Turrets

[rebelatsea]

The trouble is the word is misleading. we were looking for the "twin turret ships at New Orleans" for years, but now know they were John Roy's centre wheel gunboats. Intriguingly it has been suggested on another forum that these may have been twin hulled based on a centre wheel ferry, which had not crossed my mind as the vessel he converted and tested was an old sailing vessel..

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Language use has changed, too... I'm reminded of the number of times I've bumped into nonspecialists who have assumed the Eads boat Submarine No. 7 was a "submarine" in the modern sense of the word (as opposed to what Eads meant, i.e., a boat for working on things that were under the water-- a snag boat).

 

[georgew]

The trouble is the word is misleading. we were looking for the "twin turret ships at New Orleans" for years, but now know they were John Roy's centre wheel gunboats. Intriguingly it has been suggested on another forum that these may have been twin hulled based on a centre wheel ferry, which had not crossed my mind as the vessel he converted and tested was an old sailing vessel..

Hi Rebel. If they were centre-wheel boats I wonder how they handled the issue of "working" of the twin hulls on the cross member for the engine drive shafts. In the case of the Demologous of 1814, there was a line of timbers across the bottom of the race to the wheel. It apparently worked, but must have created turbulent flow into the wheel. Fulton also went with rudders at both ends. The only advantage I can see in such a layout is that some of the smaller yards would have been capable of building the twin hulls. Just how they intended to protect the machinery is another issue. Fulton went with the boilers in the hulls, but they were of copper and pretty low pressure.

 

[rebelatsea]

Hi Rebel. If they were centre-wheel boats I wonder how they handled the issue of "working" of the twin hulls on the cross member for the engine drive shafts. In the case of the Demologous of 1814, there was a line of timbers across the bottom of the race to the wheel. It apparently worked, but must have created turbulent flow into the wheel. Fulton also went with rudders at both ends. The only advantage I can see in such a layout is that some of the smaller yards would have been capable of building the twin hulls. Just how they intended to protect the machinery is another issue. Fulton went with the boilers in the hulls, but they were of copper and pretty low pressure.

It's an intriguing possibility, but I'm not changing anything I've written or drawn, as I'm negotiating with a publisher.
John Roy would have been well aware of twin hull ferry boats of course. Just wish that missing model would turn up !

 

[rebelatsea]

Language use has changed, too... I'm reminded of the number of times I've bumped into nonspecialists who have assumed the Eads boat Submarine No. 7 was a "submarine" in the modern sense of the word (as opposed to what Eads meant, i.e., a boat for working on things that were under the water-- a snag boat).

The other bi irritant ,at least to me is the misuse of the term "monitor" . in our period it properly referred to a vessel with a hull in two parts, the armoured raft and the hull proper. The later vessels with a "normal" hull are turret ships.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The other bi irritant ,at least to me is the misuse of the term "monitor" . in our period it properly referred to a vessel with a hull in two parts, the armoured raft and the hull proper. The later vessels with a "normal" hull are turret ships.

Purist! (said one to the other)

I have come to regard Ericsson's concept of monitors as something rather different from the turret ships of other designers (among which I would include Onondaga and Roanoke as well as British-built turret vessels such as Scorpion/Wyvern, Huascar, etc.)... Ericsson was really trying to invent the attack submarine, in a sense, albeit one that could not completely submerge. His later experiments with "automobile" torpedoes reinforce that opinion. The pure Ericsson monitor was a bit of an evolutionary dead-end, and it's incorrect to cite the Monitor as ancestral to the battleship, even though it anticipated several concepts of the latter. (Said in general; I suspect you and I are pretty much on the same page here.)

 

[rebelatsea]

Purist! (said one to the other)

I have come to regard Ericsson's concept of monitors as something rather different from the turret ships of other designers (among which I would include Onondaga and Roanoke as well as British-built turret vessels such as Scorpion/Wyvern, Huascar, etc.)... Ericsson was really trying to invent the attack submarine, in a sense, albeit one that could not completely submerge. His later experiments with "automobile" torpedoes reinforce that opinion. The pure Ericsson monitor was a bit of an evolutionary dead-end, and it's incorrect to cite the Monitor as ancestral to the battleship, even though it anticipated several concepts of the latter. (Said in general; I suspect you and I are pretty much on the same page here.)

I agree.

 

[1stMS-Arty]

a view showing some of the internal mechanisms of the Monitor's turret.

 

[rebelatsea]

a view showing some of the internal mechanisms of the Monitor's turret.
View attachment 127682

This illustrated nicely the distinction between a Civil War "Monitor" and a turret ship with a conventional hull.

 

[Talos]

This illustrated nicely the distinction between a Civil War "Monitor" and a turret ship with a conventional hull.

While I mostly agree with your classification earlier, I would rather put more emphasis on the extreme low freeboard of monitors and other topside features rather than the two-part hull. It would exclude monitors like the Onondaga and Monadnock, which were of normal hull construction with the armor attached to the sides. The two-part hull was an Ericsson-ism, not a defining feature of the type.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The two-part hull was an Ericsson-ism, not a defining feature of the type.

I think that's the point under debate.

The hull configuration was an essential part of Ericsson's concept-- he attributed the original idea to observing logging rafts in his native Sweden. I guess it's all in how tightly the definition is drawn.

 

[rebelatsea]

While I mostly agree with your classification earlier, I would rather put more emphasis on the extreme low freeboard of monitors and other topside features rather than the two-part hull. It would exclude monitors like the Onondaga and Monadnock, which were of normal hull construction with the armor attached to the sides. The two-part hull was an Ericsson-ism, not a defining feature of the type.

Precisely ,they were not "Monitors" but turretships.

 

[Talos]

I think that's the point under debate.

The hull configuration was an essential part of Ericsson's concept-- he attributed the original idea to observing logging rafts in his native Sweden. I guess it's all in how tightly the definition is drawn.

If we draw the definition that tight, we would be eliminating practically the entire two-turret monitor program. The US Navy certainly didn't use that as a defining trait and just about every monitor they had designed that Ericsson didn't do had a conventional hull. That isn't to say that Ericsson didn't modify his concepts of course. Passaics abandoned the angular lower hull for a properly streamlined one, and the Cascos essentially wrapped up the iron hull in a wooden exterior one.

 

[Talos]

Precisely ,they were not "Monitors" but turretships.

To the Civil War US Navy, this was just as much a monitor as Monitor was. Onondaga was "Monitor #3", for instance, despite lacking the raft.

 

[rebelatsea]

To the Civil War US Navy, this was just as much a monitor as Monitor was. Onondaga was "Monitor #3", for instance, despite lacking the raft.

I'm not disputing the use of the terminology at the time.

 

[Talos]

I'm not disputing the use of the terminology at the time.

You did earlier in the thread though, which was what I was originally responding to. Unless I misread it, I took it as meaning in the period we're discussing (eg the Civil War).

"The other bi irritant ,at least to me is the misuse of the term "monitor" . in our period it properly referred to a vessel with a hull in two parts, the armoured raft and the hull proper. The later vessels with a "normal" hull are turret ships."

 

[rebelatsea]

You did earlier in the thread though, which was what I was originally responding to. Unless I misread it, I took it as meaning in the period we're discussing (eg the Civil War).

"The other bi irritant ,at least to me is the misuse of the term "monitor" . in our period it properly referred to a vessel with a hull in two parts, the armoured raft and the hull proper. The later vessels with a "normal" hull are turret ships."

That's correct ,I'm not disputing that it was used at the time. what I'm saying is that it irritates me because it is used to cover two distinct types of vessel.

 

[Schwallanscher]

I suppose this is as good a time as any to upload version 2 with the Ozark added. View attachment 126551

just found this thread - is there a legend (especially concerning the different colours?

i reckon grey is steele and brown (css arkansas) is wood, but what's that third colour? i'm sure that's some sort of a standard, but i just don't know that standard.

 

[Talos]

That's correct ,I'm not disputing that it was used at the time. what I'm saying is that it irritates me because it is used to cover two distinct types of vessel.

I understand what you mean. To me it just seems like an overly fastidious definition. Rather than trying to distinguish between Monitor and Onondaga, I rather disguish between the two of them and ships like the later monitor "rebuilds", the ocean-going ones like Roanoke and Dictator, or the British-style turret ships like Wyvren, Huascar, or Cyclops.

When I read it, it felt the same as saying Iron Duke wasn't a "dreadnaught" because the very different configuration of her turrets and superstructure, or any battleship not designed by the DNC, be it Vickers or another country entirely.

Your mileage may vary, of course. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[AndyHall]

Cutaway view of the interior of Monitor's turret, with the full complement of crew members at the time of the action with C.S.S. Virginia. It was crowded.