USS Cumberland

USS ALASKA

Major
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Been reading about the USS Cumberland. Found the following quote - "The aft 10-inch Dahlgren was removed and replaced with what many officers referred to as a 70-pounder rifle. This gun did not exist in the Navy's inventory at the time. It was possibly a 5.3 in (130 mm), 60 pdr (27 kg) Parrott rifle." The quote had no source.

Anyone know what the correct answer is?

Thanks for the help,
USS ALASKA
 
That paragon of knowledge, that embodiment of truth, that temple of wisdom, that sanctuary of veracity, that repository of...oh, sorry. I was bored and away from my books and surfing Wikipedia. :smile:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cumberland_(1842)


Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Well, ORN Series II Vol. 1 does state the existence of a 70-pdr rifle. That's almost certainly the source for various other places it's noted. But it's a very odd size/weight/caliber. Continuing to poke around...
 
That one has always bothered me, since a 70-pounder rifle didn't exist in the inventory. I've wondered what it could be, something like a 60-pounder Parrott maybe, though that is hardly a weapon in the same class as the X-inch Dahlgren it replaced. There's also the 80-pounder (6") Dahlgren rifle which is a little more powerful.
 
The Army 42-pounders bored out to be rifles (as on the Pook Turtles) would have been approximately 70-pounders. That's the only thing I can think of, but I have trouble seeing one on the Cumberland. I'm more inclined to believe that an illegible record was wrongly transcribed to read "70-pounder" in the preparation of the ORN. (The neat printing of the ORs sometimes leads us to forget that nearly all of the originals they were based on were handwritten-- the widespread use of typewriters still being a decade or more in the future.)
 
I've read that Buchanan picked Cumberland as his first target because she was armed with "the new rifled guns" which he thought were the most significant threat to Virginia. In fact of course most of her armament remained the same 9" Dahlgrens (and 10" pivot gun) carried by Minnesota and Roanoke. Perhaps intelligence of the one 10-incher being replaced reached the Confederates in a form which suggested Cumberland had been completely rearmed.

Had Buchanan had accurate information, might he have directed his initial attack at the most valuable Union ships present? Minnesota and Roanoke both got underway to engage their former sister, although they soon ran aground, which ironically would have protected them from ramming.
 
I believe Buchanan had at least one other reason for targeting Cumberland. His brother was aboard and he did not want to be seen as favoring the vessel for that reason. Buchanan destroyed Cumberland, but the brother survived.

Franklin's brother was Paymaster IIRC. Both survived the war, and never spoke again...
 
Buchanan's brother was on Congress, which was anchored close to Cumberland and became the next target.

Coming out of the channel from Norfolk, Buchanan had a choice of turning west towards the mouth of the James River to engage Cumberland and Congress, or northeast to attack the other federal ships around Fortress Monroe and the exit from Hampton Roads. He chose the first and actually had to steam past Congress to strike Cumberland.
 
My memory is that, as Carronade mentioned, there was a (mistaken) impression that the Cumberland's armament was heavier than was on the Congress, and Buchanan targeted her first for that reason. As to what his basis was for that belief, I'm not certain. (Maybe I'll ask John Quarstein next week if there's an opportunity! :D )
 
Buchanan's brother was on Congress, which was anchored close to Cumberland and became the next target.

Coming out of the channel from Norfolk, Buchanan had a choice of turning west towards the mouth of the James River to engage Cumberland and Congress, or northeast to attack the other federal ships around Fortress Monroe and the exit from Hampton Roads. He chose the first and actually had to steam past Congress to strike Cumberland.

You are correct... I suffer from occasional bouts of the very serious ailment, 'can't remember $4i+' :-)
 
also apparently most of the Cumberland's guns have been recovered....the forward X inch pivot was melted down during WW2.....
http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/hrnm/interactive/uss_cumberland_center/index.htm
10inch.JPG
 
Been reading about the USS Cumberland. Found the following quote - "The aft 10-inch Dahlgren was removed and replaced with what many officers referred to as a 70-pounder rifle. This gun did not exist in the Navy's inventory at the time. It was possibly a 5.3 in (130 mm), 60 pdr (27 kg) Parrott rifle." The quote had no source.

Anyone know what the correct answer is?

Thanks for the help,
USS ALASKA
how bout a cast iron Armstrong 70 pounder.....
70pdr.JPG
 
The general consensus is that it was a 6-inch Dahlgren Rifle, which fired either a 70 or 80 pound projectile, or perhaps both. No actual examples, photographs, or even measurements survive of the 80-pounder Dahlgren rifle. But the Cumberland's was not the only example that experienced a bad day. The USS Hetzel initially had one.

From Ripley, Warren (1984), Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War, Charleston, S.C.: The Battery Press, quoted in Wiki:


"Eighty Pounder Rifle: the first 80-pounder was cast at the West Point foundry with trunnions. Subsequent rifles were cast without trunnions and bronze trunnion band and trunnions were added. The gun was initially well received but soon showed a tendency to burst. USS Hetzel, a converted Coastal Survey ship armed with one IX-inch Dahlgren and one 80-pounder Dahlgren rifle was engaged in the bombardment of Roanoke Island in support amphibious landings, when the following entry was made in her log for February 7, 1862: "At 5:15, rifled 80-pounder aft, loaded with six pounds powder and solid Dahlgren shot, 80 pounds, burst in the act of firing into four principal pieces. The gun forward of the trunnions fell on deck. One third of the breech passed over the mastheads and fell clear of the ship on the starboard bow. One struck on port quarter. And the fourth piece, weighing about 1,000 pounds, driving through the deck and magazine, bringing up on the keelson, set fire to the ship. Fire promptly extinguished." (Ripley 1984, p. 106)

It stands to reason that if Buchanan saw that one of the twenty-four Dahlgrens on board the Cumberland had fired a rifled shot, than maybe others on board, if not all of them, would have too.
 
Last edited:
I'm definitely leaning towards the 80-pounder Dahlgren, the more I look into this. In 1860, Dahlgren recommended 80-pdr pivots for ships with IX-inch armaments or greater, amended in 1861 that ships with two pivot guns should have one rifle and one smoothbore, which would match Cumberland exactly.

EDIT: After the bursting of the Hetzel's gun, 6" Dahlgren Rifles 1-14 and 4.4" 1-12 were withdrawn. The former was blamed on poor quality materials when cast at Fort Pitt by Dahlgren.
 
Last edited:

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top