Lard on Armor

The original proposal for an ironclad at Norfolk was for a new build to Porter's 220ft plan. CSS Virginia emerged because the hulk of Merrimac had an engine already.
Were any of the Confederate ironclads ever properly engined? It seems like their downfall was always the subpar power and steering.
 
Were any of the Confederate ironclads ever properly engined? It seems like their downfall was always the subpar power and steering.
Straight off the top of my head, the ones completed:
CSS Columbia, CSS Fredericksburg, CSS Virginia (II), CSS Nashville, CSS Pheonix, CSS Albemarle, CSS Arkansas, CSS Atlanta, CSS Savannah, CSS Raleigh, CSS Tennessee, although with converted paddle machinery, was a particularly good conversion, The USN were happy with her.
 
Straight off the top of my head, the ones completed:
CSS Columbia, CSS Fredericksburg, CSS Virginia (II), CSS Nashville, CSS Pheonix, CSS Albemarle, CSS Arkansas, CSS Atlanta, CSS Savannah, CSS Raleigh, CSS Tennessee, although with converted paddle machinery, was a particularly good conversion, The USN were happy with her.
Are you saying they were all properly powered? Poor engine quality and power seems to be a common theme among them.
 
I recall that the CSS Arkansas broke down several times on it's way to Baton Rouge.

Also, the CSS Virginia had the engine from the USS Merrimac which had just had the boilers condemned by the US Navy. I believe the Merrimac was in port for an overhaul.

I always thought that what the rebel navy really needed was a good machine shop and some good metallurgist.
 
Apologies that was a bit abrupt on my part, was on my way out the door !
Porter designed ships, what he didn't design was the power plant, that was largely left to the builders at least initially. I think it was Dr Still who said the ships should have been designed for the engines, not the other way round.
Once James H Warner had set up and got his engine works running at Columbus, new reliable machinery started to be produced.
The engines and boilers aren't the only factor to be considered though, hull design has a lot of influence over speed and manoeverability. Remember this was before any serious theories about hull lines apart from wave line were being made. In reality, Porter's hulls were no better and no worse than anyone else's .
Oddly enough the hull of CSS Mississippi, with a sharp entry and straight lines to the full midship section were proved by William Froude's experiments much later to be correct, and the Albemarles and Fredericksburg were too.

Arkansas was adequately powered but the manufacturing of individual parts was not all it should have been hence the breakdowns, and yes Merrimac had gone in for a complete overhaul, not just the engines.
We must also be aware of and beware received wisdom. CSS Richmond was said to be capable of only 5 knots - on investigation this was found to be recorded against the current, and not in still water.
 
Apologies that was a bit abrupt on my part, was on my way out the door !
Porter designed ships, what he didn't design was the power plant, that was largely left to the builders at least initially. I think it was Dr Still who said the ships should have been designed for the engines, not the other way round.
Once James H Warner had set up and got his engine works running at Columbus, new reliable machinery started to be produced.
The engines and boilers aren't the only factor to be considered though, hull design has a lot of influence over speed and manoeverability. Remember this was before any serious theories about hull lines apart from wave line were being made. In reality, Porter's hulls were no better and no worse than anyone else's .
Oddly enough the hull of CSS Mississippi, with a sharp entry and straight lines to the full midship section were proved by William Froude's experiments much later to be correct, and the Albemarles and Fredericksburg were too.

Arkansas was adequately powered but the manufacturing of individual parts was not all it should have been hence the breakdowns, and yes Merrimac had gone in for a complete overhaul, not just the engines.
We must also be aware of and beware received wisdom. CSS Richmond was said to be capable of only 5 knots - on investigation this was found to be recorded against the current, and not in still water.
Your knowledge in these matters is uncanny.
 
This does provide for an excellent PSYOP mission.

'CSS Ironclad headed down the bay...Union ships prepare for battle...closer ships and shore batteries begin to fire upon CSS...Union Captain quickly surveys his crew and ship - all in order for the coming fight...what the H**L?!? "D**N*T ALASKA! What the H**L are you doing?!? Get back to your post!!! Why do you have a knife and fork?!?"


"....I smell BACON!!!'"

Talk about a distraction for most of us low IQ males...Homer Simpson...Bacon...Humm

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top