rebelatsea
Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Location
- Kent ,England.
Lt NORTH'S IRONCLAD
So we all know North's ironclad was the Danmark ?
Well actually, no it wasn't, another piece of received wisdom bites the dust.
In April 1862, Lt North began negotiations with James and George Thompson of Clyde Bank Foundry and Shipyard, Glasgow, Scotland.
Their proposal of May 1862 was for an ironclad of 3,000 tons, 270ft PP x 50ft B x 15ft D, to carry 4 guns in "two monitor like" turrets. She would be propelled by a single 3 bladed screw, driven by 500hp engines exhausting through two steam pipes and a telescoping funnel. The turrets were to be protected by 5.5" of iron on 12" teak backing and the hull was to be covered with 4.5" of iron on 12" teak amidships, tapering at the ends.
Her 1,000ton capacity bunkers were to be so arranged as to carry 400tons of water "so the great weight of armour aloft might not prove troublesome in sailing".
The form of the vessel followed almost exactly Captain Cowper Coles' ideas of having the turrets sunk in a raised sloping casemate mounted on a relatively high freeboard hull
The contract was signed on 21st May 1862 for delivery on June 1st 1863, cost £182,000. The cover name was "Santa Maria"
Alterations over and above the contract included extra plating on the stem ,armouring of the forward peak bulkhead, widened gunports with waterproof covers inside ,shotproof covers outside, the bottom cemented inside.
George Thompson suggested that a plough ram bow be added, and an armoured "look out shack" be placed on deck aft as a result of advice from Cdr Bullock. These alterations added £13,225 to the price.
Either North or persons unknown offered the Thompson plan to Earles of Hull to construct a second vessel, whether Thompsons were aware of this is unknown. Earles refused, perhaps suspecting that there would be problems ahead, and also they had not up to this time built a large warship.
Having got his ship Lt North now had to find the ordnance, the same problem Cdr Bullock faced with his Laird rams. At this date, the only gun which had proved capable of penetrating the Warrior target had been the Whitworth hexagonal bore 70pdr. North thought these were what he wanted, and ordered 4 for his ship, whilst Bullock though they were too complicated for turrets. As it turned out this was purely academic.
The Admiralty had bought Coles patent for turrets, and had not at this time decided to licence it to outside companies, this led to a hurried, and major redesign of North's vessel. At the same time, late 1862 it became clear that the British Government might prevent any attempt to get the ironclads out.
The Manchester Ordnance and rifle Company had failed to fit the compressor screws to North's 4 70pdrs and North wanted changes in the carriage slides, incurring more delays.
There were other problems too. North suddenly realised that the 3 bladed screw could not be hoisted, leading to drag when under sail, and Thompson were reluctant to do anything about it. The draught of the modified design, now a conventional broadside ship was almost 20ft, 5ft beyond the contract spec and rendering the vessel unsuitable for use in Southern waters. He also had no battery apart from the 70pdrs ,and, although he added 2 150pdrs and an 8" to his purchase he had actually run out of funds. By June 1863 North was advised by commissioners Mason and Slidell to cut his losses and sell the ship in an effort to recoup the money.
Three countries bid for her, Denmark, Prussia, and astonishingly France – as if the British Government would allow her biggest rival to acquire another ironclad, one constructed on her own territory!
The Admiralty weren't interested as the vessel went nowhere near to meeting RN requirements, although a close copy of the RN's Defence and Resistance. In the end it was left to the highest bidder, Denmark to have the ship completed. Unfortunately as has been said, she was a bad seaboat and not much of an asset to their navy, although fulfilling a need at the time.
So what did "Santa Maria" look like?
The original drawings have not survived, but fortunately an illustration purporting to show the completed vessel was published in the Illustrated London News. The artist however did not know about the additional ram bow and the "lookout post" and the sailing rig as drawn is obviously wrong.
The following plan has been drawn from that illustration.
North's ironclad.
Name : Requested but not assigned
Type: Ironclad turretship
Dimensions: 295ft OA x 54ft EX x 15ft D, 3,414 ton0
270ft PP x 50ft B x 22.5ft DPH, 10knots
Guns : 4 -70 pdr Whitworth MLR
Armour: hull 4.5" iron on 12" teak tapering at the ends
Turrets: 5.5" iron on 12" teak.
Design: James & George Thompson Builder : Clyde Bank Foundry and Shipyard, Glasgow Scotland
Laid down: June 1862 Launched: as designed no.
. Note that the rig is as shown in the ILN illustration for completeness, but was possibly intended to be rigged as a large barque, as the vessel was intended to make long voyages under sail with screw hoisted.
So we all know North's ironclad was the Danmark ?
Well actually, no it wasn't, another piece of received wisdom bites the dust.
In April 1862, Lt North began negotiations with James and George Thompson of Clyde Bank Foundry and Shipyard, Glasgow, Scotland.
Their proposal of May 1862 was for an ironclad of 3,000 tons, 270ft PP x 50ft B x 15ft D, to carry 4 guns in "two monitor like" turrets. She would be propelled by a single 3 bladed screw, driven by 500hp engines exhausting through two steam pipes and a telescoping funnel. The turrets were to be protected by 5.5" of iron on 12" teak backing and the hull was to be covered with 4.5" of iron on 12" teak amidships, tapering at the ends.
Her 1,000ton capacity bunkers were to be so arranged as to carry 400tons of water "so the great weight of armour aloft might not prove troublesome in sailing".
The form of the vessel followed almost exactly Captain Cowper Coles' ideas of having the turrets sunk in a raised sloping casemate mounted on a relatively high freeboard hull
The contract was signed on 21st May 1862 for delivery on June 1st 1863, cost £182,000. The cover name was "Santa Maria"
Alterations over and above the contract included extra plating on the stem ,armouring of the forward peak bulkhead, widened gunports with waterproof covers inside ,shotproof covers outside, the bottom cemented inside.
George Thompson suggested that a plough ram bow be added, and an armoured "look out shack" be placed on deck aft as a result of advice from Cdr Bullock. These alterations added £13,225 to the price.
Either North or persons unknown offered the Thompson plan to Earles of Hull to construct a second vessel, whether Thompsons were aware of this is unknown. Earles refused, perhaps suspecting that there would be problems ahead, and also they had not up to this time built a large warship.
Having got his ship Lt North now had to find the ordnance, the same problem Cdr Bullock faced with his Laird rams. At this date, the only gun which had proved capable of penetrating the Warrior target had been the Whitworth hexagonal bore 70pdr. North thought these were what he wanted, and ordered 4 for his ship, whilst Bullock though they were too complicated for turrets. As it turned out this was purely academic.
The Admiralty had bought Coles patent for turrets, and had not at this time decided to licence it to outside companies, this led to a hurried, and major redesign of North's vessel. At the same time, late 1862 it became clear that the British Government might prevent any attempt to get the ironclads out.
The Manchester Ordnance and rifle Company had failed to fit the compressor screws to North's 4 70pdrs and North wanted changes in the carriage slides, incurring more delays.
There were other problems too. North suddenly realised that the 3 bladed screw could not be hoisted, leading to drag when under sail, and Thompson were reluctant to do anything about it. The draught of the modified design, now a conventional broadside ship was almost 20ft, 5ft beyond the contract spec and rendering the vessel unsuitable for use in Southern waters. He also had no battery apart from the 70pdrs ,and, although he added 2 150pdrs and an 8" to his purchase he had actually run out of funds. By June 1863 North was advised by commissioners Mason and Slidell to cut his losses and sell the ship in an effort to recoup the money.
Three countries bid for her, Denmark, Prussia, and astonishingly France – as if the British Government would allow her biggest rival to acquire another ironclad, one constructed on her own territory!
The Admiralty weren't interested as the vessel went nowhere near to meeting RN requirements, although a close copy of the RN's Defence and Resistance. In the end it was left to the highest bidder, Denmark to have the ship completed. Unfortunately as has been said, she was a bad seaboat and not much of an asset to their navy, although fulfilling a need at the time.
So what did "Santa Maria" look like?
The original drawings have not survived, but fortunately an illustration purporting to show the completed vessel was published in the Illustrated London News. The artist however did not know about the additional ram bow and the "lookout post" and the sailing rig as drawn is obviously wrong.
The following plan has been drawn from that illustration.
North's ironclad.
Name : Requested but not assigned
Type: Ironclad turretship
Dimensions: 295ft OA x 54ft EX x 15ft D, 3,414 ton0
270ft PP x 50ft B x 22.5ft DPH, 10knots
Guns : 4 -70 pdr Whitworth MLR
Armour: hull 4.5" iron on 12" teak tapering at the ends
Turrets: 5.5" iron on 12" teak.
Design: James & George Thompson Builder : Clyde Bank Foundry and Shipyard, Glasgow Scotland
Laid down: June 1862 Launched: as designed no.
. Note that the rig is as shown in the ILN illustration for completeness, but was possibly intended to be rigged as a large barque, as the vessel was intended to make long voyages under sail with screw hoisted.
Bringing the