Shipbucket

Yep, same. Niagara and Constitution (1794) are the only one showed.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

Got it. Let's take action now. What hosting would you recommend?
This is my google

_________________
"I have thousand advisers who know how build a pyramid, but have not one who can tell me whether to build it or not." - John Kennedy.

Imgur work for most of us I think.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

Done. Thanks everyone.

_________________
"I have thousand advisers who know how build a pyramid, but have not one who can tell me whether to build it or not." - John Kennedy.

How did the American cannon gain range superiority?

Hooped Civil War Rifled Artillery
The production of artillery in the United States from the very beginning had the peculiarity that the country practically had no resources for gun bronze - copper and tin. But there was a lot of iron. Therefore, American gunsmiths tried to cast weapons from iron. But cast iron was fragile, and guns from it often burst while fire.
At the same time, on the eve of the American Civil War, the transition to rifled artillery began in Europe. In Britain, a number of manufacturers offered their designs to the government, but Armstrong, who was not only an applicant, but also "accidentally" had the position of Engineer for Rifled Artillery of the War Cabinet, received contract. This completely ruled out the rest of the British manufacturers. They had to look for contracts abroad. One of them - Theophilus Alexander Blakely - offered his guns to the Americans. Blakely's guns came handy to them. The Americans had just started the Civil War, and they needed many guns. Moreover, Blakely's cannons were just iron, and the problem of strength was solved by reinforcing them with wrought iron hoops. For true, Blakely got little from this. Enterprising Americans immediately began to produce these guns themselves - Brooke from the Confederates, Parrott, and Delafield in the Union.

A feature of the Blakely-Brooke-Parrott cannons was presence of only few but large grooves. All other American Civil War guns used a similar rifling system. However, its main difference from the European rifling system was the way it interacted with the projectile. To consider this, you should be acquainted with the construction of these guns projectiles.

_________________
"I have thousand advisers who know how build a pyramid, but have not one who can tell me whether to build it or not." - John Kennedy.

Projectiles for Civil War Rifled Artillery
The shells of the first rifled guns interacted with rifling help of projections on the body that entered the grooves. This method was unsatisfactory in terms of gas checking. Another method of projectile interaction with the rifling was taken from small arms - a lead jacket, which was supposed to compressing into the rifling by gas pressure and, due this, acquire a shape that facilitates both guiding along the rifling and gas checking. However, the thin lead skin did not adhere well to the iron projectile and was coming off while fire.
When the first Blakely cannons, still with rectangular grooves, came to America, they were supplied with the best design Britten's projectiles, having a more stable expanding lead sabot. Lead remained lead, however, and unlike rifle bullets, higher strains in cannon meant that Britten's projectiles were only slightly better than the previous ones. American inventor Read began to make thin sabots of harder metals - copper or wrought iron. After him, many others began to produce similar projectiles, including Parrott himself. However, these soft metal sabots were again often crushed and coming off while fire.
In addition to these problems, there was also the problem of the clearance between the projectile body and the bore surface. The clearance was required to allow easy projectile moving through the entire barrel when muzzle-loading. However, its presence led to irregular projectile direction within the bore. To solve this problem, Blakely adopted Commander Scott's "slant hook" or "centrical" rifling system, which had the property of self-centering along the bore axis. Since the guiding elements of this system were projections of the hard body metal, the issue of reliable projectile guiding along the grooves was solved.
There was still the question of gas checking. The American Sawyer covered his cannon's projectile with lead for sealing, but the thin layer was still frequently damaged. Commander (future admiral) Dahlgren solved the issue simply by combining the projections with a lead sabot in one design. Now the hard projections took the mechanical strains, and the lead sabot served only to gas check, did not carry any strains, and therefore was not damaged.
The culmination of American own design during the Civil War can be called the projectiles of Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, Lieutenant Colonel Delafield. These projectiles were cast from malleable iron in one piece with thin sabot that had ready-made projections for rifling. Thus, the Delafield projectile skirt combined the role of a guiding element and an obturator.

So, as we can see, American ordnance was quite original and satisfactory. However, there was little interest to it in Europe, and the Americans themselves were delighted with European achievements. They especially revered one European cannon, several decades ahead of its time.

_________________
"I have thousand advisers who know how build a pyramid, but have not one who can tell me whether to build it or not." - John Kennedy.

Whitworth Guns
In 1860, the US War Department purchased seven Whitworth's 12-pound breech-loading guns for familiarization. Guns and ammunition for them arrived in the country on the eve of the Civil War and turn up on the territory of the rebellious southern states. Although the Confederates had only one battery of these cannons, which was later captured by the Unionists, both were impressed by Whitworths thanks to their long range and accuracy. Such high performances were the result of two factors. First, Whitworth's 12-pounder was not made of iron, but of more durable steel, manufactured using special technologies. Secondly, its design belonged to systems with hard guiding elements like some American ones. But unlike the American guns, Whitworth's 12-pounder took more advantages of the system with hard guiding elements.

Hard Guiding Elements
How systems with hard guiding elements do differ from conventional systems with soft guiding elements?
The main difference is that the formation of soft guiding elements occurs in the barrel by the force of the shot, why they are also called "compression". This leads to the fact that the process of rifling a soft guiding ring or skin during a shot takes away many of the charge energy, and the high gas pressure and the rifling process itself create significant strains on the barrel.
In contrast, the formation of hard guiding elements occurs in advance during the projectile manufacturing, why they are also called "ready-made". Thus, systems with hard guiding elements are completely free from strains and other factors associated with the rifling process. With the same propellant charge, these systems have lower pressure at higher translation and rotation speeds. All this allows increasing the range, accuracy, and barrel lifetime, as well as the elongation and filling factor of the projectile.

However, after receiving rifled guns, the improvement of artillery did not stop.

_________________
"I have thousand advisers who know how build a pyramid, but have not one who can tell me whether to build it or not." - John Kennedy.

Further Ordnance Improvement During Civil War
During the Civil War, artillery designers knew already that the barrel withstands the breaking longitudinal strain between the rear wall of the chamber and the trunnions four times worse than the transverse pressure of gases. Therefore, there was an idea that the trunnions were better placed at the level of the cascabel, as in some mortars. Thus, the barrel would be freed from longitudinal strain while fire. We can find this idea, for example, in Holley A. L. "A Treatise on Ordnance and Armor," 1865.
By this time, the barrel had already lost unnecessary decorating elements, not only because this simplified production, but also because they believed unwanted tension concentrators in the barrel. However, there were still the most dangerous tension concentrators - trunions. So Blakely, Whitworth, Armstrong, and after they Brooke made the cannons with separate trunnion ring, leaving the tube completely smooth. Now the tensions of the trunnions no longer affected the barrel, but the fit of the trunnion ring was solid and the longitudinal strain of barrel by shot remained.
Dahlgren combined two solutions again, adding to separate trunnion ring a strap covering the breech part of gun. Thus, the barrel lost both, the last tension concentrators and completely the longitudinal strain while fire.

In the meantime, as we can see from the Whitworth cannon, Europe was already receiving breech-loading guns. What could the Americans have done in this regard?

_________________
"I have thousand advisers who know how build a pyramid, but have not one who can tell me whether to build it or not." - John Kennedy.

Experimental Breech-loaders During the Civil War
Now, when the gun was supposed to receive a breech-plug, this breech-plug became the rear wall of the chamber. Therefore, the strap now had to hold exactly it. Similar designs have been known since the 16th century. With start the Civil War, solutions combining a strap and a breech-plug appeared in a lot. They have been suggested and even tested by almost identic samples of Cap. R. R. Moffat (US35863), H. F. Mann (US2783, US33787, US257823), John B. Moody, George B. Brayton, Columbus Iron Works, and others.

But the most advanced design was probably suggested by Blakely.

_________________
"I have thousand advisers who know how build a pyramid, but have not one who can tell me whether to build it or not." - John Kennedy.

Here is a summary of the article in "The Engineer", July 3, 1863, p. 63 (unfortunately in the copy I have, the dotted lines are poorly visible):
The object of these improvements, by Captain Blakely, of the Army and Navy Club, is that the opening of the breech may be affected by the act of firing, so that the parts leave in a position to receive a fresh charge. For this purpose the breech-piece projects into the barrel, and is retained in position by weight or elastic pressure [underlined by me, as one of the most important future point] proportionate to the power exerted by the pressure of the charge in firing. The firing cause the propulsion of the projectile, and at the same time the recoil of the breech-piece, thus opening the parts for the supply of a fresh charge. The breech-piece enters the barrel to an extent sufficient to insure in not leaving the breech end thereof until the projectile passes out of the muzzle.
The breech-piece is affixed to the block, which has groove formed on each side of it to receive the rails, projecting from the end of the gun, by which the block with the breech-piece is supported, to be capable of sliding to and from the breech end of the gun in a line with the bore. The block has be drawn towards the barrel by a weight, which is connected to the block by chains, other end of each of these chains is connected to the weight, and thence passing over a pulley. The weight serves also as table for the fresh charge and projectile pervious to its being driven into the gun, and, by preference, a fresh charge is placed on table, whilst the weight is holding the breech-piece in the breech end of the gun. When the parts are in the position indicated, with the table raised, that table will hold the fresh charge correctly opposite the bore. The parts, as shown, are in the position after the firing, when the effect of the recoil has been to force out the breech-piece with its block, thereby overcoming the force exerted by the weight. And in other that the block with its breech-piece may then remain in the position indicated until a fresh charge has been introduced, there is applied to the weight a pawl, and to the framing a rack, by which when the weight has been elevated, it will be held up with the fresh charge thereon in position for loading. This charge must then be forced a short distance in to the gun, and then by lifting the lever handle affixed to the pawl, that will be released from the rack, when the weight will descend again and draw the breech-piece to force the charge fully into the chamber of the gun.

So, we collected all elements that actually existed among the Americans by the time of the laying of the New Fleet. By this the real-historical preamble ends, and begins the "amble". Well, let's now try using these elements to assemble a puzzle by name "New Fleet". Let's start, again, with what the American concept was based on - with the new ordnance.

_________________
"I have thousand advisers who know how build a pyramid, but have not one who can tell me whether to build it or not." - John Kennedy.