and roll quality armour, If they could have rolled it in plates rather than strips it would have much better. Selma was experimenting with 4 and 5 inch plate in 1864.
The union appeared satisfied with 1" rolled plate, but it was comparitively brittle unless used in great thickness. New Ironsides had I think 4" solid plate, but what it's resistance was I don't know.
The other major factor of course is adequate support and backing, to increase the protective resilience.

John, when you're talking about British armor plate of the period, what size plates are we talking about in terms of dimensions? One of the few "advantages" of Confederate ironing was that because of its small width and fairly short length, each section could be manhandled into place without the need of a crane. This would not have been a fast process, but just getting your iron in the first place does seem to have been a fast process either. My point is that if British type plate armor had been cleared for import into the Confederacy, I'm not sure that cornfield shipyards would have had the equipment to mount it because of size and weight. I also wonder if it would have made sense to have the Tredegar, Schofield and Markham pre-drill the iron before shipping . They probably had or could make the tooling. They also probably had the equipment to cut off sections at the foundry to account for the different casemate heights. This would greatly reduce the amount of equipment needed to assemble the vessel on site. The downside of this approach is that if you wanted 4 or 6 inch ironing, with pre-drilling, it would require stacking them in the same vertical or horizontal orientation to get the holes to line up. The usual practice by 1863 would be to have one course horizontal and the outside course vertical. If it were based purely on production engineering practice, I think a laminated armor stack would have been applied vertically. The stack allows the holes to be used as templates for drilling the bolt holes through the wood backing and the vertical orientation tends to eliminate the problem of rail or plates being put in peel if the end of the rail is struck by solid shot or a bolt. The south could have had the benefit of good British iron by shipping in rail from Wales. I'm guessing for large orders they would cut to any length you ordered. As the Tifts noted, the trick with using T-rail is the number of fasteners and pouring something into the gaps to stabilize the reversed rail when forces applied to it tried to "twist" it.

 

[rebelatsea]

I think he would have been well advised not to depend on Savannah if he had gone out to sea. I dont think she would have done well in open ocean.

CSS Savannah from all accounts appears to have been a good vessel. There are many unanswered questions about why the different members of the 150ft class were so different in character, in particular why the two Charleston examples were such bad sea boats, whereas CSS Raleigh went to sea and cruised about all night quite happily.
CSS Richmond as completed was only really a half sister, and never went beyond the James, and CSS North Carolina was a crank ship from the start.

 

[rebelatsea]

John, when you're talking about British armor plate of the period, what size plates are we talking about in terms of dimensions? One of the few "advantages" of Confederate ironing was that because of its small width and fairly short length, each section could be manhandled into place without the need of a crane. This would not have been a fast process, but just getting your iron in the first place does seem to have been a fast process either. My point is that if British type plate armor had been cleared for import into the Confederacy, I'm not sure that cornfield shipyards would have had the equipment to mount it because of size and weight. I also wonder if it would have made sense to have the Tredegar, Schofield and Markham pre-drill the iron before shipping . They probably had or could make the tooling. They also probably had the equipment to cut off sections at the foundry to account for the different casemate heights. This would greatly reduce the amount of equipment needed to assemble the vessel on site. The downside of this approach is that if you wanted 4 or 6 inch ironing, with pre-drilling, it would require stacking them in the same vertical or horizontal orientation to get the holes to line up. The usual practice by 1863 would be to have one course horizontal and the outside course vertical. If it were based purely on production engineering practice, I think a laminated armor stack would have been applied vertically. The stack allows the holes to be used as templates for drilling the bolt holes through the wood backing and the vertical orientation tends to eliminate the problem of rail or plates being put in peel if the end of the rail is struck by solid shot or a bolt. The south could have had the benefit of good British iron by shipping in rail from Wales. I'm guessing for large orders they would cut to any length you ordered. As the Tifts noted, the trick with using T-rail is the number of fasteners and pouring something into the gaps to stabilize the reversed rail when forces applied to it tried to "twist" it.

Plates for RN ironclads were supplied to shape and pre drilled where necessary, they could be anything up to 20ft long by 10ft high in the time we are discussing, requiring special cranes and derricks to handle them. No doubt the brains of the CSN could have designed such equipment for use in the yards, but not in a cornfield !
The armour for CSS Virginia and CSS Mississippi was supplied in the correct lengths and predrilled to fit, so drawings had to have been made, a few of those for the Mississippi are known to have survived. No doubt similar plans were made for other vessels.
Georgia and maybe Louisiana had a mix of concrete and iron filings (?) poured between the T rails, making the whole casing a homogenous mass. Louisiana stood up to broadsides of solid shot at point blank range, suggesting that she DID have this treatment. In later years this mass concrete mix became known as Ferrocrete, and was used for fortification. This should not be confused with ferro - concrete which was a 2oth century invention , using iron and then steel reinforcing bars and mesh.
Louisiana's armour was 22ft railroad rail, why 22ft ? no idea, the normal lengths for rail at this time was 25 or 30 ft. In both incarnations, as designed and as built this length could be laid on without being cut. Coincidence? or had it been cut already, we will never know.

 

[Republican Blues]

This has been a fascinating read... not being a naval architect, Im learning alot. Thanks guys!

 

[AndyHall]

Interesting contrast to Ericsson insisting the Monitor have brass doorknobs and such

Might this have been (in part) due to a recognition that the Union monitors would be serving in Southern waters and so needed to be better fitted in terms of extended accommodation, while Confederate ironclads, performing a largely defensive role, would mostly be operating out of a port and would not have crew living aboard for long periods?

Yes, I'm rambling here.

 

[CMWinkler]

I'm sorry, I need pictures:
Expired Image Removed
This is from here: http://www.cyber-ironclad.com/guerre_cessession/confederate_fleet.php

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Might this have been (in part) due to a recognition that the Union monitors would be serving in Southern waters and so needed to be better fitted in terms of extended accommodation, while Confederate ironclads, performing a largely defensive role, would mostly be operating out of a port and would not have crew living aboard for long periods?

Yes, I'm rambling here.

Partly. Partly the rough finish of the Confederate ironclads was their no-frills approach, and partly the fancy fittings of the monitors were an Ericsson thing (particularly on the original Monitor).

 

[rebelatsea]

I'm sorry, I need pictures:
Expired Image Removed
This is from here: http://www.cyber-ironclad.com/guerre_cessession/confederate_fleet.php

This is a superb rendition of the ship.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Journal Article
UNFOUNDED HOPES: A Design Analysis of the Confederate Ironclad Steamer CSS Atlanta
William C. Emerson
Warship International
Vol. 32, No. 4 (1995), pp. 367-387
International Naval Research Organization

UNFOUNDED HOPES: A Design Analysis of the Confederate Ironclad Steamer CSS Atlanta on JSTOR

William C. Emerson, UNFOUNDED HOPES: A Design Analysis of the Confederate Ironclad Steamer CSS Atlanta, Warship International, Vol. 32, No. 4 (1995), pp. 367-387

www.jstor.org

Full article at above link on JSTOR with Google sign-in (In the upper right-hand corner of the linked page, there is a 'Log in' button. If you have a Gmail account, you have a Google sign-in and this will allow for free reading of 100 articles a month).

Cheers,
USS ALASKA