by Steve Sobieralski » Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:44 am
Beginning with the December, 1999 issue (Vol 44, No4) of the Nautical Research Journal, Arthur C Roberts published a four part series detailing his extensive research of the Kearsarge's appearance at the time of her battle with Alabama. In Part 2 of his article he quotes this desription of the chain armor, taken from the official navy report on the battle, which questions its efectiveness:
"The quantity of chain used on each side of the vessel in this much talked-about armoring is one hundred and twenty fathoms, and it covers a space amidships of forty-nine feet six inches in length, by six feet six inches in depth. The chain, which is single, not double, was and is stopped to eyebolts with rope-yarns and by iron dogs. Is it reasonable to suppose that this plating of 17-10 inch iron (the thickness of the links of chain) could offer any serious resistance to the heavy 68-pound and the 7-inch Blakely rifle of Alabama at the comparatively close range of seven hundred yards?"
Unfortunately, the photos of Roberts' model included in the article do not show how he modeled the chain armor very clearly. He appears to have left the chain on the starboard side exposed and placed a layer of planking covering the chain on the port side. According to Donald Canney's book "the Old Steam Navy, Volume One" the planking covering the chain was faired into the hull and can be seen in this photo staring just forward of the funnel:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h78638.jpg
In the photos o0f Roberts' model the planking covering the chain on the port side does not appear to be faired into the hull, just somehow suspended in front of the hanging lengths of chain.
Beginning with the December, 1999 issue (Vol 44, No4) of the Nautical Research Journal, Arthur C Roberts published a four part series detailing his extensive research of the Kearsarge's appearance at the time of her battle with Alabama. In Part 2 of his article he quotes this desription of the chain armor, taken from the official navy report on the battle, which questions its efectiveness:
"The quantity of chain used on each side of the vessel in this much talked-about armoring is one hundred and twenty fathoms, and it covers a space amidships of forty-nine feet six inches in length, by six feet six inches in depth. The chain, which is single, not double, was and is stopped to eyebolts with rope-yarns and by iron dogs. Is it reasonable to suppose that this plating of 17-10 inch iron (the thickness of the links of chain) could offer any serious resistance to the heavy 68-pound and the 7-inch Blakely rifle of Alabama at the comparatively close range of seven hundred yards?"
Unfortunately, the photos of Roberts' model included in the article do not show how he modeled the chain armor very clearly. He appears to have left the chain on the starboard side exposed and placed a layer of planking covering the chain on the port side. According to Donald Canney's book "the Old Steam Navy, Volume One" the planking covering the chain was faired into the hull and can be seen in this photo staring just forward of the funnel:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h78000/h78638.jpg
In the photos o0f Roberts' model the planking covering the chain on the port side does not appear to be faired into the hull, just somehow suspended in front of the hanging lengths of chain.