Sassacus class firing arcs

OSCS

Cadet
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Been looking for the firing arcs for the heavy guns of the Sassacus class without any success. Were they 180 degrees or just broadside? Thank you in advance.
 
Been looking for the firing arcs for the heavy guns of the Sassacus class without any success. Were they 180 degrees or just broadside? Thank you in advance.
I believe that the Sassacus had two pivot guns (either XI-inch Dahlgrens or 100 lb Parrotts) and 4 broadside guns (VIII or IX-inch Dahlgrens). So I would think they'd get a 180 arc from the pivots, at the end of which they'd add to the 2-gun broadside. But I'd have to check.
 
Been looking for the firing arcs for the heavy guns of the Sassacus class without any success. Were they 180 degrees or just broadside? Thank you in advance.
Search for photos of the decks showing brass pivot tracks. Meanwhile, I will look at some plans I have....
 
098635502.jpg


098635503.jpg

Sassacus Class Sidewheel Steamer:
Specifications:
Displacement 947 t.
Length 205'
Beam 35'
Depth 11' 6"
Speed 14.5 knots
Compliment 145
Armament
two 100-pdr Parrott rifles
four 9" Dahlgren smoothbores
two 24-pdr howitzer rifles
one 12-pdr rifle
one heave 12-pdr smoothbore
Propulsion steam

From the images it would appear as if the swivel guns only fired broadside. All images & specifications navsource.org. "Old Navy" Ship Photo Archive
 
Sections of the bulwarks could fold down as needed, giving the pivot guns good arcs of fire on either side, but it does appear that the bulwarks at bow and stern were fixed, so the guns could not fire directly forward or aft. I would guess that was for seaworthiness, since folding bulwarks could never be completely watertight, but it is a bit odd in one sense; the rationale for double enders was to operate in narrow rivers or channels where ships couldn't turn around, so you'd think they'd want to be able to fire directly ahead.

Although they had rudders and pilothouses at both ends, bow and stern were distinctly different, so it's legitimate to use those terms. The US Navy also purchased a number of ferryboats which were true double-enders.
 
Sections of the bulwarks could fold down as needed, giving the pivot guns good arcs of fire on either side, but it does appear that the bulwarks at bow and stern were fixed, so the guns could not fire directly forward or aft. I would guess that was for seaworthiness, since folding bulwarks could never be completely watertight, but it is a bit odd in one sense; the rationale for double enders was to operate in narrow rivers or channels where ships couldn't turn around, so you'd think they'd want to be able to fire directly ahead.

Although they had rudders and pilothouses at both ends, bow and stern were distinctly different, so it's legitimate to use those terms. The US Navy also purchased a number of ferryboats which were true double-enders.
Good points. So far I've been unable to find any blueprint-style drawings or overheads for this class
 
Back
Top