Posted by Mabry Tyson on January 14, 2004 at 05:48:12:
In Reply to: C.S.S. Virginia: Mistress of Hampton Roads - John V. Quarstein posted by Mabry Tyson on February 28, 2003 at 22:08:17:
p 90: The text indicates that the port hot shot gun was damaged and couldn't fire hot shot into the Minnesota.
This is wrong (probably).
I once thought this too (and it may have been on my web site) but I no longer remember the reference that makes this statement. It must say this somewhere, but Quarstein has no reference here and I don't remember what lead me to this thought.
Many references say there were two disabled guns. The forward port broadside gun and another (usually described as starboard, but Jones once says it is port).
1) If the port side hot shot gun was disabled, how did they fire hot shot into the Congress? Surely they had their port side to the Congress. (Possibility: the port hot shot gun was damaged and couldn't fire a mile but could fire a few hundred yards). E V White indicates he sent 3 hot shot up from the furnaces for the Congress.
2) Eggleston (1916) says he commanded the two (port, starboard; #4 and #5 resp.) 6.4" hot shot guns. However, he doesn't indicate his guns were damaged. Indeed he indicates different guns were damaged (#2, #3) while Buchanan indicates that Kevil's gun (#9) was damaged and Tindall (with Marmaduke's aid) indicates Marmaduke's gun (#2) was damaged when Marmaduke was wounded. To make it more confused, Littlepage's drawing indicates that the 6.4" guns were #8,#9 which is a problem because all sources indicate that two IX-Dahlgrens were damaged. Jones indicates that the hot shot were 9" balls.
So, it is a definite maybe. Actually point 1 seems to be definitive by itself.
Post a Followup