CSS GEORGIA PLAN for Littlefield

[rebelatsea]

Here is the plan I drew from information in the Archeological survey conducted some years ago. Bear in mind that the current recovery program may make this obsolete, or alter it.

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

Thanks so much so sharing.

 

[bradford011]

It will be interesting to see what changes may need to be made based on what new information appears...

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

It will be interesting to see what changes may need to be made based on what new information appears...

Although this is not the case here, as I understand John made the drawings based on an archaeological survey, I always find it incredibly interesting to compare historical records to archaeological data.

 

[georgew]

Here is the plan I drew from information in the Archeological survey conducted some years ago. Bear in mind that the current recovery program may make this obsolete, or alter it.
View attachment 105586

Hi Rebel. If your hull drawing is correct, the configuration looks a great deal like the design for the Tift's boats. The Georgia hull in your depiction appears a bit "scowish", which actually makes sense when you consider the application. The Tift's went a different route in their hull construction (more of a wooden shell) versus the more conventional Georgia framing and planking. We do know that at least one of the Tifts seems to have visited the Georgia construction site, apparently interested in how Georgia was being ironed. There are some suggestions that there was shared information between Georgia and Louisiana in terms of stabilizing the latter's rail ironing. You wonder why they chose to build the casemate so high on the Georgia, but she apparently wasn't intended to go to sea. The angle of her shield probably acted as a kind of tumble-home to mitigate the center of gravity issues. You do wonder when they placed her guns and carriages aboard, not to mention her machinery. It looks as though there might have been an advantage in doing it before they built or completed the casemate. Her boilers seem to have been further aft than most of the Confederate designs.

 

[rebelatsea]

Hi Rebel. If your hull drawing is correct, the configuration looks a great deal like the design for the Tift's boats. The Georgia hull in your depiction appears a bit "scowish", which actually makes sense when you consider the application. The Tift's went a different route in their hull construction (more of a wooden shell) versus the more conventional Georgia framing and planking. We do know that at least one of the Tifts seems to have visited the Georgia construction site, apparently interested in how Georgia was being ironed. There are some suggestions that there was shared information between Georgia and Louisiana in terms of stabilizing the latter's rail ironing. You wonder why they chose to build the casemate so high on the Georgia, but she apparently wasn't intended to go to sea. The angle of her shield probably acted as a kind of tumble-home to mitigate the center of gravity issues. You do wonder when they placed her guns and carriages aboard, not to mention her machinery. It looks as though there might have been an advantage in doing it before they built or completed the casemate. Her boilers seem to have been further aft than most of the Confederate designs.

I'm hoping that the recovery will shed more light on CSS Georgia construction, but I'm not holding my breath. Nelson Tift visited as you say to look at her protection. As the hull seems to have been destroyed we will probably never know if it was a plank on frame forerunner of the Mississippi type, although at the time the archeological survey was done they did find a piece of structure which might have been part of the bow in the channel close by which is what they based their impressions on.
The gun deck was supposedly 5ft above the f'csle and quarterdeck ,which may account fro the height of the casemate.
Interestingly there was also this vessel:

The Large Georgia type

Dimensions: 234ft OA x 50ft EX x 14ft D, 2,340 tons, 9 knots (calc).
220ft PP x 42ft moulded x 17 dPH
Guns: 2 chase guns fore and aft, 16 broadside.
Armour: 4" iron over 24" timber, casemate and hull sloped at 45 degrees
Design : A.N.Millar, H.F.Willink and Asa Tift, Builder : John Hughes La.
History:.

Conjectural general arrangement drawing by the author, based on CSS Georgia.

This vessel was approved by Secretary Mallory in January 1862 The vessel began construction in Louisiana dry dock No 4, which measured 280ft x 89ft overall and her frames were scuttled with the dock in April 1862.

Note: This vessel's gun deck was 5ft above the fore and aft decks. Intended for construction at Savannah Ga, Secretary Mallory approved it in January 1862, but for the Mississippi River at New Orleans.

=============================================================

 

[georgew]

I'm hoping that the recovery will shed more light on CSS Georgia construction, but I'm not holding my breath. Nelson Tift visited as you say to look at her protection. As the hull seems to have been destroyed we will probably never know if it was a plank on frame forerunner of the Mississippi type, although at the time the archeological survey was done they did find a piece of structure which might have been part of the bow in the channel close by which is what they based their impressions on.
The gun deck was supposedly 5ft above the f'csle and quarterdeck ,which may account fro the height of the casemate.
Interestingly there was also this vessel:

The Large Georgia type

Dimensions: 234ft OA x 50ft EX x 14ft D, 2,340 tons, 9 knots (calc).
220ft PP x 42ft moulded x 17 dPH
Guns: 2 chase guns fore and aft, 16 broadside.
Armour: 4" iron over 24" timber, casemate and hull sloped at 45 degrees
Design : A.N.Millar, H.F.Willink and Asa Tift, Builder : John Hughes La.
History:.
View attachment 105761
Conjectural general arrangement drawing by the author, based on CSS Georgia.

This vessel was approved by Secretary Mallory in January 1862 The vessel began construction in Louisiana dry dock No 4, which measured 280ft x 89ft overall and her frames were scuttled with the dock in April 1862.

Note: This vessel's gun deck was 5ft above the fore and aft decks. Intended for construction at Savannah Ga, Secretary Mallory approved it in January 1862, but for the Mississippi River at New Orleans.

=============================================================

Another good one, Rebel. I assume this is the hard to pin down "Million Dollar Frigate"? Is the structure on the bow a ram or just a bumper of some kind? Had no idea that the Tifts were participants in this project. She makes an interesting counterpoint to the Mississippi. Heavier armor, and four more guns. Who was going to build the machinery for this monster?

 

[rebelatsea]

Another good one, Rebel. I assume this is the hard to pin down "Million Dollar Frigate"? Is the structure on the bow a ram or just a bumper of some kind? Had no idea that the Tifts were participants in this project. She makes an interesting counterpoint to the Mississippi. Heavier armor, and four more guns. Who was going to build the machinery for this monster?

Georgew,

Good question - I think it was but Bil R says the Million dollar IC was in the sectional dock. It seems to have been a combined effort in design (camel and committee come to mind). Hughes is shown as the builder, but it would actually been one of his superintendants, or dick masters, as Hughes was the "big boss". I don't think the Tifts had anything to do with actual construction.
The object on the bow is I think a reinforced stem piece, which would make sense it this was a plank on frame vessel. Her ordnance warrant would probably have been reduced to fewer but heavier weapons by the time construction was well under way, as to her machinery I don't know.
I based the plan on CSS Georgia, including position of the stack, but it would almost certainly have been nearer midships, allowing for an adequate number of boilers. If they were the same as those in Mississippi, and intended for the smaller vessels they would have been 30ft long by 3.5ft diameter. I'd guess at a minimum of 6, possibly 8.

 

[georgew]

Georgew,

Good question - I think it was but Bil R says the Million dollar IC was in the sectional dock. It seems to have been a combined effort in design (camel and committee come to mind). Hughes is shown as the builder, but it would actually been one of his superintendants, or dick masters, as Hughes was the "big boss". I don't think the Tifts had anything to do with actual construction.
The object on the bow is I think a reinforced stem piece, which would make sense it this was a plank on frame vessel. Her ordnance warrant would probably have been reduced to fewer but heavier weapons by the time construction was well under way, as to her machinery I don't know.
I based the plan on CSS Georgia, including position of the stack, but it would almost certainly have been nearer midships, allowing for an adequate number of boilers. If they were the same as those in Mississippi, and intended for the smaller vessels they would have been 30ft long by 3.5ft diameter. I'd guess at a minimum of 6, possibly 8.

Rebel there may be another complicating factor. The Southern Steamship Co. organized an Algiers dock company in the mid-1850's. It was large enough for their Coastal Steamers. It isn't clear whether this was the former dock attached to the Belleville Iron Works and no longer there by 1861. This may be your Dock No. 4. Your expatriate frigate design vcan probably be considered proof that by January, 1862, Mallory was beginning to take the situation at New Orleans more seriously. Existing assets were usually allocated up-river, but most of the new construction seems ear-marked for a Squadron at the Crescent City. The Mississippi(s) and this vessel were of a class clearly intended to take on Union frigates and large sloops of war. You wonder where they thought all of the iron was coming from. The stocks piled up for expansion of the New Orleans Opelousas line expansion had to run out at some point.

 

[Dilandu]

Seems that Tift's liked triangle hull lines quite a lot... undoubtedly better for production purposes, but their hydrodynamic would probably be... not good. Are there any data about the machine power&theoretical/actual speed?

 

[georgew]

Seems that Tift's liked triangle hull lines quite a lot... undoubtedly better for production purposes, but their hydrodynamic would probably be... not good. Are there any data about the machine power&theoretical/actual speed?

Have to agree with you. One question is the layout of the drive-line and propellers. If large enough they might have assisted in keeping the flow attached further aft. We learned in aerospace a long time ago that you can build a fuselage with relatively high efficiencies with flat panels. It is the transitions that usually cause separation and increase drag. In general, if you're hanging things out in the flow do it aft, you're already getting separation anyway. It would be interesting to put a model of the Tift type construction hulls in a water channel like those at the David Taylor Model Basin and see what happens. It would make an interesting graduate engineering project and could possibly be financed by a grant.