The Laird Rams Join the CSN

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Drachinifel has perhaps one of the best youtube channels dedicated to international naval history.

If anyone is interested in such, please review his content.

Drachinifel

If you want to contact me, drop me a DM on Discord or email [email protected]

www.youtube.com

 

[Saphroneth]

Once again sir, I never said that. I don't believe anyone has stated it would be easy - just that it could, and would, be done.

But you're assuming success - and many of the Confederate commerce raiders simply were not efficiently chased down. Some weren't at all. The things you were saying the Union would do were things the Union could have historically done but did not.

 

[Oceanweather]

I wonder the South's ability to maintain overseas in fighting condition the ironclad rams. They were an advanced piece of machinery much more complex than a wooden raider like Alabama.

Perhaps Britain would have needed to provide an extended, sustained logistical tail.

Ryan

 

[Saphroneth]

I wonder the South's ability to maintain overseas in fighting condition the ironclad rams. They were an advanced piece of machinery much more complex than a wooden raider like Alabama.

Perhaps Britain would have needed to provide an extended, sustained logistical tail.

Ryan

My impression is that you don't need that on a short timescale, and that the war would be over one way or another before it became a major issue. I do think they wouldn't be commerce raiders though.

Britain would be unlikely to provide any more of a logistical tail than it provided to the US (allowing purchase of coal, mainly).

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

BUT THEY WERE NEVER ARMED AND WERE NOT CSN VESSELS.

True, but this is some big time what if'n.

 

[rebelatsea]

Drachinifel has perhaps one of the best youtube channels dedicated to international naval history.

If anyone is interested in such, please review his content.

Drachinifel

If you want to contact me, drop me a DM on Discord or email [email protected]

www.youtube.com

He and I were due to meet to talk about the CSN ironclads, but I went into hospital which put the boot into that. We are still to get together.

 

[USS ALASKA]

He and I were due to meet to talk about the CSN ironclads, but I went into hospital which put the boot into that. We are still to get together.

Wow, I would like to be the proverbial fly-on-the-wall to hear that meeting of the minds!

Good luck, sir!
USS ALASKA

 

[rebelatsea]

Wow, I would like to be the proverbial fly-on-the-wall to hear that meeting of the minds!

Good luck, sir!
USS ALASKA

I suspect it would have been for one of his Youtube videos.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

I think @rebelatsea should start his own Youtube channel.

Seriously !

After all, he's an expert on all things naval history and the man can provide accurate naval architectural sketches
of any vessel in the Confederate States Navy.

 

[rebelatsea]

I think @rebelatsea should start his own Youtube channel.

Seriously !

After all, he's an expert on all things naval history and the man can provide accurate naval architectural sketches
of any vessel in the Confederate States Navy.

Thank you, that's very flattering, but I have help in many cases from the learned members of the naval forum who's help criticism and correction is invaluable. I speciaiise in the iron protected vessels but will get involved with others where I can help.

 

[rebelatsea]

...er... the monitors had less than a third of that freeboard?




Looking at this (which is the chart you provided), I'm pretty sure I can see a path where the depth never goes below 10 as marked:


View attachment 550882

And the diagram explicitly states that the mean high tide is about six feet while the mean low tide is about one foot. You'd expect about an extra foot from spring tides on top of that.

I don't think you need to lighten very much to get through this in the configuration given by the charts. It might mean being careful around the shallowest points, sure, but it's doable if the ship's draft is 15 feet.


After all, the alternative is that the Confederates specifically ordered a ship that couldn't use any of their ports... but speaking of which...



Fortunately in 1864 there was a resurvey done of the Charleston Bar:

Resurvey of Charleston Bar

Scale 1:30,000. LC Civil War Maps (2nd ed.), 384 "No. 15" is in the upper left corner. Revised and redrawn edition of the preceding chart published in 1862. Description derived from published bibliography. Available also through the Library of Congress web site as raster image.

www.loc.gov

Detail:

View attachment 550883

The three surfaces are labelled, explicitly, as 6, 12 and 18 feet below mean low water, and there is indeed a path where the depth maxes out at 11 feet below mean low water - note, not high water, low water. The chart further states that the mean rise and fall of tide is 5 feet, or 6 in spring tides.

So no, the bar is not 12 feet at high water - it's 11 feet at low water, 16-17 in high.

Just a gentle reminder that the two turretships would be at sea with hinged bulwarks raised and would only lower them going into action.

 

[Saphroneth]

Just a gentle reminder that the two turretships would be at sea with hinged bulwarks raised and would only lower them going into action.

That sounds like one of the early versions of what would ultimately become the breastwork monitors, and thus subsequently the true line of development of the ironclad turret battleship (leading to the Pre Dreadnought)

 

[USS ALASKA]

He and I were due to meet to talk about the CSN ironclads, but I went into hospital which put the boot into that. We are still to get together.

Sir, if your meeting is in a pub - first round is on me! I'm sure some other folks here will pitch in...


USS ALASKA

 

[rebelatsea]

That sounds like one of the early versions of what would ultimately become the breastwork monitors, and thus subsequently the true line of development of the ironclad turret battleship (leading to the Pre Dreadnought)

No, The breastwork monitors, Devastion, Thunderer and the French quartet relied upon the raised central portion mounting the turrets
All the derivations of the Laird vessels, HMS Monarch, and the three Prussian copies all had hinged iron bulwarks either side of their turrets, presenting only the turret roofs visible at sea. They all had conventional ship shape hulls with broadside armour.

 

[Saphroneth]

No, The breastwork monitors, Devastion, Thunderer and the French quartet relied upon the raised central portion mounting the turrets
All the derivations of the Laird vessels, HMS Monarch, and the three Prussian copies all had hinged iron bulwarks either side of their turrets, presenting only the turret roofs visible at sea. They all had conventional ship shape hulls with broadside armour.

Ah, I see - so it's protection for the turret sides at sea to prevent a leak path only (in effect).

 

[rebelatsea]

Ah, I see - so it's protection for the turret sides at sea to prevent a leak path only (in effect).

It raised the effective freeboard by around 6ft, 7ft in the case of the big turretships. In the breastwork vessels the sea was allowed to wash over the low main decks, Which whilst ensuring they made steady gun platforms made habitability and sea speed somewhat problematic, hence why the Devastion and Thunderer spent most of their time in the Med.
Dreadnought began life as an "improved" Devastation called Fury but the plans were altered before launching to produce the vessel we know, with bow, sides and stern built up. The Russian Piotr Veliki was a "knock off " copy.

 

[USS ALASKA]

20 Oct 1863

Great Britain. Confederate Commander John Dunwoody Bulloch reported from Liverpool that the two new ironclads known as No. 294 and No. 295 had been seized by the British Government. Bulloch felt the action stemmed from the fact that a large number of Confederate naval officers had arrived recently in England. The CSS Florida had been sighted off the Irish coast six weeks previously and had discharged the majority of her crew at Brest. These were then sent to Liverpool. This evidence was used by the American representative to persuade the British government that these officers and men were destined to crew the new ironclad rams in contravention of international law.

Private Site

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[OldReliable1862]

Unfortunately the first carriages for the 9" MLR on this pair were dreadful, it took an hour from full depression to full elevation in smooth water (Oscar Parkes - British Battleships) . I think the CSN would have had to get 7" Brooke MLR and carriages to them somehow.

I don't think it would be impossible to load eight 7" Brooke MLR and carriages (along with ordnance, of course) onto a steamer and rendezvous with the ships somewhere. It worked for Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, anyway.

 

[Saphroneth]

The one hour figure isn't actually all that disqualifying, for what I understand - their full sweep of elevation is huge for the time (and for their 10.5 MLR, AIUI) and so that's why - the full sweep is from -5 to +13 degrees, so it's about a degree every three minutes.

Continuous aim is a long way away and these guns would fire on the roll of the ship, which means that a few degrees of elevation off can be compensated for that way.

With a 9" RML (muzzle velocity 430 meters per second) then doing a basic simulation not allowing for air resistance, each degree adds about 600 meters of range. Based on this an enemy threat would have to be closing at 200 meters per minute to be going too fast for the elevation change to keep up - a closing speed of about 7 knots, which is non-trivial though certainly possible. That said it's not as bad as the reload problem, where in the time it would take a 15" armed Monitor to reload that same 7 knot ship could close through 3,000 meters and get from outside range to boarding!

Ultimately though i think that in most realistic circumstances they'd be left at about 3-5 degrees elevation and fired on the roll of the ship.

 

[rebelatsea]

The one hour figure isn't actually all that disqualifying, for what I understand - their full sweep of elevation is huge for the time (and for their 10.5 MLR, AIUI) and so that's why - the full sweep is from -5 to +13 degrees, so it's about a degree every three minutes.

Continuous aim is a long way away and these guns would fire on the roll of the ship, which means that a few degrees of elevation off can be compensated for that way.

With a 9" RML (muzzle velocity 430 meters per second) then doing a basic simulation not allowing for air resistance, each degree adds about 600 meters of range. Based on this an enemy threat would have to be closing at 200 meters per minute to be going too fast for the elevation change to keep up - a closing speed of about 7 knots, which is non-trivial though certainly possible. That said it's not as bad as the reload problem, where in the time it would take a 15" armed Monitor to reload that same 7 knot ship could close through 3,000 meters and get from outside range to boarding!

Ultimately though i think that in most realistic circumstances they'd be left at about 3-5 degrees elevation and fired on the roll of the ship.

That could be right as RN gunners traditionally fired on the up roll in the days of sail with the primary intention of destroying motive power before boarding. However the advent of the heavy shell guns and the 68pdr high velocity shot guns changed that philosophy to one of physically destroying the enemy vessel.
The Laird turretships could never have been armed with Armstrong/Woolwich ordnance if they had got out, as this was strictly controlled by the British War Office, and only manufactured to order.

The two 8" Armstrong MLR taken at Ft Fisher remain a mystery which will never be solved as the foundry records were destroyed in the bombing of Newcastle by the Luftwaffe.