Author Topic: Dahlgren Boat Howitzers at SUNY Maritime (Read 2232 times)

cannonmn · « **on:** December 03, 2009, 04:36:18 AM »

The following photos were provided by ANDREW TREHUBENKO, a student at SUNY Maritime, who is beginning a study of the two Dahlgren boat howitzers. I advised him to get hold of a copy of THE BIG GUNS by Olmstead, Stark, Tucker, then if he needed any more info, to contact me and I'd see what I could do.

cannonmn · « **Reply #1 on:** December 03, 2009, 04:50:15 AM »

Here's a little history (and photos) of Fort Schuyler (Gary, say that ten times quickly) where SUNY Maritime and the howitzers are located. I think it is pronounced "Sky-ler"?

http://www.sunymaritime.edu/Maritime%20Museum/FortSchuyler/index.aspx

Cannoneer · « **Reply #2 on:** December 03, 2009, 04:58:57 AM »

Very good! Have you ever seen where someone has marked their name to record themselves as the restorer of a historical piece of ordnance before this example?

Double D · « **Reply #3 on:** December 03, 2009, 05:12:16 AM »

Didn't Bernie Kurdt pass away about that time?

navygunner · « **Reply #4 on:** December 03, 2009, 05:35:25 AM »

Cannonmn,
Is the smaller of the two the light 12 pounder? I know there weren't that many of them cast.

NG

cannonmn · « **Reply #5 on:** December 03, 2009, 05:57:04 AM »

Quote

Is the smaller of the two the light 12 pounder? I know there weren't that many of them cast.

The smaller is the "light" model, 430 lb. tube nominally. There were about 180 or so of these made, the last batch of 50 or so made from about 1869-1872. That was the only model continued in production after the CW, and why? Because the Navy had gone to a new shape of launch for its ships, which could not handle the medium/heavy (name varies with the reference you use) boat howitzer (750 lb. tube.)

You may be thinking of the "small" boat howitzer of which only 23 were made. There are only 7 or 8 of these left anywhere, and only one privately owned. I asked the owner (Al Goschniak) if he'd sell it, which was a maybe at that time 10 years ago. It turned into a "yes" about five years ago when he was dying. He advertised it in CW Times for $80K and I was actually trying to get my hands on that kind of money, loans etc. but someone else bought it. I since tried to trade them out of it but no luck. Anyone who finds one that I actually buy gets a big finder's fee, that's for sure. Why do I want one so bad? I have the light and the medium already but of course I'm greedy and want to collect the whole set!

navygunner · « **Reply #6 on:** December 03, 2009, 06:14:53 AM »

Thanks,
Yes it was the "small" I was thinking of. Did it use the same carriage as the "light"?

NG

cannonmn · « **Reply #7 on:** December 03, 2009, 06:37:31 AM »

Quote

Yes it was the "small" I was thinking of. Did it use the same carriage as the "light"?

Nosir. The carriage was unique and slightly different from the others in that there was no trail wheel, just kind of a "handle" looking projection of the trail; not even sure it had a provision for a handspike, it was so small and light.

The piece wasn't continued in production probably because it wasn't well-liked from what I've read. It would probably have been dangerous to use aboard ship with what I'd expect the recoil to be like in a piece that light, firing a 10-or-so pound shell, even with a smaller charge that the bigger brothers. I got to like these, there was a pair of them that lived 1/2 block from my Navy quarters while I was stationed at Dahlgren, VA., which back then was called a Naval Weapons Laboratory. You can see that pair in Olmstead's FIELD ARTILLERY WEAPONS OF THE CIVIL WAR as I recall. Warren Ripley's comment in his book (he did not know of any survivors when he wrote 1st edition) was that they must be scarce as hensteeth.

Double D · « **Reply #8 on:** December 03, 2009, 08:14:01 AM »

Bernie Kurdt died in 2003, ten years after this restoration. http://www.americanartillery.org/aaa/bk.html

BoomLover · « **Reply #9 on:** December 03, 2009, 06:32:32 PM »

These two are rare beauties! First favorites, Mt. Howitzers are #2...thanks for posting these! BoomLover

Max Caliber · « **Reply #10 on:** December 04, 2009, 01:11:49 AM »

The surface of those guns look like they have been sand blasted with very coarse sand. The lettering looks like it is somewhat washed out, which is what one would expect after sand blasting. Dahlgren Boat Howitzers usually have a very nice, smooth finish with sharp, crisp lettering, probably the best marked guns of the Civil War.

cannonmn · « **Reply #11 on:** December 04, 2009, 01:26:03 AM »

Quote

The surface of those guns look like they have been sand blasted with very coarse sand.

This pair and perhaps another cannon (now missing: described only as 24 pounder howitzer dated 1871) were monuments in a cemetery in Brooklyn, NY, nearby, until given to SUNY sometime in the late 20th C. before 1993. The exposure to the elements for over a century would certainly have been enough to corrode the bronze to the extent seen in the photos. It would of course have left a greenish patina and corrosion products which have certainly been removed, however I doubt if Bernie K. would have sandblasted the bronze. Walnut hulls I could envision, but not sand.

In the closeups you can see what I think are mold and/or file marks from finishing process, and I've seen those on other Dahlgren boat howitzers. This shows up as longish cut lines, not the close-packed, continuous stippling you'd see if sandblasting had been used. Does that make sense?

I'd suspect that either walnut hulls or a chemical bath may have been used to remove the old patina and corrosion products. Museums of course can do whatever they want, but collectors largely prefer to leave as much of the old patina on a bronze gun as possible. Removing it all can decreases the value of the item.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #12 on:** December 04, 2009, 02:07:03 AM »

Max.
That's why I asked the question about the stamped name on what I guess is the lock (by the looks of it a repro replacement-hopefully). Years ago I spoke to someone that was with the outfit that was doing the conservation work (and supposedly studying the corrosion) on a barrel from the DC Navy yard, and unless I really misunderstood what was said about using compressed air and walnut hulls, the "bright" appearance of the surface (even Inside the bore) on these guns is not the result of walnut hulls. When I first saw these photos I also thought of sand blasting, or scouring the the surface with scotch brite pads. Bob Smith could have some light to shed on this subject, but I'll say again, unless I completely miscomprehended what was told to me about the mild cleaning that was accomplished with walnut hulls, then the appearance of these cannons isn't attributable to that.

Max Caliber · « **Reply #13 on:** December 04, 2009, 06:27:38 AM »

It would be interesting to see if the bottom surface of these barrels matches that of the top. Who knows what the barrels were exposed to in the past. What we see now is the results of all of the cleanings they have been through. You can be assured that the city parks department and cemetery cleaning crews do not hold the cannon in their charge with the high regard as us cannon fancy people do.

RocklockI · « **Reply #14 on:** December 04, 2009, 06:40:35 AM »

Cannonmn what is the sloted screw next to the hammer mount ?

Gary

cannonmn · « **Reply #15 on:** December 04, 2009, 03:00:32 PM »

Quote

Cannonmn what is the sloted screw next to the hammer mount ?

Are you talking about the rear sight? Helps if you mention what photo it shows up in, but I think that's what you mean. It has a v-notch open sight on a sliding post. That sight is a rare accessory, most collectors don't even know what it is supposed to look like.

RocklockI · « **Reply #16 on:** December 04, 2009, 03:18:40 PM »

Yes the rear sight . How are you supposed to use it with the elevation screw in the way ?

Gary

Max Caliber · « **Reply #17 on:** December 05, 2009, 02:04:50 AM »

Cannonmn, Do you have a picture or drawing of a Dahlgren boat howitzer rear sight? I don't recall ever seeing one.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #18 on:** December 05, 2009, 04:35:37 AM »

Quote from: Max Caliber on December 04, 2009, 06:27:38 AM

It would be interesting to see if the bottom surface of these barrels matches that of the top. Who knows what the barrels were exposed to in the past. What we see now is the results of all of the cleanings they have been through. You can be assured that the city parks department and cemetery cleaning crews do not hold the cannon in their charge with the high regard as us cannon fancy people do.

What you suggest, could very well be the reason why these barrels show the surface finish that they do. I think the place to look for traces of the patina that would have formed from all the years these pieces were kept out of doors would be on the underside of the under barrel loop that attaches the gun to the carriage. Because of the design of the barrel, and the way in which it's mounted on the carriage, the underside of the barrel would offer almost the same easy access to caretakers as the tops of the guns. Whatever the case may be, I think that simple empirical observation dictates that someone, somewhere alond the line, in the period after these guns were retrieved from the cemetery, 'cleaned' the barrels with some fairly harsh abrasives.

Max Caliber · « **Reply #19 on:** December 05, 2009, 04:56:47 AM »

I have never seen a Civil War era bronze barrel with a finish like those, and I have seen a lot of them. Do both have the same finish? If so, then they probably suffered the same harsh treatment.

cannonmn · « **Reply #20 on:** December 05, 2009, 01:08:44 PM »

This is one of Andrew's photos, posted above, but cropped a bit.

RocklockI · « **Reply #21 on:** December 05, 2009, 01:51:01 PM »

That top picture is deceving ,I guess ?

To me it looks like the sight would be blocked by the elevation screw ?
Gary

cannonmn · « **Reply #22 on:** December 05, 2009, 02:18:30 PM »

Quote

To me it looks like the sight would be blocked by the elevation screw ?

The sight won't be blocked when the gun is used at typical angles of elevation, which as you know are usually only a few degrees. Remember also the sight is raised above the barrel increasingly as the range (and thus tube elevation) is increased. You can be sure that no one at SUNY has checked the range tables to make sure the tube and sight are both elevated properly for a given range, as displayed in these pictures.

Dahlgren took all this sight stuff into consideration when he designed the piece. However, to give more flexibility and ensure sight clearance was always there even at max possible elevaton, the sights were moved to the left side of the tube in the later models.

Am I making any sense here?

RocklockI · « **Reply #23 on:** December 05, 2009, 02:26:18 PM »

Yes makes perfect sence .
gary