Author Topic: It just struck me.... (Read 2039 times)

Double D · « **on:** September 13, 2009, 06:58:48 AM »

Where is the shell hoist?

thelionspaw · « **Reply #1 on:** September 13, 2009, 07:26:17 AM »

You're right. The picture is Photoshopped. Brady was a man before his time

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #2 on:** September 13, 2009, 07:32:42 AM »

They didn't always have the hoist available, DD. Do you see the shell ear tongs and the horizontal wood bar on the left cheek of the nearest M 1861? That's all these artillerymen had to lift the shells to the mortar's maw, approx. 110 lbs apiece for two men. I think one of the historical photo sites has a pic of these implements in action at a 13" Seacoast Battery during the war at Fort Putnam on Morris Island, South Carolina.

Regards

Mike and Tracy

KABAR2 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 13, 2009, 07:34:28 AM »

The shell hoist is hanging on the first mortar in the foreground the "tongs" that look like you would pick up a block of ice with,
attach them to the ball, place a rod through the ring and lift. it was man power not a block and tackle that got the ball loaded.

I see seacoast beat me to it as I was typing,

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #4 on:** September 13, 2009, 07:49:03 AM »

This is the famous photo of the 10 mortar battery near Yorktown, Virginia that didn't have to fire a shot. The photo shows the south end of Battery No. 4 or the 'Wormley's Creek Battery'. The Confederate forces occupied Yorktown, so the federal artillerymen worked for weeks to get this very powerful battery emplaced. The Rebs left quietly the night before the bombardment was to begin, leaving a bunch of frustrated heavy artillerymen in the Union camp.

Happens to me all the time Allen!

A great photo!

T&M

1Southpaw · « **Reply #5 on:** September 13, 2009, 08:02:13 AM »

a thumb hole in one ball , perhaps they were shooting bowling balls

Cannoneer · « **Reply #6 on:** September 13, 2009, 08:33:31 AM »

1Southpaw,

I know, that you really know, that the larger hole in the shell was actually a receptacle where the cannoneers could place the bubble gum they were chewing, while they muscled the projectile into the mortar; a much needed precaution, so that they wouldn't accidently swallow their gum as they exerted themselves.

cannonmn · « **Reply #7 on:** September 13, 2009, 11:00:08 AM »

post deleted by author

Double D · « **Reply #8 on:** September 13, 2009, 11:24:00 AM »

I did see the tongs obviously...so the hoist is a fixture in a permanent structure or ship board, maybe...

Just read in Commodore Hornblower about maneuvering bomb ketches into position for bombarding a ship trapped in a shoal. Interesting decription about using anchors and cables to train the ship, using signal flags to call the shots, and adjusting the powder charges in the 13 inch mortars. I don't think I have ever seen mortar use described in seagoing fiction before. Don't know how accurate the description is, but it was interesting.

cannonmn · « **Reply #9 on:** September 13, 2009, 12:11:57 PM »

The shell hoists or davits were added to the 13-inch mortar carriage at some point in their service life. The four 13-inchers at "The Battery" in Charleston SC have them. As far as I know the four mortars were put there during the alarm that spread over a possible war with Spain in the 1870's.

subdjoe · « **Reply #10 on:** September 13, 2009, 12:20:42 PM »

Quote from: Double D on September 13, 2009, 06:58:48 AM

Where is the shell hoist?

Out of the frame to the right, getting some water.

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #11 on:** September 13, 2009, 01:29:16 PM »

Let's talk turkey about terminology, not about giblets, but rather about gibbets. More common to the 19th century than the 21st is the term, 'gibbet'. A picture below shows one attached to the chassis of a 15" Rodman seacoast gun mounted on the top of the western bastion at Fort Pickens on Santa Rosa Island, Florida. In reading various seacoast and naval artillery reference books, it seems to us that the Federal Navy referred to this shell lifting device most often as a 'Crane' and the Army called them, most of the time, 'hoists or gibbets'.

Here is the business end of the huge 15 Inch Rodman Gun on its iron, center-pintle, seacoast, barbette carriage on the western bastion of Fort Pickens which guarded Pensacola Harbor. The rubber and steel muzzle tompion is in place. The gibbet to the right is used, along with a block and tackle, to lift the 440 pound cored shot up to the muzzle. The 370 pound shell was no lightweight either!

Regards,

Tracy and Mike

RocklockI · « **Reply #12 on:** September 13, 2009, 02:27:41 PM »

maybe your crane would not have cost near as much if you 'd told him you needed a gibbet .

nematode · « **Reply #13 on:** September 14, 2009, 04:49:38 PM »

some cool photos there. thanks for sharing.

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2009, 05:59:31 PM »

Skip77, I want to compliment you on your avatar image. I was 11 years old when I bought that very model, the 60mm Army howitzer, in 1958 and we had lots of fun chasing one another around the backyard after loading it with a bunch of hard, green, elderberries and stems.

Now, back on topic, we remembered that, in our little artillery print collection, there is a painting which includes an image of a small shell crane on the famous Union Navy Ship, Kearsarge. This is one of those well-known paintings of this high-seas duel, in 1864, about three miles of the coast of France near Cherbourg, which led to the sinking of the CSS Alabama. The four sailors in the painting were pulling on the crane's line that hauled the heavy shells up to the 11" Dahlgren Pivot Gun on that fateful day.

"Roll Alabama, roll!"

When the Alabama's Keel was Laid, (Roll Alabama, roll!), 'Twas laid in the yard of Jonathan Laird (Roll, roll Alabama, roll!)
'Twas Laid in the yard of Jonathan Laird, 'twas laid in the town of Birkenhead.
Down the Mersey way she rolled then, and Liverpool fitted her with guns and men.
From the western isle she sailed forth, to destroy the commerce of the north.
To Cherbourg port she sailed one day, for to take her count of prize money.
Many a sailor laddie saw his doom, when the Kearsarge it hove in view.
When a ball from the forward pivot that day, shot the Alabama's stern away.
Off the three-mile limit in '64, the Alabama was seen no more.

Regards,

Mike and Tracy

Victor3 · « **Reply #15 on:** September 14, 2009, 10:42:29 PM »

It just struck me that those are hex nuts...

In other pictures I've seen, they appear to be rivet heads or carriage bolts (?)...

nematode · « **Reply #16 on:** September 15, 2009, 01:15:01 AM »

those mortars are massive, aren't they! how were they made in those days? cast and then milled? impressive, however they did it!

nematode · « **Reply #17 on:** September 15, 2009, 01:17:02 AM »

Quote from: seacoastartillery on September 14, 2009, 05:59:31 PM

Skip77, I want to compliment you on your avatar image. I was 11 years old when I bought that very model, the 60mm Army howitzer, in 1958 and we had lots of fun chasing one another around the backyard after loading it with a bunch of hard, green, elderberries and stems.

Now, back on topic, we remembered that, in our little artillery print collection, there is a painting which includes an image of a small shell crane on the famous Union Navy Ship, Kearsarge. This is one of those well-known paintings of this high-seas duel, in 1864, about three miles of the coast of France near Cherbourg, which led to the sinking of the CSS Alabama. The four sailors in the painting were pulling on the crane's line that hauled the heavy shells up to the 11" Dahlgren Pivot Gun on that fateful day.

"Roll Alabama, roll!"

When the Alabama's Keel was Laid, (Roll Alabama, roll!), 'Twas laid in the yard of Jonathan Laird (Roll, roll Alabama, roll!)
'Twas Laid in the yard of Jonathan Laird, 'twas laid in the town of Birkenhead.
Down the Mersey way she rolled then, and Liverpool fitted her with guns and men.
From the western isle she sailed forth, to destroy the commerce of the north.
To Cherbourg port she sailed one day, for to take her count of prize money.
Many a sailor laddie saw his doom, when the Kearsarge it hove in view.
When a ball from the forward pivot that day, shot the Alabama's stern away.
Off the three-mile limit in '64, the Alabama was seen no more.

Regards,

Mike and Tracy

thanks Seacoast - I'm working on a good image of historic cannons in the park here in my home town. If I can get a good photo, I'll switch avatars again and have the real deal!

cannonmn · « **Reply #18 on:** September 15, 2009, 03:27:51 AM »

Quote

those mortars are massive, aren't they! how were they made in those days?

One interesting thing about the 13 inch mortar shown was that it (and all the others) were cast by the "Rodman process" which involved keeping the outside of the freshly-cast barrel hot while cooling the inside (bore) with water. A special cooling core was designed which had water flowing through at a certain rate, cooling the inside of the weapon at a certain rate. This cooled the bore surface first and successive layers outside of it shrunk onto it, giving the gun greater strength than weapons cast by previous methods. Older methods allowed the outside to cool first, which caused the still-soft insides to distort and pick up and retain large internal stresses.

A group in NYC called me not long ago-they had done a project to cast a reproduction 13-inch mortar. They had wanted it to be just like the originals, however when they got done their mortar was the same dimensions exactly as the originals, but it was lighter in weight, and they wanted to know why that could be. I told them it was probably due to the greater final density of the cast iron mortars produced by the Rodman method. The internal cooling would tend to produce higher cooled cast-iron density. When they did their casting they weren't aware of the Rodman method having been used on the 13-inch mortars, M1861.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #19 on:** September 15, 2009, 09:20:07 AM »

This thread got me to thinking, that I don't recall seeing cranes on any CW photos of 13-inch mortars, so I went and checked my stored photos, and I couldn't find any that showed a crane. I've seen cranes attached to mortar beds on some post CW photos, like the one I'm posting here, of mortar No. 95 on top of the monument in Hartford, CT; that some (erroneously) claim is the "Dictator."

Does anyone have any Civil War period photo of one of these mortars that shows a crane?

Does anyone have any photos of a Civil War 'bomb ketch', or 'mortar boat', that shows a 13-inch mortar mounted on its deck?

cannonmn · « **Reply #20 on:** September 15, 2009, 10:28:51 AM »

This is a pic of a Federal Mortar Schooner during the CW. As I recall there were 20 or fewer of these schooners. They were purchased from private shipowners then converted to carry the mortars.

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=95639b4e5abc01a0&q=mortar%20schooner&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmortar%2Bschooner%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGLJ_enUS339US339%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Cannoneer · « **Reply #21 on:** September 15, 2009, 10:50:43 AM »

Thanks, Cannonmn, I didn't have a photo of one of those. The 'mortar boat' was really just a shallow draft barge that was towed by another ship; I've never seen a CW photo of one, but I have seen drawings.

RocklockI · « **Reply #22 on:** September 15, 2009, 02:01:08 PM »

i thought i read here sometime ago about the front 'step' of these mortars being bent due to the wieght of the crane hauling the ball .

RocklockI · « **Reply #23 on:** September 15, 2009, 02:03:47 PM »

looks like a good way to lite your own ship on fire .

i geuss theyd anchor , drop all sails then go to work .

nematode · « **Reply #24 on:** September 15, 2009, 02:42:02 PM »

Man, that mortar on ship photo from CW is amazing. How much did those mortars weigh? Can you imagine, sitting on the top or deck like that, how easily that ship could probably roll? Hard to imagine the thing could be fired without crunching the deck etc. Does anyone know how loud those mortars were? How many miles away could they be heard? Just awesome.

cannonmn · « **Reply #25 on:** September 15, 2009, 03:06:00 PM »

Quote

Hard to imagine the thing could be fired without crunching the deck etc

The refitting of the vessel involved building a lot of very heavy timber structure under the mortar platform to absorb the shock of recoil and convey it evenly to the hull. Bomb vessels weren't a new thing, and the 13-inch mortar was the standard size used since the 18th century, particularly in the British Royal Navy, which used such vessels against such targets as Fort McHenry during the War of 1812. So the need to heavily reinforce such vessels below deck was well-understood.

nematode · « **Reply #26 on:** September 15, 2009, 03:24:35 PM »

Interesting - thanks cannonmn. I had no idea. My home town and where I still live today, Lewes Delaware, was bombarded by the British as part of the war of 1812. I guess then it is possible that we are bombarded by those kind of mortar cannons? Did they shoot hollow ball too? I wonder if my cannonball fragment might be from a mortar? Some of the guys here in the forum helped me figure out the size of the original ball - I laid the fragment on a sheet of paper with the cross-section face against paper and carefully traced the outer edge of the fragement. It made a smooth arc. I then moved the fragment so the next tracing would overlap and continued until it made a complete circle. Diameter was 8.25 inches if I remember correctly and a hollow ball. An interesting detail was that there was a small indentation in the middle of the arc at each tracing, which appears to be from impact. Very cool. Can you comment on this or add any thoughts?

Double D · « **Reply #27 on:** September 15, 2009, 03:52:27 PM »

The book I referred to up thread, C.S.Forester's Commodore Hornblower also contains a good description of the construction of a bomb ketch.

Hey Gary you want to read this book when I'm through with, I'll send it to you.

cannonmn · « **Reply #28 on:** September 15, 2009, 03:53:16 PM »

Quote

Can you comment on this or add any thoughts?

I remember that discussion. So your shell must have been from an 8" or a 9" mortar or howitzer firiing hollow, explosive shells, that's all I can figger. That's a bit small for a bomb vessel, as I mentioned they tended to mount one 13-inch mortar. They needed the 13-inch to reach shore targets from the shoal line, beyond which the ship could not approach land. Or something like that. It is possible the shell fragment got where it was found by a nondramatic means-the local scrap yard bought a bunch of old shells and broke them up and some pieces got away. You never know.

nematode · « **Reply #29 on:** September 15, 2009, 04:12:17 PM »

Thanks cannonmn - interesting again. The location of the fragment, when I found it at age 14 was roughly 800 yards from the Atlantic ocean. I don't know if there might have been shoals out there preventing a colonial ship from getting in close but it's deep enough today, that boats of all kinds are often in the vicinity. When I found the fragment, it was laying on top of a windblown sand dune, clean as a whistle. I expected other fragments might be nearby but a spiral search produced nothing. I've often wanted to go back to the same spot and look again since sands shifts and new things appear all the time. Thanks again.