Mr Mallory's Dream

[rebelatsea]

This never was a real project and should be regarded really as a bit of fun

CSN Secretary Stephen Mallory asked the Tifts if they could convert the Steamer Star of the West into a monitor with 4 guns, The terse reply was no, on account of the difficulty in protecting her machinery. That was true and also in reality they all had their hands full with the Mississippi.
I got to thinking, in an alternate scenario the Tifts would have the brains of Constructor Joseph Pearce, Chief Engineer James H Warner, Engineer I. M. Ivens, John Clark's foundry and machine shops and John Roy. What might they have come up with?
Here is the result, I haven't gone for lowering the engines and converting to screw as I'm not sure Warner would have developed that idea at the time.

So, on Star of the west's hull: 228ft x 32ft x 14.5ft (24.5ft is quoted as her draught but she could never have got into Charleston- that has to be Depth of Hold), I grafted an Atlanta conversion - bearing in mind that was based on the small Mississippi plan, and Iven's towers.
The resulting ship is 250ft x 50ft x 15ft.
This was a quick and dirty cut and paste job, so I know there are things not quite right.

Now don't all die laughing!

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

For some reason, the combination of armored turrets and exposed walking beams makes it more, rather than less, plausible. I suppose it's because there were plenty of other bizarre combinations in actuality, like sternwheel monitors!

 

[Ironclader]

Was the Confederacy even capable of building a turret?

 

[georgew]

For some reason, the combination of armored turrets and exposed walking beams makes it more, rather than less, plausible. I suppose it's because there were plenty of other bizarre combinations in actuality, like sternwheel monitors!

I think the potential advantage here is that by restricting the casement to protection of the machinery (shorter) the weight of the ironing for the turrets is better distributed.

 

[georgew]

Was the Confederacy even capable of building a turret?

Yes. Lt. Roy had already created rotating gun carriages for heavy artillery at New Orleans, so the basics had been proven. The added weight of the ironing of the turret would require a beefed up layout, presumably with peripheral support of the turret walls either on a railed circular track or perhaps timber channels with large diameter shot used as bearings. Actually, a full 360 deg rotation wasn't necessary due to the masses of the casemate and wheels. It makes you wonder if gun towers might have been more practical.

 

[georgew]

This never was a real project and should be regarded really as a bit of fun

CSN Secretary Stephen Mallory asked the Tifts if they could convert the Steamer Star of the West into a monitor with 4 guns, The terse reply was no, on account of the difficulty in protecting her machinery. That was true and also in reality they all had their hands full with the Mississippi.
I got to thinking, in an alternate scenario the Tifts would have the brains of Constructor Joseph Pearce, Chief Engineer James H Warner, Engineer I. M. Ivens, John Clark's foundry and machine shops and John Roy. What might they have come up with?
Here is the result, I haven't gone for lowering the engines and converting to screw as I'm not sure Warner would have developed that idea at the time.

So, on Star of the west's hull: 228ft x 32ft x 14.5ft (24.5ft is quoted as her draught but she could never have got into Charleston- that has to be Depth of Hold), I grafted an Atlanta conversion - bearing in mind that was based on the small Mississippi plan, and Iven's towers.
The resulting ship is 250ft x 50ft x 15ft.
This was a quick and dirty cut and paste job, so I know there are things not quite right.View attachment 262624Now don't all die laughing!

Rebel. What do you think about a similar layout for protecting the machinery of the Webb with forward and after Roy single rotating carriages? I've often wondered why the Confederates didn't do a take-off on the ironed rail guns with a slanting forward surface and wing side protection, but an open rear to the "turret" If done properly, the wing panels could terminate on the main rails for the carriage. The key is the forward and overhead protection for the gun crew. The side panels could use much lighter iron as protection against shell fragments. Because of the limited tonnage of the Webb you would end up with a "heavy" tin clad, but with very strong engines and I suspect a service speed of 12-15 mph.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Was the Confederacy even capable of building a turret?

Capable of building a few of them, yes... capable of keeping up with the Union in turret production, no. (As with much else.)

 

[rebelatsea]

Yes. Lt. Roy had already created rotating gun carriages for heavy artillery at New Orleans, so the basics had been proven. The added weight of the ironing of the turret would require a beefed up layout, presumably with peripheral support of the turret walls either on a railed circular track or perhaps timber channels with large diameter shot used as bearings. Actually, a full 360 deg rotation wasn't necessary due to the masses of the casemate and wheels. It makes you wonder if gun towers might have been more practical.

Yes. Lt. Roy had already created rotating gun carriages for heavy artillery at New Orleans, so the basics had been proven. The added weight of the ironing of the turret would require a beefed up layout, presumably with peripheral support of the turret walls either on a railed circular track or perhaps timber channels with large diameter shot used as bearings. Actually, a full 360 deg rotation wasn't necessary due to the masses of the casemate and wheels. It makes you wonder if gun towers might have been more practical.

Rebel. What do you think about a similar layout for protecting the machinery of the Webb with forward and after Roy single rotating carriages? I've often wondered why the Confederates didn't do a take-off on the ironed rail guns with a slanting forward surface and wing side protection, but an open rear to the "turret" If done properly, the wing panels could terminate on the main rails for the carriage. The key is the forward and overhead protection for the gun crew. The side panels could use much lighter iron as protection against shell fragments. Because of the limited tonnage of the Webb you would end up with a "heavy" tin clad, but with very strong engines and I suspect a service speed of 12-15 mph.

Now that is interesting, I had never thought of that, a very good idea and well within the capabilities of the South. I do wonder exactly what John Roy's towers were on his tower ships, maybe they were closer to what we think of as barbettes. John L Porter had a similar idea with the rear gun mount of the "muscogee" design.

I will give some thought to your idea, let's see what I can come up with.

 

[rebelatsea]

Rebel. What do you think about a similar layout for protecting the machinery of the Webb with forward and after Roy single rotating carriages? I've often wondered why the Confederates didn't do a take-off on the ironed rail guns with a slanting forward surface and wing side protection, but an open rear to the "turret" If done properly, the wing panels could terminate on the main rails for the carriage. The key is the forward and overhead protection for the gun crew. The side panels could use much lighter iron as protection against shell fragments. Because of the limited tonnage of the Webb you would end up with a "heavy" tin clad, but with very strong engines and I suspect a service speed of 12-15 mph.

Ask and ye shall have georgew.

Here she is equipped with two gun houses to mount 9"Dahlgren SB. There is nothing in this plan that wasn't known at the time. the gun houses rotate on rollers and are protected by the armoured sides. I have had to mount them on platforms because of the sheer line of the hull, which as been cut down to guard level. I think the protection, as a large tinclad with 2" plate over vitals and the gun houses. D**M just noticed I haven't protected the pilot house !

 

[georgew]

Ask and ye shall have georgew.

Here she is equipped with two gun houses to mount 9"Dahlgren SB. There is nothing in this plan that wasn't known at the time. the gun houses rotate on rollers and are protected by the armoured sides. I have had to mount them on platforms because of the sheer line of the hull, which as been cut down to guard level. I think the protection, as a large tinclad with 2" plate over vitals and the gun houses. D**M just noticed I haven't protected the pilot house !View attachment 273885

Wow, this could have been a nasty boat if used to help runners in and out of port and to keep the blockaders nervous. I'm curious why you chose the 9-inch SB versus rifled guns. Availability? You're right about protection for the pilot house. Boiler iron might have been sufficient against small arms and shell fragments. I think a maximum of 1-inch on the pilot house based on weight and availability. Do you think ready racks inside the turrets or passed up in action from magazines below decks? I originally envisioned the sides of the turret "winged out" like some of the later British destroyer mounts, but your approach is simpler and actually presents a smaller target with better protection at the tube end of the mount. Gun crews 6-8 per turret? On inland waters the Army would have probably supplied the gun crews and possibly a detachment with small arms. Probably 20 men for guns and small arms based upon how they manned converted river steamers. Another boat that might have benefited from a conversion like this would have been the Harriet Lane at Galveston. The Army Engineers there were getting ready to turn her into a ram when a Navy contingent was assigned. Magruder intended to have her bow ironed and put Smith in command. The problem with Harriet Lane was that she was slow under steam. Her masts had been pulled and with the yards put into storage. A converted Lane, especially with a torpedo installation would have been a serious threat to the low end blockaders off Galveston.

 

[rebelatsea]

Wow, this could have been a nasty boat if used to help runners in and out of port and to keep the blockaders nervous. I'm curious why you chose the 9-inch SB versus rifled guns. Availability? You're right about protection for the pilot house. Boiler iron might have been sufficient against small arms and shell fragments. I think a maximum of 1-inch on the pilot house based on weight and availability. Do you think ready racks inside the turrets or passed up in action from magazines below decks? I originally envisioned the sides of the turret "winged out" like some of the later British destroyer mounts, but your approach is simpler and actually presents a smaller target with better protection at the tube end of the mount. Gun crews 6-8 per turret? On inland waters the Army would have probably supplied the gun crews and possibly a detachment with small arms. Probably 20 men for guns and small arms based upon how they manned converted river steamers. Another boat that might have benefited from a conversion like this would have been the Harriet Lane at Galveston. The Army Engineers there were getting ready to turn her into a ram when a Navy contingent was assigned. Magruder intended to have her bow ironed and put Smith in command. The problem with Harriet Lane was that she was slow under steam. Her masts had been pulled and with the yards put into storage. A converted Lane, especially with a torpedo installation would have been a serious threat to the low end blockaders off Galveston.

She carried a 130pdr rifle, but I had to find a gun I could fit and that plus availability led me to base the gun house on a 9" Dahlgren but any gun the same length or smaller would fit. It's the biggest that would fit the ship anyway. I have looked at the 7"Brooke MLR, but that requires a gun house 23ft long ! In covering the rollers which are outboard of the gun carriage it does allow space for ready use projectiles and the tools of the trade. Not sure how It would be turned, some form of winch or gearing on the pivot below decks. The nearly contemporary Royal Sovereign and Prince Albert had manually rotated turrets, so it's not impossible. I will have a look at your idea of "winging" the sides. I think structurally in terms of carpentry it makes little difference.
You have given me another idea for the onward development of CSN ironclads for which I thank you.

 

[rebelatsea]

georgew, I think you cracked it, here 's Version 2 with your sloped gun houses, they cover the racers for the rollers now, look better balanced, and I've plated the pilothouse!

 

[georgew]

She carried a 130pdr rifle, but I had to find a gun I could fit and that plus availability led me to base the gun house on a 9" Dahlgren but any gun the same length or smaller would fit. It's the biggest that would fit the ship anyway. I have looked at the 7"Brooke MLR, but that requires a gun house 23ft long ! In covering the rollers which are outboard of the gun carriage it does allow space for ready use projectiles and the tools of the trade. Not sure how It would be turned, some form of winch or gearing on the pivot below decks. The nearly contemporary Royal Sovereign and Prince Albert had manually rotated turrets, so it's not impossible. I will have a look at your idea of "winging" the sides. I think structurally in terms of carpentry it makes little difference.
You have given me another idea for the onward development of CSN ironclads for which I thank you.

Rebel - didn't the RR types of the time have a ratcheting type turn table with provision for manual use? I keep thinking that Lt. Roy may have been inspired by something like that. With the gun winched forward and with the tube extension, the arc of fire is actually better than you would expect allowing for the wheel houses and casemate. You could bring a two gun broadside to bear on either side for a surprisingly close target. What I really like is that you can use this layout effectively at sea.

 

[georgew]

georgew, I think you cracked it, here 's Version 2 with your sloped gun houses, they cover the racers for the rollers now, look better balanced, and I've plated the pilothouse!View attachment 274673

I think you may have cracked it Rebel. As depicted, do you have clearance distance at the rear of the turret with the forward and aft casemate bulkheads to rotate? I also wonder if a similar layout would have been an improvement to the RDS ram Thompson and the two converted Southern Steamship rams. Also Kennon's two State ram/gunboats. I mention these specific vessels based upon their size and displacement. Thompson may not have had enough room forward for a turret. Kennon's ship took massive casualties among the artillerymen from Co. G, Louisiana Artillery above the forts, largely from lack of protection as they served as gun crews.

 

[rebelatsea]

I think you may have cracked it Rebel. As depicted, do you have clearance distance at the rear of the turret with the forward and aft casemate bulkheads to rotate? I also wonder if a similar layout would have been an improvement to the RDS ram Thompson and the two converted Southern Steamship rams. Also Kennon's two State ram/gunboats. I mention these specific vessels based upon their size and displacement. Thompson may not have had enough room forward for a turret. Kennon's ship took massive casualties among the artillerymen from Co. G, Louisiana Artillery above the forts, largely from lack of protection as they served as gun crews.

Yes I rotated the gun houses - they fit just but there is room to move if needed. I see this as a late war development, indeed a post peace / ceasefire one to be developed further. I shouldn't think anything of the kind crossed anyone's mind in 1861 - 2, apart from John Roy and I. M.Ivens, and nothing came of their plans.

 

[rebelatsea]

Rebel - didn't the RR types of the time have a ratcheting type turn table with provision for manual use? I keep thinking that Lt. Roy may have been inspired by something like that. With the gun winched forward and with the tube extension, the arc of fire is actually better than you would expect allowing for the wheel houses and casemate. You could bring a two gun broadside to bear on either side for a , surprisingly close target. What I really like is that you can use this layout effectively at sea.

The 9" Dahlgrens are 11ft long so quite a bit of the barrel will protrude in firing position depending on the angle of slope of the protection. For simplicity I kept the slope of armour over machinery and gun houses the same angle. Yes a lot of railroad TT's were and are turned by a winch and ratchet arrangement so that is feasible if there is room. I assumed your gun houses would be on rollers as the big gun carriages were (and I had a drawing of one to hand), but you could use old cannon balls in tracks, which is what I believe Eads did in his river monitor turrets.

 

[georgew]

The 9" Dahlgrens are 11ft long so quite a bit of the barrel will protrude in firing position depending on the angle of slope of the protection. For simplicity I kept the slope of armour over machinery and gun houses the same angle. Yes a lot of railroad TT's were and are turned by a winch and ratchet arrangement so that is feasible if there is room. I assumed your gun houses would be on rollers as the big gun carriages were (and I had a drawing of one to hand), but you could use old cannon balls in tracks, which is what I believe Eads did in his river monitor turrets.

Didn't someone recently mention a pair of custom rifles made for the Virginia using 9" casting blanks? You could retain the same tube length, but I wonder if banding would be necessary (which the foundries in NO seem to have resisted) and what you would use for ammunition. A 9-inch SB packed a whallop upon impact, but a rifled chaser forward would have been useful. On the other hand, most engagements on inland waterways were usually at closer ranges, fire direction in those days left a lot to be desired. The other people are going to be firing back so you wonder if some kind of belt amidships was advisable. In the case of the Webb, the bow area would have been heavily wooded within to back up the ram. Where do you think they would have gotten 2-inch plate? Even the plate from Atlanta for the Mississippi wasn't that thick. Laminated 1 inch is possible, but the strips would have been pretty narrow and require a lot of fastening. Farragut's dodge with the looped chain is another possibility. Just estimating the weight spiral on such a vessel and what it does to displacement is an interesting exercise. I suspect that the Captain of such a vessel would want to put in his opinion on weights versus speed.

 

[gary]

I would think a keokuk style turret would be feasible. It would allow firing ahead (or astern if stern gun), port & starboard.

 

[rebelatsea]

Didn't someone recently mention a pair of custom rifles made for the Virginia using 9" casting blanks? You could retain the same tube length, but I wonder if banding would be necessary (which the foundries in NO seem to have resisted) and what you would use for ammunition. A 9-inch SB packed a whallop upon impact, but a rifled chaser forward would have been useful. On the other hand, most engagements on inland waterways were usually at closer ranges, fire direction in those days left a lot to be desired. The other people are going to be firing back so you wonder if some kind of belt amidships was advisable. In the case of the Webb, the bow area would have been heavily wooded within to back up the ram. Where do you think they would have gotten 2-inch plate? Even the plate from Atlanta for the Mississippi wasn't that thick. Laminated 1 inch is possible, but the strips would have been pretty narrow and require a lot of fastening. Farragut's dodge with the looped chain is another possibility. Just estimating the weight spiral on such a vessel and what it does to displacement is an interesting exercise. I suspect that the Captain of such a vessel would want to put in his opinion on weights versus speed.

Georgew, when Gosport navy yard was taken, six 9" Dahlgren gun blocks were found untouched. It was two of these, bored and rifled to 7" on Brooke's pattern which were the fore and aft guns of the Virginia. The remaining four, also rifled to 7" were supplied with carriages to the Tifts to form her four chase guns. It would appear that these guns WERE NOT banded, and it is incorrect to call them Brooke rifles for that reason.
What you are suggesting is I think an Atlanta style conversion which I looked at and dismissed in the case of the Webb, due to the hull shape and form. My plan was really for a relatively quick conversion, but obtaining suitable plate would have been problematic I agree. We are told Schofield & Markham rolled 1.25" plate for Mississipi, all sources agree on that, but It's a very odd thickness. At first site you would say - Ah yes that's for railroad strap rail, but It doesn't match and I'm sure Davebrt would concur. I have a serious question mark over it.

 

[rebelatsea]

Georgew, when Gosport navy yard was taken, six 9" Dahlgren gun blocks were found untouched. It was two of these, bored and rifled to 7" on Brooke's pattern which were the fore and aft guns of the Virginia. The remaining four, also rifled to 7" were supplied with carriages to the Tifts to form her four chase guns. It would appear that these guns WERE NOT banded, and it is incorrect to call them Brooke rifles for that reason.
What you are suggesting is I think an Atlanta style conversion which I looked at and dismissed in the case of the Webb, due to the hull shape and form. My plan was really for a relatively quick conversion, but obtaining suitable plate would have been problematic I agree. We are told Schofield & Markham rolled 1.25" plate for Mississipi, all sources agree on that, but It's a very odd thickness. At first site you would say - Ah yes that's for railroad strap rail, but It doesn't match and I'm sure Davebrt would concur. I have a serious question mark over it.

Missed a word out, the four 7" and carriages were for Mississippi's fore and aft chase guns.