Looking for information on Ironclad paper model kits

[jimkrauzlis]

We're very fortunate to have a few superb ship model designers on this forum (such as Corey, Dragos, et al.) who have given us the benefit of their immense talents by designing and releasing quite a few paper models of numerous ironclads from the War of Succession. In going through some historical references it appears that a finite number of ironclads were actually commissioned in the Confederate States Navy, a good number of which are available as paper models.

There seem to be, by my count, about 28 ships in all (some say less) but I was wondering if there might be paper models of some of those which I have not come across that others might know of. Right now I am talking only about the CSN vessels and ironclads in particular.

For instance, I have not been able to find any paper model of the CSS MANASSAS, which is a particularly distinct turtle back like vessel. There are a few others I have not found, such as the CSS RICHMOND, CSS CHICORA, CSS SAVANNAH, CSS MUSCOGEE, CSS NEW ORLEANS, CSS ATLANTA, CSS COLUMBIA, or the CSS NEUSE. I have found a version of the CSS STONEWALL, as the Japanese ironclad KOTETSU, so that is one we might consider to be available although not as the STONEWALL.

Is anyone aware of other paper models out there of the ones I noted above for which I have not found paper models available? The purpose of this inquiry is that I am thinking of building a set of these historic vessels and would like to have a complete set of all of the types which those daring and innovative Southern gents came up with during the course of the war. Any comments, thoughts or leads would be very much appreciated!

Cheers!
Jim

[ct ertz]

The CSS Manassas is a bit of a pain because of conflicting info, such as the number and placement of smokestacks.

The CSS Atlanta has been made by Dragos and is available from www.ecardmodels.com.

The CSS Chicora and CSS Savannah can be made using my CSS Raleigh or CSS North Carolina kit and doing some creative work in repainting and adding/changing pilothouses.

I have a real nice set of plans for the CSS Richmond from John Wallis and plan on doing it, one day.

The CSS Neuse can be made using the existing Albemarle kit and repainting the decks wood and adding the extra gun ports.

As to these and the rest, I do plan on getting their some day, unless some one beats me to it!

I hope this helps a little. i would like to see your list of ships to see what may be missing on my list!
CT

[jimkrauzlis]

Hey, Corey!

I'm glad you chimed in on this question, your models form the bulk of my fleet inventory and are spectacular!

I'll have to look at those suggested alterations and see how doable this might be for my purposes...obviously I have to do a bit more research on the specifics of each vessel before putting knife, glue and paint to card. By the way, what are the sources you refer to for the color issues and configuration changes? My brief research has revealed fairly little reliable primary sources for this information, and frankly, I don't have the time at the moment to pore through letters, shipyard notes and the such to address some of the questions but I would imagine others already have just a matter of finding out if they reduced their observations to publication...also, finding contemporary sketches and artwork are helpful if you can find reliable example. But I am willing to do a bit of the needed research to try and get this right, if possible.

As to MANASSAS, she certainly is an interesting looking vessel, that's why I was surprised no one took one that project yet...again, I have seen a handful of contemporary sketchs online, but didn't notice the issues as to placement of the stacks but thought each one showed two for certain...any extra reading you might suggest on this and other vessels for more details would be very appreciated.

Oh, and I did get the model by Dragos, I missed that one in my model folder...sorry about that!

I will work up my list and post it in a subsequent post here so we can compare notes, but I'm sure I have some wrong or missing.

Now, PLEASE, put your feet up, relax and get some rest...you have to make up for lost sleep, my friend!

Cheers!
Jim

[jimkrauzlis]

Okay, this is my list thus far of CSN commissioned ironclads:
CSS MUSCOGEE
CSS MANASSAS
CSS NEW ORLEANS
CSS VIRGINIA
CSS LOUISIANA
CSS ARKANSAS
CSS RICHMOND
CSS BALTIC
CSS ATLANTA
CSS PALMETTO STATE
CSS CHICORA
CSS TUSCALOUSA
CSS FREDERICKSBURG
CSS SAVANNAH
CSS GEORGIA
CSS HUSVILLE
CSS MISSOURI
CSS NORTH CAROLINA
CSS STONEWALL
CSS TENNESSEE II
CSS COLUMBIA
CSS NASHVILLE
CSS NEUSE
CSS ALBEMARLE
CSS RALIEGH
CSS VIRGINIA II
CSS CHARLESTON
CSS HUNTSVILLE

There are a number of ironclads which I read were being built but before they could be completed and commissioned were destroyed to avoid capture, from what I've read, and this is my list of those:

CSS EASTPORT
CSS MILLEDGEVILLE
CSS MISSISSIPPI
CSS MOBILE
CSS TENNESSEE I
CSS WILMINGTON

I also have a note that CSS TEXAS was never completed, so it was not included in either list, but let me know if anyone feels it should be included in the list of commissioned vessels in case I got bad info.

I would also like to consider the other vessels in the CSN fleet, particularly the screw sloops and raiders, but for now I am just looking at the ironclads.

Let me know if I missed or mis-labeled any of these vessels, please.

Cheers!
Jim

[cgutzmer]

I am sure Corey would appreciate any and all help in researching these vessels. We know he plans on designing them all at some point but I imagine once he gets down to those last few its gonna be a serious pain to find good info

Thanks for the list! Have one of ALL the ironclads by any chance? Might help CT along too.

Now as Jim states - CT GO REST!
Chris

[jimkrauzlis]

Of course, once I went back to look at the online information I saw the stack issue....

How could such a distinctive feature be the source of such confusion? I would have imagined a contemporary witness of this vessel would have recorded a comment on one or two stacks, no? Corey, I see your dilemna....

I am sure you already came across this sketch from 1861, but if one is to believe the eyewitness drawing there is only one stack shown and, surprising and different from all prior drawings I have seen, it seems to be racked rather than upright!?! The mystery continues....

I will spend some more time on this and see what develops.

Cheers!
Jim

[Joe711]

Great work, Corey, Jim and the others!
I'm listening, and enjoying the scriptures!
Photographs, drawings, and fill up!
Sincerely,
Joe

[Kazziga]

Jim, it's not that easy. There are a lot of contemporary sketches of the Manassas, which show her with two stacks, most of them drawn by people who had seen the ship. There are still some that show her with a single funnel.
It is probable that the stack configuration was changed during her career, but we can assume that when she fought Farragut's fleet she had two stacks as most eye-witness drawings show her that way.
BTW, she is my favourite CS ironclad and although I've been researching her for years, I would not try to make any 100% sure reconstruction drawings.

[jimkrauzlis]

Thanks, Kaz, and I hear you loud and clear....

One of my interests in naval history is the USS CONSTITUTION, a vessel I have spent a few decades researching...now talk about a vessel that seemed to have as many changes in configurations as a catwalk model, whew! That vessel has evolved, as I like to call it, from the date of her launch until the present day, and it is impossible to build a model of her without first deciding on what configuration or point in her history you want to portray.

I suspect the same is true of MANASSAS, save for the fact that her service life was not all that long and I gather there were not an endless source of resources to make modifications once launched, unless for a desired purpose or effect to account for some perceived deficiency or desired attribute. The question of stack number is curious as why would the builders choose, for instance, a single stack and then switch to a double stack unless there was a reason that required the alteration? One also has to consider whether the artist actually saw the ship or was given a second hand description from which they then made the drawing or painting and, perhaps, incorporated their other seafaring experiences, to add attributes that might not have actually existed for that vessel.

One of the most historically significant paintings of CONSTITUTION was painted by a fellow called Corne in 1803 under a commission from her Commander, depicting the vessel she departed the U.S. towards her assignment on the Barbary Coast...it turns out to be one of the most accurate representations of her early configuration, long before her so-called heyday during the War of 1812.

I imagine one has to piece together eye witness accounts and descriptions and carefully evaluate whether she evolved during her service life, and why.

I also came across a news clipping of an interview of one of her crew members in which he relates how they had a short stack (why am I suddenly thinking of pancakes??) and were not seen by the blockading fleet until they decided to engage targets of opportunity...emphasis on the single term "stack". Once again, putting this into perspective, the event mentioned was said to have occured early in her career, so it remains possible that she was fitted with a two stack configuration later, trick being to find out when and why.

Pardon my rambling, but I thought it might prove of some interest of how I have had some brush with what I like to call nautical forensics in dealing with a vessel who over her career took on many different looks...sometimes you just have to pick a point in history in whichyou want to portry the vessel and go with that.

Cheers!
Jim

[Hudsonduster]

Personally, I think rambling is inevitable and necessary! This stuff can't be pared down to a few basic tenets and let go at that--that's why we have these things called "books."

All history is provisional. You make your best guess with all the information you have, you put it out there, and someday someone's gonna show you a bit that changes all you thought. And a real history guy will rejoice. "Wow, look at this thing I got here, look how it knocks this thing out of my work, look how it makes so much more SENSE now..."

It may not be for everybody. There're modelers who just want to make the image, there that's done look how pretty what's next. Then there're guys who want to get under the surface and look at the what, the how, the why--and that's a slippery slope, leading to--well, to just the discussion this threads' about.

Part of our problem is simply learning to read, and see through, contemporary accounts. Does the source understand what he's looking at, and does he express his description accurately? How carefully did he choose his words to describe--was he aware of the responsibility he be getting heaped on him many years hence? (--Do WE?)

Another thing: terminology isn't constant. In Revolutionary War times, for instance, observers were loose in their description of rigs--brig and brigantine are pretty interchangeable, and it makes a big difference now AND it did at the time, when spotters were trying to warn to be on the lookout for...same goes for "schooner," which may or may not have a foremast rigged with top and gallant sails (and, yes, depends on the timeline as well).

Let's get specific now. The stack(s) on MANASSAS, a little more complicated. I got a few thoughts to lay out, maybe it'll jog something loose in you guys. Let's discuss--

Jim's clipping is a good source: sailors are very picky about their nomenclature as regards their own much-loved vessel, but the words may be very different in their usage from what we expect. We need the exact phrase: "She was a short-stacked vessel" is descriptive but carries no hard number, and even "She had a short stack, and so--" could still mean either one or two in the speaker's usage.

What we really need to know is, how many boilers are in there.

The whole thing about the smokestack is, provide a length to the column of rising hot gas to create "drafting," pulling the gas out the top of the stack and providing a pull of air into the firebox at the other end--it's why you see the accounts of steam dropping during a battle, as the stack gets holed by enemy shot and the boat's fires get starved from decreased draft. Heat goes down, steam goes down.
Construction of the drafting for the firebox dictates as few "hot spots" as possible, so fancy collecting and ducting is to be avoided. If there's one stack, you can pretty much figure one boiler. How big are the engines on the boat? Do accounts call her underpowered (not that there's much in the way of comparable vessels at this point)? Because there's also an upper limit to the size of a hand-charged firebox, we can make some good guesses if we try to estimate what the engines' steam requirements were.

I am real skeptical of that raked stack. Knowing nothing of the pedigree of the sketch or the credentials of the artist, I'd want to see anything elsewhere with that configuration, and I just don't recall ever seeing such.

That's what I can think of for now.

'Duster