CSS Alabama Question

If you do get the book be prepared to discover that the Revell Alabama is inaccurate in virtually every respect.  Built from the box the kit bears, at best, a vague resemblance to the real ship.  It does, however, make a very attractive model.

Thanks for the help, guys!  I appreciate it. I'll look into getting the book.

The 3/32" Bluejacket blocks undoubtedly are too smal for some of the lines on a model like that - and too big for others.  3/32" equals 9" on 1/96 scale.  A 9" block is a medium-sized block - probably about right for the davit tackles, gun tackles, and some of the lighter lines associated with the topgallants and the lighter fore-and-aft sails.

The rigging of a real ship of that period would include several hundred blocks, probably in at least a dozen sizes.  Unfortunately the manufacturers don't produce enough sizes to reproduce all of them.  The next size up in the Bluejacket range is 1/8".  On 1/96 scale, of course, 1/8" equals 1'.  A block that's a foot long is a BIG block - probably appropriate for such major lines as the topsail sheets, the lower and topsail braces, and the boom sheets. 

The earlier Revell Alabama rigging instructions do make sense, although if I remember right the standing rigging is sketchy.  The later Revell Germany Kearsarge plans which are about 50% incoherent, incomplete and confusing. Revell Germany has many of the eyebolts on deck facing the wrong way. Maddening!!

I also had trouble on Kearsarge with the route of the main backstays interfering with the pinracks at the foot of the masts and had to move the large eyebolts a little back to get a better run from beneath the pins and over the cabin roof.  I used a long straight piece of stick as a pointer along the route of the backstay to give me the correct allignment point before I made the new hole. If you use Bluejacket blocks for better realism, I'm quite sure the smallest ones (3/32"?) are too small. I'm working on that aspect now. Thanks, Paul

Greetings:

I agree with Prof. Tilley. The book CSS Alabama will be invaluable to you building this model. I used it extensively in scratch building/remaking the supplied cannons that come with the kit. They are the same ones included in Revells's Kearsarge and maybe accurate for it but sure aren't for the Alabama. I checked on Amazon and there are (6) new copies of the book available for $37.92. This would be money well spent! I just looked at my copy and yes the plans show footropes on the yards. They also show she carried studding sails as well which surprised me. Hope this helps.

Michael Lacey

It's quite safe to assume that the answer is yes.  I'm unaware of a single example of a ship from that period that didn't have footropes.

One suggestion:  if you're working on the version of the kit that was recently reissued by Revell Germany, throw away the rigging instructions.  They're utter nonsense.  If memory serves, the original American ones were better - but I'm not a hundred percent sure.  I built that kit when it was brand new, in 1961, when I was eleven years old; I don't think I've seen the inside of the box since.  But I have looked at the new instructions, which Revell Germany used to offer online.

Anybody who's seriously interested in this ship really needs to get hold of a copy of the book C.S.S. Alabama:  Anatomy of a Confederate Raider, by Andrew Bowcock, published by the Naval Institute Press in 2002.  It's the best, most thorough reconstruction of the ship published to date; it includes a nice set of plans, and copies of all the known photographs of the ship.  Unfortunately it appears to be out of print now, but used copies can be had at (as such things go) fairly reasonable prices:  http://search.barnesandnoble.com/CSS-Alabama/Andrew-Bowcock/p/9781557500038 .

Be warned:  the book will make it obvious that the old Revell kit suffers from quite a few inaccuracies.  How important they are depends on the individual modeler.  But as a guide to rigging the model that book would be hard to beat.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.