|
|
|
#31
03-26-2013, 09:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The number of port shutters in not that obvious. Here are some remarks from "C.S. Ironclad Virginia and U.S. Ironclad Monitor With Data and References for Scale Models" by Sumner B. Besse (pp. 27-29)
PORT SHUTTERS The following quotations have been included, not to confuse the reader, but to show the difficulty in determining the truth about the number of port shutters that were actually installed. Before the Battle 1. The port-holes, of her bow and stern guns (six in all, three at each end of the shield) were protected by shutters on the 8th and 9th of March. The other port-holes, eight in number, were not. 2. SIR: Three white men (one of them accompanied by his wife and two children) were picked up last night by the Baltimore. They were in a boat and had, as they say, escaped from Norfolk. One of them has been working for a long time past in the Gosport Navy yard. He describes the Merrimack as being off the yard, with a large gang of men working upon her, day and night, fitting shutters to all her side ports. She has always had them, he says, to her end ports. 3. He [Commodore Buchanan] stated that two of the Virginia's guns had been disabled, and that a third (the bow gun) would have been dis-abled also but for its port cover, which shows indentations by two cannon shot. 4. . . . the whole of the pivot and broadside ports can be closed in action, by means- of shields, made of 3 inch iron, they are on the outside and are worked from within by means of small chains. 5. She was fitted with four inch, hammered iron, port shutters on her four quarter ports, but had no shutters to her other ports. They were madein two pieces and closed like a pair of shears. She made her first fight however before they were put on. After the Battle 6. Captain Tattnall was considering what he should do with the Merrimack. She was drawing too much water to go in the James, but thought he would take her to Port Royal where he said he knew of a good harbor, and directed me [Porter] to have a strong set of port bucklers made and fitted with bars and lanyards to be used in case he took her outside for that pur-pose, but he never took them out of the carpen-ter's shop, having as I supposed changed his mind for various reasons. 7. . . . But I regret that we could not fit the remainder of the iron covers for the ports, or render, for want of time four of the six originally fitted, available in action. 8. On the 5th of April the following report was made by the constructor: Put on yesterday 41 plates ; in all on, 432. Fitting broadside port shutters. 9. In short, the ship has gone down [the river] with everything done for her that was required, except putting on her port shutters and the iron below her waterline, which was partially finished. The broadside ports are now in hand ; and were only required on the 3d at least I never heard that they were intended to be put on until that date. The commodore, on the morning of that day, spoke to me of them and expressed a wish to have them fitted. I put them in the smith shop forthwith to be fitted up. Each shutter has be adjusted to its respective port. We finished those for the head and stern ports and they worked satisfactorily, and were going on with the bow, quarter, and broadside shutters when the ship was undocked. 10 . . . the two port shutters repaired. 11 Improved shot had been furnished her, and when, on April 4th, she emerged from the dock, she was a complete vessel, with the exception of her port shutters, eight in number, which had not been fitted to her. 12. Her shutters were of hammered iron, four inches thick. . . The conclusion from an analysis of the above is that there were certainly three port covers at the forward end, fashioned out of 3 or 4 inch hammered iron and operated by chains from the inside. They were made in two halves and closed like a pair of shears. 
|
|
#32
03-26-2013, 10:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Great design renditions.
It would be fun to watch you do some work in the cutaway configuration. Mike
|
|
#34
03-26-2013, 01:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Have you checked the number of hits for this posting......in only 8 days, also the comments continue. The interest in ACW is still there......!!! My main reason for joining the forum was the interest in ACW watercraft and think it will continue to be of great interest to a number of builders. I will continue following this post......beautiful work!!!!!!!!! Regards, Will
|
|
#35
03-28-2013, 07:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Mike Dixon Anything in paper is fine with me
|
| Google Adsense |
|
#36
03-28-2013, 08:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Glad to see you are a student of the Virginia, I am working from a set of plans of the Merrimack for the hull to the Orlop deck, the interior of this ship is just guess work, so many modelers have taken the Merrimack plans and extrapolated a guess as to how they configured her, but no one knows for sure, lots of authors have speculated, If you have not read Ironsides Down, you should get a copy. The author has done a ton of research, and has some great insight into the ship....
__________________
Mike Dixon Anything in paper is fine with me
|
|
#37
03-28-2013, 08:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Mike Dixon Anything in paper is fine with me
|
|
#38
03-29-2013, 01:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Don't you find it hard to believe that there are no photos of the Virginia? After all she was truly THE famous ship, even for her contemporaries.
|
|
#39
03-29-2013, 04:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
No one cares about those big old glass photo plates Gramps took of those boats during the war. Just toss them into the trash bin.
__________________
Christian
Bristow
|
|
#40
03-29-2013, 05:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Mike Dixon Anything in paper is fine with me
|
| Google Adsense |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
