Ironclads and blockade: Britain vs Union

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Dilandu

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
886
Location
Moscow, Russian Federation
On the linked page, and the one immediately preceding it. I directed you to the version I did because the Cornell University domain was timing out when I posted the comment, but it wouldn't have been impossible to find another version if you didn't believe I was reporting the figures accurately.
So the exact islands never actually been mentioned?

I'm not sure you know what Milne's job was during the Crimea. As a junior Lord of the Admiralty, his job (among other things) was to ensure that the squadrons in the Baltic and the Black Sea received enough coal, provisions and ordnance stores. I don't think I'm being unfair in suggesting that the fact that he did his job so well that there was a coal surplus in the Baltic may have qualified him to understand the logistics of blockading the Union.
I think, I failed to see how exactly the ability to supply the navy in European inland seas without any enemy resistace could be classified as splendid achievment. Basically, it's the same as saying "he so splendidly menauvred toops during training - he must be true military genius!"

I'm not saying your sources are wrong: I'm saying that they're difficult to read. I'm also saying that if you find out how much water a collier actually drew, and look at a higher resolution version of more or less the same map, you begin to see it's not as impossible as you'd originally thought.
I'm not saying this is impossible; I'm saying that it's quite not easy, and IMHO, results would simply not cost the efforts.

Again, "bigger" and "more powerful" are relative terms- particularly as Britain and the Union were building for different purposes. I do have to point something out, though: the US commissioned 31 screw gunboats armed with 11in shell guns over the course of a four-year war, but the British commissioned 32 screw gunvessels and 136 screw gunboats armed with 68pdrs/110pdr BLs between 1854 and 1857. Regardless of individual size, I'd rather have 5 British gunboats than 1 Union gunboat.
Please include the number of paddle wheel gunboats of Union Navy, and the situation would not look so bright. There aren't as much difference between paddle-wheel and screw gunboats in therms of durability; especially considering the small size of british gunboats. Also, only part of RN gunboats of Crimean era was still combat-capable in 1860s.

These claims are always made for new technologies. The ram will defeat the ironclad; the torpedo boat will defeat the battleship; the submarine will defeat the aircraft carrier. In fact, Jefferson's big plan for 1812 was based on gunboats, and it didn't turn out well then either. It took surprise and a considerable superiority of force (722 guns to 470) for the Russians to 'tear apart' the Turkish fleet at Sinope: I've seen nothing to persuade me that this can be repeated in this era with inferiority of 10-1 or greater.
The ironclads defeated the wooden ships. The dreadnoughts replaced the pre-dreadnought battleships. The submarine replaced surface raider. The aircraft carriers & missile ships replaced battleships.

So much for examples)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. All the Charleston sortie achieved, as did the attack by the Florida on the Massachusetts, was to temporarily discomfit the blockading force. The Union officer on the scene is absolutely explicit on how easy it is to avoid these attacks even without the presence of monitors:
I must point out, that Union advantage over CSS ironclads was much larger, than supposed RN over the Union. Also, the Union was able to provide fast ships, capable of either forcing the fleeing enemy to continue running (thus destroying the blockade) or stand and fight (in that case the ironclads would came and to the trick). Also, we are talking not about the blockade runners, but generally about entering/exiting Union cruisers.
 

chelyabinsk

Private
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
188
So the exact islands never actually been mentioned?
Seriously?
"In the event of a foreign war impeding there should be provided... At Gloucester, Gurnet Point, Newburyport, Beverly, Nantucket, Edgartown, Falmouth, Holmes' Hole, and some other places on the coast of Massachusetts, 100 guns; probable cost, $200,000."
Table IV, temporary works, "Gloucester and other places enumerated above": 100 guns.

I don't mind people who can't find sources: in fact, as I've shown in this thread, I'm happy to help them out. But I don't deal with people who are given sources and then refuse to read them. I will not do it: no exceptions.

EDIT:

if you find out how much water a collier actually drew, and look at a higher resolution version of more or less the same map, you begin to see it's not as impossible as you'd originally thought.
I'm not saying this is impossible; I'm saying that it's quite not easy,
There is no places on whole island, where the coal-carrying steamer could came to unload... it seems that RN admirals were... too optimistic about the possibility of using the Martha's Vineyard for anything except observation posts and small gunboat base
That's enough for me: thanks for your time.
 
Last edited:

Dilandu

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
886
Location
Moscow, Russian Federation
I don't mind people who can't find sources: in fact, as I've shown in this thread, I'm happy to help them out. But I don't deal with people who are given sources and then refuse to read them. I will not do it: no exceptions.
Seriously?

You provided me with THAT:

https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records/122/0946

Which is quite large and a bit... hard to read, if you don't notice.

At least I assumed that it was your sourse. If I missed your link on THAT -

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar&cc=moawar&idno=waro0122&node=waro0122:6&view=image&seq=956&size=100

- I'm sincerely apologise. But with your closed profile it's hard to recall all your posts.

That's enough for me: thanks for your time.
Ok, here you get me on contradiction to myself. Congratulations. Must admit, that I'm embarassed by myself. Well, that be a lesson for me: before claiming that "I never" actually check that you are really "never", not just forgot.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
3,658
Okay...

1. Edgartown harbour

Is 30-40 feet deep. It's on the charts posted. The chart Dilandu posted is in fathoms (1 fathom = 6 ft) down to 3 fathoms and feet below (specially marked), and shows Edgartown Harbour is 5+ fathoms (i.e. more than 30 feet). I suspect he is reading fathoms as feet. I suspect GB is not reading the bit of the chart that says "Edgartown Harbor" in his link. Both have provided sources showing their assertions to be incorrect.

Edgartown Harbour can take Warrior or a 3 decker if necessary, and would have no troubles with 2 deckers (no 3 deckers were sent to the Americas) or heavy frigates.

2. San Francisco

"In the present state of the defences of this harbour [San Francisco] one-half of this force [The British Squadron at Esquimault] could command the city of San Francisco and take possession of this yard [Mare Island]." – Flag Officer Charles Bell (in the ORN).

The state of the defences is poor, and the assertion that Alcatraz can't by bypassed is completely wrong.

In 1863 Colonel DeRussy drew this make of the minimum defences needed, including many works not existing:

DeRussey.png

Any attacker with a steamship can run past Fort Point, turn north and either run between Alcatraz and Angel Island, not coming with a mile of the enemy guns, or pass up the Racoon Strait, which is about 100 feet deep, with a partial bar at the south end lowering the water to 29 feet at the minimum. It was a major shipping channel. Alcatraz can essentially by bypassed, with the attackers not coming within 2 miles of any guns on Alcatraz Island, and worse is to come; to the NW of Alcatraz is a blind arc with not a single gun pointing there. Alcatraz provides no material defence to the navy yard.

I have actually stood on the barbette of Fort Point and looked out to sea. If you don't want to run the fort then you can easily reduce her from the west, and only the 8 barbette circles and 12 casemates on the west curtain and a babette circle on the west bastion face out to sea. If fully armed on that side the fort has 21 guns to fire upon the attackers, but she wasn't. Her state in this period was she had 11x 32 pdrs facing south (inland), a 10" shell gun on the west bastion (fires N and W) and another on the east bastion (fires N and E). The 8 barbette circles facing W were empty and there were 43x 42 pdrs in the casemates for the whole fort. That's fairly full, and so maybe Fort Point might have a full 12 guns in the west facing casemates.

The RN attackers have to take the fire of only 13 guns.
 
Last edited:

Tielhard

Corporal
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
265
Barry Gough in 'Royal Navy and the Northwest Coast of North America, 1810-1914 With Study of British Maritime Ascendancy ' goes into some detail about the difficulties the RN had operating around NW North America and the North Pacific in general even without the extra 'fog and friction' of hostile activities. Esquimalt is not a fully equipped naval base yet, places like Valparaiso and Callao are a LOOOOONG way away. Where is the closest British controlled, fully operational naval base? Falklands? Hong Kong? Singapore? Where to get coal? Are any of the beds in BC open yet?

In this era, is there any MORE isolated RN base than Esquimalt?

One possibility...Hawaii?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
USS ALASKA,

I agree with more or less everything in your post. This makes the case for the RN taking San Francisco and the Mare Island Naval Yard almost overwhelming IF you accept what Dilandu is implying about the low reliability of British warships and the dependence of the RN on very nearby very well equipped dockyards to keep ships in service is true.

*I don't accept any of this of course but taking San Francisco would have made Tom Maitland's job much easier for all sorts of reasons and a nice Naval Yard is just a bonus.

Coal was available from Nanaimo on VI up the east coast from Esquimalt. The HBC started mining there around 1854 and among the RN and other customers they supplied the USN at Mare Island.

Hawaii, was an independent Kingdom at this time and in the spheres of influence of both Britain and the Union. Coal is available there but what course would be taken by Hawaii in the event of an Anglo-Union war I have no idea.
 

Tielhard

Corporal
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
265
Ah, so they were "undergunned", not "nonexistent". That's better)
Dilandu,

You will do me the courtesy please of disputing with me what I actually claimed rather than wrongly attributing to me claims I never made. At no point have I made the claim that there were no guns at either Fort Alcatraz or Fort Point.

Problem is, that RN squadron ALSO isn't a really powerfull fighting force. They have insufficient firepower to deal with forts. They are small frigates - no more than a third bigger than USS "Lankaster" - armed with old-fashioned 8-inch shell guns of old pattern. They are not suited to suppress forts - especially coming through not the easiest in therms of navigaion strait.)
1) On what do you base your claim that the RN frigates are insufficient to suppress Fort Point (why would you bother with Fort Alcatraz?) given that:
a) The Union naval officer commanding at SF thought otherwise - he has been quoted to you several times now? More specifically why do you think he was wrong?
b) You don't seem to have known the number of guns at each fort in Q1 1862.
2) How are you able to compare the relative fighting power of Topaze and Bacchante (same battery) and Lancaster? You seem t0 base it on an unspecified measure of size. What was it? I am especially concerned if you are using the list of ships on the west coast in 1861/2 that you reposted here and which I prepared and published here several years ago because all I could find out about her battery at that date was she had 22 guns [ORN SII V1 pp451] and I am none the wiser now. Can you provide a reference which shows her battery in 1861/2?

Landing of what? Marines from RN frigates? They have at most a two hundreds of them on the whole squadron. And what exactly would they do; climb the 30-meters rock and pole-jump on the fort?
Well if I was going to take Fort Point by landing (actually I would probably just run it). I would take the two 51s, Clio and Charybdis if she had arrived and one of the sloops. That would give a landing force of around 200-250 marines and at least 400 blue jackets as the ships don't need to fight both broadsides. I would stuff all of the landing troops and a few lighter guns in the sloop and engage the weak masonry fortress with the rest of the ships use the ships' boats to land the assault party and guns on what is now Baker beach followed by a gentle stroll up the very shallow buffs and a brisk march of less than a km to the cliffs over Fort Point which was built on the shore. Then I have two options, I can concentrate the guns I have on the door and send in a naval assault brigade as soon as I have done so, bloody but quick and my troops are not likely to suffer unduly from counter fire or being taken from behind by Union troops (not there are many close by - but one has to assume Maitland does not know that) alternatively I can attempt to keep my guns away from counter fire, defend my rear and fire into the back of the casemates, if it works this approach is much less bloody but has a good chance of failure. The decision all depends on the local landscape in 1862.

If you look on Google Maps using the Earth filter you will see there are no 30 m rocks to climb or Poles to volt (seems cruel?). The beach, buffs and cliffs are most unlikely to have changed significantly since 1862. I do concede that the then vegetation MIGHT have impeded progress but frankly it is unlikely just outside San Francisco town.

Can't. The depths and currents and mists would not allow - of course, if your aim isn't "wreck all RN ships on rockes without firing a single shot in anger". Fort Point perfectly positioned to deal with "strait runners"; it provide the "angle coverage" against them.
Oh come on! Show me the charts, tide-tables and rocks and demonstrate how the RN will be destroyed. This is not credible.

The possible position for Union would be to put "Cyane" west of Horseshoe Bay as floating battery, and position the Pacific Squadron ships to provide crossfire against charging RN ships.
This will result in the annihilation of the USN's Pacific fleet. They can't defend SF, Mare Island or the River up to Sacramento. They don't have the strength, one good screw sloop , two slight paddle sloop, a slight screw sloop and two small sail sloop of war. Even a few mail steamers won't change that. What is this obsession of yours for trying to kill brave Union seamen in hopeless pointless actions? There are much better, more useful things the USN's Pacific flotilla can be doing other than sinking in a futile attempt to defend SF.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Tielhard

Corporal
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
265
All,

A lot of useful information has been posted or linked recently. To everyone that has contributed information - thank you.

Some of that information has been on ship speed. For a steam warship of this period 1860s there are three possible means of propulsion steam, sail or steam and sail. There are also several different ways of measuring ship speed. Design speed, the speed the ship was intended to travel at - many frequently quoted monitor speeds are design speeds. Trials speeds - the ship's speed is measured over a fixed distance going flat out from beginning to end. This is often a flying mile. An average cruising speed over a sustained distance. For liners this was often Southampton or Queenstown to Sandy Hook or NYC.

Unfortunately for most reported ship speeds one has no idea what they were. Thus one can be looking at a design speed with sail and steam for one ship and a cruising speed under sail alone for another and come to completely the wrong conclusions as to the relative merits of each one.

Lastly, there has been an alarming trend on the internet recently to a) fail to record the units of ship speed or b) record them in either kph or mph. This is ok in and of itself but on Wikipedia some people have been taking X knots (a nautical mile per hour) and recording it as mph. Some helpful soul then comes along and says to their self that is wrong that should be in knots and does a multiplicative conversion. Now what is reported is in knots but the speed is wrong.

So could please ask very politely those people who have reported ships speeds if they know what kind of speed under which method of propulsion they are posting and what the units are.

- Thank you.
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
3,658
This will result in the annihilation of the USN's Pacific fleet. They can't defend SF, Mare Island or the River up to Sacramento. They don't have the strength, one good screw sloop , two slight paddle sloop, a slight screw sloop and two small sail sloop of war. Even a few mail steamers won't change that. What is this obsession of yours for trying to kill brave Union seamen in hopeless pointless actions? There are much better, more useful things the USN's Pacific flotilla can be doing other than sinking in a futile attempt to defend SF.
Maybe not quite, as it turns out they are far more scattered than thought. Their missions didn't really include defending SF, but rather protecting the Panama Railroad and cruising down to Valparaiso.

Lancaster - off the coast of Panama as a guard ship for the railroad. She'd been out for six months and OTL left that station for SF and repairs on 16th January 1862 and arrived SF 7th March.

Cyane - off the coast of Panama as guardship for the railroad, due to be relieved by Saranac, whence she's to go down at Valparaiso

Wyoming - was sent down to Callao in December and is sailing north towards the Bay of Panama in mid-January to relieve Lancaster.

Narragansett - cruising off Mexico between Acapulco and Manzanillo

Saranac - repairing at SF, due to relieve Saranac in late January when repairs completed

St. Mary's - repairing at SF, but essentially unusable.

(I leave out the receiving ships and the unfortunate Saginaw, at Hong Kong).

In a Trent War the ships at sea are largely out of contact. With a mid-late January kick-off news will reach San Francisco first, but none of the servicable fighting ships are in harbour. The Saranac likely left before, and Lancaster didn't arrive back in SF until 7th March 1862, as she slowly cruised north trying to intimidate the Mexicans. This means the only USN ships in SF are probably the laid up St. Mary's and the yard craft Independence and Massachusetts.

As for the RN squadron; Topaze, and the gunboats Grappler and Forward were at Esquimault, but the bulk of the force (Bacchante, Termagent, Tartar, Cameleon and Clio) were around Acapulco, mirroring US deployments (with a ship or two going down to Panama etc.). Devastation and Hecate were used as dispatch vessels.

There is a strong possibility the news of the war will reach both sides in any particular location simultaneously. Probably what will then happen if the Captains will meet under truce and decide who gets to leave first. Then after a period of time the other side would be allowed to give chase.
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
3,658
So could please ask very politely those people who have reported ships speeds if they know what kind of speed under which method of propulsion they are posting and what the units are.
The RN speeds posted above were standard trials. The US ones just the commonly quoted ones.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Tielhard

Corporal
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
265
Maybe not quite, as it turns out they are far more scattered than thought. Their missions didn't really include defending SF, but rather protecting the Panama Railroad and cruising down to Valparaiso.

Lancaster - off the coast of Panama as a guard ship for the railroad. She'd been out for six months and OTL left that station for SF and repairs on 16th January 1862 and arrived SF 7th March.

Cyane - off the coast of Panama as guardship for the railroad, due to be relieved by Saranac, whence she's to go down at Valparaiso

Wyoming - was sent down to Callao in December and is sailing north towards the Bay of Panama in mid-January to relieve Lancaster.

Narragansett - cruising off Mexico between Acapulco and Manzanillo

Saranac - repairing at SF, due to relieve Saranac in late January when repairs completed

St. Mary's - repairing at SF, but essentially unusable.

(I leave out the receiving ships and the unfortunate Saginaw, at Hong Kong).

In a Trent War the ships at sea are largely out of contact. With a mid-late January kick-off news will reach San Francisco first, but none of the servicable fighting ships are in harbour. The Saranac likely left before, and Lancaster didn't arrive back in SF until 7th March 1862, as she slowly cruised north trying to intimidate the Mexicans. This means the only USN ships in SF are probably the laid up St. Mary's and the yard craft Independence and Massachusetts.

As for the RN squadron; Topaze, and the gunboats Grappler and Forward were at Esquimault, but the bulk of the force (Bacchante, Termagent, Tartar, Cameleon and Clio) were around Acapulco, mirroring US deployments (with a ship or two going down to Panama etc.). Devastation and Hecate were used as dispatch vessels.

There is a strong possibility the news of the war will reach both sides in any particular location simultaneously. Probably what will then happen if the Captains will meet under truce and decide who gets to leave first. Then after a period of time the other side would be allowed to give chase.
Tigers,

I'm not sure I can align with all of these locations. I agree about the British gunboats, Devastation, Hecate, Lancaster, Saranac and Saginaw. Think Tatar may be at Panama.

What I'm having trouble with are:

1) Bell mentions somewhere in the OR that shortly after the Trent Affair Jan or Feb that there are three British cruziers off SF.
2) Is there a possibility that the concentration of Union forces at Acapulco is in 1863 rather than 1862?
3) St Mary's was ordered to sea Feb. 4th 1862 [ORN SI V1 pp 304]

Would be interesting in knowing where your material came from?

If you are right then SF is indefensible BUT neither Bell nor his predecessor were fools and you would have thought he had some sort of a plan if not to defend the City and Yard then at least to inform his warships of the threat and deploy them accordingly?
 

Dilandu

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
886
Location
Moscow, Russian Federation
Sorry, I have limited time:

2) How are you able to compare the relative fighting power of Topaze and Bacchante (same battery) and Lancaster? You seem t0 base it on an unspecified measure of size. What was it? I am especially concerned if you are using the list of ships on the west coast in 1861/2 that you reposted here and which I prepared and published here several years ago because all I could find out about her battery at that date was she had 22 guns [ORN SII V1 pp451] and I am none the wiser now. Can you provide a reference which shows her battery in 1861/2?
"Lancaster" was of simiral general type as "Hartford". So her main armament must be at least 20 9-inch Dahlgren guns plus pivots. The -

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/U.S.S._Lancaster_(1858)#Armament

- stated her as having twenty 9-inch and two 11-inch

So, her boardside is 740+268=1008 pdr (in shells)

The "Topaze" have thirty 8-inch shell guns and twenty 32-pdr (sometimes one 68-pdr pivot mentioned). So, her salvo per boardside (in shells & shots) - 765 pdr + 320 pdr + 68 pdr = 1153 pdr. Total advantage less than 20%; in shells, "Topaze" have about 1/4 disadvantage.

More later, ok? Must go now.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Tielhard

Corporal
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
265
Sorry, I have limited time:



"Lancaster" was of simiral general type as "Hartford". So her main armament must be at least 20 9-inch Dahlgren guns plus pivots. The -

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/U.S.S._Lancaster_(1858)#Armament

- stated her as having twenty 9-inch and two 11-inch

So, her boardside is 740+268=1008 pdr (in shells)

The "Topaze" have thirty 8-inch shell guns and twenty 32-pdr (sometimes one 68-pdr pivot mentioned). So, her salvo per boardside (in shells & shots) - 765 pdr + 320 pdr + 68 pdr = 1153 pdr. Total advantage less than 20%; in shells, "Topaze" have about 1/4 disadvantage.

More later, ok? Must go now.
Dilandu,

You have to be careful with ship descriptions they change over time. Your reference only starts discussing her battery as of 1869. Her 1858 battery was just four guns I think. Her battery which was changed in 1863 is in the statistical volume of the ORN but the only thing mentioned for 1862 is that she carries 22 guns, they could be anything,

Topaze, I think had the battery you suggest but I'm not sure I also think (need to check don't have time) she had Armstrongs sent out for her in Dec. 1861.

Lastly a broadside to broadside comparison when one ship is (maybe) carrying 11" guns is not a good comparison due to the slow loading speed of these weapons. I would suggest going by broadside and pivot per unit time.
Which increases the advantage of Topaze.
 

Dilandu

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
886
Location
Moscow, Russian Federation
//
boardside is 740+268=1008 pdr (in shells)

The "Topaze" have thirty 8-inch shell guns and twenty 32-pdr (sometimes one 68-pdr pivot mentioned). So, her salvo per boardside (in shells & shots) - 765 pdr + 320 pdr + 68 pdr = 1153 pdr. Total advantage less than 20%; in shells, "Topaze" have about 1/4 disadvantage.

More later, ok? Must go now.

Click to expand...
Dilandu,

You have to be careful with ship descriptions they change over time. Your reference only starts discussing her battery as of 1869. //

Have you any real reason to assume that she - for some reason - carry less-than-standard armament in 1861-1862? With all respect, but at least I provided some data, which correspond pretty good with the standard armament of same-class ships.

/-Lastly a broadside to broadside comparison when one ship is (maybe) carrying 11" guns is not a good comparison due to the slow loading speed of these weapons//

Oh, yeah? :smile: Well, since we are talking abou shells, let's also calculate destructive power due to bursting charges, kinetic energy, ECT.... :smile:

P.S. Sorry for mistakes, answering from phone.
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
3,658
The "Topaze" have thirty 8-inch shell guns and twenty 32-pdr (sometimes one 68-pdr pivot mentioned). So, her salvo per boardside (in shells & shots) - 765 pdr + 320 pdr + 68 pdr = 1153 pdr. Total advantage less than 20%; in shells, "Topaze" have about 1/4 disadvantage.

More later, ok? Must go now.
Discounting the non-shell guns?

Lancaster has 10x 9" shell guns and 2x 11" shell gun per broadside. Topaze has a broadside of 15x 8" shell guns, 10x 32 pdrs and 1x 68 pdr.

Weight of broadside for Lancaster = 972 lbs
Weight of broadside for Topaze = 1,138 lbs

Importantly, the US shells are watercapped fixed time fuses, with 3.5 seconds being the minimum burn time. The RN had a reliable percussion fuse that 90% of the time burst inside the enemy ship at all ranges, and had the Martin shell. At fighting ranges it's best to consider that Lancaster has 12 effective guns (which likely won't fuse and the shells will be shot) and Topaze 26 (and the shells will fuse).
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
3,658
P.S. According to -

http://www.alternatewars.com/ACW/Civil_War_Naval_Ordnance.htm

- the 9-inch gun could sustain one shot every 40 seconds with experienced crew. The 11-inch could sustain one shot per 90 seconds for a short time. As far as I knew, the RN 68-per gun could sustain shot per minute rate as standard; I assume that 8-inch gun have similar rate of fire.
Okay, but this was true for all guns of this weight - see Dahlgren quoting British tests.

Dahlgren further expands that these weren't aimed shots, because the smoke hadn't dispersed and their was no target picture. Same for US guns.

In good conditions the 32 pdr and 8" shell guns might manage an aimed shot once per minute, the 9" Dahlgren every 90 seconds and the 11" Dahgren one every 2 minutes or so.
 

Talos

Corporal
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
292
Dilandu,

You have to be careful with ship descriptions they change over time. Your reference only starts discussing her battery as of 1869. Her 1858 battery was just four guns I think. Her battery which was changed in 1863 is in the statistical volume of the ORN but the only thing mentioned for 1862 is that she carries 22 guns, they could be anything,

Topaze, I think had the battery you suggest but I'm not sure I also think (need to check don't have time) she had Armstrongs sent out for her in Dec. 1861.

Lastly a broadside to broadside comparison when one ship is (maybe) carrying 11" guns is not a good comparison due to the slow loading speed of these weapons. I would suggest going by broadside and pivot per unit time.
Which increases the advantage of Topaze.
No, Lancaster was build with a full broadside battery of IX-inch Dahlgrens like Dilandu listed. That was a feature of the entire class of 1858 sloops, of which Lancaster was the largest and most heavily armed, as well as the only one built originally with a spar deck (most of the others recieved one later in refit). The IX-inch guns were on Marsilly carriages and easily handled, capable of being trained from side to side and as mentioned, a rate of fire of one shot every 40 seconds. The XI-inch could do a round every 104 seconds for sustained firing, but could drop it down to 80 seconds for a short time (this is for the gun mounted in normal ships, not monitors).

Her armament changed as follows:
As built: 20 x IX-inch Dahlgrens in broadside, 2 x XI-inch Dahlgren pivots on spar deck
1863: 24 x IX-inch Dahlgrens, 2 x XI-inch Dahlgren pivots, 2 x 30-pdr Parrott rifles

Just for completion's sake, these are the rest of the ships listed above.

Wyoming: As built 2 x XI-inch Dahlgrens pivots, 4 x 32-pdrs of 57 cwt.

Cyane: In 1862: 14 x 32-pdrs of 42 cwt, 4 x VIII-inch Dahlgrens or 8" shell guns of 55 cwt (I've seen both types listed)

Narragansett: As built 1 x XI-inch Dalgren pivot, 4 x 32-pdrs of 42 cwt. 1863, add one 12-pdr MLR boat howitzer

Saranac: In January, 1862 1 x 8" smoothbore (probably the 64-pdr shot gun of 106 cwt), 4 x 8" shell guns of 55 cwt.
October 1862, add 2 x 20-pdr Parrott rifles, 1 x heavy 12-pdr boat howitzer, 1 x light 12-pdr boat howitzer.
January 1864, replace 64-pdr with 1 x XI-inch Dahlgren
March 1865, replace 20-pdr Parrotts with 2 x 30-pdr Parrott rifles

St Mary's: 16 x 32-pdrs of 42 cwt, 6 x 8" shell guns of 55 cwt.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Tielhard

Corporal
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
265
No, Lancaster was build with a full broadside battery of IX-inch Dahlgrens like Dilandu listed. That was a feature of the entire class of 1858 sloops, of which Lancaster was the largest and most heavily armed, as well as the only one built originally with a spar deck (most of the others recieved one later in refit). The IX-inch guns were on Marsilly carriages and easily handled, capable of being trained from side to side and as mentioned, a rate of fire of one shot every 40 seconds. The XI-inch could do a round every 104 seconds for sustained firing, but could drop it down to 80 seconds for a short time (this is for the gun mounted in normal ships, not monitors).

Her armament changed as follows:
As built: 20 x IX-inch Dahlgrens in broadside, 2 x XI-inch Dahlgren pivots on spar deck
1863: 24 x IX-inch Dahlgrens, 2 x XI-inch Dahlgren pivots, 2 x 30-pdr Parrott rifles

Just for completion's sake, these are the rest of the ships listed above.

Wyoming: As built 2 x XI-inch Dahlgrens pivots, 4 x 32-pdrs of 57 cwt.

Cyane: In 1862: 14 x 32-pdrs of 42 cwt, 4 x VIII-inch Dahlgrens or 8" shell guns of 55 cwt (I've seen both types listed)

Narragansett: As built 1 x XI-inch Dalgren pivot, 4 x 32-pdrs of 42 cwt. 1863, add one 12-pdr MLR boat howitzer

Saranac: In January, 1862 1 x 8" smoothbore (probably the 64-pdr shot gun of 106 cwt), 4 x 8" shell guns of 55 cwt.
October 1862, add 2 x 20-pdr Parrott rifles, 1 x heavy 12-pdr boat howitzer, 1 x light 12-pdr boat howitzer.
January 1864, replace 64-pdr with 1 x XI-inch Dahlgren
March 1865, replace 20-pdr Parrotts with 2 x 30-pdr Parrott rifles

St Mary's: 16 x 32-pdrs of 42 cwt, 6 x 8" shell guns of 55 cwt.
Talos,

Thank you for this information - where did it come from.
 

Talos

Corporal
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
292
Talos,

Thank you for this information - where did it come from.
Several sources. ORN for one (accounting for typos and mistakes), Silverston's Sail and Civil War navy books, Canney's The Old Steam Navy, Chapelle's The American Sailing Navy, and the official armament plan for the two sailing sloops, which is out of Dahlgren's Shells and Shell-Guns. Also pictoral evidence when applicable.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top