Battle Axe's Monitor

I know absolutely nothing about Battle Axe, beyond the fact that, in the pictures at least, their Monitor does look like a mighty nice kit. Speaking on the basis of sheer speculation, though, I'm inclined to doubt that they'll do a Virginia - for two major reasons.

In the first place, she was a much bigger ship than the Monitor. On that same scale of 1/144 she'd be about 23" long - and, presumably, priced to match. Secondly, there are no reliable, detailed plans of the Virginia. Some points about the Monitor's appearance are debatable (though they're being cleared up as the archaeologists investigate the wreck), but the gaps in our knowledge about the Virginia are downright enormous.

I suppose it's possible that Battle Axe will come through, but I'm not optimistic. In the mean time, the photos of the 1/200 waterline resin Monitor and Viriginia from Verlinden look pretty impressive. There are also a pair of full-hull wood kits with britannia metal fittings from Bluejacket that appear to be about as accurate as can be expected.

thanks, I've been looking for the two in a larger scale than the previous
full hull offerings. I wasn't sure if the wood versions were what I wanted. i can't find a review on the wood kits and didn't know how much work would go into providing the details such as rivets, plating, etc. I'm pretty novice when it comes to wood kits. There's a good review of the Monitor at Squadron.com with lots of pictures.

Now if only they'd make a CSS Alabama to go with my USS Kearsarge in the same scale

I've seen the Bluejacket Monitor; I only know the firm's Viginia through the photos on the website. I have the impession that both kits are sound in terms of accuracy, but pretty basic. Each consists of a machine-carved basswood hull, some fittings cast in Britannia metal, probably some basic brass parts (chain, wire, etc.), and an excellent set of plans and instructions. Unless the kits have been revised recently, neither of them has any provision for plating detail. The modeler would have to add that with sheet styrene, sheet brass, or something of that nature. A nice model could be made from either of those kits, but it would take a great deal of work. On the other hand, as wood kits go they're about as simple in shape and design as you can get. Either one would be a great first wood kit.

For really accurate models of those two ships, though, I don't think we're going to beat the Verlinden resin kits. I haven't seen them in the flesh, but on the basis of photos they look beautiful.

You probably know that Revell did make a C.S.S. Alabama - sort of. It shared a lot of parts with the Kearsarge kit - so many parts that it's hard to take the Alabama kit seriously as a scale model. In Revell's defense, it ought to be noted that at the time the model was released (1961) researchers didn't know much about the Alabama. Since then quite a bit of additional information, including some plans, a builder's model, and some photographs, has come to light. That material makes it clear that the Revell kit doesn't really look much like the Alabama.

If you're interested in tackling it, though, examples do come up periodically in places like e-bay. In fact, until recently the Alabama kit was much easier to find than the Kearsarge, which was regarded as a collector's item. The bible on the subject, Thomas Graham's Remembering Revell Model Kits, describes it as "today's most sought-after Revell sailing ship," with a going price of $130-$150. That was before Revell Germany reissued it a couple of months ago. Mr. Graham gives the Alabama kit a value of $50-$70.

thanks for the update on the monitor and virginia.
I'll look into the Verlinden kits you mentioned.

I had no idea that the Kearsarge kit was in such demand.
MegaHobby.com is selling them for 89.95. It's the Revell-Germany
1:96 scale kit. I thought it was a really nice kit. I may get another
to hold on to.

I have the kit, because I love the Union navy from the Civil War, and was really excited to build it. It's still sitting in the box, because it's a typical limited edition injection-molded kit, and it's obvious that it's going to take tons of clean-up to build the kit.

Here's a review.

http://misc.kitreview.com/shipreviews/ussmonitorreviewbg_1.htm

Also check this out:

http://www.squadron.com/old/bxmonitor/bxmonitor.htm

I'm considering just buying the Verlinden kit, which looks pretty nice, though I don't think it's accurate for the famous encounter with the Merrimac. Yes, resin does take a lot of clean-up too.

I'm no expert on the Monitor, but I did do a considerable amount of reading about her some years ago when I got commissioned by the Monitor Marine Sanctuary and the Mariners' Museum to design a paper model of her. Though I haven't looked at the Verlinden kit, on the basis of the photos it looks to me like the designer did a fine job.

The big difference between the kit and the ship's appearance during her fight with the Virginia seems to be the configuration of the pilothouse, the big box on the foredeck. During the battle a Confederate shell hit the pilothouse, damaging it severely and temporarily blinding the ship's commanding officer. The Verlinden kit appears to represent the replacement pilothouse, with its sloping sides. It looks to me like it would be fairly simple to slice the slanted parts off, leaving the original, boxlike configuration. The edges of some plates would have to be scribed, but that's fairly easy with resin.

The other box-like structures projecting from the Verlinden kit's deck are the intakes and exhausts for the engines. They were part of the original design, and presumably were in place when the Monitor made her initial voyage from New York to Hampton Roads. When the ship cleared for action they were removed, so they wouldn't interfere with the fields of fire of the guns. Also as part of that process, the ventilation ports for the officers' cabins and other below decks spaces (which show up as round, black dots on the photo of the Verlinden kit) were closed with sheet iron covers, and the turret was jacked up a few inches. (During open water voyages it was lowered to make a watertight seal around its edge. That idea, it seems, didn't work. It probably was water leaking in around the circumference of the turret that sank the ship.)

One other interesting thing about the Verlinden kit (speaking, again, solely on the basis of photos on the Squadron website). It looks it provides two optional tops for the turret - one solid, one an open grating. Good idea. I've lost track of the most recent research, but when I was reading up on the subject nobody was quite sure how the top of the turret was built. Ericsson's original drawings left room for doubt, and none of the old photos of the ship was taken from a high enough angle to answer the question. (In at least one of the pictures men are standing on top of the turret - so there must have been something for them to stand on, but it could have been either a plated deck or a grating.) When the ship sank the turret fell off, landing upside down under one edge of the inverted hull. Until recently even the divers, though they could touch the turret and swim partly around it, couldn't tell what the top of it looked like.

A year or two ago the turret was brought up and taken to the Mariners' Museum. I haven't seen it, but I did have a talk with Brad Rodgers, a nautical archaeologist and conservator, who got a good, close look at it shortly after it was raised. He said there was so much concreted crud around the top of the turret that he couldn't tell whether it was originally open or not.

A few weeks ago the turret got put on public exhibition for the first time; I gather that means the conservators have made significant progress on it. Maybe it's possible now to tell which - if either - of the Verlinden parts is right. If I had to put money on the subject I'd probably bet on the grating - but with a considerably finer "grid" than Verlinden seems to depict.

The Verlinden Virginia kit inevitably is based on a good deal of guesswork. There are no known photos of the Virginia, and the only contemporary drawings of her are extremely sketchy. To my eye, though, the photos of the Verlinden kit look thoroughly believable.

The biggest question I have about it is the color scheme. The model in the photos looks like it's painted light grey. That's not inconceivable. I recently did some work with another Confederate ironclad, the C.S.S. Neuse, though. The folks in charge of her - who are extremely knowledgeable - are fairly firmly convinced that Confedeate ironclads in general were treated with the same chemical that was used to protect cannon barrels. It was a mixture of paint, tar, and probably some other stuff, concocted to stick firmly to iron and keep it from rusting. If it wasn't pure black, it was pretty close to it.

I would, however, be extremely reluctant to make any generalizations about the color schemes of Confederate ships. There were no regulations or standards for such things, the documentation is extremely sketchy - and the Virginia, having been "built" under such freakish circumstances, may well not have adhered to any standards that did exist.

QUOTE: Originally posted by jtilley I'm no expert on the Monitor,

Oh, I don't know about that! I'm definitely filing this one away for when I make the diorama of Hampton Roads.

I have started building Civil War Ironclads and am having a ball.  First one was the CSS Manassis by Lone Star, a resin kit.  The price was right, $5.00 out of my pocket.  I learned a lot from it in that many of the illustrated parts didn't come with it so I had to resort to scratch building something I really don't do very often.

I am finding out that intuition is a good guide in this era of ship models as there are very few accurate drawings and photo's are rare and not aways of the part of the ship you would like to duplicate.  I was very shocked when I won a second place at a Seattle show as I thought the other ships were fantastic.  I think a lot of it had to do with the "novelty" factor in that it wasn't a U-Boat,carrier or battleship. One of the really amazing  and impressive  things about these ships is that they are mammoth.  The Battle Axe Monitor is 1/144; I placed a 1/144th scale Hellcat on the deck and the plane was dwarfed, I feel a flight of fancy project coming on.

My second venture was the USS Monitor by Battle Axe and it was a totally different kettle of fish.  There were many problems encountered and a lot of patience needed but I enjoyed every minute.  Again I was lucky in that I won a first in class at an IPMS show put on by the North Olympic Peninsula Modelers Society (who put on a fantastic show, their first) in Port Townsend, Washington.  I spoke with one of their members who also built the same kit about my experience with it.   We shared some of the same problems; it was interesting to discover the different techniques we used to solve the same problems.  The plastic the kit is made of is quite soft so a lot of care should be used.  I used CA, as the different glues I tried left a lot to be desired.

My next project is a Christmas gift my wife gave me, the CSS Hunley by Cottage Industry in 1/72nd.  The box art is as you would see on the Hunley web site.  I also have Verlinden's CSS Nashville in 1/200th waiting in the wings.  The most important thing to obtain if you are planning on modeling this era is books.
Osprey's books are welcome and really necessary.  I personally feel that the history is what drives a project like this, without it the models are drab. 

Now the real reason I responded to the post was the mention of the old Revell CSS Alabama.  I modelled that kit when I was in high school just before going to college in 1965.  I thought is was a beautiful ship with an incredible history.  In fact in a foreign policy class I took, I did a major paper on the Alabama Claims witch was the attempt by the US to collect war reparations from Great Britain.  The trial was held at the Hague I believe around 1876, memory fails me, and the US was awarded fifty million in gold by the court paid by Great Britain.  It was also the last attempt to obtain Canada and attach it to the US.  This whole period is a very dramatic part of our history and little studied compared to land battles of the Civil War.

Making models and reading books, life is truly very good.


                                 

I’m sitting here looking at the 1/200 Verlinden U.S.S. Monitor kit, unassembled and straight out of my stash. It’s quite impressive. Here are remarks:

Every detail visible in surviving photos of the deck, deck furnishings and turret are reproduced precisely with two exceptions:

1. As Prof. Tilley notes, Verlinden modeled the Monitor in its post-C.S.S. Virginia clash configuration rigged for sailing and not combat (new pyramidal pilot house, and nicely detailed intakes and stacks). However, the turret doesn’t show the dents from the Virginia’s cannon balls. This is easily rectified by application of your Dremel tool sporting the correct diameter of ball-grinder.

2. Verlinden doesn’t supply the support rods or the canopy for the top of the turret (although there‘s a hole drilled into the base of the turret for this). Given the excellent detail within the turret, you may not want to add the canopy. Modeling the support rods can be done with brass wire or bent pins modeled according to contemporary photos available on the web. Or there’s a nice PE fret containing these details and much more available for about $12.00.

THE HULL: It’s one-piece and waterline. Perhaps 1 mm. will have to be filed off the bottom (almost nothing for a resin waterline hull). The deck riveting is in scale, and in scale with the rivets on the turret. Perhaps 20 of the deck plates show some distortion and/or buckling — a feature consistent with the photos but extremely difficult to add to perfectly flat deck plates. The hole for the turret is about ½ mm. larger than the turret itself and incused 1½ mm. below the deck level. There are about 100 pinhole bubbles in the deck of my hull, but they’re not visible to the naked eye, and I know from experience they will disappear under two zaps of primer from my trusty rattle-can.

THE TURRET: The exterior and interior detail are exquisite! In all, you need 16 parts to complete the turret and its interior. The pour stubs were so cleverly designed that it looks like 15 minutes to clean all the parts. And there are no bubbles! The only problem I have is with the (conjectural) top of the turret. All the turret’s interior bracing, including the overhead supports for the turret’s roof, are present. But the roof of the turret is a solid piece of resin, scribed to represent thin wood slats. It blocks off view of the nicely detailed interior, which is a shame. It’s known that later monitor-class ships had an open grating forming the roof of the turret. So I’ll replace that with PE grating. There’s also no exterior ladder, but that will come from the same PE fret I mentioned above.

MISCELLANEOUS: There are a few fiddly details you’ll have to add from your stash of plastic bits and wires. You’ll want to replace the thin styrene flagstaffs with either long pins or paperclips, and you’ll have to add supports to their bases. There may or may not have been a ventilator shaft in front of the pilot house. Finally, between the intakes and exhausts toward the stern, there may have been two pairs of lifeboat davits (conjectural) which are not present in the kit.

CONCLUSION: This will build into a handsome model, and with some work and the $12.00 PE fret, can easily equal the Battle-Axe model, albeit in 1/200^th instead of 1/144^th scale.

 

In the past year or so the conservators have made quite a bit of progress on the Monitor's turret.  They have, in fact, cleared away enough of the concretions and miscellaneous debris to establish pretty clearly what the top of it looked like.  It's a surprisingly complicated an interesting story, which we discussed in another Forum thread some months back.  Here's the link:  http://www.finescale.com/FSM/CS/forums/1/598130/ShowPost.aspx#598130

It wouldn't be fair to blame Verlinden for not having gotten it quite right - though it sounds like the kit is pretty close.  (There's also, as we discussed in that other thread, the possibility that the configuration of the roof changed during the ship's career.)

Thanks for the link, Prof. Tilley.

Oh, I don't blame Verlinden at all! Given the constraints they worked under (i.e., no PE fret so as to keep costs down and limited knowledge as of several years ago), I think the kit is superb! It's very well crafted and engineered. The slight inaccuracies and omissions are all easily correctable, and there is that available PE fret which is generalized for different 1/200 scale Civil War monitors and ironclads).

My speculation is that there was some sort of wooden roofing provided for the turret (aside from the awning) in its post-Virginia refit for its sea voyage to points south. But I think it was more to keep out big waves than to provide any kind of protection from high-lobbed cannonballs. Enough iron plating to protect against the latter (i.e., the thickness of the deck plating) might have been perceived as being enough to make an already unseaworthy vessel dangerously top-heavy. And firing a salvo from a turret fully closed on the top might have proven deadly for the gunners, both concussion and smoke-wise. The U.S.S. Keokuk, as well as later monitors, all had open grating strong enough to stand on and no more.

I made the Verlinden Monitor and used some 1:200 scale PE railing which I had in the stash.   I also used a vacuformed canopy left over from a Lone Star (now Flagship Models) kit..    The crew are some Plastruct architectural figures.

I cut a disc of styrene the diameter of the turret and opened the center, leaving an open circle about 1/8 inch.   I planked over the circle with styrene strips.   I left the circle removable so that the interior can be viewed.

Note too the numerous depressions scattered over the deck.    They are supposed to represent the deadlights which allowed light into the ship.    I replicated these with some Coke-bottle colored craft store jewels.  The final dull-coat applied killed their reflectiveness to be more indicative of the glass deadlight

 

Nice build, Ed! Thanks for sharing the pix.

Thanks for the comment on my Monitor.

I just picked up the Verlinden CSS Palmeto State.  It is a one-piece waterline casting with separate stack and boats (plus some wire and a piece of Evergreen tube).    The cannon barrels have pegs which fit into holes in the gun ports.   There are no instuructions and only a small photo of the completed kit on the box top.   The casting is well done with the bollards intact, as is a small ring which is to receive the torpedo spar. No surface bubbles.  

Looks to be a nice quick build if I don't get wrapped around the axle with AMS (it happened with the Verlinden CSS Atlanta).  

I have theVerlinden Palmetto State, too, as well as all of the others in their 1/200 scale line. It's like all the rest: excellent detail with excellent castings and no PE fret.

The Palmetto State, among her other engagements, covered the Confederate salvage operation which recovered the Dahlgren guns from the sunk U.S.S. Keokuk in shallow waters in Charleston Bay.

I haven't built the Palmetto State yet because I'm still trying to find pictures (photos preferably, or good drawings) of what an 1860's salvage operation would look like. I figure the Palmetto State model would be really slick dropped into a diorama of the salvage operation.

Ed, on the Monitor, as well as the U.S.S. Keokuk (which I'm almost done with), could one use Micro Kristal-Kleer (if that's how they misspell it) instead of craft-store jewels?

mostlyclassics wrote:

Ed, on the Monitor, as well as the U.S.S. Keokuk (which I'm almost done with), could one use Micro Kristal-Kleer (if that's how they misspell it) instead of craft-store jewels?

I'm sure you could,  but put a drop of silver (perhaps just a dot from a paint pen or silver craft pen) in each depression first .  Then put In the Kristal Kleer.   If you didn't there would just be a shiny spot in a depresssion.   The KK will not fill the depression when it dries.