Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

doubtful that the navy would make any effort to arm a chartered tug. Arming a ship built for commercial service requires a little more than strapping a 32 pounder to the deck. A 32 pounder weights 3 tons. The deck beams beneath it has to be reinforced as well as the frames where the gun is positioned. This work is done below deck to support the weight. A suitable magazine for the gun powder has to be built.


614 posted on 06/28/2018 5:36:38 PM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies ]


To: Bull Snipe
doubtful that the navy would make any effort to arm a chartered tug. Arming a ship built for commercial service requires a little more than strapping a 32 pounder to the deck. A 32 pounder weights 3 tons. The deck beams beneath it has to be reinforced as well as the frames where the gun is positioned. This work is done below deck to support the weight. A suitable magazine for the gun powder has to be built.

All you say makes sense. You have moved me towards about 80% in agreeing that the tugboats were probably not armed on April 12, 1861.

I'm not completely sold yet, but you make a very good case for it. I will henceforth regard them as probably not armed unless I find information to the contrary.

628 posted on 06/29/2018 3:18:16 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson