Spot The Difference! - CSS Macon vII

**shawndymond** · #1 07-21-2011, 07:14 AM

After building CT’s first version of the CSS Macon/Water Witch hybrid last week, I received the files from CT at the beginning of the week for version II – with armoured wheel boxes – which makes the vessel look much more ‘businesslike’!

Being practically the same model as Macon I with only a few differences I haven’t done a build thread for this one, but am just showing the finished results. Not quite so happy with this build as I have been with the others – entirely my doing and not shortcomings in the model – failings due to a combination of speed, complacency (having built version I only a week earlier) and not concentrating – lesson learnt!

Anyway, the comparison of the two is interesting – the last few photos show some scale figure ‘flats’ to give some impression of size. Looking forward to completing the trio with the Version III!

**ct ertz** · #2 07-21-2011, 08:10 AM

Looks like another beauty! This ironclad, in any of the versions, was sure a monster. And your work brings it to life! Great job.

I like the differences, the armored boxes, purpose built for war, are necessarily smaller to use less iron and to give the broad side guns a larger field of firer, or so it seems to me. Note that the wheels would have been the same, but the purpose built box is a lot smaller. If the engines woud of held up under the pressure of pushing that much weight around, she would of been maneuverable. Fighting a defencive roll, in conjunction with the Stationary CSS Georgia and the stationary fortifications, the Macon ironclad would have added considerable to Savannah's sea side defenses.

CT

**Michael Mash** · #3 07-21-2011, 09:05 AM

Hello Shawn:
Enjoying your craftsmanship. And I must applaud your fine camera work. The images are clear and give us many views.
Mike

**shawndymond** · #4 07-21-2011, 11:16 AM

Hi Mike - thanks for your encouragement.

CT's models are just great and a joy to build, I just hope my build and photography skills do them justice.

**Uyraell** · #5 07-21-2011, 03:01 PM

Very neat build, very good to see both versions of the vessel side by side.
The addition of the figures certainly set-off/shows the scale most admirably, and adds quality to a pair of builds that are themselves high quality.

Kind and Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

**rebelatsea** · #6 07-22-2011, 04:21 AM

CT. I think that at the time this vessel was laid down, she was intended for aggressive rather than defensive warfare. Indeed Georgia was intended to be seagoing, That Macon was never completed when other vessels were, and some very near to completion is unexplained, but it may be that she was simply too big, and certainly no machinery, armour or ordnance was ever ordered for her that I can find.