Joined: Feb 09, 2004 Posts: 1800 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:49 pm Post subject: Armor Piercing Shells
Evening all.
I know I am probably the last person one would ever see in a room dealing with the naval aspects of the war, but every now and then I do like to read about the old salts. :)
Anyway, Was talking to a friend in the CWi Premium chat room, and he mentioned that in this book on the navy that he is reading, it mentions that the CSA Navy had developed an armor piercing shell, right after the Duel between the Ironclads in 1862. This was the first I had ever heard of this, so I guess my question is if anyone knows about this type of shell being used then?
Look forward to reading the responses, and thanks.
When the History Channel was running their "Civil War Journal" series, I believe one of the shows was about the Ironclads and their fights, and I may have even taped it. IIRC, something was mentioned on that show about the armor-piercing shells, but I can't recall if it was just design, put into production, actually produced, or what.
If I can find the show, I'll watch it and see what was said. Darn good reason to go back and watch all those great shows - I think I have darn near every one on tape!
Joined: Feb 09, 2004 Posts: 1800 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:18 am Post subject:
J.D.,
I have the tapes here as well, and just never thought to look at the one dealing with the Ironclads. It has been a busy week here, so if you get a chance to view it before I do, please let me know what you find out.
To my surprise, Ironclads and Iron plated ships were not born out of the
American Civil War but had been in use in Europe for years. The French,
English, Dutch and Russians were all debating their effectiveness early in
the 60's and thery were in production.
What amazed me was seeing pictures of floating batteries used in the
assault of Fort Sumter designed by the South. Wooden gun platforms
sheathed in Iron Plate with Breech Loading guns!
That... and pictures of pre-war submarimes, machine guns and the
breech loading firearms / naval guns that were never brought into the
fight.
Joined: Feb 19, 2008 Posts: 127 Location: Overland Park, KS
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: Re: Armor Piercing Shells
Basecat wrote:
Evening all.
I know I am probably the last person one would ever see in a room dealing with the naval aspects of the war, but every now and then I do like to read about the old salts. :)
Anyway, Was talking to a friend in the CWi Premium chat room, and he mentioned that in this book on the navy that he is reading, it mentions that the CSA Navy had developed an armor piercing shell, right after the Duel between the Ironclads in 1862. This was the first I had ever heard of this, so I guess my question is if anyone knows about this type of shell being used then?
Look forward to reading the responses, and thanks.
Hope all are well.
Regards from the Garden State,
Steve Basic
Steve, you got me curious so I went snooping through the Naval ORs. The Confederate series mentions that the Whitworth 32 & 70 lb. cannon could fire steel "flat-fronted shells for penetrating armor" and another search indicated sabot rounds were also available. From what I saw in a letter from Confederate Secretary of the Navy Mallory, Brooke did some work on armor penetrating shells also. Another letter (04/30/1862) from Mallory contains this provocative statement, "We have very quietly ascertained the sure, if not the best, means of penetrating of penetrating armored ships..."
Looking at the beginning of the letter, Mallory states that "Elongated rifled shot, or bolts of wrought iron or steel, can effectively used against the iron armor of ships, and they should not weigh less than 120 to 140 pounds. I do not doubt, however, that such armor and its supports may be crushed in by 15 or 20 inch spherical shot, and that such shot must be brought into service against iron-plated ships." Perhaps this is what Mallory was suggesting was "the sure, if not best, means of penetrating armored ships" mentioned above?
Thanks for getting me curious-now to put aside the Three Caballeros' book and pick up Nelson's Reign of Iron about the Virginia and the Monitor.
> To my surprise, Ironclads and Iron plated ships were not
> born out of the American Civil War but had been in use in
> Europe for years.
Just so. The British and French navies had full-fledged, seagoing ironclads in commission before either Virginia or Monitor were put in service. Most notable of these is HMS Warrior, still preserved today at Portsmouth in the U.K. Warrior was, in all probability, the most powerful ship afloat. It really does a disservice to history to overlook these vessels.
It should be noted that neither Virginia nor Monitor were suited for deep-sea operations as the crew of the latter discovered a few months after the famous battle. All the ironclads commissioned during the ACW on either side were essentially coastal or riverine vessels; the United States did not launch a true, seagoing ironclad until after the war.
While it is obviouos that these ships were built and launched before Monitor and Virginia - what I gathered from these articles is that neither of them ever saw any actions. If that is indeed true - then our History's "clam to fame" as the 1st Battle of the Ironclads stands _________________ I Remain
Your Ob't Servant
Allan
Time sets all things right. Error lives but a day. Truth is eternal.
A Great Civilization is not Conquered from Without until It has Destroyed Itself from Within
I'v been fortunate enough to have been on the Warrior several times, despite holding a complete distaste for Portsmouth. Unfortunately, the Royal Navy like to park their obsolete ships there. HMS Victory is pretty close by.
Whilst HMS Warrior may not have fired her guns in anger, I'm sure she was out in the Crimea. So, technically I think she was involved in a Campaign, although most certainly she wouldn't have seen any meaningful combat.
In my opinion, the Monitor put Warrior back to the dark Ages with the development of the revolving turret. Not being technically minded, I seem to recall that Warrior was particularly advanced due to some kind of revolving screw. No idea what that means, but it sounds good! Perhaps Rick could put some kind of new meaning to this, but ...
Best wishes,
Mark _________________ "History must not be written with bias, and both sides must be given, even if there is only one side." JOHN BETJEMAN
RickAllen Official Chronicler of Gettysburg Tours!
Joined: Feb 13, 2004 Posts: 4288 Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject:
Nope. I cant even change a tire, much less explain complex engine screw mechinisms................my Dad was a machinist.............I often think the postman liked our yard.
But, I look just like Dad. Another grand theory blown out of the water.
LOL
Its funny though how far a father and son can fall from the same tree.....I guess its the same for mothers and daughters? Odd.
Anyway, this Navy stuff is pretty cool, I dont know anything about it pre Langley.
Regards,
Rick _________________ " Do you like French fries, Wyatt Earp?"
Joined: Mar 04, 2004 Posts: 4926 Location: Suburb of Philadelphia
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:20 am Post subject:
markpeters wrote:
Unfortunately, the Royal Navy like to park their obsolete ships there.
Why, Mark - would you prefer Scapa Flow? _________________ I Remain
Your Ob't Servant
Allan
Time sets all things right. Error lives but a day. Truth is eternal.
A Great Civilization is not Conquered from Without until It has Destroyed Itself from Within
The screw is the propeller. In the 1840's to 1850's there was a debate between paddle wheels and different screw designs as to the preferred way to move a ship. The screw won as a cannon ball isn't likely to hit it and break it. Warrior wasn't the 1st ship with a screw, but was the largest to that date.
HMS Warrior wasn't old enough to be in the Crimean war (1860). There was some ironclads used in that war. These boats names escape me right now, but they were the inspiration for the Virginia, not Warrior.
The US navy did have seagoing ironclad early in the war. They just didn't get allot of press because of monitor fever.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Perhaps Rick could put some kind of new meaning to this, but ...
