Who was Turner anyway?

Who was Turner anyway?

Click on this image to find out who Turner was.

Field Musicians Wanted!

A Turner Bugler, 2004

Click on this image to learn about opportunities as a bugler, fifer or drummer with the Turner Brigade.

Why is the Cape Girardeau Woodruff tube different from all other surviving Woodruff tubes?

Why is the Cape Girardeau Woodruff tube different from all other surviving Woodruff tubes?

by Randy Baehr

I believe that the Thilenius tube is not just an original Woodruff tube, but the original Woodruff tube.  The only reason I can determine as to why this Woodruff tube is different from all other surviving Woodruff tubes is that it must have been a prototype.

There is plenty of direct and indirect evidence that a Woodruff tube existed before James Woodruff presented his proposal to Gen. Ripley.  His proposal included information such as the maximum range of a solid shot and the optimal range for canister that could only have been determined experimentally with an actual example gun.1Photocopy of original proposal by James Woodruff to Gen. Ripley in John L. Margreiter Collection, Missouri Historical Society Archives, St. Louis, Mo., originally from the National Archives. Quoted in full in John Margreiter, “The Woodruff Gun”, Civil War Times Illustrated, 12, 2, May 1973: 33.  In addition, Woodruff took with him to Washington letters of recommendation from two Illinois volunteer officers who attested to witnessing a successful demonstration of the gun.2W. L. Duff, Chief of Ordnance, Illinois Volunteers, to James Woodruff, 1 October 1861, National Archives; Charles H. Adams, Colonel, 45th Illinois Volunteers, to Simon Cameron, 31 [sic] September 1861, National Archives.  Source.

The conclusion is that Woodruff built 29 “production” versions of his gun and sold those plus the one prototype to the U.S. Government to complete the order for 30 guns.  The prototype then happened to end up at Fort Davidson in Pilot Knob, where it was left by the Confederates and then removed to Cape Girardeau by the reoccupying Federals after the battle.

The question then becomes why would the production examples be different from the prototype?  The differences are:

  • The production tubes have “steps” in the tube profile; one in front of the trunnions and one behind the trunnions.  The Thilenius tube has no “steps” in those places.
  • The production tubes generally have a short cascabel neck.  The Thilenius tube has a longer cascabel neck.
  • The production tubes have a hole in the end of the cascabel, assumedly for pinning the tube into a lathe for turning.  The Thilenius has no hole in the end of the cascabel.
  • The production tubes have narrow round rimbases with rectangular surrounds.  The Thilenius tube has simple round rimbases.

 

Original Woodruff tubes, Trophy numbers 397 and 398, in the collection of the West Point Museum, West Point, NY. Author’s photo courtesy of Les Jensen.

 

One would assume that any changes from the prototype to the production version would be to reduce costs, to improve performance in some way, or to make fabrication more efficient.

The “steps” appear to me to be largely cosmetic.  It’s not clear to me what functional value these would have.  They would seem to be an additional expense for little benefit.  The only benefit that might accrue is that the resulting tube could be lighter, since more material would be removed.  Any scrap removed could be melted down and reused, so that could be a cost saving.  We do know that production tubes were around 20 lbs. lighter than the prototype.  Woodruff stated that his tubes were hammer-forged, a process that uses a die to shape the resulting product.  It is unclear whether these steps were formed with the die or produced during the turning process on a lathe.

The cascabel neck and cascabel hole are probably related.  The longer neck might have provided a place to clamp the prototype tube in the lathe.  The hole, combined with the shorter neck, then would provide a surer way to keep the tube centered on the lathe when turning the tube.  This would be a production benefit.

The rimbases are another issue.  The rectangular rimbases of the production tubes used more metal and are a more complicated design to fabricate than the simple round rimbases of the prototype.  The chamfers that form a point on the top sides were apparently hand-done.  The Berry tube has the chamfers on both top rimbases, but also on one of the bottom rimbases, unlike any other production tube, where they are all rectangular on the bottom.  This was apparently a manufacturing mistake.  The rimbase does have a narrow round section that shows right at the trunnion base, so it may be possible that the rectangular pieces were added over the round rimbases of the prototype.  Presumably, the rectangular design provided a stronger attachment for the trunnions.

 

Comparison of Cape Girardeau Woodruff tube to John Berry’s original Woodruff tube.

A version of this article was originally published in the Fall 2024 issue of The Artilleryman Magazine.

 

Click here for a link to the event report on the debut of “George” on it new authentic replica carriage on 9 September 2024 at Fort D.