The CSS Columbus Ironclad

[rebelatsea]

CSS Columbus is an odd vessel, i don't really know what she was intended to do. With such a small casemate, she could have only mounted light guns, protected by minimum armour, almost a tinclad ! whatever the intentions, she never got near to being launched, and her presence incomplete was the subject of many complaints.

[ct ertz]

That is puzzling. Although, the "City" class Union ironclads only has a couple inches of armor. But the biggest puzzle is why invest and then let it sit. Regardless of the quality, a mobile and armed ironclad would always cause the US military to change plans and allow the CSN to tie up Union forces for long periods of time. Just look at how many ships the CSS Missouri tied up, and it never fired a shot.

[lancekiser]

Very good!

[rebelatsea]

I can only think that something was wrong with her design or construction. As to her fate, My friend Ben suggested that she was probably dismantled for firewood!

[ct ertz]

For FIREWOOD! Wow. I am not sure what to think about that.

[Grendel1367]

Where was CSS Columbus built?

[frederico]

man i can't belived i missed this. i love iron clads,i never seen this type before.learn something new every day

[ct ertz]

The CSS Columbus was built somewhere near Columbus GA on the river.
CT

[jimkrauzlis]

A truly wonderful build of one of Corey's excellent designs!

Just a question for those who are well versed on the ironclads, a brief research of this vessels name makes reference to a vessel which is decribed as a monitor type design, with a 12' turret, rather than a casemate vessel, said to be the only attempt to build a monitor by the South. I was just wondering why there would be such a difference in vessel type for the same name which, according to the sources, was also never built.

I can imagine a few reasons why a vessel was never completed, the first being lack of materials the second the necessary skilled labor. From what little I have thus far read about the Southern efforts in building a navy they were many times at direct odds with the land campaign which seemed to have an unfetterd appetite for men and material, so the less important naval efforts (at least from the point of view of those allocating materials) seemed to suffer as a result throughout the war. Which makes we wonder how things might have developed had the naval efforts received the necessary support.

Cheers!
Jim

[ct ertz]

Hello Jim,
Good question. From what I learned (mainly from John Wallis and his friends) is that as times the South contemplated two turreted ships. One was to built and designed bu the Tift brothers, the same guys who built the CSS Mississippi in New Orleans. I modeled this one. It in fact looks quite similar to the CSS Columbus, but has a rotating pyramidal "turret". It was never built due to changes in the war. The other one was to be built or at least designed by Warren of the CSN. His design was more closely related to the Unions monitor style but with major sea keeping improvements. It too was never built and I am working on a model of this one too.

Niether shhip was named, but with the Columbus languishing in abandonment it is possible that the name Columbus could have been considered for the Warren type vessel.

We find this with with the Macon ironclad and the Macon wooden gun boat as well as the Selma ironclad and the Selma wooden gunboat.

Just my take on things,

Also, in addition, John Wallis speculates that the CSS Columbus may have been the South version of a tin-clad, with it's main use to harass Union wooden ships and land forces. Do to it's light armor, light draft and proposed fast speed, it would have been effective at this, while avoiding the slow heavy ironclads on the River.

Makes sense, and with the changing nature of the war, could explain the abandonment.

CT