| |
In lugnet.western, David Little writes:
> Has anyone out there tryed to build any Iron Clads ships from the Civil War
> Era. Just curious.
It depends on what you mean by "Ironclads." I've done ironclads,
but they're the oceangoing European sort--really overgrown frigates--
not the coastal or riverine sort that usually is associated with
the US Civil War. (Sorry, no pics at the moment--the _Gloire_
page is still offline.) An "ironclad" is technically a ship with
a wooden hull sheathed in iron; thus, the French _Gloire_ was a
true ironclad, while the British _Warrior_ isn't (it's still
in existence at Portsmouth, thus the "is") because the actual
hull is iron, though some wood is used in the armour to absorb
shot energy; the Confederate _Virginia_ (ex-Federal _Merrimack_)
was a true ironclad, the USS _Monitor_ really wasn't/isn't (it
was built completely of iron, IIRC). [1]
I've been kicking around building a late-war _Montauk_-style
Union monitor, but the biggest problems, quite honestly, are
the dadgummed round turrets. [2] The hulls are quite easy by com-
parison. Confederate ironclads like _Virginia_ and _Tennessee_
are easier only because they've got deckhouses instead of
turrets, but I've still had little luck with those--they have
conical ends to the gun deck, another bear to render. (This
may not be true viz. _Tennessee_--drawings and paintings I've
seen vary, much as they do for Hampton Roads and the actual
appearance of the combatants there.)
There were smaller river ironclads that had square deckhouses;
well, not actually square, but kind of pyramidal (if you cut the
top 4/5 off the pyramid, that is). Those could be done with 4 or 8
of the MTT 2x2x3 steep-slope dkgrey corners, methinks. Barring
that, med-slope corners may be passable.
I suppose the short answer, then, is "not really."
best (and hopefully informatively?),
Lindsay
Xpost -> .pirates, .boats for their considerable expertise;
FUT -> .western solo [3] again.
[1] The uncertainty regarding the verb tense reflects uncertainty
in the current status of _Monitor_. It's not afloat, but its
sunken hull off Cape Hatteras is still popular with more...
'adventurous' divers. By my last reckoning, there was talk in
the US Navy about conserving the hull where it lies--it's in
serious danger of deteriorating to the point of unrecognition,
and it is still technically a war grave and the property of
the USN.
[2] These were the ones with two turrets, each with two 11"
Dahlgren guns.
[3] Not "western solo" as in Roy Rogers singing alone...
|
|
| |
Do you think the boat hull from the adventure set would do for a small
version. I am considering getting some of those sets to build some small
versions of iron clads. Or do you think that they are not wide enough.
Thank you for your help
David
http://moiraine24.homestead.com/Main.html
> It depends on what you mean by "Ironclads." I've done ironclads,
> but they're the oceangoing European sort--really overgrown frigates--
> not the coastal or riverine sort that usually is associated with
> the US Civil War. (Sorry, no pics at the moment--the _Gloire_
> page is still offline.) An "ironclad" is technically a ship with
> a wooden hull sheathed in iron; thus, the French _Gloire_ was a
> true ironclad, while the British _Warrior_ isn't (it's still
> in existence at Portsmouth, thus the "is") because the actual
> hull is iron, though some wood is used in the armour to absorb
> shot energy; the Confederate _Virginia_ (ex-Federal _Merrimack_)
> was a true ironclad, the USS _Monitor_ really wasn't/isn't (it
> was built completely of iron, IIRC). [1]
>
> I've been kicking around building a late-war _Montauk_-style
> Union monitor, but the biggest problems, quite honestly, are
> the dadgummed round turrets. [2] The hulls are quite easy by com-
> parison. Confederate ironclads like _Virginia_ and _Tennessee_
> are easier only because they've got deckhouses instead of
> turrets, but I've still had little luck with those--they have
> conical ends to the gun deck, another bear to render. (This
> may not be true viz. _Tennessee_--drawings and paintings I've
> seen vary, much as they do for Hampton Roads and the actual
> appearance of the combatants there.)
>
> There were smaller river ironclads that had square deckhouses;
> well, not actually square, but kind of pyramidal (if you cut the
> top 4/5 off the pyramid, that is). Those could be done with 4 or 8
> of the MTT 2x2x3 steep-slope dkgrey corners, methinks. Barring
> that, med-slope corners may be passable.
>
> I suppose the short answer, then, is "not really."
>
> best (and hopefully informatively?),
>
> Lindsay
|
|
| |
In lugnet.western, David Little writes:
> Do you think the boat hull from the adventure set would do for a small
> version. I am considering getting some of those sets to build some small
> versions of iron clads. Or do you think that they are not wide enough.
> Thank you for your help
> David
David,
I was thinking of making some little Monitors using those hulls. I haven't
had time to do any extensive planning yet, but it seems like they should
serve pretty well. If any of the little ones turn out well, I'm hoping to do
a minifig scale one, but the turrets pose a problem, as was mentioned above.
-Jonathan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.western, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
| |
In lugnet.western, David Little writes:
| |
Has anyone out there tryed to build any Iron Clads ships from the Civil War
Era. Just curious.
|
It depends on what you mean by “Ironclads.” I’ve done ironclads,
but they’re the oceangoing European sort--really overgrown frigates--
not the coastal or riverine sort that usually is associated with
the US Civil War. (Sorry, no pics at the moment--the Gloire
page is still offline.) An “ironclad” is technically a ship with
a wooden hull sheathed in iron; thus, the French Gloire was a
true ironclad, while the British Warrior isn’t (it’s still
in existence at Portsmouth, thus the “is”) because the actual
hull is iron, though some wood is used in the armour to absorb
shot energy; the Confederate Virginia (ex-Federal Merrimack)
was a true ironclad, the USS Monitor really wasn’t/isn’t (it
was built completely of iron, IIRC). 1
|
Actually some wood was used:
” The ship would be 172 feet long with a 41 foot 6 inch beam. Two 11 inch
guns would be housed in a revolving turret. The ship would have a flat deck
with only 18 inches of free board and a draft of 10 feet 6 inches. This would
allow her to operate in any of the South’s inland waters. Ericsson began to send
out drawings and specifications to a host of iron works and yards. There were
many alterations that had to be made to meet the restrictions and limitations of
the North’s already over worked iron industry. He originally intended to
construct the turret with two layers of 4 inch thick iron plate, but when the
Baltimore yard of Abbott & Sons informed the engineer that it would take two
months to “re-tool” their equipment, Ericsson altered his design for eight
layers of one inch thick plates (192 tons of plate). The majority of the iron
plates, bolts, nuts, rivets, etc., were manufactured by New york establishments.
Holdane & Company, the Albany Iron Works, and the Rensselaer Iron Works
provided tons of flat plates, and angle iron. The Niagara Steam Forge would
pound out the eight inch thick port stoppers. The turret and machinery were
fabricated by the Novelty Iron Works.
Ericsson’s concept was simple. Building an iron vessel was not new to the
inventor. Living in England the 1830’s, Ericsson was employed by the Laird
Brothers Yard (builders of the C.S.S. Alabama) where he helped design and build
iron vessels for operation on the Thames River. He claimed to learn a lot from
his time there and it was also about this time that he first came up with the
concept for a “sub aquatic vessel.” His new vessel would be constructed
entirely of flat iron plate. The plates were made “rigid” by riveting angle
iron to the facings and along the edges. The vessel was actually constructed as
“two hulls” an upper and a lower. The lower hull was built entirely of iron.
The outer hull plates were 7/16” inch thick. The upper hull was a composite of
wood and iron. The ships deck was supported by 10 by 10 inch oak beams. The
deck planking was 7 inch thick pine and oak beams. Two layers of 1/2 inch thick
iron plates were spiked to the wood deck. The side of the vessel was actually
an armored shelf. The shelf was riveted to the lower hull and packed with oak
and pine beams and had 5 layers of 1 inch thick plate spiked in place over the
wood making her side just under 3 feet thick. When completed, the side armor
was virtually impenetrable to the heaviest shot and ramming.
The iron turret had an interior diameter of 20 feet. The eight layers of 1
inch thick plate were assembled around an iron skeleton. The entire structure
was powered by two “donkey engines” that turned massive gears and provided the
turret with 2 1/2 r.p.m. The turret revolved on a brass ring set into the deck.
A shaft from below was raised up by a wedge and “keyed up” to put the turret in
motion. The entire structure was temporarily assembled at the Novelty Iron
Works. When it was completed, all the pieces were marked and taken apart and
shipped to the Continental Iron Works for re-assembly on the ship. ”
| |
I’ve been kicking around building a late-war Montauk-style
Union monitor, but the biggest problems, quite honestly, are
the dadgummed round turrets. 2
|
I am posting to this older tread to point-out my turret see:
http://news.lugnet.com/pirates/?n=4235
I hope you like it.
| |
The hulls are quite easy by com-
parison. Confederate ironclads like Virginia and Tennessee
are easier only because they’ve got deckhouses instead of
turrets, but I’ve still had little luck with those--they have
conical ends to the gun deck, another bear to render. (This
may not be true viz. Tennessee--drawings and paintings I’ve
seen vary, much as they do for Hampton Roads and the actual
appearance of the combatants there.)
There were smaller river ironclads that had square deckhouses;
well, not actually square, but kind of pyramidal (if you cut the
top 4/5 off the pyramid, that is). Those could be done with 4 or 8
of the MTT 2x2x3 steep-slope dkgrey corners, methinks. Barring
that, med-slope corners may be passable.
I suppose the short answer, then, is “not really.”
best (and hopefully informatively?),
Lindsay
Xpost -> .pirates, .boats for their considerable expertise;
FUT -> .western solo 3 again.
1 The uncertainty regarding the verb tense reflects uncertainty
in the current status of Monitor. It’s not afloat, but its
sunken hull off Cape Hatteras is still popular with more...
‘adventurous’ divers. By my last reckoning, there was talk in
the US Navy about conserving the hull where it lies--it’s in
serious danger of deteriorating to the point of unrecognition,
and it is still technically a war grave and the property of
the USN.
2 These were the ones with two turrets, each with two 11”
Dahlgren guns.
3 Not “western solo” as in Roy Rogers singing alone...
|
|
|
|
