CSS Squib

[JohnDLittlefield]

Perhaps this has been the subject of a previous thread, but I did a quick search and didn't find an old one. Below are images from the ORN Vol. 9, pp. 601-603, showing a sketch, with description from 24 May 1864, of CSS Squib, the vessel, commanded by Hunter Davdison, that attacked USS Minnesota on 9 April 1864.

 

[georgew]

Perhaps this has been the subject of a previous thread, but I did a quick search and didn't find an old one. Below are images from the ORN Vol. 9, pp. 601-603, showing a sketch, with description from 24 May 1864, of CSS Squib, the vessel, commanded by Hunter Davdison, that attacked USS Minnesota on 9 April 1864.

View attachment 108179


View attachment 108177


View attachment 108180

The Squib is intriguing. The bow is perfect for letting most of the pressure wave from a torpedo explosion run aft past the hull. She has a steering wheel mounted transversely behind the wheel for lowering the torpedo and a manual backup tiller aft of the boiler. You do wonder just how much coal she carried and how it was bunker'd. The ironing over the firebox, engine and steam lines is a bit odd. You would think they would have tried to give better protection to the boiler, unless the thickness of the overhead ironing was similar to the boiler iron. You wonder if Squib was just a prototype, as she seems to have been a "one of" at Richmond. The other torpedo boats seems to have been heavier units. You also wonder how much powder was carried in the torpedo. Either a small charge, based upon the minimum damage to the target or they had the misfortune to strike an area with structural reinforcements. Squib appears to have been designed to operate in shallower water than the others. You can argue that she would have been more useful if shipped by rail to Mobile. An optimum deployment for a boat like this would be to serve as part of a division of four to six boats with a mothership/tender. Attacks by multiple units from different tracks would force defenders to split their fire. In a night action this could be fatal for the target.

 

[5fish]

A minor point the Squib was also referred as the Infanta.... The USS Minnesota only received minor damage... I was reading the lack of quality steam engines is what basically made Confederate torpedo boat ineffective during the war...

 

[Blessmag]

How dare they attack Minnesota; oh wait...............

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

The Squib is intriguing.
[1] You also wonder how much powder was carried in the torpedo. Either a small charge, based upon the minimum damage to the target or they had the misfortune to strike an area with structural reinforcements.

[2]Squib appears to have been designed to operate in shallower water than the others.

[3]An optimum deployment for a boat like this would be to serve as part of a division of four to six boats with a mothership/tender. Attacks by multiple units from different tracks would force defenders to split their fire. In a night action this could be fatal for the target.

Hi Georgew- I can help answer one or two of your questions...
[1] See the above post from the ORN- it says there was 53 lbs of powder in the torpedo. This is also the figure given by Raimondo Luraghi (1996, 263). As for the damage to Minnesota, I've read (also from Luraghi who cited reports from Minnesota's crew, Mallory, etc.) that the damage was quite serious and the vessel was "put out of commission for some time." Is that refuted elsewhere?

[2] The Davids had a maximum diameter of only 5- 5.5 ft, allowing for very shallow water use. Also see the shallow draft of the Porter torpedo boat(s) from Wilmington (I posted an image in another thread a few days ago), as well as H. L. Hunley. The idea of shallow draft was there- they just kept wanting to make things unnecessarily larger for some reason. The Union kind of did the same thing with the three classes of monitors- each getting a little smaller with a little less draft, but never quite small enough it seems.

[3] Using the torpedo boats in small fleets was always the plan in Charleston, starting with the creation of Torch in 1862. The problem was that the Navy would not finance or support construction of a small fleet until a torpedo boat was proven in combat. The rowed torpedo boats proved to be ineffective (early 1863); the steam launches never got a chance to be proven since the night before the planned attack the entire Union fleet left Charleston harbor and they never planned a second attempt (Spring 1863); Torch was a dismal failure (August 1863); David was only moderately successful (fall 1863). It wasn't until the "success" of H.L. Hunley that a torpedo boat was "proven" and then the vessel and crew were lost, so no further vessels were constructed.

 

[rebelatsea]

Hi Georgew- I can help answer one or two of your questions...
[1] See the above post from the ORN- it says there was 53 lbs of powder in the torpedo. This is also the figure given by Raimondo Luraghi (1996, 263). As for the damage to Minnesota, I've read (also from Luraghi who cited reports from Minnesota's crew, Mallory, etc.) that the damage was quite serious and the vessel was "put out of commission for some time." Is that refuted elsewhere?

[2] The Davids had a maximum diameter of only 5- 5.5 ft, allowing for very shallow water use. Also see the shallow draft of the Porter torpedo boat(s) from Wilmington (I posted an image in another thread a few days ago), as well as H. L. Hunley. The idea of shallow draft was there- they just kept wanting to make things unnecessarily larger for some reason. The Union kind of did the same thing with the three classes of monitors- each getting a little smaller with a little less draft, but never quite small enough it seems.

[3] Using the torpedo boats in small fleets was always the plan in Charleston, starting with the creation of Torch in 1862. The problem was that the Navy would not finance or support construction of a small fleet until a torpedo boat was proven in combat. The rowed torpedo boats proved to be ineffective (early 1863); the steam launches never got a chance to be proven since the night before the planned attack the entire Union fleet left Charleston harbor and they never planned a second attempt (Spring 1863); Torch was a dismal failure (August 1863); David was only moderately successful (fall 1863). It wasn't until the "success" of H.L. Hunley that a torpedo boat was "proven" and then the vessel and crew were lost, so no further vessels were constructed.

The Squib design is attribute to William Graves, but I have often wondered if he only signed acceptance, and Davidson was the real designer.

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

The Squib design is attribute to William Graves, but I have often wondered if he only signed acceptance, and Davidson was the real designer.

Interesting... what makes you think that?

 

[rebelatsea]

Interesting... what makes you think that?

Graves' speciality was large ironclads, Porter signed plans off that were drawn up by his draughtsman and other designers, What's to say Graves didn't do the same.

 

[georgew]

Perhaps this has been the subject of a previous thread, but I did a quick search and didn't find an old one. Below are images from the ORN Vol. 9, pp. 601-603, showing a sketch, with description from 24 May 1864, of CSS Squib, the vessel, commanded by Hunter Davdison, that attacked USS Minnesota on 9 April 1864.

View attachment 108179


View attachment 108177


View attachment 108180

Littlefield, am I correct in thinking that the drawing on pg 602 above was actually done by a Union draftsman after the fact melding information from several different Union observers? If this is correct, I suspect we should be a little bit cautious about certain details depicted. The more I look at this nice drawing, the more I wonder if the draftsman used a lot of observations of civilian steam launches in its layout. Do we know for certain that Squib was of new construction versus conversion of an existing launch? I think that most of the information in 602 involving internal details not readily observable by Union personnel are an educated guess. The engine appears to be a single cylinder powerplant mounted vertically with a 90 deg gearing system which may or may not have a ratio. The shaft appears to run under the firebox aft. If the proportions are generally correct, then you have a helmsman who could have been left or right of the wheel, an engineer aft of the engine who may or may not have doubled as the fireman. This boat as depicted looks like it had a 3 or 4 man crew. We don't seem to have any type of scale with the drawing. If the helmsman was standing behind the wheel, his head would need to be above the deckline for vision. I seem to remember that in those days an average man was 5' 6" to 5' 8" tall, minus about a foot for the head, implying that the depth of the cuddy was about 4 1/2 feet. If this is correct, then the vessel depicted would have drawn about 2 to 2 1/2 feet of water. I wonder if anyone on the board has any idea what the diameter for a screw propeller for a steam launch with these approximate dimensions might be? You also wonder if the steam line from the boiler would have been plumbed overhead as depicted.

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

I would be a poor researcher if I were to accept eye-witness accounts as accurate, as they are shown to be problematic in many cases. In this case we have, on p.601 (also attached above), the report of Fleet Captain John S. Barnes. He says, "Upon the 14th instant, I had the opportunity of observing closely a torpedo boat of the enemy when under a flag of truce..." Barnes provides a great deal of detail in description as well as is drawing as he wants to have these replicated for the Union Navy. I cannot speak to the certainty of accuracy of the description or the drawing (although he is clearly eye-balling the length of the torpedo boat at 30-40 ft.), but given the level of detail I tend to think it more accurate than not in detail rather than scale. As for the hand that drew it, there are no clues in the description that I can discern that would suggest or refute that Barnes drew it- we simply do not know as far as I can see. Barnes did publish a nice illustrated book after the war (1869) on submarine warfare, for whatever that is worth, but again, I have no idea who drew the illustrations. Barnes' description and drawing are supported as correct by Lieutenant Lamson of the Union Torpedo Division (bottom of 601 and top of 603), so at least we have two corroborating descriptions, for whatever that's worth.

..."which was the one undoubtedly employed by the enemy in an attempt to blow up the Minnesota." He knows that the boat was under the command of Hunter Davidson during the attack of Minnesota and at the time Barnes observed it. So, Barnes is convinced that this was Squib, and that seems likely. So, at least we have a seemingly good drawing of Squib, although as you point out, there are some obvious flaws and potentially scale problems.

As far as Squib being a new construction, I honestly do not remember- I'd have to go back and check notes and references. I will be doing that over the next couple of weeks as I try to collate all descriptions and drawings/sketches/images of as many Confederate torpedo boats as possible. I decided this would be a useful Appendix for the book since so much confusion surrounds these vessels. I'll likely try to employ help from the forum in the form of a new thread for each vessel.

As for the screw, at least one of the Davids, at about 50 feet in length, had a screw of 3.5 ft diameter for a small twin cylinder engine (with 5 in bore and 8 in stroke). I would think Squib to have a smaller sized screw given the shallow portion of submerged hull depicted, as you noted. The description also says the draft was about the same as a frigates launch- so only a couple of feet. One of the things I will do shortly is print this image and try to create a couple of scales for comparison- probably based on the depth of the torpedo (presuming it to be 6-8 feet deep). I'm not sure if that will be helpful or not, but I'll try it. I just the same for the John L. Porter torpedo boat from Wilmington and and the screw on it appears to be about 2' 6" in diameter (for a 42 ft long torpedo boat of similar style to Squib), so that's probably a better baseline for than the Davids.

The steam line doesn't seem terribly problematic to me, but may also, as you mentioned, be a matter of conjecture.

This is the fun part of all this, right???

 

[Story]

You do wonder just how much coal she carried and how it was bunker'd. .

I'd just read where Blockade Runners out of the Bahamas would burn turpentine-soaked cotton in their boilers if they wanted to run without leaving a smoke trail. Considering the short range of this vessel, that'd make sense as a primary fuel.

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

I'd just read where Blockade Runners out of the Bahamas would burn turpentine-soaked cotton in their boilers if they wanted to run without leaving a smoke trail. Considering the short range of this vessel, that'd make sense as a primary fuel.

Interesting! Do you recall where you read that?

 

[Story]

Interesting! Do you recall where you read that?

No.

p.18
http://digitalcollections.fiu.edu/tequesta/files/1945/45_1_02.pdf

 

[Story]

Went looking for something more contemporary, only found this (so far) reference the HANSA

She had two stacks and must have
been a fast steamer when acquired by the Confederates, but she appears
to have fouled her boilers-by February 1864, if not earlier-and may have
been retired to less hazardous service; many steamers ruined their tubes
by burning turpentine soaked cotton from their cargo to get steam for
flank speed in a dire extremity such as might be encountered any or
every run through the blockade.

http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/csn/h.txt

Probably wasn't recorded much, as it sounds not in the best practices for engine life.

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

I read (and forgot about) this article a while back. Revisited it today and recalled the description of Squib given by the author, R. O. Crowley, electrician for the CSN Torpedo Division- worked with Maury and Hunter Davidson. He was witness to the boat and describes Squib as 20 ft x 5ft, drawing 3 ft of water, with a small dbl engine.

 

[AndyHall]

View attachment 108177

Does that look like an oscillating engine to y'all?

 

[5fish]

On the night of April 9, 1864 Lt. Hunter Davidson, CSN and a crew of six men in a small armoured launch, the CSS Squib, successfully attacked the 265-foot, 47-gun, USS Minnesota in Hampton Roads, Virginia. The small 53-pound, soar mounted torpedo struck the 'Minnesota' amidships creating havoc and despair among the Minnesota's crew. While the 'Minnesota' was not severely damaged, the threat of small, fast boats with their deadly cargo of torpedoes was firmly established.

https://sites.google.com/site/290foundation/history/css-david

https://books.google.com/books?id=o...AEIPDAD#v=onepage&q=css squib engines&f=false

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

Does that look like an oscillating engine to y'all?

That's hard to say. The engine portion is pretty nondescript, but the transmission section is certainly an oscillating mechanism. I was going to suggest that it could be a direct drive- pushed from the bottom of the cylinders, but I am pretty sure that the pistons would have operated opposingly, not in tandem. This supports the idea of an oscillating engine, right?

 

[5fish]

Here from pages 164 to 166 have the dimensions of the boats and photographs. There is one photo of a spar torpedo boat moored next to a union ship page 164...

https://books.google.com/books?id=x...AEIUjAI#v=onepage&q=css squib engines&f=false

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

Here from pages 164 to 166 have the dimensions of the boats and photographs. There is one photo of a spar torpedo boat moored next to a union ship page 164...

https://books.google.com/books?id=x-XcAgWYTMMC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=css+squib+engines&source=bl&ots=wTkFmLV5DE&sig=XCwowrg1BtpRnbJeeKLn_TgSnp8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXzZT18-DYAhUObKwKHUBTBwQQ6AEIUjAI#v=onepage&q=css squib engines&f=false

Just for clarity, I see a number of potential problems on this page:

1) I have no idea what Silverstone is calling No.7 or No.8 (second column). If someone can clarify this, I would appreciate knowing. The number designations for the "Davids" from which he was pulling were No.1- No.5 (No. 6 was a large blockade runner shaped like a cigar) and were all assigned by Union Engineer Chassaing in a report to describe the conditions of the abandoned cigar-shaped vessel, not names of the vessels. There were in 10 or 11 "Davids" produced in Charleston. One was called "Midge" by the Union after it's seizure and it was taken to Brooklyn. Another (dubbed "Knat" in Union records) was taken to the Naval Academy at New Port, RI then transferred with the Naval Academy to Annapolis, one was lost at sea around Cape Hatteras while being towed to Philadelphia.
Midge and Knat were not part of Chassiang's report as they were submerged at the time and Chassaing never saw them. So, there was Chassaing's numbers 1-5 (6 was NOT a David), plus Midge, Knat, and a third sister vessel that was not raised, along with 2 other Davids being constructed by David Ebaugh (30 miles outside Charelston) for a total of 10. One other, known only from a photo may existed. So, what is Silverstone referring to as No7 and No.8?

2) Midge could not have been 30 X 12. This vessel was the most photographed of the "Davids" (there are at least 7 distinct photos of that vessel at the Navy Yard, one of which is included on the following page of the Silverstone text) and it is quite clear she did not have these squat dimension. Consider the dimensions... a ratio of almost 1 to 2- that's a raft. In fact Midge appears to be the largest of the "Davids" at 64 feet in length while the others were ~50 feet.

3) Midge also does not seem to have been either launched or commissioned. The vessel was in new condition and very likely unfinished. I've found no evidence that it (or the two sister vessels) was ever actually deployed for a mission (but I'd love to see such if it exists!). Union soldiers raised the scuttled the vessel, and Knat, assembled them from parts found at the site. Both were in running condition in late summer 1865.

3) Hornet appears to have was raised (Memorandum regarding the James River Squadron 19 Feb 1865, ORN Vol. 12 (1901), 185-6.)

4) Scorpion was not burned. She was captured and ultimately taken to the Norfolk Navy Yard on 3 August 1865- after a stint as a tender to Onondaga and a trip to Wilmington which involved the vessel being sunk and later recovered when the boat was used by surveying parties from Hetzel.

As far as I can tell, based on two distinct accounts, Squib was 25-30 in length, about 4-5 feet in beam, had a depth of about 4 feet, and carried four crew, but this is far from concrete.