Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells  (Read 8196 times)

Jack Bell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • Email
7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« on: July 06, 2017, 01:12:16 PM »
Limited and conflicting information exists on the use of one or more 7.5-inch Blakely rifled guns by the Confederate Army. One was reported to have been placed at Shipping Point (Evansport, VA, now Quantico). One (reportedly that one) is a war trophy at the Washington Navy Yard. Others have been reported to have been sent to Charleston, SC, and to the front near Richmond.  Tredegar made more than 900 shells for the 7.5-inch Blakely gun(s).  Does anyone have one or has anyone seen one? They were made with both lead and later Tennessee sabots.

Any info would be helpful.  Thanks

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2017, 05:38:53 PM »
I don't know of any surviving examples but they must be out there. Looking through my notes, there were clearly two of these guns imported - one remaining in Charleston while the other was used in the Richmond area. The big Blakely could not have been captured in one of the CS forts blocking the Potomac because orders for additional projectiles from Tredegar continued after those positions had been abandoned. I wonder if it was the same big Blakely gun hauled out to Dr. Garnetts Farm near Mechanicsville for the start of the 7 Days fighting.

Tredegar's Order Book recorded the first govt. request for "7.44 inch Rifle Shells" on December 4, 1861. Production records of the Ironworks for Dec. 15/30 reported making "95 Rifle Shell, 7.44 bore, English." Another Richmond Arsenal directive arrived on Dec. 27th (pictured below) asking Tredegar to "Cast 200 English Shell 7.44 & finish the last order for 200 as soon as possible. Order for 200 according to letter [of] Dec. 24th  400 in all." It appears we have two different patterns being described here. "English" is the key word. I believe it means that the first 200 were CS copies of the lead-saboted Britten shell. When Samson & Pae made their first copies of the Britten shell (positively for the two 2.5 inch Blakely guns and probably for the 3.5 inch) in Dec. 1861, they included "English" to their descriptions. Later on, in early 1864 when Augusta cast about 240 - 3.5 inch CS copies of the Britten shell with ridged interiors (Col. Biemeck found some of the only known survivors along the Appomattox River), the Georgia Arsenal included "English" in the description.

Evidently, the letter of Dec. 24th included drawings of the new Tennessee sabot design. That lines up with the official announcement of the pattern change. The second excerpt from the Order Book, below, sent to Tredegar on Dec. 28th makes it clear that the Arsenal now wants all future Rifle projectiles made "after the Read plan." The "copper cups" included in the description were the well know convex discs of the Mullanes. As discussed in the earlier blog about the 3 inch Read bolt found at Port Hudson, this was a monumental screw-up on the part of the Richmond ordnance establishment. Foundries in far away places like Mobile, New Orleans and Memphis had been making excellent large caliber Reads with his actual cast-in cup sabots for several months. Dr. Read personally had the mold patterns and sabot dies made. He visited the foundries to set up production. I'm sure Richmond received drawings and samples but thought they knew better. A different outcome might have followed the clash of the Monitor and Merrimac if actual Read projectiles had been available in Virginia. I know we're not supposed to be judgmental but Come on Man!

Back to the big Blakely. The third entry below is a "Memorandum" from the Richmond Arsenal recorded in Tredegar's Order Book ordering "200 - shell of 7.43 diam. for 7 1/2 Blakely Gun. Similar to those made for Evansport Guns except that the Tenn. Sabot will be substituted for the lead sabot." So, here we have a third design. Excavations have confirmed that Jack Bell's "Tredegar" pattern with two raised bourreletes and cast-on lead band sabots were employed by the CS river batteries. Apparently, the two bourrelets were to be added to the design of the next batch of 7.44 projectiles. The first "Reads" with Tennessee sabots must have been smooth-sided.

The fourth excerpt shown below was also from Tredegar's Order Book dated May 29, 1862. Among the shells mentioned are the first two versions of the 7.44 inch shell, i.e., the earliest with a lead sabot and the second style with a copper disc. Col. Rhett makes it clear that no more of the former will be accepted "on account of the scarcity of lead." No mention of its poor performance. The only serious testing done by the ordnance officials was a couple of rounds fired to proof each of the new guns. The CS Navy's ordnance expert, John Brooke, was extremely critical of the Arsenal's lack of attention to such details. This applied as well to the 3 inch Archer projectiles terminated in Feb. 1862. In a search through contemporary correspondence, there were grumblings about its poor performance, but no formal complaints. Clearly stated was the change to the Mullane was on account of the dire shortage of lead.

At the bottom of the letter, Rhett thankfully explains that copper cups are actually discs and credits poor Capt. Gibbs with the development of the Tennessee sabot. I believe credit for the shell body with two narrow bourellets belongs to Dr. Read. And finally, "no projectile with [cast-on] copper bands can be received." There was no shortage of copper at that time so this must be a rare rejection based on its field performance. 

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2017, 12:54:05 AM »
I have two more excerpts from Tredegar's Order Book concerning the 7.5 inch Blakely Gun. The first pretty well confirms that the big Blakely Gun was sent to the front during the 7 Days battles. I don't know if it was fired. Too heavy to advance with the CS army. The second excerpt confirms that a second 7.5 inch Blakely was stationed at Charleston, SC. What was Smith's Rocket Shell? Enough were produced to suggest it was more than an experimental round.
WH

Jack Bell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2017, 04:16:58 PM »
Thanks for the great information. I recently obtained a copy of the Tredegar )rder Book, but had not been able to pull out some of the detailed data.

Unfortunately, I have been able to learn if anyone has ever obtained or even seen a 7.4-inch CS-made Blakely shell with lead or copper sabot.

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2017, 05:54:45 PM »
  Jack... if I recall correctly, Colonel Biemeck found a couple of Northern Virginia 1861 Heavy-Caliber magazines along the Potomac. You might ask him about CS 7.5-inch projectiles. He will probably be at the Richmond show this weekend.  Will you be there?

Regards,
Pete
« Last Edit: July 13, 2017, 05:57:53 PM by Pete George »

Jack Bell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2017, 11:28:18 PM »
Thanks to Woodenhead for the detailed information. Forced me to go back to some sources to verify the source of the information on the 7.5-inch Blakely rifled gun.  The Navy Records (The Iron Guns at Willard Park, by the Navy Historical Society) state that the Blakely there was captured from the Confederates when they abandoned Shipping Point. At one time I had some records indicating that many of the early Blakely 7.5-inch rifled shells were sent to Shipping Point (at Quantico, VA).

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2017, 06:26:48 PM »
I found these pics I took about 30 years ago of a big CS-made Britten shell recovered along the James River east of Richmond. The owner (he purchased it from digger) thought it was a 7 inch shell but had never accurately measured it. Like most of us back then, he was primarily interested in field projectiles. I think it might be a 7.5 inch shell. It has the typical lead sabot with a circular ring of long iron wires projecting from the bottom. The first shells Tredegar made for the big Blakely Rifle were the English style.

Maybe there were two 7.5 inch Blakely guns in Virginia during 1862. One was captured at Shipping Point in March 1862. The Ordnance Bureau ordered a total of 400 shells in December 1861 which was the total recommended quantity to have available for a single cannon - 200 deployed with the gun and another 200 with the artillery reserve in the rear.

It sounds like a second gun arrived in Virginia on May 20, 1862, when Tredegar billed the Navy for "Hauling Blakely Gun from Petersburg [railroad] Depot to Richmond docks." Maybe this was the Blakely from Charleston. An Ordnance "Memorandum" dated May 22nd requested Tredegar make another 200 shell, 7.43 inch diameter, with the Tennessee sabot. More were ordered in July. This 7.5 inch Blakely gun was sent to the front line of works to bombard McClellan at the start of the 7 Days battles. It had to be a second gun if the other Blakely at the Washington museum was actually captured along the Potomac in March 1862.

Jack, I believe I can hook you up with this big shell at one of the next Richmond Shows.
W.H.

Jack Bell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2017, 10:43:35 AM »
I'll be at the Richmond Show in November.

That would be great.  Thanks.

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2017, 03:05:44 AM »
I'm taking the liberty of bringing this thread back to life because I came across another noteworthy mention of the big 7.5 inch "Blakely" shells. In early February 1862, the Richmond Arsenal sent to the subordinate arsenals and depots drawings of a new regulation design for all of its field projectiles and a couple of the larger siege shells. This was the Tennessee copper disc sabot. The first letter, below, dated Feb. 10, 1862, was from Capt. Wagner commanding the Montgomery, Alabama, Depot to Capt. White at the Mount Vernon Arsenal near Mobile. Wagner advised: "I received today tracings of a different kind of rifled shell to be used from the Ordnance Bureau." "Richmond Shell" (Jack Bell's "Tredegar Pattern") for the 5.82 inch rifled Columbiad, the rifled 24 pounder also 5.82 inch and the 6.4 inch Rifles. The "New Pattern" (Tennessee sabot) for the 4.62 inch Rifle Siege Gun, 3 inch Rifle, and 2.25 inch Mountain Rifle Guns. Same for the rifled 32 pounder and the "Blakely Rifle Gun, bore 7.44" inch.

The following day, Capt. Wagner notified Capt. Olandowski (soon to be Ordnance Chief for the Army of Tenn.) about the new shell design from Richmond employing the copper disc quoting from Gorgas' letter "and abandoned the other plans for giving the shell the rotary motion." Again, the shells were listed by type with the first group continuing to use the existing "Tredegar" or "Richmond" pattern, while the second group would have the "new pattern" disc sabots. Montgomery subcontracted its shell production to nearby Janney & Co. The final paragraph at the bottom of the letter pertains to a completely different matter involving the "Read Shell" whose "pattern & tracings I found yesterday at Quartermaster's office." Wagner was not being honest here because other correspondence indicated Dr. Read's presence at Montgomery when the "tracings" of the new Mullane design arrived. A civilian ordnance agent, Read had the mold patterns and sabot-striking dies in hand to set up production of shells equipped with his superior copper cup sabots. Imagine his disappointment when he examined the drawings of the new official disc sabot. Evidently, the message was softened because Capt. Oladowski had been a fervent proponent of the Read shell. Afterwards, Dr. Read withdrew from the field and offered no further assistance during the war.

The third item seen below is page two of a Dec. 2, 1861, letter to Capt. Oladowski from the great New Orleans foundry Leeds & Co. After first discussing the manufacture of additional guns and carriages, Leeds announced: "We would be pleased to learn that there has been made some better & lighter projectile for rifled 32 Pdrs. than those made according to the Dahlgren pattern, or according to the Tredegar plan." The latter was the "Richmond shell" mentioned in the first letter from Montgomery (above) with two raised bourrelets and a cast-on lead sabot. Leeds labeled them "Tredegar shells" as does Jack Bell in his Civil War Heavy Explosive Ordnance. In case the reader was unsure of which projectiles they meant, the founders added: "The Tredegar shot, you will recollect, has a base of hardened lead with projections cast so as to fit easily with the corresponding grooves of the gun." This was Jack Bells' Type I Tredegar shell - a rare and desirable collectable. John Brooke described these "Richmond shells" in great detail in Ironclads and Big Guns of the Confederacy. They were supposed to be used by the Merrimac until Brooke's field tests proved them to be practically worthless.

The last item pictured below is a Nov. 1, 1861, bill from Leeds & Co. using their commercial letterhead. They produced 32 pounder "Dahlgren shell" and "Tredegar shell covered with lead."

Woodenhead

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2017, 10:26:43 PM »
Wow, I knew these were uncommon because they were crummy, but are your saying they were made in England, not Richmond?


Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2017, 08:24:38 PM »
Leeds & Co. had been operating in New Orleans for ten or twenty years. The owner had a Scottish last name like "McIntosh" and had grown up and learned his skills at Leeds in England. In 1861-62, they were one of the best of the private Deep South foundries. They cast many highly regarded cannon - mostly field size 3 inch, 3.3 inch, 6 & 12 pounder with 24 pounder flank guns (forts) as the largest. Leeds cut rifling grooves into many of the old 32 pounders in the forts guarding the entrance to the Mississippi, built motors and other parts of the gunboat fleet and cast more than ten of thousand field and heavy cannon projectiles. In June 1861, Tredegar sent drawings of the two 3 inch Rifle shot currently being made in Virginia, i.e., the Archer and Burton. Leeds cast a few thousand of these in 3 inch (rare) and 3.3 inch caliber - all solid iron bolts. Leeds also cast those odd-looking James bolts in 3 and 3.3 inch calibers. Among others, they supplied the Washington Artillery (5th Company) and another Louisiana battery. Many were fired and have been found at Shiloh. Leeds was forced out of business when Adm. Farragut visited New Orleans in May 1862.

Woodenhead

jamesshell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2017, 04:17:53 PM »
HEY JACK...  THIS IS A PIC OF A 7.5" MULLANE TYPE ONE SHELL.. THIS WAS FOUND WITH PIECES OF AN ARCHER PERCUSSION FUSE IN THE SAME HOLE... THIS IS THE CLOSEST IVE EVER SEEN TO A WHOLE SHELL..  THIS PIECE WAS DUG IN A CONFEDERATE IMPACT AREA IN VICKSBURG... I MEASURED THE OTHER SIDE, ON THE METAL PORTION, TO GET AN ACCURATE MEASUREMENT... IT MEASURED JUST UNDER 7.5.. BUT WELL OVER 7"... I HOPE THIS HELPS YOU OUT MY FRIEND..
« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 04:20:06 PM by jamesshell »

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2017, 10:16:42 PM »
Jameshell: What a neat relic.  How many lands and grooves on it?  My guess from your picture is 14 which seems like a lot of a big shell.
Best,
Carl

Jack Bell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • Email
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2017, 09:52:59 PM »
Jamesshell -

Thanks for the great photo.  Lacking documentation, I cannot connect Vicksburg with having a 7.5-inch gun.  But obviously they had one of some design.

I am still on the search for a whole shell.

jamesshell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: 7.5-in Blakely Gun and shells
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2017, 09:44:01 PM »
HEY CARL, I LOOKS LIKE IT DOES HAVE 14 X 14 RIFLING... I WISH THE OTHER PIECE WAS PRESENT ON THE SABOT... J