Ericsson's other ironclad designs.

[vikingbear]

I'mmmmmmmmmmmmmm Bacccccccccccccccccccck!
So on to part II, brief summary.

DEC 23 1861HEIGHT OF THE TRENT CRISIS) Ericsson insisted to Wells (His theories of coastal defense)"Our gunboats or floating batteries, since they lack speed size or many other potent elements of the large European ironclad warships will be worthless unless absolutely impregnable and capable of carrying the heavest ordnance".
There were more statements but this was the first time that he described such vessels carrying heavy guns (15''). He further felt that a couple of light Monitors with such cannon could defend a port against the Warrior.
Ericsson later told Fox that building a dozen (this type) Monitor would not effect the north's construction abilities.

Before moving on, someone asked when did JE discard a 360 turret to a fixed gun? do not believe he did but used this style as a means to a end (to complete his theory).

A early example of this is his 1846 armored ship, that he submitted to congress. In the bow was 3 fixed cannon, which was protected by a armored compartment/shield. There were two pivoted guns on the broadside, one on each side and a 3rd pivot gun in the stern.

The study of JE's "Canal Monitor" for the great lakes is still being done, as the info. left by Ericsson describes a vessel that appears to larger than the locks on the Erie canal of that time/date. Further investigating will be done (did find a map showing the proposed new canals but is in a scale that is unable to be blown up successfully).
JE submitted a letter to the Chairmen of the NY lake defense committee "that a impregnable iron vessel 2oo x 25 wide, constructed on the general plans of the Monitor (Must be talking about #1) will have sufficiently buoyancy to carry a shot -proof iron turret carrying a gun of 15-inch caliber...........capable of destroying any hostile vessel that could be put upon the lakes. (how about John's 2 breakdown wooden rams? The RN had been transporting/building on the lakes warships since the french & Indian war. The 130 gun New Orleans was still on the stocks at Shackets
Harbor).

JE Spanish gunboat design; In 1869 he build 30 gunboats to be used in shallow waters around Cuba by the Spanish Navy.
Ericsson's goal was to design a shallow draft gunboat, carrying a large cannon, on a small tonnage, cheep enough for a large number to be built fast under a fixed price.
(Guess we now know what the North might have constructed if they had wanted to build such small gunboats. Will have to check against similar Southern types).
Design #1:100x22x8 ; 1-100 mlr fw, 240 range pivot; crew; 2/33
2 x sc, 160hp=10 kts, coal for 6, days provisions for 30 days

Design # 2: The Spanish wanted a draft of 59''
107 wl x 22.5 x keel was removed from design,
1-60 mlr.
137hp=7,5 to 8 kts Some of these wooden gunboats lasted until the Spanish American war.

JE suggested to the navy that the Monitors fight bow foward. Less of a target, ram foward if opening & harder to ram.


Didn't know would go on so much.........see ya in part III

GRIZZ

 

[rebelatsea]

Thanks Grizz,
I will admit I was waiting for some bright soul to ask me what a Confederate ironclad would look like with one of the "Trusty" type turrets.

 

[vikingbear]

Part III..............problem area; Finding who the designer or designers were turned out to be the hardest issue to prove in this whole summary. For example, in the same day checked two different sites where all the pictures were the same (?) along with most of the info. One of the few differences was that who the designer was. Totally opposite from the other site!
Keeping score after that seemed to prove that my theory about the designer was right, but did not stop until on the site that holds the remaining Monitor in their ship collection, gave me the final proof needed.


JE's other designs that he worked on or proposed. All were designed between 1862 and 1871.( 6 years after the CW, so the teck was the same or close).

(wik) JE offered to share his designs with Sweden.....They sent Lt John C d'Ailly.............to study Monitor design and construction under Ericsson. Arriving in August 1862 he visited various ship production sites, including Monitors being constructed.
He returned to Sweden in 1862, having completed the drawings of a Monitor design under JE.s supervision.

I. John Ericsson class; (Wik) Designed under the supervision of John Ericsson. (1862-63). Some basic info giving if anyone would like to check against Union Monitor data.
#1. name sake; Laid down in 1863.

199' 9" x 44' 5" x 11' 2'' Carried 2 x 15'' guns donated by JR (2 of the 3 left above water). All cannon those carried when when first built.
1498 long tons, Crew 80, HP= 6,5 kts

#2. Miolne; built for Norway (was in a Union with Sweden until 1905. Same king different government).
same as above but for guns; 2 x 270 mm Armstrong guns

#3. Thordon: same as #1 but for guns. 2 x 267 mm.
#4. Tiirfiwg; sister ship to #3.

#5. Loke; Improved design #1. 211' 3'' x 46 x 12' 2'',
1569 long tons. Crew 80 6.5 kts.

II. Norway's monitors.

#1. Skorpionen; Norway's version of JE's monitor design.
204' 6" x 22' 4'' x 11' 6'' 1490 long tons
450hp = 8 kts, Crew 85 2 x 10.50''

#2. Planned to build more design #1 replaced by J Ericsson class above;
"Miolne".

#3. Thrudvang;
199' 4'' x 44' 5'' x 11' 6'' 1477 long tons
380hp = 6.5 kts crew 85 2 x 27omm (10.6'')

#4. Thor; improved design #1.
1975 long tons
600hp = 8 kts crew 95 2 x 10.5 mm rml.

III. Russian built monitors: 10 JE type monitors were built there 1863 on with US supplied plans (Ericsson must have loved this because of his feelings about the Russians. As far as I know there has never been a public reason given for why brand new ships designs were given to a foreign power. The only reason that have ever heard of is from one of those "left field" sites, where they say that there was a hidden alliance between the US and Russia. The Crimean was was only some 6 years over (where Russia lost a entire fleet) and during that conflict only the US supported Russia. As a matter of fact it was American companies who raised the scuttled black sea ships.
This site says that the US gave Russia the design (and teck support) to protect St. Pettersburg in case of war. It further said that this is why the British/French never entered the war.
Well.......isn't that what makes a good (left field) theory almost believable? Truth intertwined with ..............BS!

One last blip.
While on the web came across a JE type monitor design, almost moved on without checking but noticed a very short smokestack. More checking reviled a 1867 monitor design, by the Thames shipyard co. This was for the Gov of India Navy, and as we know never built.

On to next part, the small ironclads.

 

[vikingbear]

Hi John,
Well.....anything can have dumb luck sometimes......
The Trudy , even though only a test ship is a interesting design, was just thinking that a Monitor type pilot house on top of her turret would be improvement........but then, have no idea if that would even be possible on this type of turret. Believe though, that it would be easy to erect a mast with a pilot house on top (as in some book drawings of the CSS Wilmington).
Baxter talks about the North being able to convert a dozen steam ships into Virginia type ironclads. (By this time Donald McKay had submitted plans for at least 2 ironclad frigate types, 1 or 2 ironclad corvette types, and a design similar to the Virginia).
This makes me wounder would it have been possible at that time and place for the south to manufacture one, or more of Coles's turrets to be placed atop the Virginia's casemate.? Would the turrets even fit on top? or would the design return to a non angle sides , one with less angle, or one with circular towers, over the angle to be a base for this/these turrets.?
Hay John understand now why you like to draft "improved versions of vessels, it's interesting a chalange.

GRIZZ

 

[rebelatsea]

Hi Grizz,

I did some preliminary calculations in case someone should ask - and you have ! Coles based his drawing on using breechloaders. The real thing of course had to use muzzle loaders, so needed a greater diameter.
To mount 2 x 7" Brooke single banded guns in that type of turret it would need to be 27ft in diameter (external),
So no, it would not fit on top of any CSN casemate. I don't see any reason why a casemate design could not be modified to take one or more of these, bearing in mind the drastic alterations the constructors did make.
By the way the monitor was Molner, with an umlaut above the O .

 

[rebelatsea]

Grizz,
here is vary quick drawing of J.L.Porter's 150ft gunboat fitted with a Trusty type turret mounting 2 x 7" Brooke. MLR

 

[vikingbear]

Hi John,
I kind of figured the turret outer diameter might be too big to fit on top of a angle casemate, that's why tossed out a couple of other options. How about a single gun turret? That would reduce total footage some what and believe the extra height would cause problem with the other guy as deck armor is thinner (as the poor old Turtles found out on the Miss river). Was further thinking about removing the top of the turret to remove top weight, like they did in later 1870's to 1880's ironclads. The height above water might help with the open turret top protection issues and some of the southern ironclads only had wooden grates on top of the casemate.................But then again, later on, they felt that this was dangerous, so who knows'
Ya......knew about the umlaut and the other one with 2 dots above the letter, but could not think of a way to add them .

Well, have the whole family is going out to eat some raw fish.......(Japanese).....

GRIZZ

 

[vikingbear]

Hay John,
Just finished posting above when your new draft popped in. That would be a superior design to the union monitors and believe using less critical material!
Well...... have to go..........a fishing I will go...........(they better have Saki)

Grizz

 

[rebelatsea]

Raw fish - not for me I'm afraid. Each to their own.
The diameter of the tuirret is determined by the lenth of gun carriage, how much recoil and loading room you need.
As you need about 20ft for one gun, you might as well have two ! Oh and I cheated by rescaling the trusty drawings until I could get a 7" Brooke in there.

 

[vikingbear]

It's my middle one Jen (she loves the stuff!).
It was her birthday (our plans were snowed out 3 weekends in a row, so we gave in. I cheated though, because my order was filled with veggies!
Well as they say, back to the drawing board (no pun intended).
Hay, There is nothing wrong with taking a break now and then. Am still planning to finish the info about the small monitors , but am working on some drafts of different types (your fault) but as usual might be a little too nit picky. It has been quit a while since I have drawn anything, and am not calling my quick "drawings" real pictures.
Broke down and made some time to print out some paper models, including one of those easy free monitor ones ,the above WL profile seems to be the same or almost the same (should be able to , later on, shrink the design down to even attempt some of these 130 to ca 100 ft designs).
To practice, am building a viking setting for my grandchildren, already built one warehouse, there is a couple of smaller buildings, a dock, wagon and viking ship to go. Still have most of my old tools, only missing a piece or two, and one of those is my mini saw, which I do not believe will need in a paper model.
Even printed some simple ones for my oldest grandson. He said he would be intertested in building some, so lets see..

Also, so that's a 150' foot Richmond type hull how about the Merrimack's hull, with the lower style casemate? Can work out the space needed for the turrets, but not the weight issues. Two turrets, no problem, just have to work out locations. Three turrets would seem not be a issue besides maybe location for a stability issue. Was thinking about her sister. The first plan was for four turrets. Now as I understand it, there were two plans to try to reduce being top heavy. The first being to remove a turret and the second was to remove another deck.( Should have removed the deck).
Now building a lower casemate on the wooden hull would reduce top weight, but would it be enough to support 4 turrets without issues? The designers would also have the extra advantage of the Cole's turret being part way into the deck.
How do you see the monitor doing against 8 7'' guns?

Grizz

 

[rebelatsea]

Hi Grizz,

With a conversion from a deep draught steam/sailing vessel there are a whole range of issues not present in new construction. Stability is probably the most important, and as you say Roanoke would have been better cut one deck lower.
Porter's conversion of Merrimac was in error in that they actually cut her down too far, hence all the extra ballast to stabilise her and bring her down to her marks. The general idea is to replace exactly the weight removed with he new construction, and to balance fore and aft.

A really good example of getting it right was HMS Royal Sovereign. when her guns were changed to 9" MLR she was a match for anything. Oddly enough, her constructors made the same mistake as Porter, and had to rebuild the hull amidships. She could and did fire 3 aimed rounds in 5 minutes, she was a good seaboat in the channel and could hnadle her guns even when rolling 15 degrees each way..
With a freeboard of 4ft, 7 or 8ft under the turrets, and only two of them, Virginia would probably have been a much better ship. 4 - 7" Brooke single banded mlr could have dealt with Monitor .
If the CSN had been able to raise and convert the Pennsylvania to a turret ship in the same way they would have had a vessel the USN would have been hard put to match.

Unfortunately it was not to be, Brooke's advice was to construct casemates ,and that is what they did, despite Mallory asking the Tifts in March /April 1862 if they could construct turretships at New Orleans. I think he had in mind turrets like the monitors.

Interestingly Captain Lawrence Rousseau instructed Lieutenant Joseph Fry to begin construction of 5 or 6 double turret ships at New Orleans, pending approval from Secretary Mallory. This was before the Louisiana or Mississippi had been thought of. A model of this plan was in the New Orleans City museum until 1875 when it disappeared and hasn't been seen since. I have no idea of the characteristics of these vessels. They are just one of many remaining mysteries of he CSN.

 

[Carronade]

Raw fish - not for me I'm afraid. Each to their own.
The diameter of the tuirret is determined by the lenth of gun carriage, how much recoil and loading room you need.
As you need about 20ft for one gun, you might as well have two ! Oh and I cheated by rescaling the trusty drawings until I could get a 7" Brooke in there.

Two guns also allow ammunition to be brought up at the stationary center point of the turret, simplifying the mechanism and the loading drill - unless you have an Ericsson turret with a center spindle.

 

[rebelatsea]

Two guns also allow ammunition to be brought up at the stationary center point of the turret, simplifying the mechanism and the loading drill - unless you have an Ericsson turret with a center spindle.

Hadn't thought of that ,but you are quite right.

 

[vikingbear]

Hi JOHN.

Ya, that model is most likely hidden some where in someone's collection. But you never know. A year or so ago, one of the original 13 states (forget which one) found their copy of the Declaration of Independence (each of the 13 colonies were sent their own copy, only a few left now) it was crazy, it was rediscovered in a state building, in a back room some where!

Sorry rambleing.......interesting the Penn...that would make sense as the liners being more strongly constructed could handle the weight better......so to expand this a little (ship construction/conversion wise) if the monitor was forced to give way because of damage, she would be able to move into shallow water under the cannon of Fortress Monroe(with its 15'' sb and 12'' mlr) too shallow for the Va, but it would be a good chance she would attack the 2 stranded frigatesBut would she be
in range, while attacking them, ofthe 15'' & 12mlr and what are the chances of the Va. being damaged by them?
Even if forced to return to Norfolk by damage, the Va. would protect the area. What would she gain by going up the bay with her deep draft, or out to sea (how seaworthy was she really?) How many of those hulls could have really been converted to ironclads at that time with the limited amount of men, engines and material?
What would the northern responce be. Baxter felt the North had a dozen ships that could have been converted into ironclads like the Va. The Navy department had plans to convert a frigate into a 4 turret "Turret ship". There were also plans to convert the Ticonderogia into a two turret design.
(in Europe a vessel carrying turrets that has more freeboard than a Monitor is classified as a ''Turret ship".

GRIZZ

 

[vikingbear]

Hi every one.
This is the details of the smaller Swedish Monitor that JE help design or influenced in one way or another.

As a reminder, started looking into this because discovered a statement by Church, in his bio of JE that" he had stated that he would design a small ironclad gunboat/Monitor if the US was ever to get into a foreign war."

Further checking to find anything more about that plan has so far failed to locate any more info. But returning to the book showed a number of other ironclad design that JE had input with.

So this was the theory,'' Was it realistic to believe that these designs might be similar to those he said would create for the USN during the CW?"

The first check was to review those Monitors built in Europe to see how different or similar they were to Union Monitors. It turns out there is very little difference between between European built and US designs (2 gun versions).

The small Monitor designs: The Monitors (or gunboats) listed below were all designed between 1862 to 1871. Thus the last class design was finished only 6 years after the CW. This last class was also said to be a scaled up version of the smaller previous class.
1. Ericsson version of a row gunboat. Date unknown. It as labeled as one of his early design, but gives no date along with no further data. What is does show is a side profile/top showing 8 benches (x 2) each carrying 2 "rowers". So this is a 32 man powered ironclad gunboat! There is also a foward small paddle wheel to move the bow from side to side.

 

[vikingbear]

This front PW is to help aim the main gun. Carried onto the small Swedish Monitor designs. Where the smoke stack should be is a air funnel. The fixed turret is similar to the later designs. The cannon appears to be a short 15" USN type SB. In describing his small designs he always talked about arming all of them with these huge cannon.
The design is his theory on small Monitor-gunboats. The largest cannon, mounted in a shot proof fixed turret. which also protected the pilot house. These vessels were of shallow draft, where larger ships could not follow, small and cheep enough to produce in large numbers. JE later suggested that Sweden build 50 to protect their coast, all with 15'' SB. (could accomplish more than 4 Monitors).

Sweden declined to place in service this type of man powered vessel, however, it appears that JE based all his later small Monitor-gunboat designs upon this one. (know the books say that Ericsson co-designed the Swedish craft but the man had such a "HUGE" ego that how much designing did d'A really do?(Should say how much did JE "let the other guy do?")
Estimated 90' X 25' (?) X ? Another book says "He invented a special form of Monitor ...this was a little vessel of 140 tons so designed ...of fighting bow on, the turret being stationary and ovel in shape.........(In the process of trying to create a passing picture as the one in the book coves two pages and hate that center binding look!).

(Am working on some visuals that will post when finished.)

2. Canal Monitor for the great lakes. (1862) The published information, 200' x 25' carrying one 15'' sb seems to say that this design is a fixed "fixed" design also. For example the last class of Monitor-gunboats, the Berserk class, had a beam of 28' 6".
Will post further info if more is located.


More later, have to go grandson duty!

GRIZZ

 

[georgew]

Grizz,
here is vary quick drawing of J.L.Porter's 150ft gunboat fitted with a Trusty type turret mounting 2 x 7" Brooke. MLRView attachment 59690

Howdy Rebel. What would be the reduction in guncrew required for this configuration versus the 4 or 6 gun casemate versions? I'm thinking about the reduction in berth, provisions, etc. You seem to have put together a heavy hitter that was also more cost effective. You also wonder if the Wilmington could have carried a pair of these turrets.

 

[rebelatsea]

Howdy Rebel. What would be the reduction in guncrew required for this configuration versus the 4 or 6 gun casemate versions? I'm thinking about the reduction in berth, provisions, etc. You seem to have put together a heavy hitter that was also more cost effective. You also wonder if the Wilmington could have carried a pair of these turrets.

Hi Georgew,

You would only require crew for two guns instead of four, but you need a crew to man the turning mechanism, if it was man powered. Say a reduction of 30, including powder passers etc. I haven't looked at the Wilmington design, I think she would need to be trifle wider though.

 

[rebelatsea]

Hi JOHN.

Ya, that model is most likely hidden some where in someone's collection. But you never know. A year or so ago, one of the original 13 states (forget which one) found their copy of the Declaration of Independence (each of the 13 colonies were sent their own copy, only a few left now) it was crazy, it was rediscovered in a state building, in a back room some where!

Sorry rambleing.......interesting the Penn...that would make sense as the liners being more strongly constructed could handle the weight better......so to expand this a little (ship construction/conversion wise) if the monitor was forced to give way because of damage, she would be able to move into shallow water under the cannon of Fortress Monroe(with its 15'' sb and 12'' mlr) too shallow for the Va, but it would be a good chance she would attack the 2 stranded frigatesBut would she be
in range, while attacking them, ofthe 15'' & 12mlr and what are the chances of the Va. being damaged by them?
Even if forced to return to Norfolk by damage, the Va. would protect the area. What would she gain by going up the bay with her deep draft, or out to sea (how seaworthy was she really?) How many of those hulls could have really been converted to ironclads at that time with the limited amount of men, engines and material?
What would the northern responce be. Baxter felt the North had a dozen ships that could have been converted into ironclads like the Va. The Navy department had plans to convert a frigate into a 4 turret "Turret ship". There were also plans to convert the Ticonderogia into a two turret design.
(in Europe a vessel carrying turrets that has more freeboard than a Monitor is classified as a ''Turret ship".

GRIZZ

Grizz,
I've tried about three or four times to come up with a satisfactory conversion for Pennsylvania, and failed.
If the CSN had been able to hold Gosport NY and the Norfolk area, they could have raised the ships given time.
As for converting them ,I have to say no, at least without outside assistence.
The pilots and her officers didn't seem concerned about taking Virginia to sea ,their main argument seems to be that in lightening her to go up the James they had exposed her unprotected hull and the the top of the rudder and screw.

 

[vikingbear]

Thanks John,
Yes, was somewhat concerned about such a huge complex design being completed at that time and date. Then thought about the New Orleans ironclad designs with their monitor shaped turrets and the Tiff's square turrets. Feeling that some guys in the south felt that it would be possible to built turrets in the south.....then again believe that New Orleans (before it fell anyways) would most likely have had the trained men and tools (and closer to the iron oar) to build such vessels. Also it would appear that the Coles turret was some what more complex then the other two designs, it appears like that from your posted pictures anyways.
It would appear that those designs that your posted some time ago, of the raised Norfork ships, possi ble conversion into broadside ironclad would have been the best short time chance of conversion started on the Penn.

You might laught at this. When thinking about the various plans to convert the frigates into ironclads reminded me that McKay (the builder) when he returned from touring Europe he tried to prod the Congress into converting all of them into broadside ironclads. The plan was to raze them one deck and iron plate the sides. That was in 1860.
That reminded me about the 7 liners that Congress auth to raze and convert into steam frigates. (The cheepest way by sticking a prop in front of the rudder and sticking in a engine.) That was also in 1860, but was never started even though the Navy had the money. This made me think about those ships and "what if " their conversion into iron clads, espically the Penn. Now the plan for her was to be replanked and have the gunports spaced for the new guns, thinking 9'' lower deck and 8'' next deck (that was how the River frigates were armed at the time.) The Penn, was to carry a battery equal in number to a river frigate also. say 40-42 guns. She was 212' (us measurment), so was thinking something like that Fr 2 decker ironclad designs with 2 pivet guns mounted topside.
Now that would have been a crazy design!
Have to go the snow is piling up again.

GRIZZ