"Richmond Class Ironclads" Topic

Although considered a class these six boats appears to have major differences.

Has anyone out there actually worked out the correct length and beam and visual differences in shape/casemate angle etc. between the six vessels?

Also does anyone have a picture of the 1/600 Peter Pig CSS Palmetto State I could have a look at?

Don't have the Peter Pig, but check out Thoroughbred's. They provide the bits and pieces to make any of the six. One or two of them I think are conjecture as far as exact placement of hatches, etc., but they're very nice. The only reason I think one or two of them might be conjectural is I recall reading somewhere that not much was known about that specific one (or two).

The only dimensions I could find lists for the entire class. They are 175'6"(oa)150;(bp)x34'x12'
Machinery: 1 screw 6 knots
Compliment: 180
Armament: Chicora 2 9"SB, 4 6"32-pdr R
North Carolina 4 guns
Palmetto State 10 7" R
Raleigh 4 6" R
Richmond 1 7" r, 1 10" SB, 2 6.4" R
spar torpedo
Savannah 2 7" R, 2 6.4" R
Armor: 4" + 22" wood
Hope this helps.

Jim

Check out "Warships of the Civil War Navies" by Paul H. Silverstone. It is an excellent source for most, if not all,
of the ships in the War between the States.

Jim

Seems to me, details I've seen show each ship to be within a couple of feet of each other in dimensions.

I think they all stemmed from a set of general guidelines and basic plans rather than existed as an actual class. Once the plans hit the builder's yard, or in some cases, were laid out on a table on a riverbank, the actual construction details were left to the builder and whatever was on hand material wise.

I think they all stemmed from a set of general guidelines and basic plans rather than existed as an actual class.

Well, you could say the same thing about British Destroyers up to circa WW1…

What we think of as a "class" nowadays is not the same thing it has always meant.
-Kle.

Actually my TS14 Richmond Class kit model has the basic configuration for only four in the class. Not enough is known about the placement of hatches, vents, pilot house(s) etc. for CSS Raleigh or North Carolina. Based on a lot of key sources from Geohagan's work for the Navy Depart and the Smithsonian, information from the Port Columbus Museum and others we put four basic plans on our instruction sheet for the others which we're more comfortable with: CSS Richmond, Savannah, Chicora and Palmetto State. Are they perfectly spot on ? Probably not, but as close as I could come. You pick the plan and build the kit – all parts are supplied so you'll have some parts left over. As far as I'm cocerned you could also build the other two we don't cover (Raleigh & NC), as I won't call it wrong due to lack of detailed info on them. All six base hulls were constructed as scratchbuilder relates above and were considered close enough dimension-wise to consider them all within the same class. Perhaps this is the root of the phrase, "close enough for government work".
If you haven't joined already, you are invited to check out our Yahoo Ironclads Group. 1000+ members worldwide with a concentration on the real vessels, historical information, models, wargaming and more. Download Smoke on the Water rules for free from our files section. To join go to the links section on my website: Thoroughbredmodels.com
and you can link directly from there, or you can search Yahoo Groups for "Ironclads". We're the largest group listed on the subject and should be the first group you see described. Please state an interest in the ironclad period or your naval gaming interest when you join. It helps me, as the group moderator, filter out the spammers and such. It is a well-informed and well-behaved group and I encourage contributions from all be it photos, game shots and scenarios, or that bit of information on the real things we're always looking for.
Toby Barrett, Thoroughbred Figures

Many thanks to everyone for their contributions but I was already aware of the background behind the vessels and I too have several sets of (conflicting) data on the 'class' in general. What I was asking was was '….the correct length and beam and visual differences in shape/casemate angle etc. between the six vessels?….'

I will have a look at TS14 too but as an example: from the pictures I have seen the bow casemate on the Palmetton State has three facets rather than one (e.g. Chicora)while Richmond compared to both of these appears wider and shorter, sort of 'squashed' in fact. I would assume TS14 doesn't model that?

Obviously I may be hideously wrong here (which is why I asked the question) but as a couple of wrecks have been investigated (Chicora's weapons are confimed & I believe Palmeto State's too; certainly not 10 x 7"rifles) but measurements and descriptive differences have not been published to my knowledge.

Weisenwolf, I just found the following:

PDF link

Hope this helps you out. Good luck with your project, Weisenwolf!

Hi Weisenwolf

I am compiling stats from all ships and boats (eventually) after compiling all the sources from readers. I have some of these stats for Richmond and have to imput some data from some of the others your looking at (hopefully today).

Here is the Richmond link: link

I have seen the Belgian Ironclads page & again it is very generic. I had a look at swd1974's registry; if I get to the bottom of it all I will stick what I find on there.

Weisenwolf:
What is your source about Palmetto State's casemate being "three facets rather than one". Also the Belgian piece was authored by Bob Holcombe, past historian of the Port Columbus ACW naval museum. Don't know what you mean by "generic". Bob is a good source.

Master Caster:
I am sure Bob is a good sourse, I wasn't suggesting HE is generic, rather the data presented is class generic rather than ship specific. i.e. they are all somewhere between 150 and 175' long but which ship has what dimensions?

As to the source of the three facets for the palmetto State:
1)The bluprints show 3 facets
2)The Circa 1862 watercolour by Charles Cawson shows 3 facets
3)The later wash drawing by Clary Ray (dated 1897?) shows 3 facets

Weisenwolf:
These are the very things we discuss on the Yahoo Ironclads group I mention above. You would be a welcome member if you have not joined already. I'm very familiar with the Charles Cawson watercolor. It is a side view and can be very misleading. A side view only of this nature can be facets, or not. If you go to the following link: link
there is also a perspective wash of Palmetto State done by R.G. Skerritt in 1901. He shows rounded port and starboard sides all the way up to a single facet front. Also on this page is the Clary Ray wash you mention – or it could be another drawing by Ray – but it appears to me the front shield is more rounded as opposed being faceted. You list blueprints but I have never heard of any that existed from the period except some partials of the class that do not show the shield(s) in greater detail. What blueprints are you refering to as I collect things of this nature? What I'm saying is that Palmetto State's shield could have been flat faced, faceted, or even rounded. Nothing I've seen so far is conclusive either way. When it comes to Confederate ironclads, we may never know for sure.

Mastercaster:
I am 'pending' on the Yahoo Ironclads group. That Skerritt wash is also described elsewhere as the Chicora and looks remarkably similar to the picture on the front of the Bob Holcombe document above.

I expect you are right and we will indeed never know for sure; unless of course someone dives on it with a nice underwater camera………..

I must admit that I am rather surprised more wasn't recorded about these vessels at the time. it seems rather bizzare that precise measurements were not made of the finished vessels; particularly as most of them were sat about doing nothing for long periods waiting for machinery, rolled plate or crew.

Weisenwolf:
Normally the Ironclads Yahoo group member applications come direct to me, but some get hung up on the group site itself until I go on the main group page myself and see them. That is the case with you and another prospective member. As of this morning you have been approved, so you will be seeing some measages from Yahoo soon on this. Sorry for the delay. Welcome aboard and don't forget to check the files and photos sections plus the message archives. I also encourage you to submit materials as well – that's what keeps the group fresh and imformative.
Your lament about more data on ACW vessels not being available is shared. There probably once was a time when a lot of this information did exist, but was destroyed/burned at the end of the war primarily the Richmond naval archives and the individual records and materials at the various ship yards.

Master Caster, in viewing the illustrations at your link, IMHO, Skerrett used the well-known photo of CSS Chicora to base his illustration on since there are similarities including the placing of the boat. I feel that the Ray and Cawson illustrations show an octagonal casemate with a possibility of the Ray illustration being a redone version of the Cawson. Just my opinion.

This is sad. Weisenwolf asked for a picture of Peter Pig's model called the Palmetto State. You send him to Thoroughbred. Why is what Martin's models look like such a secret? Why is it of no value in the discussion? Is it the Palmetto State? Is is the Chicora? Is the shield octagonal? Is it hexagonal? It depends on what source he used.

"I think they all stemmed from a set of general guidelines and basic plans rather than existed as an actual class. Once the plans hit the builder's yard, or in some cases, were laid out on a table on a riverbank, the actual construction details were left to the builder and whatever was on hand material wise"

You can pretty much say that about any group of ships built until, oh, WW2. You had the basic plans, but every local ship builder thought they knew better or a way to make the plan better, so they changed it a bit. Unless the original designer stood on each shipyard, and that was pretty much impossible in the day, that is what you got. Close but not the same.