|
Williamb -> RE: Did I Miss Something? (12/2/2006 5:11:14 AM)
|
The South actually had plans to build numberous Ironclads but the poor facilities and invasions by Nothern Troops prevented them from reaching completion.
I guess the game gives the option to allow the building of them.
Info here
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~jenkins/ironclads/qanda.htm
1. How many ironclads were there?
The Union laid down fifty-two coastal ironclads (of which all but four were monitors), and commissioned twenty of these before 1 May 1865; on the Western rivers, twenty-four ironclads were begun and twenty-two were commissioned. On the Southern side, some fifty-nine ironclads were begun, and twenty-four were completed.
9. Were Southern ironclads failures because of poor construction?
If the "poor-construction" myth were true, then the Union would never have mounted such efforts to capture the Southern ships whenever they could. Two ironclads in particular, the Atlanta and the Tennessee, served actively in the Union Navy for quite some time after their capture. The Eastport was captured before her completion, and the materials collected for her were used to complete her as a Union riverine ironclad. The Columbia might have been used by the Union if captured earlier, but she only fell into Union hands when the Confederates evacuated Charleston in 1865, when the war was clearly in its final stages. Even Cushing's raid that destroyed the Albemarle had as one objective the capture, if possible, of the Southern ironclad. Many Southern ironclads were destroyed to prevent their capture by the Union for good reason; the Union happily took into service as many rebel ironclads as fell into their hands. The image of "poor construction" derives largely from the poor engines of many Southern ironclads, and their generally rough finish inside; most were actually quite well-built structurally.
16. What colors were the ironclads?
This varied widely. Southern ironclads had no overall consistent color scheme. The Charleston ironclads (Palmetto State, Chicora, Charleston, Columbia) were painted a pale blue, whereas the Savannah ironclads (Georgia, Atlanta, Savannah, and probably Milledgeville) were painted black. The James River Squadron ironclads seem to have been a sort of butternut or brown. All of these color schemes were quite likely the result of using whatever paint was available, rather than being planned. The unpainted Arkansas was a deep rusty red, due to its armor having been immersed in the Yazoo River for some time before mounting. (This was actually an asset, as it nearly matched the ruddy color of the Mississppi's banks, giving her some accidental camouflage.)
Union vessels frequently bore painted markings of various colors to identify individual ships of a given class. The "City" class ironclads bore painted rings on their chimneys, and the Passaic class monitors had their stacks and turrets painted different colors; in both cases, this was necessary, as the ships were identical and some method of distinguishing among them was needed. Though much different in appearance from any other ironclad, the Essex had her own rather flamboyant markings: a large S painted on one stack and an X on the other.
Contemporary accounts often mention Union ironclads as black in color. This is somewhat puzzling, as a look at photos seems to show them as being somewhat lighter in color than simple black. My own conjecture is that they were painted in a variety of shades of deep grey, and that the "black" in contemporary reports might have been an exaggeration. The standard "battleship grey" of the U.S. Navy was not introduced until years later.
|
|
|
|
