Roger Pellett

Hello all, here a few pictures of the current state of affairs. Nearing completion. The big things missing are Davits, stretches of railing, antennae and pieces of equipment on the stern and hull. Stuff on the hull is an issue because the paint i used is discontinued and any trials to match with a new supplier were so far „not phantastic“
cheers sascha
 

Dan, thank you!
 
And thank you to all of you who are continuing the tradition of model ship building and sharing your experiences on this forum. 
Discovering boats and then boat modeling has been such a joy. Creative, humbling, problem solving, letting go and moving forward. 
 
I had the chance to visit Dan's shop yesterday to drop off a model for repair. There's too much to share and you all have been following his posts and reading his articles so you know what he's up to. However, I did want to repeat a two sentiments that Dan shared with me that I think are very important...and I am paraphrasing.
 
"Develop an interest in and an appreciation of art and old handmade things." 
 
"The best tool a modeler can have is a club."
 
Not one that you would use to smash your model when you're frustrated (though you may want one of those, too) but one you can join and learn directly from other modelers. 
 
Until the next post,
Jesse

The NMM branch in Falmouth is nice to visit.  I was there in 1918 and was interested to see the Titanic Lifeboat replica recently built in their shop.
 
Your B25 model reminds me of the book Catch 22.  The guys in the book were flying B25’s from a base in Italy and the Catch22 referred to some crazy ( I don’t remember the details) rule #22 that ensured that they could never fly the required missions to go home.  
 
My son recently inherited a scrapbook from someone in his wife’s family who flew in a B25 squadron based in Italy.  It is remarkable as it includes bomb aerial photos and maps for each mission flown.  He really needs to find someone knowledgeable to evaluate it.
 
Roger

These Art Girona figures are well done.  I like Indian Army subjects and would love their Mounted Corps of Guides figure.  Maybe someday.
 
I have a simple method for mounting 54mm figures to paint:  A small block of wood glued to the bottom of the base of the figure with Duco Cement.  when the figure is done an Xacto knife or palette knife slid between the figure base and wood block separates it easily.
 
Roger
 

The NMM branch in Falmouth is nice to visit.  I was there in 1918 and was interested to see the Titanic Lifeboat replica recently built in their shop.
 
Your B25 model reminds me of the book Catch 22.  The guys in the book were flying B25’s from a base in Italy and the Catch22 referred to some crazy ( I don’t remember the details) rule #22 that ensured that they could never fly the required missions to go home.  
 
My son recently inherited a scrapbook from someone in his wife’s family who flew in a B25 squadron based in Italy.  It is remarkable as it includes bomb aerial photos and maps for each mission flown.  He really needs to find someone knowledgeable to evaluate it.
 
Roger

The NMM branch in Falmouth is nice to visit.  I was there in 1918 and was interested to see the Titanic Lifeboat replica recently built in their shop.
 
Your B25 model reminds me of the book Catch 22.  The guys in the book were flying B25’s from a base in Italy and the Catch22 referred to some crazy ( I don’t remember the details) rule #22 that ensured that they could never fly the required missions to go home.  
 
My son recently inherited a scrapbook from someone in his wife’s family who flew in a B25 squadron based in Italy.  It is remarkable as it includes bomb aerial photos and maps for each mission flown.  He really needs to find someone knowledgeable to evaluate it.
 
Roger

The NMM branch in Falmouth is nice to visit.  I was there in 1918 and was interested to see the Titanic Lifeboat replica recently built in their shop.
 
Your B25 model reminds me of the book Catch 22.  The guys in the book were flying B25’s from a base in Italy and the Catch22 referred to some crazy ( I don’t remember the details) rule #22 that ensured that they could never fly the required missions to go home.  
 
My son recently inherited a scrapbook from someone in his wife’s family who flew in a B25 squadron based in Italy.  It is remarkable as it includes bomb aerial photos and maps for each mission flown.  He really needs to find someone knowledgeable to evaluate it.
 
Roger

I receive a quarterly magazine from the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Department at the University of Michigan. As might be expected published by a university it is heavily slanted towards current issues and  research.
 
Advances in Naval Architecture are often incremental.  Marine Engineering on the other had as undergone a series of distinct changes:
Introduction of Steam Propulsion
Compound Steam Engines
Steam Turbines
Diesel Engines
Unmanned engine rooms/ direct bridge control
Gas Turbines (Naval Vessels)
Nuclear Power (Submarines)
 
Each of these technologies did not emerge fully developed.  For example, the first steam turbines were connected directly to the ships propellers.  A machine that operates best at high speed was attempting to drive one intended to run at low speed.  It took 15-20 years to adopt the geared cross compounded system used by the US Navy during World War II.  The machinery in United States is the end point of this mature steam turbine technology.
 
When I went to school, Marine Engineering involved designing a unique steam plant to fit within the confines of a hull designed by the Naval Architects.  The switch to diesel engines for propulsion of much of the world’s merchant vessel tonnage and gas turbines for naval vessels changed all this.  The Naval Architects sometimes joked that marine engineering had become a “catalog punching job.”
 
Marine Engineering I now back in the news with a lot of questions to be answered.  Among these are:
 How to eliminate residual oil fuels
How to best utilize hydrogen as a fuel
Electric propulsion and hybrid electric propulsion
Even Nuclear merchant ship propulsion and sail assist
 
These ideas are obviously not all applicable to large ships traveling long distances and some are maybe just Pie in the Sky, but the point is that United States’ machinery is seriously out of date and pollution from shipboard commerce is now considered to be a major environmental problem.  Even if her owners could strike a deal with KFC to burn their used frying oil in their boilers, major changes to her machinery would be required with the possibility of completely new power plant.  This alone would probably preclude her return to service.
 
Roger
 

The NMM branch in Falmouth is nice to visit.  I was there in 1918 and was interested to see the Titanic Lifeboat replica recently built in their shop.
 
Your B25 model reminds me of the book Catch 22.  The guys in the book were flying B25’s from a base in Italy and the Catch22 referred to some crazy ( I don’t remember the details) rule #22 that ensured that they could never fly the required missions to go home.  
 
My son recently inherited a scrapbook from someone in his wife’s family who flew in a B25 squadron based in Italy.  It is remarkable as it includes bomb aerial photos and maps for each mission flown.  He really needs to find someone knowledgeable to evaluate it.
 
Roger

Second planking .........

Hi Jesse - 
 
It was a pleasure to meet you earlier today and look at this little gem in person.
I think you made an excellent go of the many issues and problems that you encountered in your first wooden ship model.
Keep up the good work.
 
You asked about some of my other works, and you can see some of the build logs in my profile, or in the Gallery.
I'm always happy to answer any questions that may come to mind.
 
Be well
 
Dan

All of the cross braces are in place. A nose cone has been shaped as well - I may try to make this a little more pointed later.

It's now a little later. After looking more at the above picture, I really started to feel the nose was too blunt. So with a sanding stick back in my hand, I've tried to make the transition more smooth. I'm good with this (for now)!

Today I finished adding the metal fasteners. I decided to use 22 gauge copper for them. I also started adding the cross braces; they are being made from 0.015" piano wire.
 

Construction sections from the revised Lines drawings were drawn up to the planned build scale 3/4" = 1' (1:16).
A plank of Alaska Yellow cedar was used to mill the necessary futtock stock and double layers were glued up to make the sawn frames.

 
The frames were all marked with the location of the DWL and then suitable height cedar blocking pieces were made up for each station to position the DWL at a constant height.  After the frames had been erected and blocked in place on the building form, an inner stem profile was set up for laminating the scarfed-together Basswood inner stem to a laminated full length keelson. A "bread-and-butter" stack of basswood layers which would eventually be shaped to be the stern was mounted on supporting blocks aft.

 
 

This build will be a POF scale model of a planned sturdy powerboat for Vicky and I to "retire" to when we had to give up sailing our schooner, MAGIC.  This tale started in the early 1980's when we began exploring the channels and islands in the coastal archipelago stretching north from the state of Washington into British Columbia.  We were then sailing an engine-less gaff cutter and after a frustrating day of light winds and rude, large-wake-dragging Bayliners, we took the morning to hike ashore across to another cove.  An older converted troller was heading out and across the still waters of that cove , we could hear her slow-turning engine effortlessly (and quietly) pushing her along with little wake. It sounded like, "potato... potato... potato ..."  We decided there and then that if we had to give up sailing for a powerboat, it would need to be driven by something like that "easy-to-live-with" engine.
 
Many years passed by before it became obvious that we were aging off of our schooner, but we also had learned a bit about these heavy, old, slow turning engines.  A chance encounter connected us to a fellow who owned a "spare" rebuilt Gardner 6L3 diesel of 1956 vintage - which was not in a boat any more - and we struck a deal to purchase it.
 
These British diesels are large, measuring about 9-1/2 feet in length and weighing in around 7,000 pounds. They were designed to be reliable and idled at 200 rpms while putting out their maximum power at a maximum of 900 rpms. This one needed a boat to go back into, of course, so off to my drafting board I went to begin the process of designing such a craft.  Early on,  Vicky named the design, TWILIGHT and I carved a couple versions of half-hulls as explorations into a suitable hull shape. We had been befriended over the years by naval architect, William Garden, and after seeing my drawings and half-hulls, he offered suggestions on which hull and house shapes might work well in the often rainy, occasionally rough waters of the PNW. I drew up our interior preferences for a liveaboard boat and fitted them around the need for a suitable engine room.

And, as often happens, life made changes to our plans and the drawings were shelved. The Gardner Diesel was sold to a good home.
 
When the model of MAGIC was completed, I was often asked, "Well, what are you going to build next?"  Eventually last fall (and probably suggested by my better half), the idea of building a R/C POF model of TWILIGHT surfaced.  The drawings of the preliminary design were resurrected along with the suggestions and design revision ideas we had entertained before that project "sank".  A revised set of lines were drawn up to incorporate many of these thoughts. The wood racks were checked for suitable stock.  I started drawing construction sections in January, 2024 and I will pick up the build then to bring the log up to date (May, 2024).
 

 
I hope that you will enjoy the process.  I am inspired by the quality and work put into members' projects here and will strive to make TWILIGHT worthy.
 

Showed your model to my wife who correctly identified it as Paddle to the Sea.  She used this book in teaching 5th grade in Southeastern Ohio many years ago.
 
Up here on Lake Superior there has been at least one classroom attempt to duplicate Paddle’s voyage with the students each launching their home built model in the Lake.  A couple were found on local beaches.  No messages yet from the St Lawrence River!
 
Roger

I receive a quarterly magazine from the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Department at the University of Michigan. As might be expected published by a university it is heavily slanted towards current issues and  research.
 
Advances in Naval Architecture are often incremental.  Marine Engineering on the other had as undergone a series of distinct changes:
Introduction of Steam Propulsion
Compound Steam Engines
Steam Turbines
Diesel Engines
Unmanned engine rooms/ direct bridge control
Gas Turbines (Naval Vessels)
Nuclear Power (Submarines)
 
Each of these technologies did not emerge fully developed.  For example, the first steam turbines were connected directly to the ships propellers.  A machine that operates best at high speed was attempting to drive one intended to run at low speed.  It took 15-20 years to adopt the geared cross compounded system used by the US Navy during World War II.  The machinery in United States is the end point of this mature steam turbine technology.
 
When I went to school, Marine Engineering involved designing a unique steam plant to fit within the confines of a hull designed by the Naval Architects.  The switch to diesel engines for propulsion of much of the world’s merchant vessel tonnage and gas turbines for naval vessels changed all this.  The Naval Architects sometimes joked that marine engineering had become a “catalog punching job.”
 
Marine Engineering I now back in the news with a lot of questions to be answered.  Among these are:
 How to eliminate residual oil fuels
How to best utilize hydrogen as a fuel
Electric propulsion and hybrid electric propulsion
Even Nuclear merchant ship propulsion and sail assist
 
These ideas are obviously not all applicable to large ships traveling long distances and some are maybe just Pie in the Sky, but the point is that United States’ machinery is seriously out of date and pollution from shipboard commerce is now considered to be a major environmental problem.  Even if her owners could strike a deal with KFC to burn their used frying oil in their boilers, major changes to her machinery would be required with the possibility of completely new power plant.  This alone would probably preclude her return to service.
 
Roger
 

Well, in a very broad sense, she has always been effectively USS.  She was conceived by Gibbs in the 1920’s but it took another 25 years or so to get her built.  This required a huge amount of congressional lobbying and justification as a high speed troop transport in time of war.  This allowed her to receive large US Government construction and operating subsidies.  Each year while operating, her owners (United States Lines) prepared a cost analysis separating operating costs associated with her troop ship features.  Most of these involved her propulsion plant.  These were paid by the government.
 
Roger

I receive a quarterly magazine from the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Department at the University of Michigan. As might be expected published by a university it is heavily slanted towards current issues and  research.
 
Advances in Naval Architecture are often incremental.  Marine Engineering on the other had as undergone a series of distinct changes:
Introduction of Steam Propulsion
Compound Steam Engines
Steam Turbines
Diesel Engines
Unmanned engine rooms/ direct bridge control
Gas Turbines (Naval Vessels)
Nuclear Power (Submarines)
 
Each of these technologies did not emerge fully developed.  For example, the first steam turbines were connected directly to the ships propellers.  A machine that operates best at high speed was attempting to drive one intended to run at low speed.  It took 15-20 years to adopt the geared cross compounded system used by the US Navy during World War II.  The machinery in United States is the end point of this mature steam turbine technology.
 
When I went to school, Marine Engineering involved designing a unique steam plant to fit within the confines of a hull designed by the Naval Architects.  The switch to diesel engines for propulsion of much of the world’s merchant vessel tonnage and gas turbines for naval vessels changed all this.  The Naval Architects sometimes joked that marine engineering had become a “catalog punching job.”
 
Marine Engineering I now back in the news with a lot of questions to be answered.  Among these are:
 How to eliminate residual oil fuels
How to best utilize hydrogen as a fuel
Electric propulsion and hybrid electric propulsion
Even Nuclear merchant ship propulsion and sail assist
 
These ideas are obviously not all applicable to large ships traveling long distances and some are maybe just Pie in the Sky, but the point is that United States’ machinery is seriously out of date and pollution from shipboard commerce is now considered to be a major environmental problem.  Even if her owners could strike a deal with KFC to burn their used frying oil in their boilers, major changes to her machinery would be required with the possibility of completely new power plant.  This alone would probably preclude her return to service.
 
Roger
 

Well, in a very broad sense, she has always been effectively USS.  She was conceived by Gibbs in the 1920’s but it took another 25 years or so to get her built.  This required a huge amount of congressional lobbying and justification as a high speed troop transport in time of war.  This allowed her to receive large US Government construction and operating subsidies.  Each year while operating, her owners (United States Lines) prepared a cost analysis separating operating costs associated with her troop ship features.  Most of these involved her propulsion plant.  These were paid by the government.
 
Roger

There is an old expression about a boat being a hole in the water into which you throw money.  Unfortunately, United States is just a bigger hole to fill.
 
IMHO there are engineering, business, and legal reasons preventing her from sailing again:
 
Business:  The passenger ship business seems to be aimed at two different demographics; at one end those that want to join 4999 others aboard a floating theme park/ 24-7 floating casino and at the other end those wanting a quiet experience aboard a small ship.  United States would seem to appeal to neither of these groups.  The United States, while a big ship carried 1000-2000 passengers. Fares would, therefore, be high, so she would have to tap into the small cruise ship market.  Would ongoing demand be high enough to allow her to book profitable passenger loads?
 
Engineering:  She is a steam ship!  Nobody, operates steamships any more.  She has a 900psi US Navy plant.  The only steam plants operated today in US Navy vessels are in nuclear powered vessels; different animals.  Her boilers, if they can even be brought back to life are equipped to burn bunker c oil, a nasty pollutant that the rest of the world is trying to eliminate from their merchant marine fleets. The state of the art today in marine engineering for passenger carrying vessels seems to be an integrated system where electricity from one source is distributed to both the propulsion system and the system supplying on board hotel services. This also allows use of electric driven trainable pods to improve maneuvering.  Even if it could be brought back to life, United States’ machinery is 70 years out of date.
 
Legal:  She is an American Flagged ship.  The Jones act would require her to be manned with an expensive American crew.  She could be reflagged under a flag of convenience; Liberia, Panama, Bahamas, etc. but would she then be the United States?
 
Better for whoever owns her to admit defeat and as Bob Cleek says turn her into razor blades.
 
Roger
 
 
 
 

Not an exact answer to your question but the US Navy’s Ordinance Instructions include a detailed inventory of equipment to be carried aboard ships’ boats.  You can find copies on the internet.  The list is quite extensive and differs for different boat types.  It also depends on how you intend to display the boats on your model.  For example, the mid Nineteenth Century US Navy did not stow a lot of equipment in boats when aboard ship.  Spars were stowed in hammock boxes atop bulwarks and sails kept below decks.  The ordinance instructions also specify the various petty officers responsible for loading particular pieces of gear prior to the boat’s launch.
 
It was also US Navy practice to designate one boat as a “lifeboat,” usually a seaworthy type; a cutter or a whaleboat.  The purpose of this boat was to recover a man overboard.  This would have been hung in davits for quick launch and equipped differently than boats stowed on board.
 
It is a common misconception that the primary use for boats stowed on board was to save the ship’s crew in the event of shipwreck.  The reality is that these boats were workboats carried to assist the ship in restricted waters and/or to extend the ship’s mission.  Unless hung in davits, launching was a major shipboard evolution not done quickly.  There was ample time to bring items needed from elsewhere in the ship.
 
Roger

I have a Sherline Lathe with a milling column.  It is a well made machine. I am glad that I bought it.  The milling column fitted with Sherline’s sensitive drilling attachment is by far the best way to drill small holes with wire sized drills.  Sherline seems to have learned from the old Lionel electric train company as they also sell an endless variety of accessories.
 
Sherline lathes have one feature that I don’t like.  The usual way to turn a taper is by offsetting the tail stock, and then turning the part between centers.  The Sherline tail stock cannot be offset.  Sherline overcomes this problem by advising users to rotate the headstock.  In normal usage, the headstock is rigidly keyed to to the lathe’s bed with a spline.  With the headstock rotated, the spline must be removed and the headstock/bed joint relies on friction alone.  I have found that this is not sufficient to accept the side forces from taper turning. Sherline does offer an accessory cross slide that will supposedly turn tapers.
 
Roger

A bit of USS Tennessee and Marine Corp history. The Tennessee transported a battalion of US Marines to Aspinwall, Panama landing on 12 April, 1885.
 
 This is the only time the USS Tennessee saw action (to my knowledge) in her career. The Aspinwall Marine deployment was the first time in history that a brigade of US Marines was organized. 
 
 The Tennessee would be sold for scrap little over a year later on 15 September, 1886. 
 
https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/US Marines in Battle Guantanamo Bay.pdf
 
The insert below taken from the above link starting page 2.
 
 
On 2 April 1885, the eighth Commandant of the Marine Corps, Colonel Charles Grymes McCawley, received orders to organize a battalion of Marines and to embark them for Aspinwall, Panama. A battalion of 234 Marines was quickly organized under the command of then-major Charles Heywood by drawing available personnel from the Marine Barracks at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, as well as Brooklyn, Philadelphia, and Washington,
 
4 At the time, the commandancy was filled by a colonel; the rank was raised to brigadier general in 1899 and to major general in 1902. Col Heywood served as Commandant from 1891 to 1903.
 
DC. The battalion also included company commander Captain Robert W. Huntington and First Lieutenant George F. Elliott (fu- ture 10th Commandant), who both would play critical roles in the Guantánamo Bay landings 13 years later. Navy Command- er Bowman H. McCalla (also a future key player at Guantána- mo Bay) was selected to be the naval force commander for the Panama expedition under the overall command of Rear Admiral James E. Jouett.
On 3 April 1885, the Navy Department telegraphed the commander of the North Atlantic Squadron, Rear Admiral Jouett, assigning him overall command of the mission. Admiral Jouett’s instructions were very straightforward. He was authorized to use a naval expeditionary force for the sole purpose of protecting American lives and property and to ensure free and uninterrupted transit across the isthmus. He was cautioned to use great discretion in his actions and in no way to interfere with the sovereign acts of the government of Colombia or to take part in any of the political or social events.
The expeditionary force, with Heywood’s battalion as the main landing force, sailed from New York on 3 April 1885, landing Heywood’s Marines in Aspinwall, on 12 April. Ultimately, three Marine battalions would be formed and deployed to Panama. They would be nominally consolidated into a brigade under the command of Major Heywood and operate ashore for the better part of a month, restoring and maintaining order until sufficient Colombian troops arrived between 30 April and 5 May to take control. This was the first time a United States Marine brigade had ever been organized.5 Commander McCalla would arrive on 15 April and make the decision to come ashore to take personal control of the operation, which would ultimately lead to conflict between the Navy and the Marine Corps in the post- operation environment.
The formation of this provisional Marine brigade caused the Corps to reduce its Atlantic coast shore installations by more than half. To make matters worse, at this time there was no Marine battalion or regimental organizational structure. The efforts to form larger tactical organizations such as this where none currently existed were naturally very ad hoc evolutions, leading to an environment characterized by improvisation and discovery learning. One of the more interesting outcomes of this successful employment of naval forces in response to a crisis was not so much its impacts on world events as was its impact internally on Service and individual professional opinions and theories being discussed in the naval Service. A hot topic at the time was the
 
5 Robert Debs Heinl, Soldiers of the Sea: The United States Marine Corps, 1775–1962 (Baltimore, MD: Nautical and Aviation Publishing Co. of America, 1991), 93.
 2 RAdm Jouett’s flagship, the USS Tennessee (1865). Originally USS Madawaska, the ship’s name was changed to Tennessee on 15 May 1869.
Naval History and Heritage Command, NH46920
RAdm James E. Jouett, commander of the North Atlantic Squadron. Selected as the overall commander for the Panama intervention, Jouett assigned oversight of operations ashore to Cdr B. H. McCalla.
Naval History and Heritage Command
 
role of the Marine Corps and its future utility as a naval landing force in expeditionary operations versus the use of Marines in ships detachments.
Commander McCalla issued a detailed after action report on the isthmus operations to the secretary of the Navy. In this report McCalla praised the Marines for their efficiency and dis- cipline but was very critical of their tactics and proficiency with artillery and machine guns. He even went so far as to critique the current rifle manual and manual of arms and to make recom- mended changes to the existing manuals.6 Needless to say, detailed criticisms of Marine ground operations by a naval officer did not sit well with Marine Corps leadership.
Most significantly, McCalla took direct aim at the primary Marine mission of guarding naval installations when he concluded that too much time on barracks duty came at the expense of professional education of Marine officers and meaningful training of Marine units to prepare them for expeditionary operations. Commander McCalla recommended annual summer maneuvers with Marines in conjunction with the fleet and U.S. Army to develop the tactics and techniques and organizational structure needed for major landing operations. He also advocated the Navy purchase transports specifically designed to carry Marine brigades.7 Although McCalla’s report actually advocated the development of the Marine Corps as a true expeditionary arm of the fleet, that salient point was lost in what was viewed by Marine leadership as a direct refutation on the currently accepted core missions of the Marine Corps.
 
6 “Report of Commander McCalla upon the Naval Expedition to the Isthmus of Panama, April 1885,” Annual Report of the Navy Department, Bureau of Navi- gation, 1885, Archives Branch, Marine Corps History Division, Quantico, VA, 61. 7 “Report of Commander McCalla upon the Naval Expedition to the Isthmus of Panama, April 1885,” 67.
Lead elements of the Marine battalion landing at Aspinwall, Panama, 1885. Naval History and Heritage Command
  An armed railroad car used by Marines to provide security for rail traffic across the Isthmus of Panama in 1885.
Naval History and Heritage Command
3
 
McCalla’s recommendations struck directly at the dilemma the Marine Corps faced throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century. The Marine Corps was a force with very limited resources that allowed them to perform their current mission, but with little hope of adding new structure and resources to take on new missions. Colonel Commandant McCawley strongly rebutted Commander McCalla’s conclusions and recommendations and defended the status quo, describing the missions of the Marine Corps in the traditional terms of ships detachments and guard duty at the Navy yards. He made no reference to the possibility of future expeditionary roles for the Corps.8
In retrospect, the 1885 Panama operation provided a telling preview of the employment of Marines at Guantánamo Bay in the Spanish-American War 13 years later, with McCalla as the na- val force commander, Heywood as Commandant of the Marine Corps, Huntington as commander of the Marine landing force, and Elliott as a company commander in the operation’s decisive engagement.
The issues raised in Commander McCalla’s report were illustrative of the professional and institutional split between the leadership of the Marine Corps and an influential Navy reform element led by Captain Alfred Mahan and Lieutenant William F. Fullam. The transformation of the Navy from a predominantly coastal defense force to an instrument of power projection and sea control in the 1880s and 1890s brought forth significant implications for the current and potential future missions of the Corps. This period was characterized by intense professional debate on the future structure and missions of both elements of the naval Service. The Navy reformers had become a dominant driving force in determining the future of the Navy and the Corps.
 
 
 The below two photos show the Marine landing parties going ashore in ship's boats from the Tennessee. Of note in both photos is a steam launch towing two ship's boats. These are the only images of this steam launch recorded. In none of the other photos of the Tennessee is this steam launch shown hanging in the port side davits. You can see that the launch was meant to hang on the port side because of the access cutout in the launches tarp cover.
 
 Was this historic mission the first time a steam launch was made available to the USS Tennessee?
 
 Is it safe to assume that the Tennessee's two gatling guns were made available to the deployed Marines?