The Laird Rams Join the CSN

[Saphroneth]

No. I wouldn't. In any case, as others have said, you do not have to sink a ship to make it useless as a warship. What would happen in all the manoevering if they got grounded on a sandbank in coastal waters? What would happen if the opposition took out the rudder or screw? Or put one good dent on a turret low down and it is unable to turn? What would happen when they ran out of coal? A spar torpedo?

...you seem to be arguing as if the fact that a ship can be damaged under hypothetical circumstances means that it is not a good ship?

 

[Old Soldier]

...you seem to be arguing as if the fact that a ship can be damaged under hypothetical circumstances means that it is not a good ship?

Well, since this whole thread is hypothetical ...

 

[Saphroneth]

Well, since this whole thread is hypothetical ...

Not the point, is it? Any ship can be sunk so you can argue "what happens if it's disabled", but the threat they pose is the encapsulation of likelihood. If the US strategy is that they must score lucky disabling hits on two vessels that are each, individually, more powerful combatants than a Monitor and can avoid action with said Monitors, OR (if they do not get lucky twice) they lose their main field army, then the only reasonable thing the US can do is to make every necessary preparation to bug out if they don't deal with the Rams almost immediately.

 

[Old Soldier]

Or they don't bother trying to fight. Just keep an eye on them. As for 'good ship' I think the RN sorted that out pretty quickly - and kept them in harbor. They could not fire in a beam sea in case the recoil made them turn turtle.

 

[Saphroneth]

Or they don't bother trying to fight. Just keep an eye on them. As for 'good ship' I think the RN sorted that out pretty quickly - and kept them in harbor. They could not fire in a beam sea in case the recoil made them turn turtle.

If they "just keep an eye on them" while the Rams are interdicting the mouth of the Chesapeake in some fashion, I think the result of that is that the Rams stop Union supply convoys.

There are consequences for not engaging.

 

[Old Soldier]

If they are in or near the Chesapeake, the shore batteries will have a field day. Besides, there are several other ports that the Union could use. The Union has railroads aplenty.

Time-wise, this would probably be towards the end of 1864, the Confederacy are not in a good situation. Sherman has probably taken Atlanta and Savannah is in his sights - another port denied these turret rams.

 

[Saphroneth]

If they are in or near the Chesapeake, the shore batteries will have a field day. Besides, there are several other ports that the Union could use. The Union has railroads aplenty.

Do you think the Union has shore batteries along the whole coastline of the Chesapeake? Because that's not remotely true - shore batteries in this period defend points, not whole coastlines.

How do you think Grant is supplied in his siege lines around Petersburg? His only option is water supply up the James to City Point; if he abandons besieging Petersburg entirely and gives up months of progress, he might be able to use the York to White House Landing.

Time-wise, this would probably be towards the end of 1864, the Confederacy are not in a good situation. Sherman has probably taken Atlanta and Savannah is in his sights - another port denied these turret rams.

Oh, boy, Savannah is a disaster for the Union if that's where the Laird Rams go to base themselves. Sherman relies on sea supply once he reaches Savannah, and if the Laird Rams are loitering offshore and blocking the sea supply then Sherman's army will starve or surrender.

 

[RodentRevolution]

At this point I cannot help but remember that the CSS Hunley killed 13 out of a crew of 8 in two sinkings even before she made her one and only attack. I also rather doubt the Confederacy had the monopoly on the kind of courage to put themselves in that kind of danger. I strongly suspect that wooden warships would have engaged the Laird Rams or any other ironclad if that is what it took for the United States Navy to contain their impact.

So I think the idea that the ships will magically sink or at the other extreme win the war with just the two of them looks on the face of it a tad unrealistic.

 

[Piedone]

No. I wouldn't. In any case, as others have said, you do not have to sink a ship to make it useless as a warship. What would happen in all the manoevering if they got grounded on a sandbank in coastal waters? Charts are not used in combat. What would happen if the opposition took out the rudder or screw? Or put one good dent on a turret low down and it is unable to turn? What would happen when they ran out of coal? A spar torpedo?

Picking the range? They had four guns probably with a slow rate of fire.

Following your argument nobody could or should enter a naval battle -
these are just the ordinary risks one has to take in account when fighting in littoral waters.

 

[rebelatsea]

And you would sail on one knowing that they were poor sea-ships and had difficulty manoevering?? How do you think they would do when surrounded by 6 USN monitors? One good hit on a turret and that turret is finished. You cannot win a sea war stuck in a river or estuary.

"one good hit on a turret" from what pray?

 

[rebelatsea]

the actual origin of the Laird turretships is quite illuminating :

The design of these ships two vessels originated in a proposal by Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy, Gustavus Fox to build two double-turreted ironclads in Britain with which the USN could attack Charleston. John T. Howard of New York approached Lairds to seek their estimates. Resembling a New York ferryboat in that they were to have a propeller and rudder at each end, they were intended to run into Charleston harbour unharmed by the defences.

Although Lairds drew up a contract which matched Fox's requirements, nothing came of the attempts to consummate it, so that when Bulloch approached them, they had a ready-made basis to develop into his requirements for the CSN.

The Fox –Howard Ironclad

Type; Sea going ironclad floating battery
Dimensions: 231ft OA x 48ft EXS x 14ft later reduced to 12ft D, 2,218 /1,901 tons ,10 knots
205ft PP x 47ft B x 14DPH
Guns: 2 – 11" SB
Armour: 4.5" sides and turrets, backing if any not known

This evolved into the Turret ship via an intermediate stage with three fixed gun houses, from which the turret ships developed.

 

[rebelatsea]

Gentlemen, I wish you would all please consult a copy of "British Battleships" by Dr Oscar Parkes. The Chapter on these ships is definitive. If you haven't got one or access to one, I am sure the United States Library Service can oblige.

 

[Saphroneth]

Personally I think the strategic implications of these ships (in Confederate hands) would mostly be in threat; I'm not sure how much chance the Union would be willing to face that they lose Grant's entire field army to lack of supply, but I think the Rams would pose sufficient threat to force a reaction. This happens without the Rams needing to fight a battle because the Union has to react before any battle - after is too late.

 

[Old Soldier]

If they are in or near the Chesapeake, the shore batteries will have a field day. Besides, there are several other ports that the Union could use. The Union has railroads. Besides, this would be towards the end of 1864, the Confederacy are not in a good situation. Sherman has probably taken atlanta.

 

[Saphroneth]

If they are in or near the Chesapeake, the shore batteries will have a field day. Besides, there are several other ports that the Union could use. The Union has railroads. Besides, this would be towards the end of 1864, the Confederacy are not in a good situation. Sherman has probably taken atlanta.

I think you already said exactly this and I raised objections to it. Which shore batteries are you thinking of?

 

[Old Soldier]

Gentlemen, I wish you would all please consult a copy of "British Battleships" by Dr Oscar Parkes. The Chapter on these ships is definitive. If you haven't got one or access to one, I am sure the United States Library Service can oblige.

Try:

OUR IRON-CLAD SHIPS;

THEIR QUALITIES, PERFORMANCES, AND COST.

WITH CHAPTERS ON

TURRET SHIPS, lRON-CLAD RAMS, &c.

By E. J. REED, C.B.,

CHIEF CONSTRUCTOR OF THE NAVY

Sir Edward James Reed (1830–1906) was a prominent British naval architect, author, and Liberal politician who served as the Chief Constructor of the Royal Navy from 1863 to 1870. The "C.B." in his post-nominal letters stands for Companion of the Order of the Bath, an honor he received before later being made a Knight Commander (K.C.B.) in 1880

Our iron-clad ships; their qualities, performances, and cost. With chapters on turret ships, iron-clad rams, &c : Reed, Edward J. (Edward James), Sir, 1830-1906 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The metadata below describe the original scanning. Follow the All Files: HTTP link in the View the book box to the left to find XML files that contain more...

archive.org

 

[Rhea Cole]

British Battleships: Warrior 1860 to Vanguard 1960: A History of Design, Construction & Armament.

By Dr. Oscar Parks, published 1971. 716 pages.

The revised edition


Link

https://www.findbookprices.com/isbn/9780854220021/

 

[Rhea Cole]

"one good hit on a turret" from what pray?

Old Soldier, what Rebelstsea is saying is that upthread it is explicitly documented that the combination of cylindrical shape & laminated wrought iron construction made Monitor turrets impervious to impacts by contemporary ordinance.

Historians require a minimum of three references that support a claim. Here at CWT we would appreciate at least one.

The discussion in this thread is an example how informative the sources cited have been. I, for one, have found both reading the posted references & doing research for my own to have been very educational.

My source supporting the durability of Monitor turrets is NavvSource Battleship Index Civil War Monitors. It contains images, data & histories of every Monitor commissioned during the Civil War.

Link

NavSource Online: Battleship Photo Archive

 

[Saphroneth]

Old Soldier, what Rebelstsea is saying is that upthread it is explicitly documented that the combination of cylindrical shape & laminated wrought iron construction made Monitor turrets impervious to impacts by contemporary ordinance.

He is clearly not. He is asking what you would hit the Laird Ram turrets with to disable them.

 

[Old Soldier]

In my above mentioned source, the author has a complete chapter on turret ships and he states quite clearly that a turret could be put out of action:

"My conviction is, and always has been, that a large shot striking the deck quite close to the turret, with considerable force, will inevitably block the turret and prevent it from revolving."

IOW - you could disable a turret without hitting it. There is also mention of 'heavy shot' bending the spindle (of Ericsson turrets), but that would, of course depend on the 'heavy shot' used. The turrets for the Laids rams were Coles design which are very different from Ericsson turrets.

Bear in mind that the turrets of the rams could only fire to the beam, they could not be trained fore or aft so there was a possibility of a faster vessel with a spar torpedo 'creeping up behind'. There is also the possibility , given the flat bottom and lack of keel, that a broadside with both turrets could cause her to roll over.