American sailing warships with no plans or records

[CharlieZardoz]

While I've seen many of these before, I've not seen them in this hi quality so definitely some nice finds

[Talos]

I'm just scratching the surface of what I've found so far.

 

In the higher-res view of the Sabine officer's picture from a couple pages ago, I realized I had never noticed the canvas cover over the Dahlgren boat howitzer. I thought the carriage was empty, with just the two ammo boxes on either side on the axle.

[uss frolick]

That stern view of the St. Mary's is amazing, for all the details. I am surprised that she still mounted guns in 1874, and I'm even more amazed that they wouldn't have landed them prior to putting her into dry-dock!

 

Look how huge she is, compared to the man crouching on the scaffolding by the rudder! I always tended to think of the class as just "small sloops".

[Talos]

She still has guns twenty years later. Notice they lowered the yards and they're resting on the spar deck bulwarks.

 

Nah, these are big sloops! A whole class of them (albeit individual designs). The only bigger non-razee sailing sloop was Constellation, which was built to heavy frigate dimensions. The 1840s class of large sloops were a good 20+ feet longer than the previous classes, which were almost 10 feet longer than the Wasp/Frolick/Peacock of the War of 1812. St Marys there is exactly 150 feet between perpendiculars. Jamestown, the biggest, was about 7 inches shorter than the rebuild Macedonian. They're all the size range of conventional 18-pounder frigates.

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, the other end of St Marys from that drydock.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Talos

[uss frolick]

I wonder which 74-gun ship is in the background of the above St. Mary's photo. If it was taken in Boston, then she may be either the Ohio or the Vermont.

[Talos]

It's taken in Norfolk, actually, in 1874. At least that's what the caption says. I think Vermont was in New York at the time though. Best way to figure it out is to look closely at the details in the full pic. Ohio and Vermont had detail differences in back that should help.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Talos

[trippwj]

I wonder which 74-gun ship is in the background of the above St. Mary's photo. If it was taken in Boston, then she may be either the Ohio or the Vermont.

According to the description, this was while in ordinary in Norfolk, VA.  See http://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-108000/NH-108535.html

[CharlieZardoz]

Well from what Ive read the 1870s was a weird time for the navy. Almost like a bunch of old timers who wanted to bury their heads in the sand and forget that iron and steel ships had made wooden sailing ships obsolete. Quite alot of funds were allocated (wasted?) on refurbishing the old ships and put them back in service despite being functionally useless. Ships like Tennessee and Florida (I think those were the ones) were modified to look more like merrimac class steam frigates but that said this weird period of stagnation is essentially why constitution and constellation still exist today as they were extensively rebuilt and had Hartford been maintained she would have possibly survived to present day as well.

Edited August 8, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[uss frolick]

Then she's the Receiving Ship USS New Hampshire, ex-Alabama, 74. She was at the Norfolk Yard from 1866 to 1876, according to author Paul Silverstone, in  "Warships of the Civil War Navies".

[CharlieZardoz]

My guess is also New Hampshire. I dont believe Vermont ever received proper masts which I see in that image (actually I was wrong).

Edited August 9, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[Talos]

Future Granite State, the last American 74. She lasted as a recieving ship until 1921.

 

[CharlieZardoz]

It's a bit sad to see these powerful and quite sleek ships not really fulfill their intended purpose. I mean yeah by the civil war large broadsides were effectively useless against shell cannons and maintaining such ships were costly but can't help but feel bummed seeing them as floating barges or worse solt at the stocks like the New Orleans (see pic) or New York.

 

On another note I did want to bring up this odd/interesting ship design from that weird era the USS Congress of 1868 which replaced the ill-fated 1841 ship. Originally named Pushmataha one of several Contoocook class steam sloops many of which were never launched and all of them built with unseasoned timber due to the war expending stock. She looks like a fairly attractive ship but had a fairly short life due to the oak being rotted after only a few years. Pity.

Edited August 9, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[CaptArmstrong]

Extremely interesting drawings of the United States, Macedonian, Syren etc! I had no idea there were any such close up illustrations of the us frigates during the war of 1812-great addition to the knowledge base. I'd say the curvature of the United States rails looks very close to the original for the class(though also chapelle's NY & Philly) except the end of the middle rail is moved slightly forward-likely to accommodate a bridle port. It would also appear that the headrails of the Macedonian were altered after capture-appearing quite different(perhaps even closest to the rails of the President in 1815) from the lively class rails-which were much more standardized than the US ships necessarily were in the 1812 period.

 

I doubt the rails of Philadelphia and New York were reconstructed by Chapelle from the 1820s versions-those are much too small and angular. Chapelle likely worked from this plan for Philadelphia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/USS_Philadelphia_builder%27s_sail_plan.jpgand he mentioned an extant inboard profile for New York, which could've shown an outline for the rails-though without seeing it, who knows for sure what conjecture process he used. It appears that unfortunately the Philadelphia figurehead plan uses the erroneous 1820s head, but also shows some nice gingerbread details, as do the others!

Edited August 9, 2016 by CaptArmstrong

[Talos]

Chapelle specifically mentions working from these plans for New York and Philadelphia though, but he also talks about using the spar diagram for Philly and inboard of New York for reference as well. These were archived in a USN book series on the Barbary War.

 

 

On an unrelated note, also attaching the heavy sloops comparison again since we've been discussing them.

 

@Charlie: I /just/ had my copy of that book earlier and was reading about all those short-lived cruisers, including Congress.

[CharlieZardoz]

It's a good book yeah very informative and explains a lot about what the state of the navy was during that transitional time. That chart is also quite nice. I can see how much bigger Jamestown, Constellation, and the razed sloops were vs the other ships, also understanding why these sloops kept getting bigger since the small ones like Albany seemed to get lost at sea. I wonder if St Mary's design was related to her serving in the Pacific... hmmm

Edited August 9, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[Talos]

Albany's capsizing was probably a mix of her extreme clipper form (even more than Constellation and Macedonian, which are very sharp-ended) and switching her from the bark rig she was designed for to a full ship-rig. This was the era where we lost a lot of ships to overrigging. Just didn't have the stability to handle whatever took her down either way.

 

Saratoga was the prototype of the next six and was a bit small, so they increased the size of the rest, about as small as they could be while carrying a full load of the new 32-pounder cannons and 8" shell guns, while being fast and long-range. Jamestown's the oddball that's quite a bit bigger than the others.

 

The proceeding 2nd class sloop class (Cyane) was about ten feet shorter than the smaller members of the 1840s sloops. Dale was the oddball 3rd class, which was specifically built close to the original War of 1812 Peacock's dimensions, but proved small and slow. The rebuilt Peacock was faster than the Boston class of the 1820s, but too small and sharp to carry a useful warload and it messed with her sailing until she was stripped of some fo her cannons as an exploration ship. Cyane was the first new one to be really satisfactory and they just kept getting better from there.

 

Macedonian was, of course, built on roughly the dimensions of the original frigate, while Constellation was specifically ordered on to be the same size as the Brandywine-type frigates.

[CharlieZardoz]

That makes sense. It seems much of the sailing navy's technological narrative was in the perfecting of the sloop of war. They tend to be overlooked by the big frigates but both the frigates and line of battleships seemed like they hit a niche and that was about it. But much of the US navy was comprised of smaller ships with only one gun deck and a lot of that over rigging seemed like ego compensation by commanders that wanted their ships to be bigger than they were which started all the way back with the brigs like Enterprize and Syren. And so began the quest of finding a design which was a decent fighter but also sturdy fast and useful considering much of the American coast is comprised of rivers and shallow waters. The sloop was really the ideal type of ship for civil war blockade duty, they were much cheaper and well suited for the new type of weaponry and seems that sloops kept on evolving and being useful long after most of the larger ships were no longer a priority for the navy.

[CaptArmstrong]

I don't dispute that Chapelle used the 1820s plans for the lines, but I was referring specifically to the headrails-as they are entirely different shapes. does he mention them specifically in relation to the 1820s draughts in HIstory of the American Sailing Navy? I admit I don't have my copy on hand. What large and powerful vessels those later sloops grew to be!

[Talos]

The sloop was definitely centered as the main unit in those days. Even some of the frigates were stripped of their upper-deck armaments and treated like a sloop because sloops were so much cheaper. I'm pretty sure Constitution was at that time. Coupled with a rise in the main deck armament from 24-pounder cannons and such to the new standardized 32-pounders seen above in the 1840s, they were powerful little buggers and really the perfect balance as cruisers. The armaments established in 1845 (modified in 1853) were, for sloops, as follows:

 

 

1st class (which should include all the ships on that comparison page): 32-pounders of 42 cwt and 8" shell guns of 63 cwt.

2nd class (Boston, Cyane, etc): 32-pounders of 32 cwt and 8" shell guns of 55 cwt.

3rd class (should just be the Dales): 32-pounders of 27 cwt, replacing the light 24-pounder short guns that were designed for the class but didn't work that well.

 

Macedonian, Cumberland, and Constellation each carried those weak 10" shell guns fore and aft as pivots. 1 cwt also equals 112 pounds, fyi. Also I did those drawings the old-fashioned way, took the tabulated dimensional numbers for each gun (down to the hundredth of an inch) and drew them from that, so they should be about as accurate as it gets.

 

The frigates, meanwhile, were armed with 32-pounders of 57 cwt on the main deck, plus 4 x 8" shell guns of 63 cwt. On the spar deck they had 32-pounders of 32 cwt plus 4 x 8" shell guns of 55 cwt and two 32-pounders of 51 cwt for chase guns. Some of the biggest had 42cwt guns up top and smaller ones of inferior rate (which I take to mean Macedonian and maybe Constitution and United States) had 46 cwt guns as the main armament instead of 57 cwt ones. This arrangement was simplified in 1853, by eliminating the 55 cwt 8" shell gun and 51 cwt 32-pounder. They upped the shell gun batteries to ten 8" of 63 cwt all in one group on the main deck.

 

74s and Pennsylvania were supposed to be armed like the frigates, but with an additional gun deck or two (with the heavier armament) and then the spar deck on top. Since many had 42-pounders on the lowest deck, they actually decreased in sheer weight of broadside, though it was made more useful by having longer 32-pounders up top instead of carronades and the shell guns.

 

Actually, a lot of the overrigging was an obsession with speed. This led to a lot of capsizing, especially amongst the late brigs. Just look at some of the sail rigs for like Somers, Bainbridge, and Truxton. They are /scary/. All of the sail training ships they kept decades later were ship-rigged, I notice, most of them sloops. Jamestown, Portsmouth, St Marys, Dale, Preble, etc. You'll notice by then they'd gained double topsails.

 

@CaptArmstrong: I remember him discussing the headrails in the plans specifically and why they were anacronistic for the era the ships were operational in.

[CharlieZardoz]

What do you mean by "weak" shell guns on Cumberland? I seem to recall the CSS Virginia attacked her first since they feared the shell pivots could do the most damage and wanted to quickly incapacitate her via ram.

[Talos]

They had been replaced by then. The early 10" shell guns were very lightweight for their size and were quickly replaced because they were structurally weak and couldn't stand up to a strong enough charge. That was one of the big pushes for the X-inch Dahlgrens. The British had a 10" of 84 cwt and similar problems. The 64-pounder shot guns that could fire both solid shot and shells, was the more effective battering gun until the big Dahlgrens came around. When Dahlgren wrote his "Shells and Shell Guns" in 1856, which was a manual on the gun system of the USN then, the 10"  of 86 cwt was already on the way out. He even marked out the range table for it with the following footnote: "The practice of this gun was discontinued by the Chief of Bureau, who decided not to use it any longer on U.S. ships. A new and heavier X-inch (ed: note the Dahlgren-style roman numeral) has since been introduced."

 

By the time she was sunk, Cumberland had a big Dahlgren smoothbore shell gun and most likely a 60-pounder Dahlgren rifle. We were discussing it over at Civil War Talk and I found mention of Dahlgren prescribing that armament at the start of the war for pivots, with the erroneous references to a "50-pound rifle" being a typo.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Talos

[CharlieZardoz]

So one of these then? Was there an actual threat by these guns to the Virginia? From what I see the Minnesota also had them and fired tons of shot at the ironclad. The Cumberland seemed to do the most knocking out 2 guns and causing some internal damage but can't tell if that was from the gunfire or from the ram getting lodged into the hull and ripped off.

Edited August 9, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[trippwj]

This discussion is quite interesting, although sometimes it moves between topics so rapidly that additional research and input becomes lost in the flow. 

 

I think that the over-rigging of these frigates and sloops was a long term ongoing concern, both for the young American Navy and the mature, bureaucratic British and French Navies.  Sticking solely with the American Navy, one need look no further than the debates surrounding the construction of the original 6 frigates.  The Secretary of War ORDERED the assigned Superintendents (future Captain of the assigned ship) Barry, Talbot & Truxton to meet with Humphreys and provide a report with the recommended dimensions for the rigging. 

 

War office  Sept 30 1795
The Secretary of War requests the Captains Barry, Talbot & Truxton now at Philadelphia with Mr. Humphreys the constructor, to consult together on the proper dimensions of the  masts and spars for the frigates, and report their opinion under their hands in such form that the same may be transmitted to all the constructors and superintendents on their guide.
Timothy Pickering

 

This was partially in response to a letter from Truxton enclosing a copy of both his approach to masting and that published by Steel (see attached appendix 6 from Truxton - this copy appears to have been that of Fox).

1794 Masts Article_Truxtun.pdf

 

Also see this letter Truxton to Pickering, then forwarded by Pickering to all the Captains, concerning same.

1795-3-25 TP circular to Captains_NBB19 3pgs.pdf

 

The end result was a capitulation - each Captain, in consultation with the constructor for his frigate, was to determine the best method and dimensions and then send them to the War Department.

 

1796-1-25 TP to JH ST_Mast as wish circular letter NBS03 NBD01 1 page.pdf

 

 

 

 

[uss frolick]

In 1941, a pile of heavy, 1840's sloop type Dahlgren cannon, and a couple big anchors, were found on a reef on the south side of Isle de Pines, Cuba, in restricted waters today. WWII started very soon after, and the US Navy lost all interest. Is this the grave of the USS Albany? She was last seen to the south of those waters when the hurricane hit. Did she run aground, and jettison her heavy stores, only to founder later due to her injuries? Or did she wreck there, and smaller artifacts are also there, yet to be discovered, when the Cuban cold war finally ends?

 

Edit: My copies of this information, the contents of a mysterious box in the National Archives labeled only "Albany", were lost due to roof damage, resulting from Hurricane Charley, and had to be thrown out. How Ironic is that !!!??? Anyway, I think I remember there being "twenty guns" found.

Edited August 9, 2016 by uss frolick

[Talos]

So one of these then? Was there an actual threat by these guns to the Virginia? From what I see the Minnesota also had them and fired tons of shot at the ironclad. The Cumberland seemed to do the most knocking out 2 guns and causing some internal damage but can't tell if that was from the gunfire or from the ram getting lodged into the hull and ripped off.

 

As one of the replacement guns, yes, not one of the original Paixhan-style 10" guns. And they probably were about as good as it was going to get. Monitor had a pair of XI-inch Dahlgrens firing reduced charges and did pleny of damage to Virginia (just not any disabling ones). Cumberland had a heavy rifle that was probably also potentially damaging to it, plus a full battery of twenty-two IX-inch Dahlgrens that at close range were much more damaging than Congress' 32-pounders.

 

This is a 50-pounder Dahlgren rifle. Her second pivot was likely either this or a bigger version. Completely smooth and with an interesting trunnion band wrapped around it the cascable at the back of the gun.

 

 

This discussion is quite interesting, although sometimes it moves between topics so rapidly that additional research and input becomes lost in the flow. 

 

I think that the over-rigging of these frigates and sloops was a long term ongoing concern, both for the young American Navy and the mature, bureaucratic British and French Navies.  Sticking solely with the American Navy, one need look no further than the debates surrounding the construction of the original 6 frigates.  The Secretary of War ORDERED the assigned Superintendents (future Captain of the assigned ship) Barry, Talbot & Truxton to meet with Humphreys and provide a report with the recommended dimensions for the rigging. 

 

War office  Sept 30 1795

The Secretary of War requests the Captains Barry, Talbot & Truxton now at Philadelphia with Mr. Humphreys the constructor, to consult together on the proper dimensions of the  masts and spars for the frigates, and report their opinion under their hands in such form that the same may be transmitted to all the constructors and superintendents on their guide.

Timothy Pickering

 

This was partially in response to a letter from Truxton enclosing a copy of both his approach to masting and that published by Steel (see attached appendix 6 from Truxton - this copy appears to have been that of Fox).

1794 Masts Article_Truxtun.pdf

 

Also see this letter Truxton to Pickering, then forwarded by Pickering to all the Captains, concerning same.

1795-3-25 TP circular to Captains_NBB19 3pgs.pdf

 

The end result was a capitulation - each Captain, in consultation with the constructor for his frigate, was to determine the best method and dimensions and then send them to the War Department.

 

1796-1-25 TP to JH ST_Mast as wish circular letter NBS03 NBD01 1 page.pdf

 

Oh, it got worse later on! The irony is the brig Truxton was the one with the craziest depicted sail plan. I'm attaching her's and coupled with a shallow, v-shaped hull... and yet she's the one that didn't get lost at sea! (she was wrecked on rocks in the Mexican-American War). I'm also linking Albany's ship rig. Chapelle includes the original bark rig too, with the fore-and-aft mizzen. She has an extreme v-shaped hull too.

 

 

In 1941, a pile of heavy, 1840's sloop type Dahlgren cannon, and a couple big anchors, were found on a reef on the south side of Isle de Pines, Cuba, in restricted waters today. WWII started very soon after, and the US Navy lost all interest. Is this the grave of the USS Albany? She was last seen to the south of those waters when the hurricane hit. Did she run aground, and jettison her heavy stores, only to founder later due to her injuries? Or did she wreck there, and smaller artifacts are also there, yet to be discovered, when the Cuban cold war finally ends?

 

Edit: My copies of this information, the contents of a mysterious box in the National Archives labeled only "Albany", were lost due to roof damage, resulting from Hurricane Charley, and had to be thrown out. How Ironic is that !!!??? Anyway, I think I remember there being "twenty guns" found.

 

Dahlgrens can't be on Albany, she was lost before they were introduced. In fact, she was lost shortly after the book I was quoting from was written. She had 8" shell guns of 63 cwt and 32-pounders of 42 cwt. It's always possible they were misidentified (since they were advanced, undecorated guns) and was Albany. She was leaving Colombia when she was lost. Does sound like an interesting site to check out though!

[CharlieZardoz]

Wonder why Congress only had 32s. Shouldnt the navy armaments been more regimented by then? Was there a benefit to 32s quicker firing perhaps? That dahlgren is pretty sweet looking.

[uss frolick]

When I say Dahlgrens, I meant Dahlgren type, of which her guns, which you described fit, as opposed to 1775 or 1812 type guns. The 8" and modern 32-pounders which she carried were of the newest type, i.e., bottle shaped with tapering barrels, pre-dahlgrens, if you will.

 

Whenever Buggs Bunny fires a cannon at Elmer Fudd, it's always the Dahlgren shape. Why is that?

Edited August 9, 2016 by uss frolick

[Talos]

Wonder why Congress only had 32s. Shouldnt the navy armaments been more regimented by then? Was there a benefit to 32s quicker firing perhaps? That dahlgren is pretty sweet looking.

 

It was the standard frigate armament. She probably would have been overloaded with a gundeck of IX-inch Dahlgrens and a second gundeck of 32-pounders. Since she had the spar deck still, she wouldn't get the heavier guns like Cumberland. She also had twice as many guns, so her weight of iron wasn't any lower. It's pretty common to arm razees with a heavier gun since they suddenly don't have the weight of an upper deck and the guns from that deck on top of everything.The 32-pounder did have advantages in faster firing (faster to load and the 32-pounder shot is the biggest that one man can easily carry. It takes two men with a sling or clamp to carry a IX-inch shell).

 

When I say Dahlgrens, I meant Dahlgren type, of which her guns, which you described fit, as opposed to 1775 or 1812 type guns. The 8" and modern 32-pounders which she carried were of the newest type, i.e., bottle shaped with tapering barrels, pre-dahlgrens, if you will.

 

Whenever Buggs Bunny fires a cannon at Elmer Fudd, it's always the Dahlgren shape. Why is that?

 

I definitely think they influenced Dahlgren when he started experimenting. He didn't do his guns until over a decade after these were designed though. It was a general push towards simplier guns, with a different distribution of iron (more of it over the breech, less on the barrel). The bottle shape only really goes for the true Dahlgrens, which have no angles at all on them, unlike these. They definitely reduced the weakpoints though, and these are pretty darn good cannons.

 

As far as Buggs, it's simple. Cheaper to draw and animate without any details on it!

[CharlieZardoz]

What about Ericsson's Princeton and the incident of the Canon explosion which ultimately led to Monitor having its powder reduced. How did those guns compare with Dahlgrens?

[Talos]

Much weaker design. Dahlgren approached his gun designs scientifically and really changed how he designed them compared to earlier guns. With the Peacemaker gun on Princeton, the gun itself was an experimental material plus the design wasn't strong enough. A second of the design survives at the Naval Academy. That gun, and Dahlgren's, are detailed in Spencer Tucker's Arming the Fleet (which is also where I found the table of dimensions to do the drawings of the 1840s cannons).