Wire-wrapped Type II Blakely rifled cannon

USS ALASKA

Major
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
1714314767497.png



1714314828428.png


https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...1***73/63249a40c829b.image.jpg?resize=990,572

Artilleryman Magazine
Confederate Artillery Service
Rare Blakely Cannon Recovered from the SS Georgiana Shipwreck
Steven Jeffcoat, Registrar & Public Affairs Officer SC Military Museum
Sep 16, 2022 Updated Jan 25, 2024


Sirs, the above pics are of Type II Blakely rifled cannon recovered from the wreck of the 'Confederate cruiser' (?!?) SS Georgianna and currently located at the South Carolina Military Museum in Columbia, S.C.

What caught my eye was the wire reinforcement. I didn't realize this was a manufacturing technique that was used as early as the ACW. I always thought that secondary reinforcement of that era was by heat-shrinking bands around the tube. I realize that wire-wound was greatly used for later weapons, just didn't think this was a practice during the 1860s. Does anyone know when this was first used and when it became a proven and standard method?

Thanks for the help,
USS ALASKA
 
Wire-wound Construction - A method of strengthening built-up gun barrels by using long lengths of wire wrapped around an inner tube. This method of construction was used extensively by the British roughly between 1880 and 1925. Few nations other than Japan adopted this technique as it greatly complicated the manufacturing process. The wire was about 0.1 inches (2.5 mm) thick and had a rectangular cross-section or was sometimes ribbon-shaped. The wire was quite strong with tensile strengths of up to 200,000 psi (14,000 kg/cm2) and very long lengths of wire were used. For example, the British 15-in/42 Mark I used about 170 miles (274 km) of wire on top of the "A" tube. A "B" tube was then shrunk on overtop the wire-wound section. It should be noted that wire-winding strengthened the gun barrel only in regards to resisting the gas pressure generated by the burning propellant. There is some controversy as to whether or not this type of construction weakened the overall barrel strength and increased the amount of muzzle droop. The British gradually replaced wire-winding construction with monobloc and built-up construction techniques and by 1930 no longer used it all. The last Japanese weapon using wire-winding was the 46 cm Type 94 guns used on the Yamato class battleships.

So 20 years before British Naval adoption...Beta testing?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
It is a good day when I wake up to something new. Fraping wire like that is a new one for me.
IMG_3278.jpeg

If you look carefully at this breech loading cannon, it is constructed with ribbons of metal wound around it. Notice there are no trunions.

The charge & projectile were loaded into the breech which was then screwed into the barrel. You can just see the threads.

Wrought iron, due to its high pure iron content is "sticky" i.e., it forge welds very easily. Unlike the 170 miles of wire, this barrel had to be hammered together. I would love to see how this was done.

Circa 1600's, Hôtel des invalides, Paris
 
Wire-wound Construction - A method of strengthening built-up gun barrels by using long lengths of wire wrapped around an inner tube. This method of construction was used extensively by the British roughly between 1880 and 1925. Few nations other than Japan adopted this technique as it greatly complicated the manufacturing process. The wire was about 0.1 inches (2.5 mm) thick and had a rectangular cross-section or was sometimes ribbon-shaped. The wire was quite strong with tensile strengths of up to 200,000 psi (14,000 kg/cm2) and very long lengths of wire were used. For example, the British 15-in/42 Mark I used about 170 miles (274 km) of wire on top of the "A" tube. A "B" tube was then shrunk on overtop the wire-wound section. It should be noted that wire-winding strengthened the gun barrel only in regards to resisting the gas pressure generated by the burning propellant. There is some controversy as to whether or not this type of construction weakened the overall barrel strength and increased the amount of muzzle droop. The British gradually replaced wire-winding construction with monobloc and built-up construction techniques and by 1930 no longer used it all. The last Japanese weapon using wire-winding was the 46 cm Type 94 guns used on the Yamato class battleships.

So 20 years before British Naval adoption...Beta testing?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
You learn something new every day.
 
'Confederate cruiser' (?!?) SS Georgianna
Great Thread as the Georgianna was loaded with munitions for the South and a lot still remains on the bottom. Below is a 3.5 inch Britten bolt that I have in my CW show sell inventory came of the ship. Hopefully more items will be recovered as artifacts from the Georgianna are rare.

2022-01-21 17.13.29.jpg
2022-01-21 17.14.09.jpg
2022-01-21 17.14.29.jpg
 
Why is the cruiser referred to as the SS Geogiana instead of the CSS Georgiana? Possibly because it belonged to George Trenholm and not the Confederacy?

Confederate Cruiser, Privateer or Merchantman?
Due to the secrecy surrounding her construction, loading and sailing, there is considerable question as to whether the Georgiana was simply a merchantman or if she was intended as a privateer or blockade runner.

One contemporary report described the Georgiana as so lightly built that "she would shake from stem to stern if a gun were fired from her decks." Historian Stephen Wise describes her as a merchantman and writes "While loading in Liverpool, the Union consul Thomas Dudley carefully investigated the vessel and reported her to be too frail for a warship. He felt her only purpose was to run the blockade." A United States consular dispatch dated 6 January 1863 stated: "The steamer Georgiana, just arrived at Liverpool from the Clyde. She is new and said to be a very superior steamer. ··· Yesterday while lying here she had the Rebel flag flying at her mast." The London American took special note of her in its 28 January 1863 edition as a powerful steamer and remarked that her officers wore gold lace on their caps, considered a sure indication she was being groomed for a man-of-war.

After the Georgiana's loss on 19 March 1863, the United States Secretary of Navy wrote: "the destruction of the Georgiana not only touched their (the Confederate's) pockets, but their hopes. She was a splendid craft, peculiarly fitted for the business of privateering." The New York Times of 31 March 1863 gave a spy's description of the craft as "a superior vessel, ··· built expressly for the rebel navy." The spy reported that she was "altogether a faster, stauncher, and better vessel than either the Oreto (Florida) or Alabama." The London Times of 8 April 1863 described her as follows: "There is not the least doubt of her being intended as a privateer." Thomas Scharf (who had served in the Confederate navy), in his post-war reference work History of the Confederate Navy, stated: "Apart from her cargo, the loss was a serious one to the Confederacy, as she was a much faster and stronger ship than any one of its cruisers afloat and would have made a superb man-of-war." Underwater archaeologist E. Lee Spence, who discovered the wreck and identified it as the Georgiana, believes that she was indeed intended as a privateer or cruiser due to the naval guns found aboard, her deep draft hull construction, her heavier than standard iron planking, and the closer than normal, doubled up, Z-beam, framing used throughout the vessel.



HTHs,
USS ALASKA
 
Confederate Cruiser, Privateer or Merchantman?
Due to the secrecy surrounding her construction, loading and sailing, there is considerable question as to whether the Georgiana was simply a merchantman or if she was intended as a privateer or blockade runner.

One contemporary report described the Georgiana as so lightly built that "she would shake from stem to stern if a gun were fired from her decks." Historian Stephen Wise describes her as a merchantman and writes "While loading in Liverpool, the Union consul Thomas Dudley carefully investigated the vessel and reported her to be too frail for a warship. He felt her only purpose was to run the blockade." A United States consular dispatch dated 6 January 1863 stated: "The steamer Georgiana, just arrived at Liverpool from the Clyde. She is new and said to be a very superior steamer. ··· Yesterday while lying here she had the Rebel flag flying at her mast." The London American took special note of her in its 28 January 1863 edition as a powerful steamer and remarked that her officers wore gold lace on their caps, considered a sure indication she was being groomed for a man-of-war.

After the Georgiana's loss on 19 March 1863, the United States Secretary of Navy wrote: "the destruction of the Georgiana not only touched their (the Confederate's) pockets, but their hopes. She was a splendid craft, peculiarly fitted for the business of privateering." The New York Times of 31 March 1863 gave a spy's description of the craft as "a superior vessel, ··· built expressly for the rebel navy." The spy reported that she was "altogether a faster, stauncher, and better vessel than either the Oreto (Florida) or Alabama." The London Times of 8 April 1863 described her as follows: "There is not the least doubt of her being intended as a privateer." Thomas Scharf (who had served in the Confederate navy), in his post-war reference work History of the Confederate Navy, stated: "Apart from her cargo, the loss was a serious one to the Confederacy, as she was a much faster and stronger ship than any one of its cruisers afloat and would have made a superb man-of-war." Underwater archaeologist E. Lee Spence, who discovered the wreck and identified it as the Georgiana, believes that she was indeed intended as a privateer or cruiser due to the naval guns found aboard, her deep draft hull construction, her heavier than standard iron planking, and the closer than normal, doubled up, Z-beam, framing used throughout the vessel.



HTHs,
USS ALASKA
 
And the answer is...?

Sir, the vessel might have been capable of all three roles, but we will never know as she was popped on her maiden voyage. But let's look at them in detail...

Blockade Runner.
She was kinda deep drafted compared to her contemporary blockade runners - so great care would have to be taken with where she broke the blockade and when. She did have the speed.

Commerce Raider
Maybe - though some thought she was weakly built; she was shored up to a greater extent than straight-up blockade runners. And to participate in guerre de course, how many guns does one need to take down unarmed merchant men? The Brits did something similar with their great liners in the early 1900s. HMG paid the liner companies extra to build into the structure of their ships the means to be able to mount naval armament quickly without expending a great deal of yard work in strengthening their hulls if they were needed during war time. And these liners that competed for the Blue Riband were VERY fast. Please see Armed Merchant Cruisers 1878–1945 by Richard Osborne, Harry Spong & Tom Grover.

Privateer
Not going to happen. By this time of the war, Privateering was right out.

A privateer is a private person or vessel which engages in maritime warfare under a commission of war. Since robbery under arms was a common aspect of seaborne trade, until the early 19th century all merchant ships carried arms. A sovereign or delegated authority issued commissions, also referred to as letters of marque, during wartime. The commission empowered the holder to carry on all forms of hostility permissible at sea by the usages of war. This included attacking foreign vessels and taking them as prizes and taking crews prisoner for exchange. Captured ships were subject to condemnation and sale under prize law, with the proceeds divided by percentage between the privateer's sponsors, shipowners, captains and crew. A percentage share usually went to the issuer of the commission (i.e. the sovereign).

Privateers operated on a 'for-profit' basis. Without foreign ports to accept and condemn Confederate-captured Union-flagged ships and issue prize money, no profit - no pay. No pay - no crew. No prize money - no return upon investment for the owners. The only other option was to return the vessels to Confederate controlled ports - non-blockade-running built vessels - running the blockade. Not going to happen. And since the USG declared it would abide by the 1856 Declaration of Paris, the international community was more inclined to, (and did), support the USG on this matter as opposed to the recognized belligerent but NOT recognized nation of the Confederate States. Privateering was NOT an option. By this time, any country that caught them, say taking a Union Flagged vessel in what they perceived as their territorial waters or areas of interest, might be hung as pirates.

This vessel could run the blockade under carefully chosen conditions or hunt un-armed merchant men under a CSN designation and a CSS nomenclature. She could NOT take on USN ships that would be sent to hunt her or those that manned the blockade.

GEORGIANA

ScStr:
t. 519 [407 ];
l. 205.6';
b. 25.2';
dph. 14.9';
dr. over 14'

GEORGIANA was a brig-rigged, iron propeller of 120 horsepower and had clipper bow, jib, and two masts, hull and stack painted black. She was built by the Lawrie shipyard at Glasgow-perhaps under subcontract from Lairds of Birkenhead (Liverpool)-and registered at that port in December 1862 as belonging to N. Matheson's Clyde service. The London American took special note of her in its 28 January 1963 edition as a "powerful" steamer and remarked that her officers wore gold lace on their caps, considered a sure indication she was being groomed for a man-o'-war. The U. S. Consul at Tenerife was rightly apprehensive of her as being "evidently a very swift vessel."

Attempting to run into Charleston, S.C., through Maffitt's Channel on 19 March 1865, she was spotted by the yacht AMERICA which quickly brought gunfire from USS WISSAHICKON, crippling GEORGIANA. Capt. A. B. Davidson flashed a white light in token of surrender, thus gaining time to beach his ship in 14 feet of water, three-quarters of a mile offshore and escape on the land side with all hands; this was construed as "the most consummate treachery" by the disappointed blockading crew.

Capt. Thomas Turner, station commodore, reported to Admiral S. F. du Pont that GEORGIANA was evidently "sent into Charleston to receive her officers, to be fitted out as a cruiser there. She had 140 men on board, with an armament of guns and gun carriages in her hold, commanded by a British naval retired officer." There seems to be no reason to dispute his facts or figures.

Lt. Comdr. J. L. Davis, USN commanding WISSAHICKON, decided to set the wreck afire lest guerrilla bands from shore try to salvage her or her cargo: she burned for several days accompanied by large explosions when lots of powder succumbed to the flames.


DANFS

I know, still confusing...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Last edited:
Why is the cruiser referred to as the SS Geogiana instead of the CSS Georgiana? Possibly because it belonged to George Trenholm and not the Confederacy?

There was no vessel commissioned into the Confederate Navy christened Georgiana. There were two CSS Georgias, but that is all. That is the answer to your question. The SS Georgiana was a civilian vessel.

Re: NavSource Photo Archive, "Old Navy" Steam & Sail Index.

This index contains the commissioned vessels of both the Union & Confederate navies.
 
There was no vessel commissioned into the Confederate Navy christened Georgiana. There were two CSS Georgias, but that is all. That is the answer to your question. The SS Georgiana was a civilian vessel.

Re: NavSource Photo Archive, "Old Navy" Steam & Sail Index.

This index contains the commissioned vessels of both the Union & Confederate navies.
Or maybe she was to be commissioned in Charleston when armed and ready to fight.
 
Re: NavSource Photo Archive, "Old Navy" Steam & Sail Index.

This index contains the commissioned vessels of both the Union & Confederate navies.


While the heading of the web page should be 'Confederate States VESSELS' rather than 'Confederate States NAVY' since it includes Army vessels, a pretty thorough list for what was known when it was written.

HTHs,
USS ALASKA
 
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