USS Cincinnati

[rebelatsea]

I found something rather odd in Canney's Old Steam Navy. On page 55, in the section the City Class it states that the Cincinnati took the surrender of CSS Morgan and Tombigbee in 1865.
Now, CSS Morgan and CSS Nashville were surrendered at Nanna Hubba Bluff, above Calvert on the Tombigbee River Alabama.
1) How did a city class gunboat get there from the Mississippi ? I know the two double turreted monitors were taken to Mobile ,one under tow.
2) It's quite possible that one of the Bigbee boats was named after the river, but so far as I am aware, the three Bigbee boats launched were at Mobile when surrendered. As they were all engined, and one at least, the paddler CSS Powell was commissioned, I suppose they could have been moved

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Not only the Cincinnati, but also a handful of 'tinclads' were shifted from the Mississippi to the Mobile region (and one, the USS Rodolph, struck a mine and sank in Blakely River). It was possible, though occasionally risky, to steam riverboats along the Gulf coast to places like Mobile and Houston. As shallow as Mobile Bay and its tributaries were/are, warships with light draught were in demand.

 

[AndyHall]

It was possible, though occasionally risky, to steam riverboats along the Gulf coast to places like Mobile and Houston.

Most of the Western River steamboats that operated in Texas came here from the Mississippi River through the Gulf of Mexico. Not something you'd want to do frequently, but certainly possible.

 

[DaveBrt]

I twice crossed the Gulf from Galveston to Miami and back on a Navy destroyer in early August. On both round trips, the Gulf was flat as glass.

 

[1stMS-Arty]

Not only the Cincinnati, but also a handful of 'tinclads' were shifted from the Mississippi to the Mobile region (and one, the USS Rodolph, struck a mine and sank in Blakely River). It was possible, though occasionally risky, to steam riverboats along the Gulf coast to places like Mobile and Houston. As shallow as Mobile Bay and its tributaries were/are, warships with light draught were in demand.

Not only that but USS Osage (paddle wheel river monitor) was sent from the Mississippi Squadron to Mobile and also sunk by a torpedo/mine.

The monitor USS Manhattan, with Farragut during the attack on Mobile, was sent to the Mississippi River in 1865 (briefly involved in the Webb episode).

Also the former CS ironclad Tennessee was refitted and sent to the Mississippi from Mobile.

I think there might have been some other monitors in the Nawlins area in 1865.

A good bit of warship traffic between New Orleans and Mobile it seems.

 

[rebelatsea]

Thanks all, I knew about the monitor movements between Mississippi and Mobile but not about the Cincinnati, I assume she and the tinclads would have been towed .
Apparently the Tennessee was quite comfortable at sea, at least in coastal waters.

 

[rebelatsea]

Not only that but USS Osage (paddle wheel river monitor) was sent from the Mississippi Squadron to Mobile and also sunk by a torpedo/mine.

View attachment 146438

The monitor USS Manhattan, with Farragut during the attack on Mobile, was sent to the Mississippi River in 1865 (briefly involved in the Webb episode).

Also the former CS ironclad Tennessee was refitted and sent to the Mississippi from Mobile.

View attachment 146437

I think there might have been some other monitors in the Nawlins area in 1865.

A good bit of warship traffic between New Orleans and Mobile it seems.

I notice in that photo that her freeboard seems higher than most plans show ( including mine), does anyone know if she had been lightened or otherwise altered ?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I don't think I ever heard of her being substantially altered. Speculation: perhaps they lightened her for the trip from Mobile to New Orleans and the photo was taken soon after her arrival on the Mississippi?

ETA: Or perhaps that's a direct result of her ammo expenditure under the Confederate flag, and they hadn't replenished it? They kept her Brooke guns-- maybe they had a shortage of Brooke ammunition?

 

[rebelatsea]

I don't think I ever heard of her being substantially altered. Speculation: perhaps they lightened her for the trip from Mobile to New Orleans and the photo was taken soon after her arrival on the Mississippi?

ETA: Or perhaps that's a direct result of her ammo expenditure under the Confederate flag, and they hadn't replenished it? They kept her Brooke guns-- maybe they had a shortage of Brooke ammunition?

Almost certainly the USN would not have had a stockpile of bolts for Brooke Rifling. That is an interesting point.

 

[rebelatsea]

I don't think I ever heard of her being substantially altered. Speculation: perhaps they lightened her for the trip from Mobile to New Orleans and the photo was taken soon after her arrival on the Mississippi?

ETA: Or perhaps that's a direct result of her ammo expenditure under the Confederate flag, and they hadn't replenished it? They kept her Brooke guns-- maybe they had a shortage of Brooke ammunition?

Wouldn't have thought ammo expenditure would have made that much difference, interesting point though, I don't think the USN would have had a stockpile of ammo to fit Brooke rifling.

 

[AndyHall]

This is a little tangential, but a few years ago I found a great image of what a Western Rivers steamboat looks like cladded up for a passage in the Gulf of Mexico. Here's what I wrote about it then:

This great steamboat image, from a glass negative in the Robert Runyon Photograph Collection at the UT Center for American History and made available online through the Library of Congress, does not have a recorded date or location. I believem, however, that it was taken in the Brazos Santiago achorage, at Port Isabel, in September 1913. Herman Paepcke has the briefest of Texas connections; she was a 157-ton sternwheel towboat, built at Higginsport, Ohio in 1900. After running more than a decade on the Ohio and Missisippi Rivers, in 1913 she was sold to an oil company and transferred to the port of Tampico, Mexico. In the process, she stopped at least twice in Texas, once at Galveston, where she was berthed at Pier 23, and later at Brazos Santiago. What became of her after that is unknown, at least to me. But this photograph, apparently taken at Brazos Santiago, is a good example of how these riverine craft was adapted to transit the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


First, the boat's anchored. Rivercraft generally did not carry much in the way of conventional ground tackle (anchors, cables, etc.), but many of the boats operating on open water in Texas, such as those that had to cross Galveston Bay, did so as a matter of routine, especially if they were to get caught in a storm on the open water. For boats crossing the Gulf of Mexico, carrying a full set of anchors, cable and gear was essential.


Second, the boat's chimneys have been partially dismantled, with the upper sectioned lashed down on the upper deck. Late-era boats like Herman Paepcke were built with hinged chimneys that could be lowered to clear bridges along the river, but in this case the upper sections have been taken down altogether, presumably to reduce the boat's profile in the wind and to add stability as the boat rolled in open water.


Most important, the entire lower deck has been boarded in with timber. On the rivers, these boats typically ran with no more than a few feet of freeboard — and often mere inches — and would likely never survive a Gulf crossing in anything more severe than a gentle swell. Herman Paepcke's main deck has been boarded in, to a height of around five feet amidships and six or seven at bow.

Most of the steamboats that operated in Texas were built somewhere else, often along the Ohio River. All of these boats made at least one open-water crossing of the Gulf of Mexico, so it was a common enough event. But just as photographs of Texas steamboats are rare, photos of boats fitted out for an open-water crossing, like Herman Paepcke in this case, are rarer still.​

 

[1stMS-Arty]

I notice in that photo that her freeboard seems higher than most plans show ( including mine), does anyone know if she had been lightened or otherwise altered ?

Hmm I don't know...but there does appear to be some sort of bulwark forward that ends several feet before the tip of the bow...

Maybe that is something the US Navy added?

 

[1stMS-Arty]

Upon closer inspection it looks like the siding is fore and aft. I guess it just gives the appearance of riding higher in the water...

 

[DaveBrt]

Almost certainly the USN would not have had a stockpile of bolts for Brooke Rifling. That is an interesting point.

The rounds fired at Ft. Morgan by USS Tennessee were Selma produced, ie the US used what they had captured.

 

[DaveBrt]

The awnings on USS Tennessee were for crew comfort because of the heat from the sun beating down on the iron. I suspect the bulwarks were to protect the crew from wake wash of passing ships while the crew was out on deck. This would be especially necessary if the crew was sleeping out on deck (VERY likely).

 

[rebelatsea]

The awnings on USS Tennessee were for crew comfort because of the heat from the sun beating down on the iron. I suspect the bulwarks were to protect the crew from wake wash of passing ships while the crew was out on deck. This would be especially necessary if the crew was sleeping out on deck (VERY likely).

Your are right about the awnings Dave, I wonder if those bulwarks were semi permanent additions to be removed in action, they don't look, at least to me, like canvas on rail.

 

[rebelatsea]

This is a little tangential, but a few years ago I found a great image of what a Western Rivers steamboat looks like cladded up for a passage in the Gulf of Mexico. Here's what I wrote about it then:

View attachment 146520

This great steamboat image, from a glass negative in the Robert Runyon Photograph Collection at the UT Center for American History and made available online through the Library of Congress, does not have a recorded date or location. I believem, however, that it was taken in the Brazos Santiago achorage, at Port Isabel, in September 1913. Herman Paepcke has the briefest of Texas connections; she was a 157-ton sternwheel towboat, built at Higginsport, Ohio in 1900. After running more than a decade on the Ohio and Missisippi Rivers, in 1913 she was sold to an oil company and transferred to the port of Tampico, Mexico. In the process, she stopped at least twice in Texas, once at Galveston, where she was berthed at Pier 23, and later at Brazos Santiago. What became of her after that is unknown, at least to me. But this photograph, apparently taken at Brazos Santiago, is a good example of how these riverine craft was adapted to transit the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


First, the boat's anchored. Rivercraft generally did not carry much in the way of conventional ground tackle (anchors, cables, etc.), but many of the boats operating on open water in Texas, such as those that had to cross Galveston Bay, did so as a matter of routine, especially if they were to get caught in a storm on the open water. For boats crossing the Gulf of Mexico, carrying a full set of anchors, cable and gear was essential.


Second, the boat's chimneys have been partially dismantled, with the upper sectioned lashed down on the upper deck. Late-era boats like Herman Paepcke were built with hinged chimneys that could be lowered to clear bridges along the river, but in this case the upper sections have been taken down altogether, presumably to reduce the boat's profile in the wind and to add stability as the boat rolled in open water.


Most important, the entire lower deck has been boarded in with timber. On the rivers, these boats typically ran with no more than a few feet of freeboard — and often mere inches — and would likely never survive a Gulf crossing in anything more severe than a gentle swell. Herman Paepcke's main deck has been boarded in, to a height of around five feet amidships and six or seven at bow.


View attachment 146519


Most of the steamboats that operated in Texas were built somewhere else, often along the Ohio River. All of these boats made at least one open-water crossing of the Gulf of Mexico, so it was a common enough event. But just as photographs of Texas steamboats are rare, photos of boats fitted out for an open-water crossing, like Herman Paepcke in this case, are rarer still.​

I think in fact she may be under tow in that photo, she does not appear to have any stern mooring chains, necessary to stop her swinging with tidal currents.

 

[rebelatsea]

Upon closer inspection it looks like the siding is fore and aft. I guess it just gives the appearance of riding higher in the water...
View attachment 146537 View attachment 146538

In the first photo, which I had not seen before, the bulwarks extend alongside the fore and aft casemate angles. to me that suggests that they were semi permanent additions for use at sea, with removable panels. vessels with higher freeboard had similar bulwarks with sections that were hinged to drop down. BTW I saw this after I had looked at Davebrt below. I'm not sure why they stop short of the stern, maybe there was a panel that joined the two sides and it has been taken down in this shot.

 

[Story]

For what it's worth, Muller's watercolor (https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h83000/h83805k.jpg ) enhanced

Click to EmBiggen

Note: there are four seated sailors on the port bulwark, so with their heels hitting the deckline that means the bulwark is about 2' high - yes?

 

[rebelatsea]

For what it's worth, Muller's watercolor (https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h83000/h83805k.jpg ) enhanced

Click to EmBiggen
View attachment 147259

Note: there are four seated sailors on the port bulwark, so with their heels hitting the deckline that means the bulwark is about 2' high - yes?

The bottom of the gunports on Porter designs ,which this was originally, were 2ft 6inches above the deck, I can't see any reason for Constructor Pearce to change that, so that is a reasonable estimate.