Mr Mallory's Dream

[rebelatsea]

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

Gary, Keokuk's fixed gunhouses were definitely within CSN capabilities and known about by Mallory and Porter, indeed there are vague suggestions that her plans were offered to Mallory.

 

[georgew]

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.

Hi Rebel. Actually I'm with you on the issue of a quick conversion. I do know of a source of 1.5" strap iron in the NO area, but getting it released would have been difficult. The great issue overall is survival of the vessel. For all of their plans, it was unusual for the Confederates to field naval vessels in more than one's and two's. Yes, you get the mosquito fleets, the River Defense Service and the Army Gunboats in Western Louisiana, but due to maintenance issues, conversion times, etc., they rarely showed up in force. The Webb and/or former Southern Steamship Company's vessels had potential for off-shore work and port defense if converted properly. Webb was a bust as a blockade runner. She was not really configured for cargo and more valuable as a gunboat/ram with real speed. The Southern Steamships were slower, but with more displacement and capable of more extended operations off-shore. Such conversions could have been useful at Head of Passes because the deep draft channels into the Mississippi were actually very restricted. You could put a large Union vessel into the channel, but only in line ahead, restricting the amount of firepower available to engage southern vessels able to use their broadside guns. The key was to put a blocking force in head of passes just after "Pope's Run". By withdrawing, the Confederates lost control of the choke point and never regained the initiative.

 

[georgew]

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

Hi John: just dug out an interesting reference on Union naval ordnance called "Notes on Naval Ordnance of the American Civil War 1861-1865" by Eugene B. Canfield. It was published by the American Ordnance Association in 1960. I started looking up the data on the 9-inch SB gun. There is a drawing on pg 6 of a 90inch on a 2-wheel Marsilly carriage with the interesting comment that it "could be fired every 40 seconds...". It is depicted in the drawing as a broadside weapon. You wonder how fast a gun of this type could be used in a turret or gunhouse/tower installation? In a chart on pg 8 the 9-inch is stated to weigh 9,000 lbs and throw a shell weighing 72.5 pounds with a 10 lb charge and a range at 5 deg of 1710 yds. Time of flight 5.96 seconds. The gun was considered suitable for pivot or boardside use. With a length of 107 inches it would be a good choice if a 64 pounder wasn't available. This reference also has an interesting illustrated sections on spar and fixed torpedoes used during the war.

 

[rebelatsea]

Hi John: just dug out an interesting reference on Union naval ordnance called "Notes on Naval Ordnance of the American Civil War 1861-1865" by Eugene B. Canfield. It was published by the American Ordnance Association in 1960. I started looking up the data on the 9-inch SB gun. There is a drawing on pg 6 of a 90inch on a 2-wheel Marsilly carriage with the interesting comment that it "could be fired every 40 seconds...". It is depicted in the drawing as a broadside weapon. You wonder how fast a gun of this type could be used in a turret or gunhouse/tower installation? In a chart on pg 8 the 9-inch is stated to weigh 9,000 lbs and throw a shell weighing 72.5 pounds with a 10 lb charge and a range at 5 deg of 1710 yds. Time of flight 5.96 seconds. The gun was considered suitable for pivot or boardside use. With a length of 107 inches it would be a good choice if a 64 pounder wasn't available. This reference also has an interesting illustrated sections on spar and fixed torpedoes used during the war.

Thanks georgew, the 9" was a good weapon designed as a shell gun, but could it fire solid shot and how high was it's MV? To be honest that one shot every 40seconds sounds like a proving ground test, and even then that ROF seems a bit quick ! In a gunhouse it would probably be fitted to a slide carriage.
,

 

[Talos]

Thanks georgew, the 9" was a good weapon designed as a shell gun, but could it fire solid shot and how high was it's MV? To be honest that one shot every 40seconds sounds like a proving ground test, and even then that ROF seems a bit quick ! In a gunhouse it would probably be fitted to a slide carriage.
,

I've seen the "1 shot every 40 seconds" listed as a practical rate of fire onboard ship with an experienced crew. It could fire solid shot, but was intended to be shell first. Dahlgren made several solid-shot guns which were the opposite (shot first, shell second), but those were normally drilled in blanks of the next largest gun size. For example, the IX-Inch solid shot gun was a nine-inch barrel drilled into a X-Inch Dahlgren blank. Similarly, the X-Inch solid shot gun (130-pounder) was made with an XI-Inch blank and designed for "unlimited solid shot against ironclads" since firing solid shot at high charges risked damaging the shell guns, but the heavier shot guns could handle it better.

I do believe the muzzle velocity of the IX-Inch was 1400 fps with a 72-pound shell and 10 lbs of powder, or 1290 fps with a solid shot and 13.5 lbs of powder.

They were good guns in the end, intended when they were invented to be the next logical step in broadside weapons to replace the 32-pounder as the 32-pounder had replaced the 18 and 24-pounders in frigates in the 1840s. The XI-inch was originally designed to be the pivot gun for ships armed with IX-inch broadside guns. On a Marsilly carriage like the one I drew it on here, it could be repositioned from one side of a ship to the other in just a couple minutes (as tested on sailing sloop-of-war USS Plymouth in the 1850s, along with the rate of fire) and easily and quickly trained from side to side.

 

[georgew]

Thanks georgew, the 9" was a good weapon designed as a shell gun, but could it fire solid shot and how high was it's MV? To be honest that one shot every 40seconds sounds like a proving ground test, and even then that ROF seems a bit quick ! In a gunhouse it would probably be fitted to a slide carriage.
,

The issue of a slide does change the procedure a bit. I would think that it might slow down the rate of fire. The Roy type pivoting carriage makes me wonder it incorporated a latching system when the gun was at full recoil leaving space for the rammer and loaders, then release the latch and use gravity to let the gun slide down into firing position. In a turret or gun tower being able to latch the gun aft might be an advantage during rotation on the carriage.

 

[rebelatsea]

The issue of a slide does change the procedure a bit. I would think that it might slow down the rate of fire. The Roy type pivoting carriage makes me wonder it incorporated a latching system when the gun was at full recoil leaving space for the rammer and loaders, then release the latch and use gravity to let the gun slide down into firing position. In a turret or gun tower being able to latch the gun aft might be an advantage during rotation on the carriage.

In truth I don't know, Brooke's carriages were all flat - or at least the one's I have drawing of, a recoil carriage and lock does make sense, but had it been invented or was it a post 1865 development? In the RN Scott's iron carriage was the first time the principle was used. First mounted aboard the Prince Consorts which completed 1864 -5.

 

[USS ALASKA]

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"

here 's Version 2 with your sloped gun houses

Sirs, in reading the above posts, I immediately thought of...

http://www.firstmdus.net/Rail cars.htm

...and also Mark 21 open-back shield pedestal mounts...

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0536813.jpg
497

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[rebelatsea]

Sirs, in reading the above posts, I immediately thought of...

View attachment 294903

http://www.firstmdus.net/Rail cars.htm

...and also Mark 21 open-back shield pedestal mounts...

View attachment 294904

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0536813.jpg
497

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

That print is rather stylised, Brooke's battery was mounted on a specialy designed 8 wheel bolster wagon, and only had an armoured sloped front, the sides were a very heavy but open framework, I have a drawing somewhere which I will try to dig out. Having said that, it is really surprising that one or other of the "brains" of the CSN didn't think to mount such a device on a turntable on shipboard.