Calling all American Civil War Ironclad fans

[Devin]

Rich,

Without any hard written accounts or photo evidence (which is nearly impossible for Confederate ships) it's hard to say what colors she was. She could have been black, gray, or even blue. Palmetto State and Chicora were supposedly in a "blockader blue" color scheme that the blockade runners found useful for camouflage. Since they were out of Charleston, it's possible that Neuse was painted similar, but I kind of doubt it. Those ships were built and finished with what was on-hand. I would bet that in Neuse's case the lower hull, if waterproofed at all, would have been done with tar.

Have you contacted the Neuse museum to see what their take is on the subject?

-Devin

[Guest]

Has anyone heard of the USS Miantonomoh? There's a post card of her on evilbay. Looks like a sister ship to the Monadnock. Love to build her just to say the name to friends.
Bruce

[Devin]

Yes, she was the same class as Monadnock, a few differences but overall very similar. There's several sources to read up on her, but the quickest and easiest is "Ironclads and Blockade Runners":

http://users.wowway.com/~jenkins/ironcl ... ncoast.htm

[Devin]

Looks like the sunken CSS Georgia is going to be raised because she's in the way of a dredging project:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... t_project/

Hopefully someday they'll want to dredge in Mobile Bay and decide the USS Tecumseh has to come up, too.

[Devin]

I'm posting this on behalf of William at Cottage Industry Models. He's got his hands full this week, but he wants everyone to know that his new website is up and running:

http://www.cottageindustrymodels.com/

Added to the site are new products, and a preview of their upcoming C.S.S. Tennessee kit.

[Charles Landrum]

I recently picked up the Verlinden CSS Atlanta. It is a very nice casting though it has been well discussed that the middle gunport is wrong in the starboard casemate. But what I noticed, which I have seen no discussion of, is that the scale is not 1/200 as advertised. The inconsistency became apparent, when I put the Atlanta hull along side my 1/192 USS Onondaga kit by Lone Star Models. This latter kit scales out correctly; the ship was 226ft. The Atlanta kit is noticeable smaller even though the ship was 204ft in length and 41ft in beam. The books, Iron Afloat: the Story of the Confederate Amorclads and A Naval History of the Civil War, provide those dimensions and make the draft between 12-16 feet. Wikipedia repeats these figures. Measuring the kit, the hull It is 9 7/8 inches long and 2 inches wide. Using the aforementioned dimensions, the kit scales out to 1/245 in length and beam. The length to beam ratio matches the drawings made by the USN upon its capture and refit of Atlanta.

So why is the kit listed as 1/200. I think the kit was scaled from the Osprey Book - Confederate Ironclad 1861-1865, published 5 years before the Verlinden kit was released. The table in the back incorrectly lists the dimensions as: length 165ft, beam 35ft and draft 11.5 ft. These look to be a copy and paste error from the CSS Arkansas table (which has typo). Using these dimensions, the Atlanta kit scales out in both dimensions (with the correct length to beam ratio) at 1/200. Also, another indicator is that the ventilation grating pattern in the casemate upper deck of the kit matches the incorrect location in the Osprey Book (which does not conform to the USN period drawing).

So, by my measure, the scale is really 1/245 not the scale that is advertised.

[Timmy C]

That makes sense, Charles - ever since I built the Atlanta, I've always wondered why it seems so small when compared to the Flagship 1/192 kits online. The latter kits' parts always seemed much larger and more detailed than what would've been allowed on my Atlanta, even taking into account of the difference between 1/192 and 1/200. Your research solves this little conundrum!

[Devin]

Nice detective work, Charles. I am nearly finished with my CSS Atlanta, just need to add some boats, and I thought she was undersized. What a shame, that's a really nice kit; a bit simplistic in the details, but I had fun building her and she's a good looking ship.

This is a prime example of why I tell everyone to always have at least TWO sources for anything (research, news stories, etc.)

[Charles Landrum]

Devin,

Looks good! We are on the same wave-length I used that color scheme and the gun run outs are the same! I am doing some weathering and then will add the davits and upper railing. I have studied the stack and like you I can only see upper stays, so I will do the same. I added chocks on the bow and the stern area.

The two details I am still mystified by are the rig for the spar torpedo and what they did about the anchor and ground tackle for anchoring. the details for the spar are vague, so I am doing some conjecturing. I don't buy the "s" pattern of the spar I have seen in some drawings - it is impractical. My guess is that the spar angle downward from the focsle. As for the anchor, according to Confederate Iron Afloat, the ship anchored several times suring her aborted sorties, but there are no details on how the anchor was rigged and employed. I also can't figure a location for a hawse pipe, if they had one. My guess is that at a minimum there should be anchor davits which would also help handle the torpedo spar. Perhaps the anchor chain laid on deck, but that does not make sense.

Thanks for sharing.

Charles

[Devin]

Charles,

I'm sort of dubious about that s-shaped torpedo spar as well. I have a drawing that David Meagher did of it, though, and while it looks plausible (uses an anchor handling davit to raise and lower the spar), I think I'll need to see an actual photo of one before I believe it. There are photos of the Hunley and other spars that are straight, so that might be what's prejudiced me.

I think the anchor chains probably ran across the deck and into the casemate. Verlinden did it that way on their Palmetto State kit, and I'm not sure why they didn't on this one. I honestly didn't think about that component at all until recently -- I built this kit as a quick knock-together and to practice painting and weathering black -- so I wasn't planning out as I should have been. I was going to drill holes in the casemate, but I'll probably just leave it as-is and deal with the anchors if I do a 1/96th scale build.

-Devin

[OhioMike]

Dont see any kind of "S" shaped spar or special equip in these photos. Of course these are post CSN ownership. Would the Union change the spar setup? I can see removing it for access to a drydock. Also notice theres only one front casement stair set.....not 2!

[OhioMike]

or this....

[OhioMike]

but i did find this sketch..... these by the way are all available from the Naval Historical center web site.

[Devin]

It's funny, I've looked at those photos and sketch a thousand times, and you've called my attention to things I never noticed. I have stuck in my mind that the dry dock photo is either from immediately after her capture, or post war as they were preparing to dismantle her. I never noticed the single ladder on the casemate! That's something that obviously changed at some point, though, as the image of her in the river you posted is looking at her bow (note pilot house and stack just behind men standing on casemate), and there are definitely two ladders in that photo. Also, the photo below is also of Atlanta in Union service, and the two ladders are there.

I think it highly unlikely there would be any photos of a spar torpedo. They were only put on just prior to battle as they were very volatile. Now that you ask, I can't recall reading any accounts of a Union ironclad using one -- the only instance I can think of is Cushing's attach on Albemarle, and that was with a small boat -- but I'm sure there must be some instance.

One other thing to notice, in the photo of Atlanta in the river, you can see a long protrusion extending from the bow and down into the water. That's a support for the mine sweeping sleds used on Union ironclads. A very crude but effective mine (torpedo) countermeasure.

[OhioMike]

Thank you Devlin....diffinitely some new things to consider. I agree with the question concerning the S shaped torpedo spar. There just is not enough info or visual aids to distinctly say that atlanta possessed such a set-up. Especially considering the fact that the CSN generally went with simple expediants that worked....or didnt? Theres a nice model of the Atlanta done in match sticks, in 1/96 scale in an old issue of scale ship modeler, Nov., 1991 where the author/modeler also did an elaborate s shaped spar. He reports to have drawn his own plans from photos?

[Devin]

This might not necessarily be ironclad related, but it is Ericsson. I've been doing some research up at Stevens University here in Hoboken. Mainly going through their original files on the Stevens Battery, but yesterday I helped catalog their original USS Monitor drawings. During the sorting process I found the below. sorry for the soft quality of the shots, but we're working pretty low-tech just to document what they have, everything is being sent to the Mariner's Museum in Virginia for proper digitizing.

Thee are definitely not USS Monitor. They're not U.S. at all. I can't remember if Ericsson's signature is on them (several of the original Monitor pencil drawings in the collection are signed by him) but the title and all of the annotations are in Swedish. It's a period color drawing in black, blue, and red. Note the rowing crew members for power, and the non-rotating gun tower for the single cannon.

Does anyone have any idea of what this is a drawing of? Was it actually built, or one of his prototype ideas? And also, a time frame? I could see it being pre-Monitor due to the human and fixed turret, but things like the rudder assembly make me think it's contemporary to or post Monitor.

There's also another one of these drawings that looks to be a modified Passaic class hull, same Swedish titles and annotations.

[Rusty White]

I need some opinions from American Civil War aficionados. Check out the photo below of a Casco class Torpedo Boat.

Question 1: Does the gun look as though it is located directly where the previous turret stood? It would make sense, but that would cause the new pilot house to be located quite a bit farther aft.

Question 2: The gun deck has been raised 2 ft which is obvious. However, does the new pilot house appear to have been raised as well? It appears to be, but it's really difficult to tell with all the clutter.

I have all the torpedo equipment figured out from drawings of a Casco class vessel, but they do not show any mods to the turret. I really HATE guessing.

[Charles Landrum]

Rusty, I will send you a couple of more pics. I think that the raised "tub" has the wheel and sits where the turret was supposed to be. Based on the drawings of the later turreted ships of the class I think that the pivot gun is sitting on a raised deck forward of the turret.The raised decks looks to provide a flat operating of the gun, since the class had a pronounced turtleback. I believe that the "pipes" forward and aft of the gun are ventilation ducts.

[Rusty White]

I have the hull and deck built according to the drawings of the "as launched" Casco. I have added the torpedo equipment and the new anchor chain guards according to the drawings as well. After making the vents, access boxes, and the raised decks, it appears that the location of the turret was moved back a bit to accommodate all that stuff. This would make sense in order redistribute the weight evenly so the bow or the stern wouldn't add weight to the front or back. No doubt that is what they had in mind during the modification phase.

Looking at the photo, the arrangement looks about right to me. Keep in mind there will be another vent stack between the pilot house and the gun. You can see where the old location for the turret was.

[Rusty White]

Here's what the model looks like with the new equipment just placed in their locations keeping in mind that another vent will be placed between the gun platform and the pilot house. Using the photo as a guide, it appears everything looks about right. As you can see, the new equipment causes the pilot house to be moved aft a bit. IMHO, this would make sense in that the designers were trying to lighten the vessel. Moving the pilot house back to counter the weight of the gun is logical IMHO. Opinions?