Shipbucket

PIC UPDATED BELOW

The John Lowe (Dispatch Vessel, Torpedo), in finished form.
The rope ladder didn't fit the more 'modern' vessel- I might amend the South Carolina to feature one, though. I plunked down about a dozen small ventilators, added an anchor capstan and some mooring cleats. I also attempted to 'dress up' the funnel a bit though I'm still not completely happy with the result. Any other last-minute things that I might have missed, or which could be improved upon?

Flags are (stem to stern) Naval Jack, National Flag, Commission Pennant, Ensign.

How do you get up to the conning platform?
There's usually a small pipe on the front of the funnel though the name escapes me.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Crap... forgot the ladder to the bridge.
Pipe in front of the stack for the steam whistle?

Will get right on those two. Tennessee will be the next to get the detailed treatment.

Suggested changes added for the John Lowe:

Aiming for a more 'manageable' and 'economical' design for an initial battleship for the Confederate Navy, I have taken "Ye Olde Choppin' Axe" to the Tennessee and this is the result- the Georgia. Overall displacement is reduced by about 3,300 tons across all load states, making the vessel more on par with the OTL U.S.S. Maine and U.S.S. Texas of the same period.

Protection is roughly equivalent to both these vessels along the waterline (10" belt, 188' L x 8' H); however the Georgia lacks the large amount of unprotected hull that plagues both these designs, adding a 5" upper belt and a 5" end belt to complete the waterline coverage. The 12.75"/L35 gun barbettes are 10" thick and the 6.4"/L35 casemates are protected by 5" armored boxes locally.

The vessel is armed with two 12.75" guns, eight 6.4" guns and eight 2.25" guns. The 12.75" guns fire a 1000 pound shell, and 60 rounds are carried for both main guns. Sited in open barbettes (which function well enough in the mild, sub-tropical weather), these guns have all-around loading, but fixed loading elevations. The 6.4" guns fire 125 pound shells at a rate of 3 per minute (sustained), but have limited coverage of the fore and aft quarters.

Speed is slightly lower than Union navy counterparts- just under 16 knots. Their 4300 n. mi. range (@ 10 knots) is judged sufficient for defending the Confederate coast. Unlike most Confederate vessels, they lack torpedo carriages; the deck was simply too crowded to add them. They are (in comparison to figures on some of the ships of the time) very seaworthy and should be rather easy ships to fight.



Georgia, Confederate States of America Ironclad laid down 1886
Barbette ship

Displacement:
6,100 t light; 6,347 t standard; 7,000 t normal; 7,522 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
300.00 ft / 300.00 ft x 60.00 ft x 22.00 ft (normal load)
91.44 m / 91.44 m x 18.29 m x 6.71 m

Armament:
2 - 12.75" / 324 mm guns in single mounts, 1,000.00lbs / 453.59kg shells, 1886 Model
Breech loading guns in open barbettes
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 6.40" / 163 mm guns in single mounts, 125.00lbs / 56.70kg shells, 1886 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
8 - 2.25" / 57.2 mm guns in single mounts, 5.00lbs / 2.27kg shells, 1886 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,040 lbs / 1,379 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 60

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 188.00 ft / 57.30 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Ends: 5.00" / 127 mm 112.00 ft / 34.14 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Upper: 5.00" / 127 mm 122.00 ft / 37.19 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: - - 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 5.00" / 127 mm -
3rd: 0.25" / 6 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 10.00" / 254 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 6,200 ihp / 4,625 Kw = 15.76 kts
Range 4,360nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,175 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
382 - 497

Cost:
£0.695 million / $2.779 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 372 tons, 5.3 %
Armour: 2,245 tons, 32.1 %
- Belts: 1,171 tons, 16.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 499 tons, 7.1 %
- Armour Deck: 496 tons, 7.1 %
- Conning Tower: 79 tons, 1.1 %
Machinery: 1,204 tons, 17.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,212 tons, 31.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 900 tons, 12.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 68 tons, 1.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
7,065 lbs / 3,205 Kg = 7.3 x 12.8 " / 324 mm shells or 1.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.37
Metacentric height 4.1 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 12.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.35
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.76

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, raised quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.619
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.32 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 17.00 ft / 5.18 m (14.00 ft / 4.27 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 17.00 ft / 5.18 m (14.00 ft / 4.27 m before break)
- Stern: 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Average freeboard: 14.75 ft / 4.50 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 93.5 %
Waterplane Area: 13,396 Square feet or 1,245 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 91 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 111 lbs/sq ft or 542 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.88
- Longitudinal: 3.05
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

I highly doubt the South would ever have agreed to that - the only way they would have given up slavery was by force of arms. Unless you interpret "at Her Majesty's insistence" to include a British invasion of the CSA.

Without UK intervention the CSA won't survive the war, so there's no need for a British invasion.
Besides, slavery was beginning to become uneconomical and would probably have been largely gone by that time anyway.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

That is quite badly incorrect, sir. The balance of the South's economy was not held in terms of bankable capital, but in physical property such as land and slaves, both of which were necessary to produce cotton and tobacco. If the South had a skills-based manufacturing oriented economy to protect, then your argument would indeed be accurate; but the effect of possessing such cheap labor resulted in the South adopting an economic model centered around labor-intensive agriculture. In point of fact, so long as the South counted part of its wealth in slaves, it ALWAYS had a vested interest in maintaining the value of their cheap labour. You cannot argue that slavery would magically 'become uneconomical" when I can cite the exact same "economic arguments" for slavery repeated in the modern day - albeit in regard to illegal Mexican labourers.

The system created in the South and perpetuated in the CSA made nice sounds about freedom and rights - some of which I agree with in the abstract - but the bottom line is that the South was a deeply corrupted system upheld and defended by fanatics, and needed to be violently purged of its errors. It's a good thing that the North was both willing and capable to pay the price to do so.

I agree with Brock on this. Writing a study of one of South's greatest generals, Joseph E. Johnston, I've come across the slavery dilemma enough times to realize that it was the mainstay of the South's tottering economy. Albeit Jefferson Davis could hardly be labelled a fanatic, he, too, staunchly defended that institution. That real fanatics, such as John C. Beckinridge, Alexander Stephens, Robert Toombs etc did so, is less surprising. Even the grat, iconized "Marse" Robert Lee did, in fact, defend it, not manumitting his slaves (though only a handful) till 1863, i e after the Emancipation Proclamation. Johnston, on the other hand represented the future side of the South, the entrepreneurial class, that came to lift states such as Virginia and Georgia to industrial strengh.Typically, he and his family did not own slaves nd his own views on slavery was negative, if not neutral. He championed black soldiers and regiments, and strove to better the conditions for the slave labor employed by the Army of Tennessee during the 1863-64 campaign, which culminated in his removal and the appointment of the rabid John Bell Hood, and the loss of Atlanta. So, South did have people who could see the writing on the wall; alas they were often ignored or badly misused.
One note on this: while the legendary story about Lee's post-war encounter with freedmen is a fable, told to hide or sooth over Lee's racism, Johnston had no problems working together with the first black congressmen, elected under the Reconstruction, when he sat in the U.S. House.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

:rolls eyes:
As to the political end of the discussion, this is my only comment- if you don't like it, you don't have to visit this thread anymore... but please don't clutter my pictures with politics. PM me if you want to talk my ear off over a debate that has been ongoing for 150 years now.
The South failed to meet the 'mitigating circumstance'- they did not win.
As they did not win, they did not have the opportunity to expand their industrial sector (which was forced to grow exponentially by the necessities of war). They did not have the reason to develop newer methods of farming- mechanically assisted farming was in it's infancy in the mid-1800's, but would sprout wings and fly later in the century and mature into a full-blown science by the beginning of the 1900's

As for the economics:
Slavery was indeed going to become economically unsustainable, gentlemen- whether it was 'central' or not.
A man with a single steam-powered tractor could out plow a dozen slaves with mules... so why pay for the slaves? They are hideously expensive: purchase cost, housing, food, treatment of various ills, etc. If any of you come back with madness about slaves simply being worked to death, expect to be ignored, as that simply wasn't true by this time. Also, floods of immigrant workers were beginning to make slaves ore expensive than hired men- why buy a slave for a hard/dangerous job when you can rent an Irishman for a dime a day and an extra dime if he dies (going rate at the cotton slide in Perdue Hill, AL, where the one William Travis once practiced law)?
A healthy, adult slave could cost $1000 or more by the 1860's (I've seen BOS for several in the $900 range in our old county archives). This is what- $50k+ in our money? Now, the Irishman costs $36.50 a year- $912.00 for a 25 year working life. That is ALL the Irishman costs- the slave is not including 'maintenance' costs like food, housing, clothing, medical treatment, and so forth. No doubt, like all 'employers,' some skimped here... but going by a normal bell curve (or even a natural desire for greatest efficiency in an enterprise) most did not- poorly maintained employees are poor workers, and do not return on their investment. As an average slave only gave about an 8-10% return.... well, not a lot of margin for error there to make money. Most plantations would, by the 1880's, be looking into steam-powered machines for the hardest work and be able to rent the remaining manpower needed at planting/harvest time.

A slave in 1861 = $900
A steam tractor in 1907 = $1150 (9 hp)

http://www.smokstak.com/forum/showthrea ... light=cost

The slave can plow one row- but you have to buy the mule, plow, traces & harnesses, etc... not to mention food for all involved.
The tractors could work a lot cheaper... combustible materials are very cheap in the south- and some tractors burned HAY, which is an almost free waste product of crop rotation (which would have developed one way or the other).

Slavery might have lived on for some period time for skilled laborers- master blacksmiths, coopers, chefs, ect- but the advent of mechanical aids for farming would soon render large-scale slavery a questionable economic return. Those that dismiss these facts might be looking at 1961-1865 and I cannot fault their logic IF APPLIED TO THAT TIME PERIOD... but they are not truly looking into the future of the nation. Unskilled labor was becoming cheaper than slaves, and less risky to one's life and limb as well as a hired man has a lot more to loose during a revolt than a slave.

Now, I shudder to think how unions like the Teamsters might have effected the economy of the South by the 1920's... but that is another story entirely.