Heart Of The Catskills Adoption Form: Fill & Download for Free

The ‘ironclad gunboat’ USS Monitor, famous as she is, was a very flawed warship. George Paloczi-Horvath described her as having been “in every respect a lash up” (‘From Monitor to Missile Boat’; p.19). Yet she was successful enough, in her short career, to spawn a variety of improved versions. There was, after all, much improvement to be made!In order to make clear the problems inherent in the original prototype USS Monitor, I will try as far as possible to concentrate on the single-turret ‘successor’ classes to the original version, the Passaic and Canonicus classes, so as to highlight the specific improvements in that particular design lineage. However, in order to provide some context, or to fully illustrate certain points of improvement beyond the three main single-turret types, I will also make some reference to other contemporary US Navy warships, including alternative types of monitor.However, this will be a long enough answer as it is, so I will refrain from discussing separate technical challenges in other USN monitor lineages, especially where these have little bearing on Monitor’s own unique flaws. (So, no discussion of Eads turrets, paddle monitors or turtle-back decks.)I will also confine consideration of other monitors to those of the US Navy - and those designed during the Civil War period - as no real improvements were made in any of the Ericsson-type monitors built for foreign navies. Nor will I be drawing comparisons with the breastwork monitors of Britain and France, as they belong to a separate design lineage altogether.As an added bonus for those readers who are prepared to keep going, I promise to get a little bit controversial towards the end. By which I mean, I shall be going at a popular myth with a hammer.The ‘Monitor’:The ironclad turret ship USS Monitor was the brainchild of the certifiable genius, engineer & inventor John Ericsson. Her design was selected to meet a US Navy requirement for an armoured warship to match the likely threat of Confederate ironclads following the outbreak of the American Civil War.[1][1][1][1] Monitor was built in a very short span of time in response to the news that the South was indeed building an ironclad (from the recovered hulk of the half-burned USS Merrimack) and that it was nearing completion.(Above: Model of USS Monitor, made by Alexander Lynch.)Appearing to the onlooker as an armoured raft surmounted by a low cylindrical tower, Monitor was extremely novel. No warship ever built before had looked quite like her, in fact. Many doubts were expressed by senior Navy officials as to her overall practicality and efficacy. These doubts were, to a certain extent, well-founded:Monitor almost sank on her maiden voyage.[2][2][2][2]Though she proved in her first combat at Hampton Roads to be a successful fighting machine, even this demonstration was not achieved without problems. That the follow-on ships of the Passaic class were designed as ‘improved’ rather than ‘repeat Monitors’ says much about how apparent the original’s shortcomings were even before they had been so brutally exposed in service.Command & Control:Perhaps the first obvious fault of USS Monitor was the strange placement of the pilot house, or conning position, which was near the bow. Not only did this partly obscure the turret’s firing arcs forward - rendering head on fire far too dangerous to herself to employ - but it created serious command difficulties.The pilot house was not just the position from which the Quartermaster (helmsman) steered the ship, but it was also the location from which the Captain commanded the vessel. To enable good communication with the gun turret, the pilot house was equipped with voice tubes, into which the Captain could speak and be heard at the other end. In theory, at least:The voice tube became disconnected early on during the Battle of Hampton Roads. Although Lt Worden (commanding) had the helm at his immediate command, and so could direct the Monitor to go where he determined, the crew of the gun turret were largely blind to the location of the enemy. Given this, Worden had no option but to send runners between the pilot house and turret in order to direct the activities of turret commander Lt Greene.It was not the designer’s intent that Monitor have this curious weakness:“Ericsson originally intended that the pilothouse, or wheelhouse, should be connected to the gun turret of the Monitor, but the exigencies of time and amount of work involved dictated otherwise.” - (‘Confederate Ironclad vs Union Ironclad’, p.22)In other words, it was the imminent emergence of the rebel ironclad Virginia which caused Monitor to be so hastily constructed that short-cuts were incorporated into the original design, leaving her a less efficient fighting machine than she should have been.Monitor had an extemporised fix applied to her pilot house following her action at Hampton Roads. It was reduced in height and flanked on all four faces by sloped armoured glacis. But the correct solution to this clearly predicted fault was seen on the following Passaic class and all subsequent Civil War-era ships of monitor type: a cylindrical pilot-house was mounted atop the gun turret, precisely according to Ericsson’s original concept.(Above: Turret of Passaic-class monitor showing armoured pilot-house on roof.)In twin-turret types of monitor, the pilot-house was usually atop the forward turret, although the Monadnock & Miantonomoh classes carried them on both turrets. It should also be noted that the pilot-house was not fixed with the turret and did not rotate with it, but rather remained facing straight ahead - a vital consideration when trying to control the vessel!Hydrodynamic Qualities:A second major fault with the USS Monitor was that she was a very slow ship. This was not actually the fault of her machinery; rather she had been cursed with appalling underwater lines. Instead of being ‘ship-shape’, or even boat shaped, Monitor had a hull comprised of two differently sized sections mounted one above the other.These were:The upper hull, or ‘armoured raft’. This was 172 feet in length by 41 feet 6 inches wide, tapered to a point at each end. It was five feet high at the sides, with three and a half feet of this being below the waterline in service, granting the ship a freeboard of just eighteen inches.The lower hull. This formed the habitable area of the ship below the upper deck. It was much shorter than the raft, at 126 feet in length. It was also narrower, with a maximum width of 34 feet at the upper edge (where it joined the underside of the raft at a diagonal). It extended 7 feet below the bottom edge of the armoured raft. Due to the reverse slope of its sides, the lower hull’s flat bottom was a mere 18 feet wide. The junction between the flat side & bottom planes of the lower hull was a hard chine - a distinct angle as opposed to the rounded bilge seen on most wooden sailing ships of the time.This design meant that the hull had a distinctive overhang at the bottom edge of the raft:The overhanging raft design had been specifically chosen to provide the Monitor’s unarmoured and vulnerable lower hull with the maximum degree of protection against shot which fell just short of the ship and plunged into the water at an angle. It was further hoped that it might provide some protection against ramming attacks, although this was very much a secondary consideration which arose later on.Monitor’s curiously-shaped hull displaced less than a thousand tons - 987t - and contained a steam engine which generated 320 indicated horse-power, for a power-to-weight* ratio or specific power of 0.324 ihp/ton. Monitor’s maximum speed in a flat calm was a mere six knots.(*The use of the term ‘power-to-weight ratio’ is not strictly accurate, since we are dealing with the ship’s displacement as opposed to her actual material weight per se, but it is both similar and easy to understand for our lay purposes. Nonetheless, the term ‘specific power’ is probably to be preferred, despite meaning the same thing.)Comparing Monitor with a selection of more conventional gunboats of the time, we can see that unarmoured vessels - both screw and sidewheel types - had both higher speed and specific power (in bold) than the armoured vessel:USS Paul Jones (10 knots): 590ihp ÷ 1,210 tons = 0.488USS Metacomet (12.5 knots); 545ihp ÷ 1,173 tons = 0.465USS Itasca (11 knots); 400ihp ÷ 691 tons = 0.579We could easily arrive at the conclusion that, encumbered by iron armour plate and with a far smaller engine, of course the Monitor was going to be a slower ship. This is true, of course - she was never going to be faster by dint of having less installed power for her size - and yet the very fast Metacomet (and the Paul Jones) were propelled by old-fashioned paddle wheels rather than the more mechanically efficient screw propeller under Monitor’s stern.Given all of this, how then did I arrive at the conclusion that USS Monitor’s underwater lines - and not her armour plate - were slowing her down?Well, interesting discussions of alternative technologies aside, what really shows up the poor hydrodynamic qualities of USS Monitor’s hull form is the relative performance of the succeeding classes of ‘improved monitors’:USS Monitor - 172ft long, 987t, 320ihp single screw = 6 knots.Passaic class - 200ft long, 1875t, 320ihp single screw = 7 knots.Canonicus class - 225ft long, 2100t, 320ihp single screw = 8 knots.The most readily apparent point here is that, despite having the same installed machinery and power, the newer classes of monitor were both bigger and faster. While it is quite reasonable to point to the improving efficiency & refinement of screw propeller design, the much heavier Passaic still had the same draught as Monitor and thus the same diameter of screw. The Canonicus was, admittedly, two feet deeper with a commensurate increase in propeller diameter, but was heavier still than the Passaic. Even taller funnels for improved draught to the boilers cannot fully explain such s disparity in speed vs size.The real key to the improved speed of the Passaic and Canonicus class monitors was their vastly improved underwater shape:(Above: Line drawing of Passaic-class monitor showing the profile of the submerged hull. Note how rounded it is - far more like a boat attached to the underside of the still-overhanging raft - making it that much more streamlined compared to the hard angles of the first Monitor.Below: Two photographs of the Passaic-class USS Camanche during her reassembly at San Francisco show the compound curves of the forward end of the submerged hull, as well as the hard edges of the raft and its prominent forward overhang or ‘beak’.)(Below: Multiview projection of a Canonicus-class monitor, showing the much greater length of the lower hull proportional to the upper ‘raft’. The overhang at the side is still similar to that of the Passaic-class, but the fore and aft overhangs are both much diminished.)(Below: A three-dimensional cutaway depiction of USS Tecumseh shows how much the ship resembled a long, low boat sheathed over with iron and timber, in stark contrast to the ‘iron raft with a small gondola attached’ as embodied by the USS Monitor.)In the Canonicus class monitors, the designers had finally grasped the hydrodynamic benefits of:More closely matching the dimensions of the upper and lower hull.Smooth, full, rounded lines for the lower hull.Achieving fine entry for reduced drag.A higher length-to-beam ratio.All of these features had been deficient in the USS Monitor.Power of manoeuvre:A point related to the last one, but worthy of separate note. Although considered to have been a far more agile ship than her Confederate opponent Virginia, out-turning her with ease during the Battle of Hampton Roads, USS Monitor was not by any means highly manoeuvrable.In fact, the Monitor’s turning circle, although smaller than that of the much larger CSS Virginia, was still large enough that she turned comparatively slowly for a steamship. She actually struggled to get out of the way of Virginia during the latter’s ramming attempt:‘It took about half an hour to manoeuvre the unwieldy Virginia into ramming position*, while the Monitor continued to pound her.‘Finally Jones issued the order “Go ahead full speed,” and the Virginia began her half-mile run at the Monitor. Worden braced his vessel for the impact when he saw the Confederate ironclad begin its lumbering approach.‘…prior to being rammed, Worden instructed his helmsman to steer the more nimble Union vessel away to starboard, which caused the Virginia to affect only a glancing blow with her… prow.’ (Confederate Ironclad vs Union Ironclad, p.53)So, far from being a handy vessel with a readiness to answer the helm, the beamy-looking screw steamer USS Monitor was so unhandy that she struggled to turn out of the path of a slow opponent on a dead straight course from a half a mile away. It must be ascribed to the combination of poor underwater lines and her single propeller, for her rudder was neither poorly sited nor small. Having the narrow-bottomed, angular lower hull clearly caused Monitor to behave little better than a single-screw armoured frigate of great length in her power of manoeuvre.It is not entirely clear to what extent this performance trait was improved in the Passaic class, although the ships seemed to handle well enough on their way into Charleston Harbour during the attack on Fort Sumter. It does seem most likely that the long-hulled and comparatively sleek ships of the Canonicus class must have sacrificed some power of manoeuvrability for that higher speed.*(As opposed to taking half an hour to turn round - another ironclad myth.)Structural weakness:There was a further - and far more dangerous - problem created by USS Monitor’s hull form, and it ultimately resulted in a disaster.Monitor’s lower hull joined the lower edge of the armoured ‘raft’ or upper hull at an angle of 48.8 degrees from the vertical. This meant employing an abutment joint which, despite diagonal bracing, created a long weak junction which ran the length of the ship. Essentially the lower hull was just a heavy gondola, hung from the middle of the raft by bolts.This seam partially separated during Monitor’s last journey, when large storm waves slammed against the underside of the raft’s ends, where the overhang was most extensive. The huge upward force thus applied to the raft, versus the downward force created by the mass of the iron lower hull and its contents (machinery, fittings, ammunition and coal) created a load which overcame the strength of the junction between the two. Many leaks appeared and the ingress of water was too much for the pumps to cope with.The surviving officers & crew testified that it was this structural failure which caused the flooding which sank the Monitor, rather than the drunken incompetence which Ericsson accused the crew of, nor natural flooding through hatches caused by her low freeboard as one might instead have imagined.Ericsson had claimed of his Monitor that “The sea shall ride over her and she shall live in it like a duck”. He was wrong.It does seem, though, that the unorthodox construction technique was quickly identified as the wrong way to go about things, even before the demise of USS Monitor. As we have seen, the lower hull form of the Passaic was much more conventional and this class were designed and laid down well before the prototype was lost at sea. The curved bilges and vertical sides of the Passaic permitted for a much stronger union between upper & lower hull:As is clearly visible in the above cross-sectional diagram of a Passaic-class monitor, the sides of the lower hull ran parallel and in contact with both the inner face of the raft’s heavy timber armour backing and a bracing of additional heavy timbers immediately inboard of the hull plating. The lower hull was thus sandwiched & pinned in place over a broad area, in such a way as to resist the vertical force which caused USS Monitor’s hull to separate.This, far more than enhanced streamlining, is what permitted USS Weehawken to ride out a severe gale at sea in January 1863.[3][3][3][3]The following ‘coastal’ monitors of the Canonicus class were every bit as strongly put together, as seen once again in cross-section:The area of contact between the two sections of the hull was equivalent to about three quarters of the total surface area of the raft’s side. This made it less of a case of the lower hull being attached to the bottom of the raft; more like the raft was built around the top of the hull. The relationship between the two hull components had changed, dramatically and for the better.By the time the twin-turret ‘seagoing’ monitors were designed and built, the concept of the raft had been entirely abandoned and those ships had ship-shape hulls with no overhang, even though they retained the low freeboard of the monitor type.Anchor stowage:One final point to mention about the hull of US monitors of the Civil War was the unique arrangement of their anchors. The USS Monitor’s overhanging raft performed several different functions, all protective of course, but the protection afforded to the anchor could also prove to be an Achilles’ heel.The anchor was suspended beneath the forward overhang, with the chain kept entirely beneath the armoured deck. This meant that, when the captain wanted to drop anchor, it could be quite literally dropped to fall down below the ship’s bow onto the harbour or sea floor.This was fine in as far as it went, but it also meant the ship’s hawsepipe (the opening through which the anchor chain led out) was dangerously close to the waterline. This arrangement was persisted with in the following Passaic and Canonicus classes, most of which encountered no significant problems as a result.However, the monitor USS Weehawken was lost at least in part due to the dangerous location of the hawsepipe. On 6th December 1863, Weehawken lay at anchor off Charleston when a ‘moderate gale’ blew up. The monitor had recently taken on more ammunition and stores, adding to her weight forwards. The bow started to dip beneath the waves and, as it did so, seawater began to pour in through the hawsepipe and an open hatch. With the pumps in the now-rising aft part of the hull unable to reach the water, the flooding could not be stopped and the vessel sank by the bow.The problem of submerged anchor arrangements was unresolved in the single-turret coastal monitors at the end of the Civil War. It does seem that a much safer above deck arrangement of anchors and chains was adopted in the twin-turret Miantonomoh and Monadnock classes, which forwent the overhanging raft concept almost entirely, as this model suggests:Most of the single-turret monitors spent the bulk of their post-war service in reserve and it is likely that no significant modifications were made to their layout, probably including the anchor arrangements, for the majority of this period up until reactivation in 1898. However, the survivor of the single-turret types - USS Canonicus - had clearly had her submerged anchor & hawsepipes removed by the early Twentieth Century and replaced by conventional above-deck anchors.(Above: USS Canonicus at the Jamestown Exhibition of 1907, showing her above-deck anchors at either side of the bow. She was scrapped the following year.)The Ericsson Turret:The single most characteristic - indeed, defining - feature of USS Monitor and all Ericsson monitors which followed her was the cylindrical armoured Ericsson turret. This contained the heavy guns which were the raison d’etre of the monitors in the first place. However, despite being a famous engineering achievement and seemingly well-understood, it poses a quandary.Just how did it actually work?We know that the turret had a floor which rotated with the whole structure. We also know that the turret was turned by auxiliary steam engines, or donkey engines, fed with steam from the same Martin boilers which also powered the vibrating lever engine that turned the screw propeller. In addition, it is well understood that the Ericsson turret did not turn on a roller race, but on a central iron spindle. The donkey engines acted upon the central spindle to turn the entire turret.Several things need to be cleared up, however. First of all, we should understand that the turret’s donkey engines (mounted in the galley space of the hull) were not directly connected to the central spindle of the turret. The spindle was mounted on the forward side of the ship’s amidships bulkhead - the other side to the galley. Instead, the engines were connected to the first of four gears. This then acted upon a vertical drive shaft, itself fitted with two differently sized gears, which in turn acted upon the large gear mounted on the turret spindle. This arrangement can be partly seen in the diagram below:The gears reduced the effort needed to turn the turret, allowing the small engines to rotate a structure weighing 160 tons through a full 360 degree revolution in about 30 seconds. That was a fast rotation; in fact, too fast for the turret crew.Firing ‘on the fly’:At the Battle of Hampton Roads, Lt Greene found that turret of USS Monitor rotated so rapidly that, coupled with the poor view out of the turret, it was very difficult to find the enemy and stop the turret in order to fire accurately. Overshooting was so easy, even with the donkey engine control valve in the turret, that the choice was to either;Engage reverse gear, bring the turret to a stop and reverse it back towards the target,Allow the turret to complete another full rotation and try again to stop in time, orSimply fire as the guns bore, while the turret was still rotating.The crew elected to ‘fire on the fly’, partly because of turret control issues and partly because of disorientation. As Lt Greene himself recalled:“My only view of the world outside of the tower was over the muzzles of the guns, which cleared the ports by only a few inches. When the guns were run in, the port-holes were covered by heavy iron pendulums…“The effect upon one shut up in a revolving drum is perplexing, and it is not a simple matter to keep the bearings. White marks had been placed upon the stationary deck immediately below the turret to indicate the direction of the starboard and port sides… and the bow and the stern; but these marks were obliterated early in the action.“I would continually ask the captain, ‘How does the Merrimac bear?’ He replied, ‘On the starboard beam,’… as the case might be. Then the difficulty was to determine the direction of the starboard beam…“It finally resulted that when the gun was ready for firing, the turret would be started on its revolving journey in search of the target, and when found it was taken ‘on the fly’, because the turret could not be accurately controlled.”It is often supposed that this problem of accurate turret control was resolved in later classes by providing more powerful turret machinery, but this is not likely. The Monitor’s donkey engines were already quite powerful enough, according to the testimony.Additionally, we must remember that the Passaic and Canonicus classes carried exactly the same boilers and main engines as the prototype Monitor. There was simply no more steam pressure available for more powerful machinery.It seems more likely that a combination of improved gearing, along with the heavier weight of armour and guns in the later classes, permitted for a more controllable rotation in the single-turret classes. It does remain quite possible, even likely, that the twin-turret monitors, with their different machinery fit, allowed for increased power when needing to put the turret into reverse and stop it on the target.The most likely explanation for the superior turret control on later monitors, however, was simply the placement of the pilot house. Up on the turret roof and with a good command of the battle area, it could act as a spotting top to help direct the turret onto its target, without the need for near-blind guessing as Lt Greene had experienced.Firing ports:A number of problems were discovered with the firing ports of USS Monitor in her actions against CSS Virginia and the Confederate batteries at Drewry’s Bluff.The large teardrop-shaped pendulums which closed the firing ports when the guns were being reloaded were extremely unwieldy.The firing ports themselves were too low for use against anything other than surface targets.The width of the firing ports was inadequate for the originally-planned Dahlgren XV-inch gun.Stoppers: During the action at Hampton Roads, Greene found that the pendulums were so heavy, being hung from pivots at the top, that they required a lot of the crew in order to swing them out of the way so that the guns could be run out for firing. In the subsequent monitor-type warships, these were replaced by crank-shaped forgings which were rotated horizontally and required only a couple of men to turn.(Above: The turret of a Canonicus-class monitor shows the new type of crank-shaped gunport stopper, labelled ‘R’ in the above diagrams.)In addition to the new type of port ‘stopper’ or internal shield as it really was, the monitors of the Canonicus class also carried a pair of oval shaped tompions which could be fitted over the gunports themselves when at sea. These were frequently seen stowed on the outside of the turret, hung either side of the gunports, when the ship was in service on rivers, as seen on the USS Mahopac below:Port height: The firing ports of USS Monitor had been made by drilling three large-diameter holes above each other, in the face of the completed turret, and then removing the uneven edges to produce a tall, straight-sided oval. These worked perfectly well in action against the Virginia, as the guns were being fired on a flat trajectory. They proved to be restrictive at Drewry’s Bluff, on the other hand, since the tops of the ports proved too low to permit the guns enough elevation to engage the Confederate batteries (which were on high ground above the river) at a useful range.Once again, the remedy was incorporated into the Passaic design. The firing ports were simply made slightly taller. Without diminishing the protective value of the turret, the monitor as a type now became a valuable shore bombardment platform and remained so for the duration of its existence. Compare the firing ports of USS Monitor (top) with USS Catskill (bottom):(Above: The Passaic-class monitors featured firing ports almost half a calibre taller than those of their predecessor; this allowed them to engage forts at close range.)Width of ports: Ericsson originally designed the Monitor to carry two of the new Dahlgren XV-inch guns in her turret, but these were not ready in time. Therefore, the design was quickly recast for a pair of Dahlgren XI-inch guns instead and the firing ports were drilled accordingly.When it came time to arm the new Passaic-class monitors, the XV-inch gun was available in limited numbers. There were still not enough to arm the ships with two of them apiece. Therefore, to get the monitors and new guns into service as quickly as possible, each ship was allocated one XV-inch & one XI-inch gun. But when the guns were fitted into the turret, the new XV-inch heavy gun did not protrude from the firing port.Whether or not the new gun was a shorter type than the following version of XV-inch was irrelevant when one vital matter was considered: The firing ports on these new ships were still drilled to fit the eleven-inch gun. When the need for heavier firepower than the XI-inch smoothbore could provide was met on a short-term basis by fitting three class members with a Parrott Rifle in its place (until more XV-inch Dahlgrens were available), the gun chosen was an eight-inch model, because that was the largest calibre of rifle which could fit through the Passaic’s firing port.(Above: Monitor USS Passaic showing the muzzles of her smoothbore XV-inch Dahlgren on the left and 8-inch Parrott Rifle on the right of the picture. Note how the thicker-walled rifle fits the firing port as snugly as an XI-inch smoothbore, while the XV-inch gun’s muzzle cannot actually fit through.)The problem with this arrangement was that the big Dahlgren gun would have been going off inside the turret when fired: The projectile would fly out of the port alright, but the fumes and smoke of firing would back up in the turret. This was unacceptable.The solution was to build an iron ‘smoke box’ inside the firing port, to prevent the firing exhaust from filling the entire turret. This is seen on the left-hand gun in the diagram below:The major drawback of the smoke boxes was that they completely obscured the view of the target for the gun-captains of the XV-inch Dahlgrens, who had to use the other gun port to aim from. When the remaining Passaics were rearmed with two XV-inchers, God alone knows what they did!What may be apparent from the above diagram is that it represents a half-and-half plan, comparing the Passaic class with the Canonicus class. This is because the later class incorporated two improvements to address the shortcomings of the Passaic XV-inch arrangement:A new, longer XV-inch gun was developed, with a narrower muzzle.The firing ports were widened to accommodate the muzzle of the new ‘Canonicus XV-inch’. From now on, there would be no more inconvenient smoke boxes and the gunners would be free to observe their targets!The Turret Conundrum:Well, I promised that there was a big question raised by the Ericsson turret, and you may already know that I am very fond of looking for alternative explanations for things which just don’t seem to add up.So what exactly is this question?It’s something which has always struck me as wild and improbable, yet is accepted without question by most who read about it:The 160-ton Ericsson turret was LIFTED UP on a nine inch thick pole!That’s right. Lots of folk believe that this huge structure, weighing more than fifty Lincoln Continentals, was physically lifted up off the deck of the USS Monitor by the iron central spindle prior to being rotated. The idea being that the turret was essentially flying a couple of inches above the deck whilst turning.Lest we forget Lt Greene’s account of how the turret crew engaged the Virginia in battle, this ridiculous notion implies that the turret was actually spinning like a plate on a pole while the pair of eight-ton cannons inside it were firing (and recoiling).Wikipedia’s article explains how the turret’s “entire weight rested on an iron spindle that had to be jacked up using a wedge before the turret could rotate”, as well as helpfully pointing out how the nine-inch thick turret spindle had “ten times the strength needed in preventing the turret from sliding sideways”. It goes on to explain that “When not in use, the turret rested on a brass ring on the deck” and that “The gap between the turret and the deck proved to be a problem as debris and shell fragments entered the gap and jammed the turrets of several Passaic-class monitors, which used the same turret design, during the First Battle of Charleston Harbour in April 1863”.We are getting to the heart of the problem. Nobody seems to relate facts about monitors, but instead mishears or misreads things and then half-repeats them with errors.How many monitors were actually disabled by turret damage at Charleston?Two for certain:USS Nahant sustained 36 hits and suffered 1 man killed in the pilot house atop the turret. Her turret was disabled by enemy fire.USS Weehawken was hit 59 times and suffered bow damage (from her own ‘alligator’ mine-sweeping attachment) and a penetration of the deck. Her turret was put out of action from shock as a result of hits from enemy guns.That’s one monitor which may or may not have had its turret ‘jammed by debris’ - not “several”. And, to be fair, it’s far more likely that Nahant’s turret failed due to shock or deformation of either the spindle or the turret base.Except, the turret bases were about two or three inches above the deck, so how could deformation of the lower edge have jammed the turret?It doesn’t add up. This evidential maths is way, way out.So what was actually happening with the monitors’ turrets?Well, they weren’t being lifted up into the air. That simply did not happen.Bearing surface:The turret of USS Monitor rested on a ring of brass, set into the upper deck of the armoured raft. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc. Zinc-based alloys are particularly good at reducing sliding friction when used as bearing surfaces. That brass ring was a bearing surface. The turret turned on it, not while raised above it. But what about the iron spindle?Loading on the spindle:The iron spindle which rotated the turret was nine inches in diameter, giving a sectional area of 63.62 sq inches.The Ericsson turret with eight to eleven inches of armour and two eleven inch guns weighed 160 tons, which is 320,000 pounds.This makes the loading on the base of the centre spindle, when bearing the entire weight of the turret, 5,029.86 pounds per sq inch.That seems like rather a lot. Surely some-one else must have stopped to think about this before repeating how the turret was ‘jacked up before it could be rotated’? 5,000 psi is about the same as an African elephant walking in stiletto heels, and that was supposed to be the loading on the spindle support truss in the centre of the USS Monitor’s lower hull. The same lower hull which almost tore off in a storm under the loading of it’s own weight.Let’s also consider that the 5,000 psi loading is supposed to make the end of an iron axle, pressed onto iron, into a more frictionally efficient bearing surface than the huge brass ring. I find this hard to accept.Keying up:The weight of the Monitor’s turret was displaced by a large Y-shaped truss - called the turret support truss - fixed to the forward side of the ship’s central bulkhead. The turret shaft - which was not actually fixed to the turret - sat in a large iron ‘cup’ type bearing, which in turn rested on the centre of the truss. During battle stations, the shaft was raised into contact with the turret, or ‘keyed up’.To ‘key up’ the turret, the crew tightened a large nut on the end of a long horizontal wedge, which slowly slid underneath the base of the turret shaft’s bearing. As the nut was tightened, “the shaft slowly rose up to connect with the yoke on the main beam at the bottom of the turret. Once the shaft was in place, a member of the gun crew turned a control wheel, which increased the steam pressure to the auxiliary steam engines and put the turret in motion.” (Confederate Ironclad vs Union Ironclad, p.21)So this is how we ought to understand the ‘raising of the turret’ on a monitor. The turret spindle was raised and pressed into firm contact with the turret. It did not lift the turret off of its bearing ring, but may have had enough force applied as to share the load, possibly removing the friction between the turret floor and the support truss. This would be an ‘at most’ scenario. The turret sides and roof were certainly not lifted.Protecting the turret base:Having determined that the turret of a monitor remained in contact with the deck structure at all times during battle, we must look again at the notion of protecting against hits to the turret base. What was the true nature of the problem?The shock of impacts against the armour of the turret was enough to jar the turret rotation gear or damage the turret shaft. Remember that the shaft was strong enough to ‘prevent the turret sliding sideways’? That was a case of holding the deck-mounted structure in place, since nothing else apart from the turret’s own weight was doing that, but it was clearly not an assessment of its ability to withstand externally applied impact forces. The armour of the monitors’ turrets was not pierced in action, either at Hampton Roads or at Charleston.So why did the series-produced monitors receive heavy armoured rings around the bases of the turrets? If we look to the Passaic class, we will see that the applique armour ring was not actually fixed to the deck, but was attached to the turret itself. The distinctive gap between ring and deck is visible on USS Passaic below:And there, at the bottom edge of the armoured ring, is the clue as to what they were for; a huge dent from a Confederate cannon shot. If the base of the turret ever left the deck (as in the dubious ‘jacking up’ theory) then enemy shot would still have been able to get underneath and ‘jam the turret’. Clearly this did not happen.But Union monitors’ armour plate was surprisingly soft and easily deformed by hard impacts. The bottom edge of this turret ring shows just that. If the base armour (that originally fixed to the turret, beneath the additional ring) were struck heavily and deformed, it might well have produced a slight downward dishing and spreading, producing a point of deep contact which would have dug into the softer brass of the bearing ring.This sort of impingement would have created an insurmountable degree of friction and resistance, making it quite impossible for the donkey engines to turn the turret. It would have required enough force from the engines to actually gouge the brass ring as the turret rotated, or to actually ‘bump’ the turret up and over the ring (lifting it at one side so as to be unevenly perched).The purpose of the external applique armour ring, fitted to the monitors after the Battle of Charleston Harbour, was to act as a form of ‘spaced armour’ to keep any such deformation slightly above the deck and - most importantly - well outboard of the brass bearing ring, to prevent turret jams resulting from impingement on the ring.It may be deduced that the arrangement in the Passaic class was imperfect. It clearly offered good protective value, but did not resolve the secondary concerns of leakiness associated with the Ericsson turret’s deck mounting. The Canonicus class, despite being originally fitted with the same type of turret armour ring, later showed a separate glacis-like armour ring fitted to the deck around the base of the turret. This can be seen in the Jamestown Exhibition photo of USS Canonicus and may have been just as much to reduce wetness at the turret base as for protection in battle.Conclusions on the turret:The most important take home from this is that the Ericsson turret almost certainly rotated on the brass bearing ring. It would surely have made an awesome screeching sound, but then isn’t that what we would expect of an ironclad?Miscellaneous detail improvements:Without going into excessive detail, the short removable square smokestacks and ventilator trunks of the original USS Monitor were replaced in all succeeding classes of monitor by tall, fixed funnels and ventilator shafts which stood well above the deck. This would have helped to improve draught to the boilers, aiding in greater efficiency (and contributing somewhat to improved speed in conjunction with improved hull form).The taller ventilator pipe also would have assisted the job of the ventilation blowers. In spite of improved blowers on successive ships, ventilation below decks in monitors was always deficient, with the crew toiling in almost unbearable temperatures. Allowing natural draught to contribute to the fresh air below decks was simply a logical thing to do.Accommodation in later monitors was far better than in the prototype. Again, much of this is attributable to the enlargement of the hulls, giving more internal space and making for a roomier ship. Nonetheless, life on a monitor was never characterised by a high level of privacy, or even particular comfort!Overall conclusions:The prototype turret ship USS Monitor was a revolutionary warship, but full of flaws. Her turret was an experimental design which, although requiring some detail improvements, was remarkably satisfactory in many ways. Her hull was an entirely untested concept when it was ordered into production and it was this which revealed the largest number of faults; some of which merely resulted in a degree of inefficiency, while other aspects were outright dangerous.Thus, when the name-ship proved the concept of the monitor to be a fundamentally good one, it required a major reappraisal of the original design to produce a more reliable, workable and efficient implement of war.Edit: In response to a query as to the sources used in the writing of this answer, my primary resources were the following books:‘From Monitor to Missile Boat’ (Conways).‘All the World’s Fighting Ships 1860–1905′ (Conways).‘Ironclads at War’ (Greene & Massignani / Friary).‘Confederate Ironclad vs Union Ironclad’ (Osprey).‘Our Ironclad Ships, Their Qualities, Performance & Cost’ (Sir E J Reed).All are well worth investigating. Thanks for reading.Footnotes[1] USS Monitor - Wikipedia[1] USS Monitor - Wikipedia[1] USS Monitor - Wikipedia[1] USS Monitor - Wikipedia[2] USS Monitor - Wikipedia[2] USS Monitor - Wikipedia[2] USS Monitor - Wikipedia[2] USS Monitor - Wikipedia[3] USS Weehawken (1862) - Wikipedia[3] USS Weehawken (1862) - Wikipedia[3] USS Weehawken (1862) - Wikipedia[3] USS Weehawken (1862) - Wikipedia

I had tahini for breakfast this morning, so I hope I am not falling off my Ashkenazi wagon. In my Answer, yesterday about anti-semitism, I described some of the reasons or means Jews have to not give up their own culture. Or, maybe I should say, cultures. Jews have participated in various cultures over the last few thousand years. Ashkenazism is one of them.The concept of what an Ashkenazi is, itself somewhat fluid. Wikipedia has this useful article. Ashkenazi Jews - Wikipedia. Jews have been in Europe for a long time, much longer than most modern European cultures could be identified.One would have to ask what a “European culture” is. I don't think you can really identify a common one, other than a historic commitment to Christianity. (Even then, you have Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania, Turkish heritage European states. I think “European” is more a polite word for being white.)So, if you define being of a Christian heritage, as necessary to being European, Ashkenazi culture can't be European. But, that doesn't make it, by default, Middle Eastern, unless one is referring to Judaism coming from the Middle East. You can be Ashkenazi, or Sephardi, and do your own thing, or, whatever the Rabbis says the thing is.The Wikipedia article notes that German Jews sort of dropped out of being Ashkenazi. They were trying to redefine, being Jewish, as a religious denomination within German society. That attempt contributed to an absolutely tragic result. Jews originally concentrated in the more westerly part of Europe, but a lot of us got pushed east. However, there is a problem in that the historic record is deficient. A lot of Ashkenazim can't trace their families back more than three or four generations. There is very little in the way of records, about when individual Jews or Jewish families decided to abandon Germany and France, and move on to Poland, the Russian Empire and Romania. I wouldn't have any idea of when my ancestors might have decided to flee the Rhine Valley (If they ever lived there.) and made the big move to what is now Belarus and Moscow. A lot of Ashkenazim are in this position. Presumably, Jews had been in Eastern Europe a long time, before the governments of the region decided they needed to keep careful track of us. Then the Russian Empire forced a lot of us into the Pale of Settlement: Pale of Settlement - Wikipedia.Are you, and your culture, European, when the real, Europeans say you are not European? That is part of what the Czar said. The non-European argument culminated in Hitler.The Old Home Is GoneAnd, I should note. Most of the traditional Ashkenazi culture got murdered during World War II. Much of the world's Ashkenazim got wiped out, to the extent that there is no Jewish culture left in what had been great Jewish cities, places like Bobroysk, Minsk and Vilnius. That Ashkenazi culture is gone there, so the question of whether, Ashkenazi culture is more European, at least in literal way, is not relevant.The Soviet Union saved many of its Ashkenazim, but, then, had a complicated history with the survivors. They didn't try to erase Ashkenazi culture altogether. For some time the Yiddish language was tolerated. They even created the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, in Asia: Jewish Autonomous Oblast - Wikipedia.And then, there were the descendants of the European Ashkenazim who migrated elsewhere, to Israel, to the USA, to Canada, to the United Kingdom, to Argentina, to Mexico, etc.In every case, us Ashkenazim had to adapt to local circumstances. Would one say that the Ashkenazi community of Buenos Aires is “European” or Latin American”? Not that much Yiddish is spoken there anymore, but I doubt that there are very many Ashkenazim in Argentina, who are not fully fluent in Spanish.Ashkenazis, A Manitoban Culture?I could personalize my Ashkenazim in many ways, but, a propos of Argentine Ashkenazim, some immigrated to Canada and settled in Winnipeg. I was home for a visit some time ago. I visited a kosher delicatessen in the Jewish part of the South End that had been my parent's favourite. I did it in part to get take-outs, but also out of nostalgia, and in a certain way to honour my Mom and Dad. I was wandering about, looking at the shelves, full of kosher items that would have passed muster in Mogilov.Then, there they were, kosher empanadas. As I recall, they were very tasty, but I do recall thinking, what is happening to our Winnipeg Ashkenazidom? Will these empanadas not rob us of core Russian Empireness? Won't they distract us from venerating, and to the extent possible, obeying, the culture of our grandparents?The Ashkenazi Congregation of WinnipegPlease note that I do these references to the Ashkenazi Synagogue of Winnipeg with great respect and admiration. I am hoping the synagogue is still in operation.Being an Ashkenazi isn't just a way of thinking. Cultures need infrastructure. Winnipeg has a few older synagogues, but by name, I think this one is particularly significant.Ashkenazi Synagogue (corner of Charles Street): “Traditional Orthodox synagogue with weekly morning services with the exception of Shabbos. It is the oldest existing synagogue in Winnipeg, meeting at the same location since 1922. Ashkenazi is close to the downtown area and easily accessible to the businessman or traveller from the city's downtown.”Synagogue remains in original North End neighbourhood. This article is the property of the Winnipeg Free Press. It has photos of the interior of the synagogue. This Winnipeg Free Press also has this article with pictures of the exterior: North End outreach .This synagogue is highly, highly symbolic to me, just by its name, and because I was taken there as a kid.The Ashkenazi-origin Jews of Winnipeg have been facing an issue, as long as I have been alive. I think its the same issue that faces Ashkenazi-origin Jews in a lot of other places. I could call it, de-Europeanization, although that is a little simplistic. That means, can we live as a culture somewhere else, or are we waning away? After all, Ashkenazim didn't exist in the biblical era, and other, distinct Jewish cultures have faded away. Is a synagogue like the Ashkenazi destined to be, only a monument, a remnant of a culture that the younger Jews of Winnipeg won't recognize, or is it a new start?One can even say the same thing about the Ashkenazim of Israel. It has been said that, parts the Jewish cultures of Israel, have moved towards being Middle Eastern. Should the Ashkenazi identity in Israel fade away, in favour of a pan-Jewish identity.? Will the only real remnant really be the relatively small number of very Orthodox Jews who still adhere to the Yiddish language, and dress if the manner of medieval Polish nobles?Even in my Winnipeg of the 1950's, some people were starting to say, its over. It is something Mom and Dad can't give up, but the culture we came from is dead. They said, it is about Hebrew now. It is about Israel. It is about a few Ashkenazi religious customs, that are a little different from what the Sepharadim do. Our children will forget most, and their children will forget all.Even The Nightclubs Are FadingAshkenazism in the USA had a few decades, during the late nineteenth, and much of the twentieth century, when it was something almost freestanding. The sheer size of the American Jewish community, mostly Ashkenazi in origin, made a subculture possible and commercially viable. Some parts of the Ashkenazi culture of Eastern Europe mutated. We started with the Yiddish theatre, but ended up with Broadway musicals, jazz musicians, making movies, and telling jokes in nightclubs and then on TV.I don't think the concept got much intellectualized, but, I think for many in my parent's generation, it seemed like enough to keep us going. Surely Yiddish could continue to have a little, secular niche, if only to speak vulgar words in comedy routines? Will not Miami Beach be ours in eternity? Won't the kosher hotels of the Catskills stay? What about the traditional wedding and bar mitzvah buffet, stuffed with delicious kosher calories? (I still recall some of them in Winnipeg. People went to town when they made them. It was unhealthy, but stuffing yourself with those delicious Ashkenazi delicacies was absolutely splendid.)Personally, I very much wish we could have maintained that ongoing type of Ashkenazi cultural survival, but who remembers Jerry Lewis now, and what he meant to us, except old people like me?Who can remember those golden days of Jewish matrons wearing mink coats in Miami Beach? When was our chicken soup (It has globules of fat, called schmaltz, floating on the surface. It it didn't then, it wasn't chicken soup.) condemned as a heart attack in a bowl? Even Seinfeld is retreating into memory.One of the distinguishing features of North American Ashkenazi culture was that, it was a lot of fun. But, we were not able to hold the line.We Won't Let It Be About RaceIn Quora, we see not infrequent references to Ashkenazi Jews being a “race”. Various DNA studies have been done. The not small number of anti-semites who post in Quora would love to see definitive proof, that us Ashkenazis have no more Middle Eastern genes than Swedish people do.But, genetic science is not giving them what they hoped for. Again and again, our DNA is predominantly a mix of Middle Eastern and south European. There are small bits of Slav, and a teensy touch of Hungarian thrown in, but basically we are a combination of Sicilian and Lebanese.As I see the Ashkenazi culture diminish, and its roots in Eastern Europe gone, I feel a temptation to say, here is my DNA test. I can't put together one sentence in Yiddish, I can't play a violin, and I have no recipe for blintzes, but, I don't need to. I am an Ashkenazi right down to the mitochondrial level.But, what Jew, of any kind, would want to go there? Do I want to worry about my pure bloodline being tainted? Do I want to see blond young women as the instrument of my destruction?Ashkenazi Forever, Somehow?Star Trek, The Next Generation, had an episode featuring Worf's adoptive parents, Molly Picon and Theodore Bikel, the King and Queen of Yiddish theatre, visiting the Enterprise from their home in Bobroysk. I wish they could have invented a plot device that would have let them sing a few songs.That episode represented my dream. The Ashkenazi Synagogue, still sitting on its street corner in the future North End Winnipeg, still attended. Some type of secular Ashkenazi culture somehow preserved. The Holodeck offering you an East European shtetl (Jewish village) programme, where you get to pray a lot, and listen in awe to the greatest Ashkenazi Rabbis. And, holo chopped liver, with no calories!It stopped being about Europe during World War II. They never thought we were European anyhow. And, all the DNA in the world won't make us Middle Eastern. Ashkenazis have been trying to maintain their culture elsewhere. I have the sense that we, and the culture that makes me, personally me, are fading out. But, maybe I can dream about meeting Molly Picon and Theodor Bikel, in a Holodeck version of the Ashkenazi synagogue, and still have a bit of hope.Martin Levine

Where I Lived and Old Age ain't what it used to beLife in MilwaukeeI grew up in the late 1930s - 1940s in a Milwaukee urban environment; my family being Germans from Prussia (father’s side) and some red dog Irish from Dublin (mother’s side), who had immigrated to Milwaukee in the 1850s, entered into businesses (construction, pharmacy and diamond brokerage), and were as far back as I can remember, traditional Republicans. My adolescence were my immortal days when I was completely reckless, full of adventure, dared to do anything, was very physical, and thought the devil takes the hindmost. I can remember all those days well, so my adventures will make good story telling.Back then, Milwaukee was basically a European culture, with large German / Polish / British populations, a manufacturing center that believed in work, fair play and earned rewards. Milwaukee has always been a music-based town with ethnic festivals on the Lake Michigan waterfront celebrating national heritage. With religious zeal, Milwaukee was also a sports town that had a passionate love affair for the Green Bay Packers and Braves.It was home to parks every few blocks, the Lake Michigan waterfront, trolley cars, viaducts, corner stores and soda fountains, beautiful neighborhoods, an excellent school system, and was world famous for heavy manufacturing, custard, Brewies, Harley Davidson, Liberace, bowling, ethnic festivals, being an international sea port and USA freight train connector, Polka dancing, car racing, State Fairs, and the incomparable world class Milwaukee Zoo.Milwaukee was a working man’s politically and socially liberal city where unions prevailed, bars were on every corner, dance clubs dotted every ethnic neighborhood, and where new performing acts tried out and went on to become nationally famous like Buddy Holly, the Platters, Wilson Pickett and Elvis Presley. Milwaukee teenagers in the 1950's conjure images of boys with pompadour hair dos shaped into Duck Tails, Drape pants, Spade shoes, leather Bomber Jackets and girls with pony tails, in bobby socks, poodle skirts and white saddle shoes. And Milwaukee was a ‘dance city’ that emerged a new generation from swing dancing to Lindy and Jitterbug, to Be Bop, to Doo Op, and into the age of Elvis Presley’s rock and roll.Between ice skating at Washington Park, skiing around Milwaukee’s hills and dales, camping at Menomonee Falls and running with the trains, going to Hoyt Park and on the amusement rides and to carnival side shows at the Wisconsin State Fair every year, exploring Milwaukee on my Schwinn bike, life was very entertaining. I bought my first car at 16 and became an auto mechanic to keep it running. Washington High School was great and I had the best time of my life with friends, working at KRAMBO grocery as a cashier, cruising downtown Milwaukee in my 1941 Pontiac Silver Streak, and going on double dates to the Drive in Movie Theater or one of Wisconsin’s lakes.Winters snows in Milwaukee were a constant thing, and would pile up and stay for the entire winter, but it was great for tobogganing sledding and skiing at Washington Park while farmers brought in their horse drawn sleighs to provide transportation for the city folk. Every snow fall left tons of drifts, often more than thirty feet high, especially when the City street snow blowers blew snow onto existing mounds of compacted snow laying about on playgrounds and front yards. We built huge snow forts and connecting tunnels with passageways that led to rooms we used as hiding places. But we never thought about getting a big snow collapse in one of our tunnels that could threaten our lives. Of course, with all the cold weather and snow, winter sports were king in Milwaukee. Skiing, sledding, tobogganing, and ice skating were all our winter play time favorites. And we never minded the cold, they say you get used to it.I received an excellent academic education in Milwaukee’s public schools. First there was Hi Mount Elementary, then Stueben Jr. High, and finally Washington High School, a full college prep oriented school system and at the time, Washington H.S. was ranked the third best high school in the USA (so the Navy told me when I enlisted, it was behind Julliard and the Bronx School of Science in New York City).Oh so young, strong and adventurous! I had ten horses, deep woods camped all over Wisconsin, canoed and portaged many lakes, rode my hot rod and got into motorcycles. My life has been full of getting a great education, working out and keeping fit, reading the classics, becoming expert on WW II Pacific battles in my youth.Life in the NavyIn the Navy I rode a WW II destroyer for three years through countless storm and hurricanes, traveling the western world to more than thirty ports and countries, was the leading Petty Officer for the Fire Control weapons division, marched miles in the desert with a 90-pound pack on my back carrying a Thompson Machine Gun on Recon with the Marines, was a really good street fighter, did Military Police and Shore Patrol all over the western world, survived countless fights and rough seas, traveled the world, and fought the Russians. I lived on the periphery of a war zone fighting the Cold War filled with extensive world travel and lots of Military Police duties and street fights with Communists and Islamists where people were killed or injured.Life in VirginiaBack to civilian life living/working there for seven more years as an IBM engineer at the Naval Base, 3 1/2 yrs Main Frame computer schools in upstate NY and doing extended assignments to Manhattan, Disney World, Cape Canaveral. I had a love vs. hate relationship with Virginia; I became a red neck but hated the segregation and evangelicalism and loved acquiring my huge gun collection and hanging with my good ole boy friends for six yrs hunting in Dismal Swamp and fishing on Chesapeake Bay in my 18 ft Cabin Cruiser.Life in NYCNew York, like so many large cities around the world, has always been a beacon to those yearning for a new life. The Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor has always welcomed generations of immigrants from distant shores escaping poverty, prejudice and tyranny. But, there is always the feeling, once you’ve made it here - you can make it anywhere. And there is also the experience of a lifetime. It’s New York. Even if you don’t settle down here, and while you live here, you do so on a shoestring budget - you have the experience of living in what many believe to be the greatest city in the world. There are jobs here, there is nightlife here, there is culture here and because of that there is a diversity of people that you'll be hard pressed to find anywhere else. If you want to meet and create with some of the smartest most interesting people, New York is the place to be.I hung out in Greenwich Village, became a Hippie and discovered Red Necks and Hippies have a lot in common - having core beliefs, passion, and living the life. Many people dream of living in NYC because of the feeling of being alive among the smartest, most talented and most ambitious people in the world. NYC offers a conflagration of ideas, perspectives, wits and an unrelenting competitive spirit. It is worth spending time in NYC to understand the true nature of skill and possibility.New York attracts top talent across many industries and professions. Many people move here to train in advertising, medicine, law and the arts. The culture is phenomenal; from museums, theater, and lectures to independent films and expos of every kind. The restaurant and food selections are unlike any other city; the "fair" restaurants are better than most cities. New York welcomes diversity and uniqueness. Most people are accepting and open-minded.NYC is one of the most diverse, competitive, aggressive cities on earth full of successful, motivated, ambitious and influential people from all different sectors, races and languages. Especially if you want to make serious money, wield influence in business and finance, it is unparalleled. I am not saying living in NYC makes them easy to achieve, but simply it lets you rub shoulder with the giants. If you have the networking capability, motivation, and willingness to learn, then you can use them to your advantage.There is always something happening somewhere in New York. Some things constantly changing, others not changing at all but between the myriad of cultures, professions, retail stores, bus stations, train stations, museums, indoor stadiums, restaurants, bars, clubs, theaters, and a public park smack in the middle - (and that is just the island borough of Manhattan!) it is an endless cornucopia and kaleidoscope of vibrant living. Countless movies and television shows sell them on life in the big city. Some come in pursuit of a career in the arts, fashion, publishing, or finance. Some come to get rich. Some come to party and to have fun for a few years before marriage or in order to find someone to marry.There is always the feeling, once you’ve made it here - you can make it anywhere. And there is also the experience of a lifetime. It’s New York. Even if you don’t settle down here, and while you live here, you do so on a shoestring budget - you have the experience of living in what many believe to be the greatest city in the world. There is a feeling of living in the center of the universe - the place where everyone else WANTS to be.Life in Upstate NYAfter a 30 yr career in NYC, technology companies were downsizing, and all my terrific accomplishments didn't matter any more, and I took an early retirement at age 55. I moved from the corporate world in Manhattan to the rural world of Route Sales in Upstate New York. I wanted to be “that guy” who retired from his place of employment with a nice farewell party after a life of service, and spent his retirement babysitting his multiple grandchildren in the same house where he raised their parents. I wanted a permanency and sense of belonging!Interestingly, New York City and Upstate New York have always had a symbiotic relationship, as one needs the other for survival and both share multiple personalities. Whereas the City was a conflagration of social ills containing every ethnic type of person and culture, where some kind of opportunity existed for anyone on earth, where anything went and fun was exemplified at every turn, Upstate was the escape point from those big City manifestations, and was the place of relaxation, where camping, mountain climbing, hunting and fishing occurred. We lived in the Hudson Valley foothills of the Catskill Mountains which has acres and acres of dairy cows, farms, etc. I like the fact that its many small towns have bandstands with evening concerts, parades, not the big commercial extravaganza's like in Manhattan, butcher shops, bakeries other than at the supermarket, small mom & pop stores where you are greeted by name . . . The area is full of lakes, rivers and reservoirs available for fishing and hunting. You are close to the mountains and deep woods so you can escape modern life for an afternoon, go fishing or hunting, and be back in the evening at the local diner for food. I could go on and on. From our front yard you can see the Shawungunk Mountains. They are beautiful and I can see living in Upstate New York biggest bonuses, every morning, afternoon, and night the surrounding mountains and waters never look the same. Different light, weather, time of year, it's always beautiful. And it’s nice for being in the 'burbs but still close enough to commute to Manhattan for work and got out for nights on the town.Upstate New York is littered with small cities and towns. And while the jury is still out on whether urban or rural residents are happier, there's a strong case to be made for the mental health benefits of small-town life. City dwellers have a higher risk of anxiety and mood disorders, and children who are brought up in a city are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia later in life. When it comes to living well, Upstaters may be able to teach us a thing or two. When you are living amongst the hustle and bustle of New York City, you are likely paying at least $2000 a month to rent a room in a shared apartment with a living room and kitchen that share the same 100 square‑foot space. There is probably a rat infestation in your building, the view from your bedroom window probably overlooks a dumpster and a brick wall, and your bathroom probably doubles as a closet. When you live Upstate, the mortgage on your 2000 square foot house is less than $1000 a month.Life in GeorgiaI moved south at age 68 and immediately gained more weight, it's peaceful and quiet but just not as physically active here as in the north. I am about 40 pounds overweight based on Manhattan physical standards but considered skinny here in the south where fatness reins. Gods . . . there are a lot of really fat people here. And I have no arthritis, my hair isn't getting wispy and my voice is still strong and not changing. My skin isn't covered in weird little warts and brown shapes. Only a few wrinkles here and there. People say I look like I am in my late 50s or early 60s. Even my two heart bypass operations in my 50s didn't slow me down. I walk regularly at an exercise gymnasium. If you remain engaged and have passions and curiosity about life, nothing much changes. I have taken good care of physical myself and kept my mind in constant learning mode, whether with books or classes or experiences my whole life. So here I am, all that rambunctious and death defying stuff of my youth gone. Most of my friends have passed. As you get older, ones' circle of opportunities to live life and have friends’ ceases. I miss movies that tell a story. I’m not crazy about gore on TV or movies. Most of all, I don't like today's ultra conservative leaning on white nationalism Republican politics and evangelical (southern) religion - too extreme, radical and hateful for me! It's like America is not a nice place anymore! The USA is in shambles today. Trump and his supporters are a disaster. What a hateful bunch! So life goes on . . . Every time you enter a new decade it feels like you’ve gotten so much older. It’s the 9’s of each decade that gives you a whole year to anticipate falling into the next decade. And once you actually have a birthday, it just doesn’t seem as bad as you anticipated.City life vs. Country lifeAs a born-and-raised big city boy, having traveled the worked and USA widely and lived or visited just about everywhere in the USA, I now have adopted a country life in rural Georgia, and I think it is safe to say I have experienced the best (and possibly worst) of both worlds. They are two entirely different ways of life – each with their own advantages and disadvantages. As for me, I like beauty and nature, but also the convenience, diversity and open-minded people of the city who are also spoiling and have become a necessity to my happiness. OK, I admit it the country life has fewer opportunities but think about it it’s much healthier. You know that people who live in the city are like bees. They are precipitous and bustling. Because most people live in cities, they have a lot more social and business activities: shopping malls and restaurants galore, thrift stores, libraries, and concert venues, just to name a few. Space is at a premium, housing is expensive, you need more money than living in the country. But city life is exciting and fun with tons of things to do with a huge variety of people. Obviously, to get the most out of city life, you need to be able to afford it. Meanwhile, life in the country differs greatly from life in the city. Country nights are quiet and the expansive sky bounteous with brilliant stars that seem brighter than those in the city. The clean, evening air is permeated with the sounds of katydids, crickets and birds. It all depends, then, on what your preference is on where you'd be happiest. If you thrive around lots of people, don't like being out in the Sun much, and aren't keen on driving through miles of cornfields just to get to the nearest shopping center, then city living would probably be ideal. But if you have anxiety attacks, consider yourself an outdoorsy person, or enjoy being around animals, your life may be complete in the heart of the country.Old AgeI am making the most of my time on Earth? I’m coming up on 83 and feel, for the most part, like I did at 50 (which I considered the strongest period in my life). I abhor the saying “I’m bored” as there are ALWAYS things to do such as reading , writing, researching and always learning, working in my wood shop and activities that many people hire others to do. Nothing is too mundane for me to find satisfaction in. Any vices should be infrequent and not permanently debilitating. The body WANTS to sustain and regenerate, so listen to it.I feel the cold much more. My temper has mellowed and my patience is more. I don't get riled up easily, except over today's divisive politics. I don't like the socialist leaning Democrats much and left the destructive Republican party and am a social Libertarian now. My sight is slightly worse, but I can still drive safely without glasses, and can read a newspaper without glasses if the light is good. It takes me a bit longer to do serious brainwork. But I see no signs of real mental deterioration. Stuff I write gets published. My stamina has decreased. So far, no chronic aches and pains. Yes, minor injuries take a bit longer to heal, but nothing dramatic. The annoying feature is the need to pee more often: I carry around a rather precise mental map of public toilets or concealed spots when in urban areas.These are the best years of my life. Gone is the stress, competition and uncertainty. I have traded insecurity for wisdom and let me say, it feels wonderful. If you get to the end of your life with no regrets at all, you probably haven't lived that interesting a life. When your traveling days are done, you'll still wish you had taken just one more trip. Even people who had done a lot of globetrotting would wistfully say something like, "But I never got to Japan."My family members, military, work associates and friends keep passing away. Just recently two passed. When friends pass away, it is not just their presence that is lost, it is also the memories they have of you. The "Do you remember when...?" conversations that pepper the elderly reminiscences. Fear of death is actually rare and is commonly a joke. On the other hand, fear of losing one's memories, faculties, or independence is real. We put a great value on having people who we can trust - especially to carry out wishes when we are gone. Making final decisions can be upsetting, particularly if they relate to young people who are distant in age and lifestyle yet close in relationship. One gets comfort from familiarity; the same cup; the same chair; the same view. One can be disturbed by the disruption or criticism of established habits. Having pets is a comfort, but caring for them can be increasingly difficult when joints get stiff, and even bending over is an effort.One of the most important things you can do to stay healthy in your golden years is to maintain your sense of purpose by staying connected to people and things that matter to you. However, this isn't always easy-especially in a society that all-too-often views older people as a burden. Visit your local senior center. Spend time with at least one person-a family member, friend or neighbor-every day. Volunteer in your community, attend a local event, join a club or take up a new hobby.Perhaps in some ways, one wants to leave the world as one entered it; without fear or pain; without anger or distrust; without possessions or debts; without demands or expectations; in innocence.As for me, bottom line, I am highly organized, very adventurous, a big risk taker, considered a "take no shit tough guy" who doesn't worry and has a positive attitude that hangs around with good friends and life styles and avoided situations and people that annoyed me and am in constant learning mode. There is my desire to leave one's mark; graffiti on the wall of time; an apt engraving on a tombstone or small plaque on a park bench, so I wrote books and stories about my life and commentaries on politics and religion.