THE DIAMOND AND BIXBY IRONCLAD

[rebelatsea]

Ladies and Gents I need your help please.

Despite having a very good description of this proposal, the plans referred to have not survived - unless one of you kind and knowledgeable souls knows otherwise.

2. The Diamond & Bisby Ironclad.

Proposed by two citizens of New Orleans, with plans drawn by naval Architect W.T. Smith, this vessel was approved by Commodore Hollins on 10th August 1861 .
Described as 220ft x 56ft, flat bottomed with elliptical sides, nearly the same fore and aft with a single screw 2.5ft below the waterline. It had an elliptical "roof" and mounted 6 heavy guns mounted so as to fire two ahead or four each side. The bow and stern were solid "for many feet, and it was to be covered with railroad iron so as to resist any shot.

 

[AndyHall]

Haven't seen any depictions of this vessel, much less plans, but the C.S.S. Manassas lineage seems clear.

 

[rebelatsea]

Haven't seen any depictions of this vessel, much less plans, but the C.S.S. Manassas lineage seems clear.

Hadn't thought of that Andy, Although I should have !

 

[rebelatsea]

Gents,

Here we are, my take on the Diamond & Bixby vessel

 

[NeilL]

Rebel, I do not understand the description of the placement of the guns. How many total?

 

[DaveBrt]

In November, 1861, the holder of the mortgage on the iron of the Mexican Gulf RR (28 miles long, going southeast out of New Orleans) tried to interest Davis in buying the road's iron. He said it was wrought iron slabs "such as is being used to armor warships now." This would have to mean strap rail, which would be about one inch thick. He also mentioned the iron possibly being used on privateers (ie Manassas). His letter is written from New Orleans, so I expect he and his proposal was well-known in the city (he rails against Gen. Lovell not allowing the use of the road's iron for anything but a railroad) and might have been related to the ironclad you are researching.

The man's name was Samuel A. Cartwright

 

[rebelatsea]

Rebel, I do not understand the description of the placement of the guns. How many total?

6 guns, 2 firing forward and to either side, 3 pivots firing to either side and one firing aft only. The alternative is 2 fring ahead, and four pivots firing to each side with none astern.

 

[rebelatsea]

In November, 1861, the holder of the mortgage on the iron of the Mexican Gulf RR (28 miles long, going southeast out of New Orleans) tried to interest Davis in buying the road's iron. He said it was wrought iron slabs "such as is being used to armor warships now." This would have to mean strap rail, which would be about one inch thick. He also mentioned the iron possibly being used on privateers (ie Manassas). His letter is written from New Orleans, so I expect he and his proposal was well-known in the city (he rails against Gen. Lovell not allowing the use of the road's iron for anything but a railroad) and might have been related to the ironclad you are researching.

The man's name was Samuel A. Cartwright

Thanks for that, I think on balance Lovell was right, transportation was more important as he saw it.

 

[rebelatsea]

Alternative ordnance layout, no aft firing gun.

 

[Kazziga]

Please, don't laugh too much

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Please, don't laugh too much

View attachment 32780

I think it looks great.

 

[AndyHall]

I think it looks great, too. I just keep thinking how much easier those compound curved-surfaces are with pixels than with iron plate!

 

[rebelatsea]

Please, don't laugh too much

View attachment 32780

I'm not laughing either Kaz, that's more or less what I had in my mind's eye.

 

[rebelatsea]

Please, don't laugh too much

View attachment 32780

I wish I could do that !

 

[georgew]

Ladies and Gents I need your help please.

Despite having a very good description of this proposal, the plans referred to have not survived - unless one of you kind and knowledgeable souls knows otherwise.

2. The Diamond & Bisby Ironclad.

Proposed by two citizens of New Orleans, with plans drawn by naval Architect W.T. Smith, this vessel was approved by Commodore Hollins on 10th August 1861 .
Described as 220ft x 56ft, flat bottomed with elliptical sides, nearly the same fore and aft with a single screw 2.5ft below the waterline. It had an elliptical "roof" and mounted 6 heavy guns mounted so as to fire two ahead or four each side. The bow and stern were solid "for many feet, and it was to be covered with railroad iron so as to resist any shot.

Hi Rebel, the date you cite above makes this proposal essentially contemporary with the Manassas conversion. The staggered time frame makes you wonder if this project was actually a "copycat" proposal addressing what the average naval officer would have found lacking in the Manassas - firepower. I've never seen any documentation reflecting "approval" of the Manassas by Hollins or anyone in Richmond. Hollins shanghied Stevenson's ram out of necessity and lack of alternatives. Certainly, no one repeated the Manassas layout. Is their any evidence that the D & B ironclad was actually started? Was W.T. Smith's name associated with any of the dock yards at Algiers? The ability to actually build this vessel if funded would make it much more credible.

 

[rebelatsea]

Hello Georgew, Manassas was a private conversion I believe, and you are right about the seizure for the CSN.
Andy Hall suggested the connection between her and the D&B vessel. I don't know who W.T Smith was or if he was connected to any of the yards. Hollins authorised the construction, but there appears to be no source of funding identified so I have assumed no work was done on it.

 

[rebelatsea]

Ladies & Gents, the information and drawings in this article have been superseded by that given in "The Sardinian Con nection"

 

[TinCan]

Please, don't laugh too much

View attachment 32780

Wow, that looks great to me.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Ladies & Gents, the information and drawings in this article have been superseded by that given in "The Sardinian Connection"

Sir, Thank You for the re-direct.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA