Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: speedenforcer on February 21, 2018, 01:11:50 PM

Title: Confederate raw materials
Post by: speedenforcer on February 21, 2018, 01:11:50 PM
I was wandering. Did at any point in the war effort particularly in the last year, did the south experience shortages in iron for making shells? If so did they at any point reduce the production of the larger shells and reserve the iron for the smaller field service shells?
Title: Re: Confederate raw materials
Post by: redbob on February 21, 2018, 07:55:34 PM
According to Charles B. Dew's Ironmaker to the Confederacy,, Tredegar started having raw material and manpower shortages as early as1862 which cut their output sharply. Much of these shortages were made up by foundries in the deep South, particularly Selma when it came on line.
Title: Re: Confederate raw materials
Post by: speedenforcer on February 21, 2018, 08:11:44 PM
Did they curtail the production of heavy ordnance at any point so that more field size shells could be made. Obviously some of the larger shells had enough iron, powder to make 2 or 3 maybe more shells of field size which would have been much more useful.
Title: Re: Confederate raw materials
Post by: Selma Hunter on February 22, 2018, 07:50:52 AM
Gentlemen,

There were several periods when the deep south also had issues with Iron supplies.  Brook & Gaynor in Columbus, MS (Briarfield Arsenal) sued the CS government for failure to provide sufficient raw iron, as called for in a contract, to compensate for lost revenues.  Selma ceased production of large guns at the Naval Gun Foundry for lack of iron of sufficiently high quality twice in 1864.  They used the inferior iron on hand to make some large projectiles to stay busy.  Major Wm. R. Hunt, former head of Briarfield Arsenal in Columbus, MS, was also much criticized later on in Selma while assigned as the head of Mining and Minerals there.  I believe McLaughlin also had supply issues in Atlanta before the evacuation of the Navy facilities there.  I'm sure there were other accounts other places.  The Army/Navy competition from the start of the war for that scarce resource is well documented.
Title: Re: Confederate raw materials
Post by: speedenforcer on February 22, 2018, 08:25:34 PM
I know if they run out of supplies that would stop production. What I am wondering is there any documentation such as (hey mike stop your production of 7" Brook bolts and use the iron to make more 3" reads.") This is an example of what I am curious about. You get the idea.
Title: Re: Confederate raw materials
Post by: CarlS on February 23, 2018, 11:04:04 PM
I would suspect that the decision was based on need.  No sense in having a ship if it couldn't fire it's guns so they likely had priority.    The army on the other hand could go into battle with low or no artillery but that didn't seem to be a big issue.  Occasionally you would hear about them being low or running out during battle.  They were low on artillery rounds in Vicksburg and thus limited the usage but that was due to the inability to get replenished through Grant's lines, not an issue with factory production.  The one big shortage frequently heard was copper and, hence, brass for the making of cannons, fuses, etc.
Title: Re: Confederate raw materials
Post by: speedenforcer on February 25, 2018, 08:20:08 PM
oh ok. so never a real shortage of iron is what I'm understanding.
Title: Re: Confederate raw materials
Post by: Selma Hunter on February 26, 2018, 08:15:02 AM
Speed,

THERE WAS a shortage of iron, especially after the yankees ripped away the hills of (west) Virginia and the iron rich area of western Tennessee.  Iron was found in several other locations (i. e. North Carolina) but in such small quantities and modest quality that it had limited usefulness for a number of critical purposes,  The upper Cahaba River Basin of Alabama north of Montevallo up to Elyton (Birmingham), Bessemer and surrounds offered the only viable source of good quality iron ore in the entire South following the campaigns against Richmond from 1864 to the end of the war.  As all who know me will attest I am a huge "fan" of our Confederate Navy, but it is apparent to me now that way too much of scarce valuable resources were consumed in fruitless construction of vessels (ironclad and otherwise) which might have been better used for other purposes.  Think railroad rails.  Even then there might not have been enough to meet all the needs of a poorly prepared South with highly limited manufacturing capacities.  Bottom line is too many resources were expended on landlocked ironclads and other vessels when the labor and iron could have been used to develop and extend the rail systems throughout the Confederacy - the real Achilles Heel of the infant nation.  IMHO, as a Monday-morning quarterback.
Title: Re: Confederate raw materials
Post by: scottfromgeorgia on February 26, 2018, 08:47:28 AM
My perception in Georgia is that they were increasingly desperate for iron. When I was growing up as a small redneck lad in North Georgia, we sometimes went to the site of a small Civil War foundry set up deep in the woods, with a small rail track running to it. It must have operated only a year or so before the bluecoats over-ran the area.