CSS/USS Atlanta - modified by Union yards?

[georgew]

An interesting question regarding the Atlanta is whether or not she was modified under Union employment. In particular did they do anything to bolster her ironing?

 

[Rhea Cole]

They had to do something to repair the battle damage.

 

[rebelatsea]

Apart from the obvious battle damage, they removed the spar torpedo (wonder what happened to it?). So far as I am aware she went into USN service pretty much as was. When sold to the Haitians she had to have been re armed, as her Brookes were taken off, but what with?

 

[rebelatsea]

Apart from the obvious battle damage, they removed the spar torpedo (wonder what happened to it?). So far as I am aware she went into USN service pretty much as was. When sold to the Haitians she had to have been re armed, as her Brookes were taken off, but what with?

Silly b****r! I had the answer sitting on my bookshelf. In Warships of Salnave's War (Haiti, 1867 - 1869) by William Eugene Warner PhD. The USN re- armed her with 2x 150pdr and 2 x 100pdr parrott MLR. As Triumpho, 2x 7" MLR type unspecified, 2 x 10" SB.

 

[Carronade]

I wonder what happened to Atlanta's ammunition? AFAIK Tennessee retained her 6.4" and 7" Brookes in Union service; I wonder if they might have sent the unexpected supply of Confederate shells to her? Assuming of course that they had stored them from the time Atlanta was captured. Tennessee was used by the USN in the bombardment of Fort Morgan, for which her rifles were eminently suited; between that and the battle she likely used most of her original supply.

More generally, what was done with non-standard guns and ammunition? I could see shooting it off at some suitable target, as they did with Tennessee and Fort Morgan. Or did they salvage the powder and melt down the metal for re-use?

 

[Carronade]

An interesting question regarding the Atlanta is whether or not she was modified under Union employment. In particular did they do anything to bolster her ironing?

Adding armor would increase her draft, which was already greater than most ironclads; we may recall she was lost mainly due to grounding.

It's challenging to make a really good warship from one not designed for the purpose. Fingal was not particularly suitable; the idea of converting her to an ironclad only came up after they gave up on using her in her intended role.

 

[Dilandu]

In particular did they do anything to bolster her ironing?

Really doubt that. It would require rather major refit, and this just doesn't make sense. She was a non-standard ship, far inferior to Union monitors (as was clearly demonstrated with the speed they beat her into surrender), and with both low freeboard and relatively large draft, which made her not exactly suitable for both coastal and sea warfare.

 

[rebelatsea]

Really doubt that. It would require rather major refit, and this just doesn't make sense. She was a non-standard ship, far inferior to Union monitors (as was clearly demonstrated with the speed they beat her into surrender), and with both low freeboard and relatively large draft, which made her not exactly suitable for both coastal and sea warfare.

The USN only had laminate 1" plate, don't think they are going to replace 2x2" by 4 x 1" somehow. As for her capture, if one of the monitors had been aground and listing so the guns couldn't be trained, I think it would have struck too.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The USN only had laminate 1" plate, don't think they are going to replace 2x2" by 4 x 1" somehow. As for her capture, if one of the monitors had been aground and listing so the guns couldn't be trained, I think it would have struck too.

Would have had to be a significant list, because the horizontal training wouldn't have been an obstacle. In any case, the Union had another monitor "in reserve" than never got into the action (USS Nahant), so I really doubt Weehawken would have struck-- especially with John Rodgers in command of her.

(Incidentally, the Weehawken had a pilot familiar with the area; the Nahant did not, which is why she was following at a distance. I can't recall if Atlanta had a pilot experienced with Wassaw Sound and vicinity.)

 

[Dilandu]

The USN only had laminate 1" plate, don't think they are going to replace 2x2" by 4 x 1" somehow. As for her capture, if one of the monitors had been aground and listing so the guns couldn't be trained, I think it would have struck too.

Er, the USN made 4,5-inch plates for "New Ironsides" and "Roanoke". It was just that 1-inch plates were easier to produce in large quantity (one reason why they stuck with monitors was exactly that they were very manufacturing-friendly). But I guess it just did not have much sense to use costly 4,5-inch plates to re-armor the rather primitive "Atlanta".

Would have had to be a significant list, because the horizontal training wouldn't have been an obstacle. In any case, the Union had another monitor "in reserve" than never got into the action (USS Nahant), so I really doubt Weehawken would have struck-- especially with John Rodgers in command of her.

Yep.

 

[rebelatsea]

Er, the USN made 4,5-inch plates for "New Ironsides" and "Roanoke". It was just that 1-inch plates were easier to produce in large quantity (one reason why they stuck with monitors was exactly that they were very manufacturing-friendly). But I guess it just did not have much sense to use costly 4,5-inch plates to re-armor the rather primitive "Atlanta".
Yes But the plate for Ironsides and Roanoke had to be specially cast, Perhaps I should have said 1" laminated plate in common use.

Yep.

 

[rebelatsea]

I know the 4.5" plate for New Ironsides and Roanoke had to be specially cast. Perhaps I should have said 1" laminated plate in common use.

 

[Story]

Have you seen this thread?

The Confederate Ironclad Navy | The Naval War

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2014/january/confederate-ironclad-navy?fbclid=IwAR0Wg4W-9x6bwVIcgi7ngH_Zan68Go6BEt_GHF4hoauUiSyc1pGKpEJMfXw A rare Confederate iron-hulled ironclad, the Atlanta was photographed at Philadelphia's League Island Navy Yard after Union forces...

civilwartalk.com

 

[rebelatsea]

Have you seen this thread?

The Confederate Ironclad Navy | The Naval War

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2014/january/confederate-ironclad-navy?fbclid=IwAR0Wg4W-9x6bwVIcgi7ngH_Zan68Go6BEt_GHF4hoauUiSyc1pGKpEJMfXw A rare Confederate iron-hulled ironclad, the Atlanta was photographed at Philadelphia's League Island Navy Yard after Union forces...

civilwartalk.com

Yes in fact I contributed several times to it.

 

[Story]

Yes in fact I contributed several times to it.

I was responding to the OP, not you. You think I don't remember interacting with you in that thread? Com'n now..

 

[rebelatsea]

I was responding to the OP, not you. You think I don't remember interacting with you in that thread? Com'n now..

You have a better memory than me LOL.

 

[Story]

Found this while trawling for something else.
The Rebel Ram "Atlanta"

The Rebel Ram "Atlanta"

1 photograph : print on card mount ; mount 17.5 x 9 cm (stereograph format) | Photograph shows steam driven ironclad "Atlanta," which was captured by the Union army from the Confederates in June 1863. After its capture the USS Atlanta operated in the James River area.

www.loc.gov

 

[Robert Gray]

The USS Atlanta on the James River. (National Archives)

 

[Western Reserve Volunteer]

Is that a spar torpedo or a mine rake on the Atlanta's bow there?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Mine rake... in a couple of photos taken (most likely on the same day) of other Union ironclads on the river nearby, it's a little more clear.

The Union did use spar torpedoes (see: Cushing, William B.) but in the James River they were faced with a lot of Confederate torpedoes... I don't believe the term "minesweeper" had been coined yet, but they were heading in that direction by necessity.

ETA: Merriam-Webster Online states that the first known mention of the term "minesweeper" was in 1904. There's your "Jeopardy!" trivia for the day.