HMS Warrior vs. USS Monitor
Jack Linthicum
Civil War also features a possible battle between the HMS Warrior and
the USS Monitor. I have seen an old thread on a Warrior vs.Virginia,
what would be the possible outcome of a Warrior-Monitor battle on
Chesapeake Bay or in the Virginia Capes, near Hampton?
First question is whether the Warrior could make the journey and once
in U.S. waters sustain her presence?
Second is whether the Warrior could depress her guns sufficiently to
hit the Monitor.
Third whether the smaller weight of the Monitor's shot would be
ineffectual against the Warrior's armor.
Ray O'Hara
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1174352477.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> One of those What Ifs that has the British intervening in the American
> Civil War also features a possible battle between the HMS Warrior and
> the USS Monitor. I have seen an old thread on a Warrior vs.Virginia,
> what would be the possible outcome of a Warrior-Monitor battle on
> Chesapeake Bay or in the Virginia Capes, near Hampton?
>
warrior could have easily made the journey.
it would be an interesting fight. the monitor was a very small target. the
warrior a very large target. the warrior had only a few guns that might have
hurt monitor {10 110lber} the monitor's guns on full charge probably would
have been able to punch through the warriors armor which was quite similar
to the merrimac/virginia's .
later monitors with , some with two turrets, and 15 inch dahlgren guns or
100lber parrotts would have taxed warrior greatly.
Andrew Venor
In the open ocean I would go with Warrior simply because Monitor was
designed to operate in protected harbors like Hampton Roads. Her low
freeboard and the top weight of the turret made her too unstable in
rough waters.
If the US Navy could draw Warrior into a harbor for the fight then its
up for grabs. Warrior has more and heavier guns, but the Monitors low
freeboard (14 inchs) and greater maneuverability would make her a hard
target to hit.
I don't know enough about the Warriors armor to be sure, but if Monitor
fired explosive shells instead of solid shot from her 11 inch Dahlgren
guns at Warriors waterline would it have been enough to break through?
Someone else might be able to comment better on that.
However Warrior had an Achilles heals in that her rudder was unarmored.
So if Monitor concentrated her fire there at the start of the battle
it might make the difference.
That said, Monitor was designed specifically to counter the CSS Virginia
in Hampton Roads. If the Royal Navy was the threat I would imagine that
John Ericsson, or someone else, would have designed an ocean going ship
to counter the Warrior instead.
ALV
Ray O'Hara
"Andrew Venor" <alv...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hNmdnZO4NcMtzGLY...@comcast.com...
>
> That said, Monitor was designed specifically to counter the CSS Virginia
> in Hampton Roads. If the Royal Navy was the threat I would imagine that
> John Ericsson, or someone else, would have designed an ocean going ship
> to counter the Warrior instead.
>
> ALV
the monitor was desiged before the merrimac was built. the converting of
the merrimac/virginia merely gave ompetus to get it built.
Dan
improvements along the way. Never really made it as a seagoing type.
Dan
Andrew Robert Breen
Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>One of those What Ifs that has the British intervening in the American
>Civil War also features a possible battle between the HMS Warrior and
>the USS Monitor. I have seen an old thread on a Warrior vs.Virginia,
>what would be the possible outcome of a Warrior-Monitor battle on
>Chesapeake Bay or in the Virginia Capes, near Hampton?
>
>First question is whether the Warrior could make the journey and once
>in U.S. waters sustain her presence?
Get there? No problem. _Warrior_ (and the other RN broadside ironclads)
were true blue-water ships. Sustain her presence? again, should be easy
enough - there were sufficient coal stocks at Bermuda and a well-equipped
dockyard, accustomed to hosting high-powered steamship (_Warrior_'s wooden
predecessors, _Mersey_ and _Orlando_, both were based there during
the _Trent_ crisis). Only trouble would be fouling of the hull in the warm
waters and the lack of a dry-dock to clean the hull, but given the low
speed of US fleet units this would not be a real issue.
>Second is whether the Warrior could depress her guns sufficiently to
>hit the Monitor.
Yes.
>Third whether the smaller weight of the Monitor's shot would be
>ineffectual against the Warrior's armor.
Monitor's big guns would have been capable of damaging _Warrior_ /if she
could hit her/. With two slow-firing guns in a turret which was incapable
of accurate training this would be difficult except at touching-distance.
In the meantime _Warrior_ is plying about 14 armour-piercing guns on
_Monitor_ (I'm ignoring the Armstrongs here). The difficulty for _Warrior_
would be her poor manoeverability, which in the littoral would be a severe
problem. Frankly, given _Monitor_'s virtually non-existant seakeeping
ability and _Warrior_'s deep draft and poor manoevering ability I don't
see _Warrior_ being able to come to grips with _Monitor_, and _Monitor_'s
captain would have to be insane to come out to fight _Warrior_ at sea.
Much more likely that _Monitor_ would be facing Crimean-vintage floating
batteries (similar in layout to _Virginia_ but well-designed,
well-armoured and - by the start of the 1860s - carrying effective
armour-piercing guns). _Warrior_'s job would be to ensure that no-one
interfered.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)
Peter Skelton
Breen) wrote:
Monitor was tasked as a close-in blockade enforcer, other
monitors were used for shore bombardment. but the tasking was
always very close in.
Warrior might have been tasked with blockade or some kind of
raiding against a navy owning Monitors. She had four times the
speed in good weather, and a biggger edge in bad. A duel would be
long range for the day (with Monitor aiming her guns by steering,
the only way she could past a hundred yards or so and her only
choice with the turret down anyway). There wouldn't be much
hitting.
It's hard to see how Monitor could get to where Warrior raided
before she buggered off and how she could interfere with a
Warrior-enforced blockade. The blockade could simply withdraw a
few miles and return.
It's hard to say which the winner of a battle would be, but it's
also hard to see how something as slow as Monitor could do much
to interfere with a Warrior's mission. There probably wouldn't be
a fight because a Warrior wouldn't need to fight.
Peter Skelton
Andrew Robert Breen
Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>On 20 Mar 2007 09:59:03 -0000, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert
>Breen) wrote:
>>_Monitor_ (I'm ignoring the Armstrongs here). The difficulty for _Warrior_
>>would be her poor manoeverability, which in the littoral would be a severe
>>problem. Frankly, given _Monitor_'s virtually non-existant seakeeping
>>ability and _Warrior_'s deep draft and poor manoevering ability I don't
>>see _Warrior_ being able to come to grips with _Monitor_, and _Monitor_'s
>>captain would have to be insane to come out to fight _Warrior_ at sea.
>Monitor was tasked as a close-in blockade enforcer, other
>monitors were used for shore bombardment. but the tasking was
>always very close in.
>Warrior might have been tasked with blockade or some kind of
>raiding against a navy owning Monitors. She had four times the
>speed in good weather, and a biggger edge in bad. A duel would be
>long range for the day (with Monitor aiming her guns by steering,
>the only way she could past a hundred yards or so and her only
>choice with the turret down anyway). There wouldn't be much
>hitting.
>It's hard to see how Monitor could get to where Warrior raided
>before she buggered off and how she could interfere with a
>Warrior-enforced blockade. The blockade could simply withdraw a
>few miles and return.
I think _Warrior_'s people would be actively after _Monitor_ - the problem
would be getting to her - _Warrior_ was not a ship well-suited to fighting
in confined waters, and all _Monitor_ would need to do is retreat to
confined channels protected by shore guns. The combination of _Monitor_
and forts could cause severe problems for _Warrior_, unless supported by
gunboats and floating batteries (ah - the traditional problems for
battleships in NGFS appear!).
>It's hard to say which the winner of a battle would be, but it's
>also hard to see how something as slow as Monitor could do much
>to interfere with a Warrior's mission. There probably wouldn't be
>a fight because a Warrior wouldn't need to fight.
This is the RN we're talking about - they'd be actively looking for a
scrap. I suspect that the sequence would go roughtly as:
1. _Warrior_ + supporting ships (including plenty of coastal offence
craft) appear off $ANCHORAGE hosting _Monitor_. Start blockading trade,
sinking Federal blockade forces etc.
2. Monitor gets steam up, moves out into the roadstead. _Warrior_ (and any
other heavies) are outside the headlands. Lighter stuff - gunboats - has
come inside.
Now one of two things happens:
(a) Light craft retreat from _Monitor_, head out from the roadstead
or
(b) Bloodthirsty little action, with gunboats trying to close and get
boarders with demolition charges onto _Monitor_ without being hit by heavy
fire. Sharpshooters and canister shot keep crew off _Monitor_'s deck. This
could go either way.
If the gunboats win in (b), then scenario ends here. If they lose
(probably more likely when _Monitor_ is manoevering), then we revert to
(a), with gunboats retreating from _Monitor_.
3. _Monitor_ approaches headlands coming out, _Warrior_ approaches coming
in. Again, two choices present themselves:
(a) _Monitor_ and _Warrior_ engage, either just outside or just inside the
headlands (too far out and _Monitor_ can't use her turret, too far in and
_Warrior_'s manoeverability - or lack of it - becomes an issue). At sea
and against a moving target _Monitor_ won't hit anything she can't touch.
_Warrior_ will land some hits, but unless _Monitor_'s turret armour starts
delaminating (quite likely) they're unlikely to be fatal to _Monitor_.
_Warrior_ will attempt to ram, but with her turning circle is unlikely to
succeed. Unless _Monitor_'s captain is very careful he could end up cut
off from home here. The longer the action goes on the more things tilt to
_Warrior_. Skelton's law of comfy ships will apply in buckefuls here.
_Monitor_ will almost certainly lose this fight.
(b) _Monitor_ retreats for shallower and more confined water and
protection of shore guns. _Warrior's_ captain would be a fool to follow
and is most unlikely to do so. If he does then his ship could well be
beaten. Most likely is that the day ends with _Monitor_ anchored under the
shore guns and _Warrior_ off the headlands again.
4. That night there's a gunboat+ship's boat attack, aiming to board
_Monitor_ and plant demolition charges. _Monitor_'s crew will be tired, so
best hope the shore gunners and patrol boats are all on the ball.. This
one could well work. If so, scenario ends. If not..
5. Day breaks, gunboats come in and raise hell again, _Monitor_ raises
steam and...
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Brad Meyer
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>One of those What Ifs that has the British intervening in the American
>Civil War also features a possible battle between the HMS Warrior and
>the USS Monitor. I have seen an old thread on a Warrior vs.Virginia,
>what would be the possible outcome of a Warrior-Monitor battle on
>Chesapeake Bay or in the Virginia Capes, near Hampton?
Neither is, IMO, a likely scenario. There is no reason for Warrior to
be in the bay, and the Monitor isn't seaworthy. More likely would be
the Warrior screening a convoy to a southern port.
>First question is whether the Warrior could make the journey and once
>in U.S. waters sustain her presence?
A port is required.
>Second is whether the Warrior could depress her guns sufficiently to
>hit the Monitor.
A function of range. I would be interested to compare turning radii.
It likely wouldn't take much of a bump to swamp Monitor.
>Third whether the smaller weight of the Monitor's shot would be
>ineffectual against the Warrior's armor.
The Warrior exhibit at Portsmouth claims the armor was proofed against
all known cannon in the late 1850s. OTOH, the advances in cannon makes
the claim less certain by 1862.
Andrew Robert Breen
Brad Meyer <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>A port is required.
Bermuda as base (_Warrior_ and _Black Prince_ both actually went there a
little later, towing the floating dock for Bermuda). Extended sea
operations should be no problem - _Warrior_ was, after all, a Frigate.
Fouling would be an issue if the deployment were extended.
>>Second is whether the Warrior could depress her guns sufficiently to
>>hit the Monitor.
>
>A function of range. I would be interested to compare turning radii.
>It likely wouldn't take much of a bump to swamp Monitor.
I'd not put money on _Warrior_'s ability to ram anything intentionally.
Her maneoverability was notoriously bad - she was a long, slim ship with a
small rudder, manually controlled in her early days. I've read figures of
27 men on wheel and relieving tackles to control her (for certain values
of control). I doubt if she'd have any success in a ramming attack (though
it would certainly be tried). The gravest danger to _Monitor_ in this
would be trying to dodge the attack and finding herself in the wrong place
at the wrong moment[1].
>>Third whether the smaller weight of the Monitor's shot would be
>>ineffectual against the Warrior's armor.
>
>The Warrior exhibit at Portsmouth claims the armor was proofed against
>all known cannon in the late 1850s. OTOH, the advances in cannon makes
>the claim less certain by 1862.
The 11" solid shot from _Monitor_ was unlikely to penetrate the
_Warrior_#s armour, but it would give the supporting frames the most awful
battering and could collapse some of the belt or battery
protections inwards. There's also those long, exposed ends outside the
citadel - _Warrior_ had (and has!) an all-or-nothing armour scheme, and
some of the guns were outside the armoured section.
I still don't reckon _Monitor_ would get a hit, not fighting in open
water. The one example of a single-turret ship fighting a large Frigate
(_Huascar_ vs. _Shah_) isn't encouraging in this respect. _Huascar_, with
two big guns, fired slowly and hit nothing. Unlike _Shah_, _Warrior_ is
protected (certainly against shell) and can close to a range where her
shot will start to hurt _Monitor_.
A minor consequence of this action is that the RN learns that the 110lbr
Armstrong gun is a turkey two years early, after several of them blow
their breech-blocks out in this action...
Peter Skelton
Breen) wrote:
I can't see the why of this. What role would Warrior have that
could cause her to need a fight?
Peter Skelton
Andrew Robert Breen
Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>On 20 Mar 2007 12:52:11 -0000, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert
>Breen) wrote:
>>
>>I think _Warrior_'s people would be actively after _Monitor_ - the problem
>>would be getting to her - _Warrior_ was not a ship well-suited to fighting
>>in confined waters, and all _Monitor_ would need to do is retreat to
>>confined channels protected by shore guns. The combination of _Monitor_
>>and forts could cause severe problems for _Warrior_, unless supported by
>>gunboats and floating batteries (ah - the traditional problems for
>>battleships in NGFS appear!).
>I can't see the why of this. What role would Warrior have that
>could cause her to need a fight?
She's a RN warship in a war situation. That's one. The RN has a tradition
of actively looking for trouble in such times, and in the mid 19th century
that tradition was actively cultivated. \Hell, the RN had shot people
for not being sufficiently diligent in forcing a fight before...
From the perspective of captain and officers - well, there's
not been a big-ship action since Navarino. How else are you going to
accelerate your rise through the ranks without being the victor of a
spectacular engagement/your seniors getting killed in action (delete one).
Unless specifically ordered otherwise, _Warrior_'s captain would be
actively looking for a fight - probably with a _Merrimack_ or two, by
choice, but _Monitor_ would do as an appertiser (that's how she'd be
viewed, though she might turn out to need more chewing than expected).
OTOH he's not there to fight forts and armoured batteries without support
from coastal offense craft, so he'll not go rushing in to tight corners.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <7hsvv2livi87lmek51muuuh9ibg94nq...@4ax.com>,
Monitor vs. Virginia doesn't count? I count several hits with half-
charges of powder. And wouldn't the vertical nature of the Warrior's
armor, as opposed to the slanted casement on the Virginia, make it
more susceptible to hits than the Virginia?
Andrew Robert Breen
Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Mar 20, 11:47 am, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>>
>> I still don't reckon _Monitor_ would get a hit, not fighting in open
>> water. The one example of a single-turret ship fighting a large Frigate
>> (_Huascar_ vs. _Shah_) isn't encouraging in this respect. _Huascar_, with
>> two big guns, fired slowly and hit nothing. Unlike _Shah_, _Warrior_ is
>> protected (certainly against shell) and can close to a range where her
>> shot will start to hurt _Monitor_.
>Monitor vs. Virginia doesn't count? I count several hits with half-
/Extremely/ close range, against a very slow and even more cumberous
target. _Monitor_'s chances of getting close to _Warrior_ in open water -
unless _Warrior_'s captain chooses it - are effectively zero. If _Warrior_
does choose to close, that's going to be either in a fast pass (steam by,
bombarding as you go[1]) in which case _Monitor_ will be very lucky to hit
anything, or it's going to be after a longer-range bombardment has worn
_Monitor_ down, or because _Warrior_'s captain reckons that the damage
from one or two heavy hits is going to be worth accepting in return for
getting to a range where he can shoot down into _Monitor_'s deck and
shatter her turret armour. Decisive range, in other words..
>charges of powder. And wouldn't the vertical nature of the Warrior's
>armor, as opposed to the slanted casement on the Virginia, make it
>more susceptible to hits than the Virginia?
Vertical armour, but much better quality. _Virginia_ used a lot of railway
track as protection, and most of the rest was laminated armour (like
_Monitor_), which is a lot worse for its thickness than solid forged
armour. I'd expect the backing of _Warrior_'s armour to fail if hit by a
heavy, low-velocity round rather than the armour being penetrated.
_Monitor_'s laminated turret armour, OTOH, might be prone to de-laminated
and spalling across the turret interior even when not fully penetrated.
IIRC there were post-US civil war trials using a sold-off monitor which
showed this to be a distict possibility. That would certainly interfere
with the turret crew's ability to hit anything :(
[1] This is probably where _Warrior_ will come closest to ramming, whether
intentionally or otherwise..
Ray O'Hara
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KTJLh.435$aX1...@newsfe05.lga...
they were designed for inshore fighting but later some undertook sea
voyages. it must have been very "thrilling" to say the least.
Ray O'Hara
"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:etoldr$5eg9$1...@osfa.aber.ac.uk...
so the brits get an entite squadron in your scenario but the monitor fights
alone.
monitors guns could aim fine. when fighting the virginia they just aimed the
turret to one side and manuvered the ship in the traditional manner.
the 68lbers would be unable to hurt the monitor. the smallness of the target
would require the warrior to get close which would favor the monitor. the
slow speed of the monitor would mean any fight would be at the warriors
choice of time.
Ray O'Hara
"Brad Meyer" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7hsvv2livi87lmek5...@4ax.com...
> On 19 Mar 2007 18:01:17 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >One of those What Ifs that has the British intervening in the American
> >Civil War also features a possible battle between the HMS Warrior and
> >the USS Monitor. I have seen an old thread on a Warrior vs.Virginia,
> >what would be the possible outcome of a Warrior-Monitor battle on
> >Chesapeake Bay or in the Virginia Capes, near Hampton?
>
> Neither is, IMO, a likely scenario. There is no reason for Warrior to
> be in the bay, and the Monitor isn't seaworthy. More likely would be
> the Warrior screening a convoy to a southern port.
>
> >First question is whether the Warrior could make the journey and once
> >in U.S. waters sustain her presence?
>
> A port is required.
>
bermuda is very nocely placed off north carolina. a port would not be a
problem
> >Second is whether the Warrior could depress her guns sufficiently to
> >hit the Monitor.
>
> A function of range. I would be interested to compare turning radii.
> It likely wouldn't take much of a bump to swamp Monitor.
>
which would get some nasty holes at the waterline of the warrior. i doubt it
could swamp monitor but a direct strike might run it over.
the monitors time was short and bigger examples were already being built
before ot was lost. a double turreted monitor with 2 15 inch and 2 110lb
parrot rifles would be a more likey opponent.
Ray O'Hara
> In article <7hsvv2livi87lmek5...@4ax.com>,
> Brad Meyer <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >A port is required.
>
> Bermuda as base (_Warrior_ and _Black Prince_ both actually went there a
> little later, towing the floating dock for Bermuda). Extended sea
> operations should be no problem - _Warrior_ was, after all, a Frigate.
> Fouling would be an issue if the deployment were extended.
>
> >>Second is whether the Warrior could depress her guns sufficiently to
> >>hit the Monitor.
> >
> >A function of range. I would be interested to compare turning radii.
> >It likely wouldn't take much of a bump to swamp Monitor.
>
> I'd not put money on _Warrior_'s ability to ram anything intentionally.
> Her maneoverability was notoriously bad - she was a long, slim ship with a
> small rudder, manually controlled in her early days. I've read figures of
> 27 men on wheel and relieving tackles to control her (for certain values
> of control). I doubt if she'd have any success in a ramming attack (though
> it would certainly be tried). The gravest danger to _Monitor_ in this
> would be trying to dodge the attack and finding herself in the wrong place
> at the wrong moment[1].
>
the monitor presented the same target profile from every angle. what wrong
place could it get into.
if the warrior went flat out it would hurt her ability to aim properly
> >>Third whether the smaller weight of the Monitor's shot would be
> >>ineffectual against the Warrior's armor.
> >
> >The Warrior exhibit at Portsmouth claims the armor was proofed against
> >all known cannon in the late 1850s. OTOH, the advances in cannon makes
> >the claim less certain by 1862.
>
> The 11" solid shot from _Monitor_ was unlikely to penetrate the
> _Warrior_#s armour, but it would give the supporting frames the most awful
> battering and could collapse some of the belt or battery
> protections inwards. There's also those long, exposed ends outside the
> citadel - _Warrior_ had (and has!) an all-or-nothing armour scheme, and
> some of the guns were outside the armoured section.
>
> I still don't reckon _Monitor_ would get a hit, not fighting in open
> water. The one example of a single-turret ship fighting a large Frigate
> (_Huascar_ vs. _Shah_) isn't encouraging in this respect. _Huascar_, with
> two big guns, fired slowly and hit nothing. Unlike _Shah_, _Warrior_ is
> protected (certainly against shell) and can close to a range where her
> shot will start to hurt _Monitor_.
>
> A minor consequence of this action is that the RN learns that the 110lbr
> Armstrong gun is a turkey two years early, after several of them blow
> their breech-blocks out in this action...
the monitors 11 inchers had greater penetration ability and the monitor had
better armor than warrior.
when the monitor fought the virginia she was brand new and hadn't test fired
it guns, as a safety measure it only fired half charges.
they found the guns were fine later and with full charges it would easily
have punched through both the virginia and warrior ,they both had 4 inches
iron armor over thick wood.
Brian Sharrock
> In article <8n200352rovumdots...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>On 20 Mar 2007 12:52:11 -0000, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert
>>Breen) wrote:
>>>
>>>I think _Warrior_'s people would be actively after _Monitor_ - the
>>>problem
>>>would be getting to her - _Warrior_ was not a ship well-suited to
>>>fighting
>>>in confined waters, and all _Monitor_ would need to do is retreat to
>>>confined channels protected by shore guns. The combination of _Monitor_
>>>and forts could cause severe problems for _Warrior_, unless supported by
>>>gunboats and floating batteries (ah - the traditional problems for
>>>battleships in NGFS appear!).
>
>>I can't see the why of this. What role would Warrior have that
>>could cause her to need a fight?
>
> She's a RN warship in a war situation. That's one. The RN has a tradition
> of actively looking for trouble in such times, and in the mid 19th century
> that tradition was actively cultivated. \Hell, the RN had shot people
> for not being sufficiently diligent in forcing a fight before...
> From the perspective of captain and officers - well, there's
> not been a big-ship action since Navarino. How else are you going to
> accelerate your rise through the ranks without being the victor of a
> spectacular engagement/your seniors getting killed in action (delete one).
You've forgotten the last part of Thursday's toast; -
'A bloody war ..... or a sickly season!'
--
Brian
Ray O'Hara
> In article <1174409965....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 11:47 am, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
> >>
> >> I still don't reckon _Monitor_ would get a hit, not fighting in open
> >> water. The one example of a single-turret ship fighting a large Frigate
> >> (_Huascar_ vs. _Shah_) isn't encouraging in this respect. _Huascar_,
with
> >> two big guns, fired slowly and hit nothing. Unlike _Shah_, _Warrior_ is
> >> protected (certainly against shell) and can close to a range where her
> >> shot will start to hurt _Monitor_.
>
> >Monitor vs. Virginia doesn't count? I count several hits with half-
>
> /Extremely/ close range, against a very slow and even more cumberous
> target. _Monitor_'s chances of getting close to _Warrior_ in open water -
> unless _Warrior_'s captain chooses it - are effectively zero. If _Warrior_
> does choose to close, that's going to be either in a fast pass (steam by,
> bombarding as you go[1]) in which case _Monitor_ will be very lucky to hit
> anything, or it's going to be after a longer-range bombardment has worn
> _Monitor_ down, or because _Warrior_'s captain reckons that the damage
> from one or two heavy hits is going to be worth accepting in return for
> getting to a range where he can shoot down into _Monitor_'s deck and
> shatter her turret armour. Decisive range, in other words..
>
at long range the warrior would never hit the monitor, a high speed pass
makes that even more unlikely.
the warrior wasn't so fast that it couldn't be hit and the 11inch guns had
more than enough power.
for the warrior to have a chance of hitting monitor it would have to get
close.
> >charges of powder. And wouldn't the vertical nature of the Warrior's
> >armor, as opposed to the slanted casement on the Virginia, make it
> >more susceptible to hits than the Virginia?
>
> Vertical armour, but much better quality. _Virginia_ used a lot of railway
> track as protection, and most of the rest was laminated armour (like
> _Monitor_), which is a lot worse for its thickness than solid forged
> armour. I'd expect the backing of _Warrior_'s armour to fail if hit by a
> heavy, low-velocity round rather than the armour being penetrated.
> _Monitor_'s laminated turret armour, OTOH, might be prone to de-laminated
> and spalling across the turret interior even when not fully penetrated.
> IIRC there were post-US civil war trials using a sold-off monitor which
> showed this to be a distict possibility. That would certainly interfere
> with the turret crew's ability to hit anything :(
>
the 7 inch blakely rifles{120lb} the virginia carried were equal to any guns
warrior carried
they made some dents in the turret.
guy
> "Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:etp4rn$72gg$1...@osfa.aber.ac.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
Why? Shah hit Huascar but Huascar only parted some rigging on Shah.
>
> > >charges of powder. And wouldn't the vertical nature of the Warrior's
> > >armor, as opposed to the slanted casement on the Virginia, make it
> > >more susceptible to hits than the Virginia?
>
> > Vertical armour, but much better quality. _Virginia_ used a lot of railway
> > track as protection, and most of the rest was laminated armour (like
> > _Monitor_), which is a lot worse for its thickness than solid forged
> > armour. I'd expect the backing of _Warrior_'s armour to fail if hit by a
> > heavy, low-velocity round rather than the armour being penetrated.
> > _Monitor_'s laminated turret armour, OTOH, might be prone to de-laminated
> > and spalling across the turret interior even when not fully penetrated.
> > IIRC there were post-US civil war trials using a sold-off monitor which
> > showed this to be a distict possibility. That would certainly interfere
> > with the turret crew's ability to hit anything :(
>
> the 7 inch blakely rifles{120lb} the virginia carried were equal to any guns
> warrior carried
> they made some dents in the turret.
>
>
>
>
>
> > [1] This is probably where _Warrior_ will come closest to ramming, whether
> > intentionally or otherwise..
>
> > --
> > Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales,
> Aberystwyth
> > Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
> > money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
As Andy pointed out the fast pass would probably be extremely
effective, witness the Chilean capture of the Huascar.
guy
Andrew Robert Breen
>alone.
Certainly. Why fight "fair" if you don't have to? The US could, of course,
send frigates and sloops out first. I'd imagine _Warrior_'s captain would
be delighted at that.. There is certainly no chance at all of _Warrior_
being deployed solo, and the RN had a well-developed "coast offence"
strategy by that time.
>monitors guns could aim fine. when fighting the virginia they just aimed the
>turret to one side and manuvered the ship in the traditional manner.
OK at point-blank against a very slow, cumberous target which shoots as
slowly as you do. Much harder at sea against a moving target. I think
_Huascar_ vs. _Shah_ is a more realistic benchmark for this action:
_Monitor_ would be better crewed and worked up, but _Huascar_ had a much
better turret and loading arrangments and finer training control....
>the 68lbers would be unable to hurt the monitor. the smallness of the target
The 110lbrs certainly wouldn't, but the 68lbrs would - much higher
velocity. They were reckoned as OK to penetrate 4" of solid iron at close
range, using battering charges, and _Monitor_'s 8" of laminated iron on
the turret would be less effective than 4" of solid under most
curcumstances. Post-war trials by the RN against either parts of an ex-USN
monitor or a reconstruction (I've not got the ref. of this in my library
- it was discussed in a ~1870s paper by (I think) Reed which a library in
a former workplace had) of same showed the turret plate would de-laminate
after hits by 68lbr SB. Splinters flying off the inner face of the turret
would not be nice.
>would require the warrior to get close which would favor the monitor. the
>slow speed of the monitor would mean any fight would be at the warriors
>choice of time.
Certainly.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Vince
> In article <ubGdnWmenfr-g53b...@comcast.com>,
> Ray O'Hara <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> so the brits get an entite squadron in your scenario but the monitor fights
>> alone.
>
> Certainly. Why fight "fair" if you don't have to? The US could, of course,
> send frigates and sloops out first. I'd imagine _Warrior_'s captain would
> be delighted at that.. There is certainly no chance at all of _Warrior_
> being deployed solo, and the RN had a well-developed "coast offence"
> strategy by that time.
>
>> monitors guns could aim fine. when fighting the virginia they just aimed the
>> turret to one side and manuvered the ship in the traditional manner.
>
> OK at point-blank against a very slow, cumberous target which shoots as
> slowly as you do. Much harder at sea against a moving target. I think
> _Huascar_ vs. _Shah_ is a more realistic benchmark for this action:
> _Monitor_ would be better crewed and worked up, but _Huascar_ had a much
> better turret and loading arrangments and finer training control....
>
>> the 68lbers would be unable to hurt the monitor. the smallness of the target
>
> The 110lbrs certainly wouldn't, but the 68lbrs would - much higher
> velocity.
the 68 pounders were smooth bore muzzle loaders
1200 FPS
Vince
guy
SNIP
> Certainly. Why fight "fair" if you don't have to?
One exaple of 'fighting fair' which could have happened was Admiral
Beresfords plan to engage the Russians in 1905 after they had opened
up on the North Sea fishing fleet.
He was only goint to engage with his 4 more modern battleships
(Formidables?), only bringing the 4 Royal Soverigns into action if he
was getting 'knocked about'
I do not imagine the Admiral commanding the unengaged ships would have
been too pleased about that though!
SNIP
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
>
> "Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)
guy
Andrew Robert Breen
Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>>> the 68lbers would be unable to hurt the monitor. the smallness of the target
>>
>> The 110lbrs certainly wouldn't, but the 68lbrs would - much higher
>> velocity.
>
>the 68 pounders were smooth bore muzzle loaders
Yup. Hence the higher muzzle velocity than the Armstrong rifles. The
95cwt 68lbr was a very good gun.
>1200 FPS
That's with the full standard charge, I think. With battering charges it
would be a bit more - though I can't lay sight on my copy of Lambert's
"Warrior" at the moment. The Armstrongs were around the 1000fps mark. Much
less puissant against armour.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Andrew Robert Breen
guy <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 20 Mar, 19:20, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>
>SNIP
>> Certainly. Why fight "fair" if you don't have to?
>One exaple of 'fighting fair' which could have happened was Admiral
>Beresfords plan to engage the Russians in 1905 after they had opened
>up on the North Sea fishing fleet.
Yup - though matching four Formidables against the four Russian ships was
far from a fair fight (the main guns fired twice as often on the
Formidables, for one thing) - and Beresford knew it well.
Shades of the undertaken given to von Spee by the RN Admiral commanding
the Far East force in 1914: that if they ever had to fight each other
then - to give Spee a chance - he would only engage using half his
secondary battery. Of course, the _Minotaur_ class cruiser had five of its
7.5" guns on each broadside, and could only bring five out of ten to bear
on a target. I dare say that the implications were obvious to both sides
of the conversation...
>He was only goint to engage with his 4 more modern battleships
>(Formidables?), only bringing the 4 Royal Soverigns into action if he
>was getting 'knocked about'
Britain and Russia weren't at war, though, so a blatant 8-against-4
massacre would have international repercussions (whereas a fouron-four
massacre wouldn't be as objectionable...).
>I do not imagine the Admiral commanding the unengaged ships would have
>been too pleased about that though!
He's not going to take it up with Charlie B, though, is he?
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
David Starr
> Monitor was tasked as a close-in blockade enforcer, other
> monitors were used for shore bombardment. but the tasking was
> always very close in.
>
> Warrior might have been tasked with blockade or some kind of
> raiding against a navy owning Monitors.
Would not the RN be tasked to break the Union blockade, to get raw
cotton to the mills of Manchester? The lack of cotton had shut down the
English textile industry, throwing the mill hands out of work and
costing the mill owners like crazy. I'd expect the RN to escort some
merchantmen into a southern port. To maintain the blockade the USN has
to stop them. Seems to me this would force a standup fight between each
sides best ships, Warrior and Monitor. RN has to sink the blockaders to
lift the blockade, USN has to drive off or sink the attackers to
maintain the blockade.
She had four times the
> speed in good weather, and a biggger edge in bad.
Four times seems a little much. Would you believe twice? Monitor
could do 6-7 knots. I'll bet Warrior wasn't good for much more than 14.
Warrior can pick her fighting distance, and either force an engagement
or refuse one. The slower ship has to take what comes her way.
A duel would be
> long range for the day (with Monitor aiming her guns by steering,
> the only way she could past a hundred yards or so and her only
> choice with the turret down anyway). There wouldn't be much
> hitting.
The purpose of the turret is to allow Monitor's main battery to fire
to port or to starboard, thus cutting the number of guns in half for the
same weight of broadside. If Ericsson's steam turret drive engine
cannot train the guns just so for good aim, then Lt Worden merely orders
the turret to point to port or starboard, as required, and then trains
the guns by steering the ship, just the way it was always done under
sail, or in the broadside Warrior.
> It's hard to say which the winner of a battle would be, but it's
> also hard to see how something as slow as Monitor could do much
> to interfere with a Warrior's mission. There probably wouldn't be
> a fight because a Warrior wouldn't need to fight.
If Warrior wants to break the blockade, she has to sink the blockaders.
A blockader just hangs off the mouth of the port waiting to snap up
some juicy merchantman.
David Starr
David Starr
> This is the RN we're talking about - they'd be actively looking for a
> scrap. I suspect that the sequence would go roughtly as:
In addition to the Nelson tradition, RN has to break the Union blockade.
To do this, they have to sink the Union blockaders. A standup fight
seems quite plausible to me.
> (a) _Monitor_ and _Warrior_ engage, either just outside or just inside the
> headlands (too far out and _Monitor_ can't use her turret, too far in and
> _Warrior_'s manoeverability - or lack of it - becomes an issue). At sea
> and against a moving target _Monitor_ won't hit anything she can't touch.
> _Warrior_ will land some hits, but unless _Monitor_'s turret armour starts
> delaminating (quite likely) they're unlikely to be fatal to _Monitor_.
Monitor's turret armor was 8 inches of rolled iron. There are
contemporary photographs from after the action showing big cannonball
shaped dents in the turret, but no cracks, no missing rivets. If
Virginia's guns could not pierce Monitor's armor, I don't see why
Warrior's guns would be any more effective.
David Starr
Ray O'Hara
> In article <ubGdnWmenfr-g53b...@comcast.com>,
> Ray O'Hara <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > so the brits get an entite squadron in your scenario but the monitor
fights
> >alone.
>
> Certainly. Why fight "fair" if you don't have to? The US could, of course,
> send frigates and sloops out first. I'd imagine _Warrior_'s captain would
> be delighted at that.. There is certainly no chance at all of _Warrior_
> being deployed solo, and the RN had a well-developed "coast offence"
> strategy by that time.
>
the USN had plenty of ships too. and ships with big guns
> >monitors guns could aim fine. when fighting the virginia they just aimed
the
> >turret to one side and manuvered the ship in the traditional manner.
>
> OK at point-blank against a very slow, cumberous target which shoots as
> slowly as you do. Much harder at sea against a moving target. I think
> _Huascar_ vs. _Shah_ is a more realistic benchmark for this action:
> _Monitor_ would be better crewed and worked up, but _Huascar_ had a much
> better turret and loading arrangments and finer training control....
>
just because the battle of hampton roads was fought point blank doesn't mean
they couldn't shoot further.
> >the 68lbers would be unable to hurt the monitor. the smallness of the
target
>
> The 110lbrs certainly wouldn't, but the 68lbrs would - much higher
> velocity. They were reckoned as OK to penetrate 4" of solid iron at close
> range, using battering charges, and _Monitor_'s 8" of laminated iron on
> the turret would be less effective than 4" of solid under most
> curcumstances. Post-war trials by the RN against either parts of an ex-USN
> monitor or a reconstruction (I've not got the ref. of this in my library
> - it was discussed in a ~1870s paper by (I think) Reed which a library in
> a former workplace had) of same showed the turret plate would de-laminate
> after hits by 68lbr SB. Splinters flying off the inner face of the turret
> would not be nice.
>
"at close range" but you are fighting at long range remember?
the 8 inches of laminate not being as good as 4 inches of solid is
conjecture.
and the monitor's round turret would mean that most strikes would be
langing.
Vince
> In article <sI2dnR_Zr4xlq53b...@comcast.com>,
> Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>> Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>>>> the 68lbers would be unable to hurt the monitor. the smallness of the target
>>> The 110lbrs certainly wouldn't, but the 68lbrs would - much higher
>>> velocity.
>> the 68 pounders were smooth bore muzzle loaders
>
> Yup. Hence the higher muzzle velocity than the Armstrong rifles. The
> 95cwt 68lbr was a very good gun.
>
>> 1200 FPS
>
> That's with the full standard charge, I think. With battering charges it
> would be a bit more - though I can't lay sight on my copy of Lambert's
> "Warrior" at the moment. The Armstrongs were around the 1000fps mark. Much
> less puissant against armour.
>
However 68 pounder at 1200 fps would not dent the Monitor
The 9 inch dahlgrens could not penetrate
Vince
Ray O'Hara
> In article <1174419549.0...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> guy <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On 20 Mar, 19:20, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
> >
> >SNIP
> >> Certainly. Why fight "fair" if you don't have to?
> >One exaple of 'fighting fair' which could have happened was Admiral
> >Beresfords plan to engage the Russians in 1905 after they had opened
> >up on the North Sea fishing fleet.
>
> Yup - though matching four Formidables against the four Russian ships was
> far from a fair fight (the main guns fired twice as often on the
> Formidables, for one thing) - and Beresford knew it well.
>
> Shades of the undertaken given to von Spee by the RN Admiral commanding
> the Far East force in 1914: that if they ever had to fight each other
> then - to give Spee a chance - he would only engage using half his
> secondary battery. Of course, the _Minotaur_ class cruiser had five of its
> 7.5" guns on each broadside, and could only bring five out of ten to bear
> on a target. I dare say that the implications were obvious to both sides
> of the conversation...
>
> >He was only goint to engage with his 4 more modern battleships
> >(Formidables?), only bringing the 4 Royal Soverigns into action if he
> >was getting 'knocked about'
>
> Britain and Russia weren't at war, though, so a blatant 8-against-4
> massacre would have international repercussions (whereas a fouron-four
> massacre wouldn't be as objectionable...).
massacrering the fishing fleet already created international repercussions.
what were the russians going to do send more ships to get slaughtered.
i always thought england acted with great restraint in the whole affair.
Ray O'Hara
"guy" <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1174417219....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
huascar had serious problems with its crew. a fast pass on monitor would
nehighly inefective.
Jack Linthicum
I have seen this "trains the guns by steering the ship" quote a couple
of times. This sounds dubious as the communications between the pilot
station where the captain was and the turret were lost when the
speaking tube broke and they were forced to use runners.
Quote from the book, the Monitor by James Tertius de Kay 'In contrast
to the (Virginia) the positioning of the Monitor was almost irrelevant
to the aiming of the guns.' The Virginia was aimed by the steersman
not the Monitor.
My copy of the Monitor by James Tertius de Kay says they had trouble
stopping the turret at a line so they set up a schedule of loading
with the turret turned away from the target, then rotating the turret
to bear on the target, running out the guns and firing, continuing the
rotation to reload. While the guns were run in the holes were covered
with heavy pendulums that require the whole gun crew to open. They
learned to leave them open.
The guns could not fire directly ahead for fear of taking out the
pilot station, nor astern for fear of rupturing the boilers.
Peter Skelton
<dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>> Monitor was tasked as a close-in blockade enforcer, other
>> monitors were used for shore bombardment. but the tasking was
>> always very close in.
>>
>> Warrior might have been tasked with blockade or some kind of
>> raiding against a navy owning Monitors.
>
> Would not the RN be tasked to break the Union blockade, to get raw
>cotton to the mills of Manchester? The lack of cotton had shut down the
>English textile industry, throwing the mill hands out of work and
>costing the mill owners like crazy. I'd expect the RN to escort some
>merchantmen into a southern port. To maintain the blockade the USN has
>to stop them. Seems to me this would force a standup fight between each
>sides best ships, Warrior and Monitor. RN has to sink the blockaders to
>lift the blockade, USN has to drive off or sink the attackers to
>maintain the blockade.
>
The union can't blockade with monitors. Montors are far too slow
and unseaworthy to protect blockading ships froim the likes of
Warrior. British strategy could boil down to:
1) wait until the wind blows
2) clean up the blockaders
(a blockade that only worked when the wind was quiet wasn't much
use against sailing ships.)
It's a raid.
>
>She had four times the
>> speed in good weather, and a biggger edge in bad.
>
> Four times seems a little much. Would you believe twice? Monitor
>could do 6-7 knots. I'll bet Warrior wasn't good for much more than 14.
> Warrior can pick her fighting distance, and either force an engagement
>or refuse one. The slower ship has to take what comes her way.
>
Monitor was gasping much above four knots. Warrior was about as
you say.
>A duel would be
>> long range for the day (with Monitor aiming her guns by steering,
>> the only way she could past a hundred yards or so and her only
>> choice with the turret down anyway). There wouldn't be much
>> hitting.
>
> The purpose of the turret is to allow Monitor's main battery to fire
>to port or to starboard, thus cutting the number of guns in half for the
>same weight of broadside. If Ericsson's steam turret drive engine
>cannot train the guns just so for good aim, then Lt Worden merely orders
>the turret to point to port or starboard, as required, and then trains
>the guns by steering the ship, just the way it was always done under
>sail, or in the broadside Warrior.
>
Isn't that exactly what I said about Monitor?
>
>> It's hard to say which the winner of a battle would be, but it's
>> also hard to see how something as slow as Monitor could do much
>> to interfere with a Warrior's mission. There probably wouldn't be
>> a fight because a Warrior wouldn't need to fight.
>
>If Warrior wants to break the blockade, she has to sink the blockaders.
> A blockader just hangs off the mouth of the port waiting to snap up
>some juicy merchantman.
>
Unprotected whenever the wind blows.
Peter Skelton
guy
> "guy" <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
why?
guy
Andrew Swallow
> Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>> Monitor was tasked as a close-in blockade enforcer, other
>> monitors were used for shore bombardment. but the tasking was
>> always very close in.
>> Warrior might have been tasked with blockade or some kind of
>> raiding against a navy owning Monitors.
>
> Would not the RN be tasked to break the Union blockade, to get raw
> cotton to the mills of Manchester? The lack of cotton had shut down the
> English textile industry, throwing the mill hands out of work and
> costing the mill owners like crazy. I'd expect the RN to escort some
> merchantmen into a southern port. To maintain the blockade the USN has
> to stop them. Seems to me this would force a standup fight between each
> sides best ships, Warrior and Monitor. RN has to sink the blockaders to
> lift the blockade, USN has to drive off or sink the attackers to
> maintain the blockade.
The US Civil Was was after Britain had freed its slaves. A lot of the
mill hands were on the side of the blacks, even at a high cost to
themselves. "A principle is not a principle until it costs you money."
Andrew Swallow
mike
> Yup. Hence the higher muzzle velocity than the Armstrong rifles. The
> 95cwt 68lbr was a very good gun.
>
> >1200 FPS
>
> That's with the full standard charge, I think. With battering charges it
> would be a bit more - though I can't lay sight on my copy of Lambert's
> "Warrior" at the moment. The Armstrongs were around the 1000fps mark.
The 4.5 ton IX Dahlgren fired a 72 pound ball at 1250fps with late war
loads,
and were still ineffective against the makeshift railroad iron the
CSA used on thier ships, except for knocking shutters loose,
that sort of thing.
the XI was marginal( though effective on Tennessee at Mobile)
but the 440 pound shot of the XV Dahlgren was a real killer,
shown by the Atlanta striking colors after a few 15" balls were fired.
Chilled bolts fired by 7" Brooke Rifles loosened armor on the Monitors
with the attack on Sumter, but non penetrated, and the Brooke
could handle far larger charges than the Armstrong, and had better
accuracy
**
mike
**
mike
> I don't know enough about the Warriors armor to be sure, but if Monitor
> fired explosive shells instead of solid shot from her 11 inch Dahlgren
> guns at Warriors waterline would it have been enough to break through?
> Someone else might be able to comment better on that.
>
> However Warrior had an Achilles heals in that her rudder was unarmored.
> So if Monitor concentrated her fire there at the start of the battle
> it might make the difference.
Warrior had only the center armored, both ends were just Wood,
IIRC about 40% of her length.
So yes, Monitor could probably disable Warriors Rudder gear
with ease.
Not that she would answer to the Helm all that worse much, mind you.
**
mike
**
mike
> predecessors, _Mersey_ and _Orlando_, both were based there during
> the _Trent_ crisis). Only trouble would be fouling of the hull in the warm
> waters and the lack of a dry-dock to clean the hull, but given the low
> speed of US fleet units this would not be a real issue.
Thats why they dragged that big floating drydock to
Bermuda in 1868? or so.
But ships did foul quickly in the Gulf.
**
mike
**
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>A minor consequence of this action is that the RN learns that the 110lbr
>Armstrong gun is a turkey two years early, after several of them blow
>their breech-blocks out in this action...
Actually not. The breeches were blowing because there was no
interrupter to prevent firing while the breech was being screwed down.
They were, in fact, virtually indentical to the best Krupp guns of
that period, with the exception of the lack of an interrupter.
Eventually the Brits figured this out, but as you say, the guns were
long gone from Warrior by then. One of the folks on board Warrior when
I visited was very well versed in the guns and armor.
dott.Piergiorgio
> On 20 Mar, 22:22, "Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip of overquoting]
>> huascar had serious problems with its crew. a fast pass on monitor would
>> nehighly inefective.- Hide quoted text -
>
> why?
I can suggest to you and Mr. O'Hara to learn how to do a better quoting?
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
David Starr
> On Mar 20, 4:57 pm, David Starr <dstarrbos...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>
> I have seen this "trains the guns by steering the ship" quote a couple
> of times. This sounds dubious as the communications between the pilot
> station where the captain was and the turret were lost when the
> speaking tube broke and they were forced to use runners.
Even with the speaking tubes knocked out, a runner from the pilot
house can tell the gunnery officer to train out to port or to starboard
and leave them there. All Monitor's officers come to her from broadside
ships where the only way to aim the guns is to steer the ship. Why
should this not work in Monitor?
>
> Quote from the book, the Monitor by James Tertius de Kay 'In contrast
> to the (Virginia) the positioning of the Monitor was almost irrelevant
> to the aiming of the guns.' The Virginia was aimed by the steersman
> not the Monitor.
>
> My copy of the Monitor by James Tertius de Kay says they had trouble
> stopping the turret at a line so they set up a schedule of loading
> with the turret turned away from the target, then rotating the turret
> to bear on the target, running out the guns and firing, continuing the
> rotation to reload. While the guns were run in the holes were covered
> with heavy pendulums that require the whole gun crew to open. They
> learned to leave them open.
This is the generally accepted history. Monitor's crew set the
turret into constant rotation. They loaded the guns, ran them out, and
fired as they bore on the target. They got hits this way, and the power
of the 11 inch guns at half charge was nearly sufficient to pierce
Virginia's armor. It should also be remembered that Monitor's crew had
been rushed aboard just before departure and had no time to learn the
ship and her revolutionary machinery. It's truly surprising that they
could fight the ship so effectively given so little time to master the
complexity and total newness of the entire vessel.
>
> The guns could not fire directly ahead for fear of taking out the
> pilot station, nor astern for fear of rupturing the boilers.
>
Ericcson's plans called for a 360 degree field of fire. Monitor
didn't even have a stack to avoid masking the guns when trained dead
astern. The pilot house was low enough for the guns to shoot over it.
I've never read of any limitations of gun training angles on Monitor, or
on her successors.
The lack of a stack allowed waves breaking on deck to slosh down into
the boilers and extinguish the fires. Later monitors were equipped with
a real, abet narrow, stack to keep the fires burning in bad weather at
the cost of the ability to fire dead astern.
David Starr
Ray O'Hara
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1174426007.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I have seen this "trains the guns by steering the ship" quote a couple
> of times. This sounds dubious as the communications between the pilot
> station where the captain was and the turret were lost when the
> speaking tube broke and they were forced to use runners.
>
they don't have to communicate. the guns are fixed in one direction and they
they just aim the ship. the guns keep the same aspect to broadside the whole
fight. do you imagine the monitor fired and then they spun the turret to a
random direction just to spice it up.
the guns are aimed 90% to the side
> Quote from the book, the Monitor by James Tertius de Kay 'In contrast
> to the (Virginia) the positioning of the Monitor was almost irrelevant
> to the aiming of the guns.' The Virginia was aimed by the steersman
> not the Monitor.
>
in the chapter "inside the monitors turret" in the book, "combat: the civil
war.{bruce congdon} there is an account by a naval officer on the monitor
who mentioned that when the turned th turret the men found it disorienting
and they just aimed it to one side and aimed the ship.
Ray O'Hara
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:6vk003156jq8m12nh...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:57:14 -0400, David Starr
> <dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>
> >Peter Skelton wrote:
> >
> >> Monitor was tasked as a close-in blockade enforcer, other
> >> monitors were used for shore bombardment. but the tasking was
> >> always very close in.
> >>
> >> Warrior might have been tasked with blockade or some kind of
> >> raiding against a navy owning Monitors.
> >
> > Would not the RN be tasked to break the Union blockade, to get raw
> >cotton to the mills of Manchester? The lack of cotton had shut down the
> >English textile industry, throwing the mill hands out of work and
> >costing the mill owners like crazy. I'd expect the RN to escort some
> >merchantmen into a southern port. To maintain the blockade the USN has
> >to stop them. Seems to me this would force a standup fight between each
> >sides best ships, Warrior and Monitor. RN has to sink the blockaders to
> >lift the blockade, USN has to drive off or sink the attackers to
> >maintain the blockade.
> >
> The union can't blockade with monitors. Montors are far too slow
> and unseaworthy to protect blockading ships froim the likes of
> Warrior. British strategy could boil down to:
>
the monitoes could blockade. all they had to do was stay in close to the
port.
Ray O'Hara
> On 20 Mar, 22:22, "Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "guy" <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > effective, witness the Chilean capture of the Huascar.
> >
> > > guy
> >
> > huascar had serious problems with its crew. a fast pass on monitor would
> > nehighly inefective.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> why?
>
because fiting at that speed at a small target like monitor would be
difficult.
ships did not fight at those speeds. it ruins the accuracy.
its easy to hit a moving target than for a moving target to hit you back.
David Starr
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:57:14 -0400, David Starr
> <dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>
>> Would not the RN be tasked to break the Union blockade, to get raw
>> cotton to the mills of Manchester? The lack of cotton had shut down the
>> English textile industry, throwing the mill hands out of work and
>> costing the mill owners like crazy. I'd expect the RN to escort some
>> merchantmen into a southern port. To maintain the blockade the USN has
>> to stop them. Seems to me this would force a standup fight between each
>> sides best ships, Warrior and Monitor. RN has to sink the blockaders to
>> lift the blockade, USN has to drive off or sink the attackers to
>> maintain the blockade.
>>
> The union can't blockade with monitors. Montors are far too slow
> and unseaworthy to protect blockading ships froim the likes of
> Warrior. British strategy could boil down to:
>
> 1) wait until the wind blows
> 2) clean up the blockaders
Actually, monitors are too slow to catch fast blockade runners. A
Union blockading squadron would have to have some fast cruisers for
pursuit, and with the RN about, Monitor or her successors to fend off RN
heavy ships. To foil an attempt by Warrior to escort some merchants
into harbor, Monitor can take station right smack dab in the middle of
the channel, close in to the port, out of the wind, and then Warrior has
to go thru her to break the blockade. Monitor's heavy armor and big
guns make the going thru part very difficult.
> Monitor was gasping much above four knots. Warrior was about as
> you say.
I think Monitor was a little faster than that. The tide runs at four
knots at many harbors on the East coast. If she can only do four knots,
she is incapable of entering harbor against the tide. Surely Ericcson
provided enough engine power to reach 6 knots, maybe even 8 knots.
David Starr
guy
> "guy" <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174428902.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 20 Mar, 22:22, "Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > "guy" <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > As Andy pointed out the fast pass would probably be extremely
> > > > effective, witness the Chilean capture of the Huascar.
>
> > > > guy
>
> > > huascar had serious problems with its crew. a fast pass on monitor would
> > > nehighly inefective.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > why?
>
> because fiting at that speed at a small target like monitor would be
> difficult.
> ships did not fight at those speeds. it ruins the accuracy.
> its easy to hit a moving target than for a moving target to hit you back.
Well seeing is the fast Warrior like Shah hit the slow Monitor like
Huascar at long range why should it be more difficult at close range?
guy
guy
> "guy" <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174428902.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 20 Mar, 22:22, "Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > "guy" <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > As Andy pointed out the fast pass would probably be extremely
> > > > effective, witness the Chilean capture of the Huascar.
>
> > > > guy
>
> > > huascar had serious problems with its crew. a fast pass on monitor would
> > > nehighly inefective.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > why?
>
> because fiting at that speed at a small target like monitor would be
> difficult.
> ships did not fight at those speeds. it ruins the accuracy.
> its easy to hit a moving target than for a moving target to hit you back.
Ok, some facts. Shah and Amethyst vs Huascar
Average range 1500-2000 yds, closest range 400yds
Amethyst 190 rounds fired (all 64pdrs) 30-40 hits
Shah 241 rounds fired ( 9" and 7") 30 hits including 6 hull hits
Shah mounted 13 guns on the broadside, Warrior 19 guns.
When Huascar was captured the Chilean ships came in fast and opened
fire at 700 yards obtaining a hull hit that jammed the turret, then
closed, the extra damage then inflicted forcing surrender.
My account of Monitor vs Virginia has the cast iron 11"balls
shattering on impact. Was her ammunition improved?
Also the firing interval of Monitors guns is given as 7 minutes.
In addition after 1867 Warrior mounted 2 - 8"MLR and 14 - 7"MLR on
each broadside - more than enough to penetrate Monitor.
guy
Andrew Robert Breen
David Starr <dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>> Monitor was tasked as a close-in blockade enforcer, other
>> monitors were used for shore bombardment. but the tasking was
>> always very close in.
>>
>> Warrior might have been tasked with blockade or some kind of
>> raiding against a navy owning Monitors.
>
> Would not the RN be tasked to break the Union blockade, to get raw
>cotton to the mills of Manchester? The lack of cotton had shut down the
>English textile industry, throwing the mill hands out of work and
>costing the mill owners like crazy. I'd expect the RN to escort some
>merchantmen into a southern port. To maintain the blockade the USN has
>to stop them. Seems to me this would force a standup fight between each
>sides best ships, Warrior and Monitor. RN has to sink the blockaders to
>lift the blockade, USN has to drive off or sink the attackers to
>maintain the blockade.
Any RN action would have two aims, with the purely naval one being
secondary. The Naval aim would be to break the Union blockade as and when
necessary and to conduct harrassing actions against coastal installations.
The political aim (which this would be intended to support) would be to
demonstrate to the US public that the US navy could (a) not protect its
seaboard and (b) that its ability to prosecute the war against the south
was suffering badly as a result of the failure of the blockage, with the
intended result being the federal government coming to a settlement with
Britain that would allow it to get back to the job of dealing with the
South.
In reality, even if it had come to a shooting war over the _Trent_
incident, _Warrior_ wouldn't have gone out. She was too valuable in the
channel (dammit, would //you// trust Louis-Napoleon in those
circumstances?). What might have happened is an expansion of the force
which actually did go out, which included (from memory, here) at least 3
large 2-deck steam battleships, the two super-frigates _Mersey_ and
_Orlando_, several other large steam frigates and at least two (IIRC,
again) armoured floating batteries. These ships would have been more than
adequate to deal with any squadron the USN could offer, though _Monitor_
would have been a very tough proposition in costal waters. If it had come
to the crunch I'd have expected another 2-3 steam two-deckers, plus more
armoured batteries and 60hp gunboats - but not the big ironclads.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Which is the better source? The turret turns, why not use that
feature? The description seems valid for a learning situation, turn
the gun ports away from the target to load turn back to the target to
fire.
guy
> In article <KYqdnfRZS80v153bnZ2dnUVZ_oupn...@adelphia.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Interesting Andy, I did not which ships were actually sent out.
Given the aggressive nature of the RN, I would expect some form of
small boat night attack on Monitor rather than waiting for her to come
out.
guy
Peter Skelton
Except under perfect conditions, Monitor would have to fight with
the turret down which is why I made the origina comment.
<s>
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote:
I do not think this is the scenario I refered to.
Even so, it would be a neat trick to provide a monitor for every
channel into every port.
>> Monitor was gasping much above four knots. Warrior was about as
>> you say.
>
> I think Monitor was a little faster than that. The tide runs at four
>knots at many harbors on the East coast. If she can only do four knots,
>she is incapable of entering harbor against the tide. Surely Ericcson
>provided enough engine power to reach 6 knots, maybe even 8 knots.
6 knots and not for very long. Monitor would normally transit
under tow.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> One of those What Ifs that has the British intervening in the American
> Civil War also features a possible battle between the HMS Warrior and
> the USS Monitor. I have seen an old thread on a Warrior vs.Virginia,
> what would be the possible outcome of a Warrior-Monitor battle on
> Chesapeake Bay or in the Virginia Capes, near Hampton?
>
> First question is whether the Warrior could make the journey and once
> in U.S. waters sustain her presence?
>
> Second is whether the Warrior could depress her guns sufficiently to
> hit the Monitor.
>
> Third whether the smaller weight of the Monitor's shot would be
> ineffectual against the Warrior's armor.
Having second thoughts. Would the British strategy of this period
require that they send their best ship immediately to enforce a
blockade? Would they send an existing squadron with the possible
consequences of ship to ship conflicts in which one side or the other
dominated? In the case of a North predominance or a stand-off would
they then send their biggest and best?
My thinking is the Northern industry made the improvements in the
monitors, including 4-5000 ton sea going versions with at least two
turrets. Knowing their adversary the gun improvements would been tried
and possibily with some success. Any success would have raised the
British ante and a general naval war possibility.
David Starr
>
> Except under perfect conditions, Monitor would have to fight with
> the turret down which is why I made the origina comment.
>
After the trip from New York to Hampton Roads during which Monitor
came near to sinking in a spot of bad weather, her skipper would have
been very sensitive to weather conditions. He doesn't want to loose his
valuable, perhaps invaluable, vessel to a storm. So, Monitor will go
out just as far, and no farther, than Lt Worden thinks his ship can
survive. If an enemy is in sight, survival means raising the turret
enough to rotate her, at least for a short period of time. The skipper
will decide if the pumps can handle the extra water coming in under the
turret ring.
As far as the turret rotation, Monitor need only rotate it once or
twice during a battle. Set the guns to port, or to starboard, or dead
ahead or dead astern. Steer along side the enemy, toward the enemy or
away from the enemy. Serve the guns as fast as you can. With full
powder charges the 11 inch ought to pierce Warror's armor. Warrior's
skipper can then use his superior speed to withdraw before Monitor blows
him out of the water.
David Starr
Jack Linthicum
Still nobody thinks the turret had a function and functioned during
the battle.
Letter from Chief Engineer Stimers, USS Monitor, to Captain John
Ericsson, giving an account of the engagement.
IRONCLAD MONITOR,
Hampton Roads, March 9, 1862.
MY DEAR SIR: After a stormy passage, which proved us to be the finest
seaboat I was ever in, we fought the Merrimack for more than three
hours this forenoon and sent her back to Norfolk in a sinking
condition. Ironclad against ironclad. We maneuvered about the bay here
and went at each other with mutual fierceness. I consider that both
ships were well fought. We were struck 22 times-pilot house twice,
turret 9 times, side armor 8 times, deck 3 times. The only vulnerable
point was the pilot house. One of your great logs (9 by 12 inches
thick) is broken in two. The shot struck just outside of where the
captain had his eye, and it has disabled him by destroying his left
eye and temporarily blinding the other. The log is not quite in two,
but is broken and pressed inward 1 _ inches. She tried to run us down
and sink us, as she did the Cumberland yesterday, but she got the
worst of it. Her bow passed over our deck and our sharp upper edged
side cut through the light iron shoe upon her stem and well into her
oak. She will not try that again. She gave us a tremendous thump, but
did not injure us in the least. We are just able to find the point of
contact.
The turret is a splendid structure. I do not think much of the shield,
but the pendulums are fine things, though I can not tell you how they
would stand the shot, as they were not hit.
You are very correct in your estimate of the effect of shot upon the
man on the inside of the turret when it was struck near him. Three men
were knocked down, of whom I was one; the other two had to be carried
below, but I was not disabled at all and the others recovered before
the battle was over. Captain Worden stationed himself at the pilot
house, Greene fired the guns, and I turned the turret until the
captain was disabled and was relieved by Greene, when I managed the
turret myself, Master Stodder having been one of the two stunned men.
Captain Ericsson, I congratulate you upon your great success.
Thousands have this day blessed you. I have heard whole crews cheer
you. Every man feels that you have saved this place to the nation by
furnishing us with the means to whip an ironclad frigate that was,
until our arrival, having it all her own way with our most powerful
vessels.
I am, with much esteem, very truly, yours,
ALBAN C. STIMERS,
Chief Engineer.
Captain J. ERICSSON,
No. 95 Franklin Street, New York
http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/civilwar/hamptonroads.htm
In point of fact, it was not necessary to maneuver the Monitor at all;
for as her turret revolved, all she had to do was to stand still.
This, indeed, is one of the strong points of this class of vessels,
fighting in rivers or shallow water. They can always bring a gun to
bear as long as the turret will revolve.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHHampton%20Roads.htm
David Starr
> Any RN action would have two aims, with the purely naval one being
> secondary. The Naval aim would be to break the Union blockade as and when
> necessary and to conduct harrassing actions against coastal installations.
> The political aim (which this would be intended to support) would be to
> demonstrate to the US public that the US navy could (a) not protect its
> seaboard and (b) that its ability to prosecute the war against the south
> was suffering badly as a result of the failure of the blockage, with the
> intended result being the federal government coming to a settlement with
> Britain that would allow it to get back to the job of dealing with the
> South.
Would not the British war aim been to break up the Union? America
was already big enough and strong enough to give the English pause.
Think 1812. Surely a rump Union and an independant Confederacy, with a
significant ideological difference (slavery) between them would be
easier for Britain to play balance of power politics with. Everyone
understands "Divide and Conquer".
>
> In reality, even if it had come to a shooting war over the _Trent_
> incident, _Warrior_ wouldn't have gone out. She was too valuable in the
> channel (dammit, would //you// trust Louis-Napoleon in those
> circumstances?). What might have happened is an expansion of the force
> which actually did go out, which included (from memory, here) at least 3
> large 2-deck steam battleships, the two super-frigates _Mersey_ and
> _Orlando_, several other large steam frigates
But Virginia has shown that unarmored ships don't stand a chance
against ironclads. How long could RN wooden two deckers or big steam
frigates survive Monitor's fire? Would the RN guns deter Monitor any
more than Congress and Cumberland's guns deterred Virginia?
> and at least two (IIRC, again) armoured floating batteries.
Monitor gets critized for low speed, low freeboard, and general
unseaworthiness. But is she not superior to engineless floating
batteries in both speed and seaworthiness? Even a big Union steam
frigate like Hartford ought to be fast enough to circle around floating
batteries, find a position where her guns bear and the battery's guns do
not, and just keep pounding til the battery sinks. Monitor, although
slower than Hartford, is still faster than anything without engines.
David Starr
guy
The 2 deckers would be on blokade support work, not close in.
Seeing as an unarmoured steam frigate and sloop survived unscathed
apart for some cut rigging against a Coles 1964 monitor with far
better guns for 2 hours 40 mins, thats a fact, not an assumption, what
is the problem?
>
> > and at least two (IIRC, again) armoured floating batteries.
>
> Monitor gets critized for low speed, low freeboard, and general
> unseaworthiness. But is she not superior to engineless floating
> batteries in both speed and seaworthiness? Even a big Union steam
> frigate like Hartford ought to be fast enough to circle around floating
> batteries, find a position where her guns bear and the battery's guns do
> not, and just keep pounding til the battery sinks. Monitor, although
> slower than Hartford, is still faster than anything without engines.
>
> David Starr
The batteries do not go in alone, they will, obviously, be supported.
and Monitor will probably be out of action as a result of a small boat
action.
guy
Jack Linthicum
The monitor was slow only in relation to other steam ships, not many
wooden hulls could manuever inside a closed roadstead at 7 knots. The
later versions, 5000 tons and seaworthy, were "listed" at 15 knots, I
would like to see results of Warrior under steam alone. Bits I have
seen state that the steam was to give the sails a sprint capability.
850 tons of coal, burned at what rate when under full speed?
guy
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which were listed as 15kts? the fastest I can find was Dictator - 11
kts but her shaft bearings were too short so she had to give up.
8-9 kts seemes about right for the later monitors (unless you are
talking about the Arkansas..;-)
Warrior did 14kts+ under steam, 13 under sail and 17+ under steam+sail
What value of seaworthy are you talking about? Warrior operational in
almost anything, any Monitor - did not sink - hopefully.
e.g. after Miantonomah had actually crossed the Atlantic -RN officer
who went aboard - quote - the crew 'seemed to have no go in them and
crawled about the decks in a state of debility one and all. I was
shocked and struck by their inactive appearance. The vessel was
compared to a dungeon under water filled ith a stifling atmosphere by
a steam engine...'
guy
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> Also, many "monitors" were built during and after the CW, with
> improvements along the way. Never really made it as a seagoing type.
The RN built Breastwork Monitors which were a direct ancestor of the
pre-dreadnought.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Robert Breen) wrote:
> and _Monitor_'s
> captain would have to be insane to come out to fight _Warrior_ at
> sea.
Monitor could not fight in a reasonable sea state anyway. The turret
had to be jacked up to rotate leaving a gap where any water on the deck
would flow in. There are also the recorded difficulties in controlling
turret traverse. I have a book on the Monitor that is definitely biased
in favour of Erricson and even that has difficulty in praising the
Monitor design.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Robert Breen) wrote:
> There is certainly no chance at all of _Warrior_
> being deployed solo,
I think Black Prince would have been completed by then as well.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dstarr...@adelpha.net (David Starr) wrote:
> The pilot house was low enough for the guns to shoot over it.
Errickson had apparently never considered blast effects.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
brad...@gmail.com (Brad Meyer) wrote:
> but as you say, the guns were
> long gone from Warrior by then.
The main problem was the limit on charge compared with a RML.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dstarr...@adelpha.net (David Starr) wrote:
> A
> Union blockading squadron would have to have some fast cruisers for
> pursuit,
Something the US was vastly inferior in numbers compared to the RN and
in performance.
Ken Young
Jack Linthicum
Feeble response...
Dunderberg
Casemate ram
Dimensions: length 377'4", beam 72'10", draft 21'
Displacement: 7,060 tons
Speed: 15 knots
Crew: 590
Armor: 3 ½" sides and casemate deck, 4 ½" casemate and main deck
Armament: Four 15" and twelve 11" Dahlgren smoothbores
Authorized: 3 Jul 62
Dunderberg: [Images] A Union attempt to duplicate and improve upon the
design of the Confederate Virginia, this ship was completed too late
for the Civil War. Constructed by Webb at New York NY. Launched 22 Jul
65. Never commissioned. Sold back to builder 2 Mar 67, resold to
France Jul 67 and renamed Rochambeau. Served in Franco-Prussian War,
1870-71. Broken up 1874.
Puritan
Single turret monitor
Dimensions: length 340', beam 50', draft 21'
Displacement: 4,912 tons
Speed: 15 knots (planned)
Crew: ?
Armor: 15" turret, 6" sides, 1 ½" deck, 12" pilothouse
Armament: Two 20" Dahlgren smoothbores
Authorized: 1862
Puritan: [Images] Similar to but even larger than Dictator. Designed
with two turrets, but then Ericsson redesigned her with one.
Constructed by Continental at Greenpoint NY. Launched 2 Jul 64. Work
suspended late 1865. Officially "rebuilt" as USS Puritan (BM 1), but
in reality scrapped and replaced in 1874.
Andrew Robert Breen
David Starr <dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>
>> Any RN action would have two aims, with the purely naval one being
>> secondary. The Naval aim would be to break the Union blockade as and when
>> necessary and to conduct harrassing actions against coastal installations.
>> The political aim (which this would be intended to support) would be to
>> demonstrate to the US public that the US navy could (a) not protect its
>> seaboard and (b) that its ability to prosecute the war against the south
>> was suffering badly as a result of the failure of the blockage, with the
>> intended result being the federal government coming to a settlement with
>> Britain that would allow it to get back to the job of dealing with the
>> South.
> Would not the British war aim been to break up the Union? America
>was already big enough and strong enough to give the English pause.
No: from the 1850s onwards - if not earlier - British policy was to foster
a stable relationship with the USA, allowing a non-militrised border with
Canada, though not interfereing with British commercial interests in South
America.
>Think 1812. Surely a rump Union and an independant Confederacy, with a
>significant ideological difference (slavery) between them would be
>easier for Britain to play balance of power politics with. Everyone
>understands "Divide and Conquer".
Overt support for the South would have been nigh-on political sucide
in Britain by that time - at least anything which fostered the
continuation of slavery would have been.
>> In reality, even if it had come to a shooting war over the _Trent_
>> incident, _Warrior_ wouldn't have gone out. She was too valuable in the
>> channel (dammit, would //you// trust Louis-Napoleon in those
>> circumstances?). What might have happened is an expansion of the force
>> which actually did go out, which included (from memory, here) at least 3
>> large 2-deck steam battleships, the two super-frigates _Mersey_ and
>> _Orlando_, several other large steam frigates
>
> But Virginia has shown that unarmored ships don't stand a chance
>against ironclads. How long could RN wooden two deckers or big steam
>frigates survive Monitor's fire? Would the RN guns deter Monitor any
>more than Congress and Cumberland's guns deterred Virginia?
Wooden ships could engage ironclads with considerable success - consider
the example of SMS _Kaiser_ (91-gun steam battleship) at Lissa. She
engaged several ironclads in succession, succeeded in ramming one, took
numerous heavy hits (including several 300lb rounds) and (IIRC) played a
significant role in the destruction of the ironclad _Palestro_.
She was a mess after the action, but was capable of making her way to
dockyard without assistance.
Several other Austrian steam battleships played active roles at Lissa,
engaging ironclads. None were lost. Wooden battleships were remarkably
tough propositions - much more so than frigates - and early shells
notoriously unreliable.
>> and at least two (IIRC, again) armoured floating batteries.
>
> Monitor gets critized for low speed, low freeboard, and general
>unseaworthiness. But is she not superior to engineless floating
>batteries in both speed and seaworthiness? Even a big Union steam
The armoured batteries were engined, and if not exactly fast were equal to
_Monitor_ in speed (and considerably better than _Virginia_)
>frigate like Hartford ought to be fast enough to circle around floating
>batteries, find a position where her guns bear and the battery's guns do
>not, and just keep pounding til the battery sinks. Monitor, although
>slower than Hartford, is still faster than anything without engines.
Except the batteries had engines... (and could turn faster than
_Hartford_).
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
you acually consider them ships?
guy
Brian Sharrock
> On 21 Mar, 13:40, David Starr <dstarrbos...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>> Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>> > Any RN action would have two aims, with the purely naval one being
>> > secondary. The Naval aim would be to break the Union blockade as and
>> > when
>> > necessary and to conduct harrassing actions against coastal
>> > installations.
>> > The political aim (which this would be intended to support) would be to
>> > demonstrate to the US public that the US navy could (a) not protect
>> > its
>> > seaboard and (b) that its ability to prosecute the war against the
>> > south
>> > was suffering badly as a result of the failure of the blockage, with
>> > the
>> > intended result being the federal government coming to a settlement
>> > with
>> > Britain that would allow it to get back to the job of dealing with the
>> > South.
>>
>> Would not the British war aim been to break up the Union?
Hmm; unless I've misinterpreted a galaxy of books and films ... wasn't the
Union already broken up? had the Confederated States not broken away from
the Union? Were there not two Armies [ignoring subdivions into Army of the
Potomac etc.] one wearing blue and the other grey? Weren't there two flags
(Star & Stripes and 'Rebel' flag)?
Wasn't the 'Northern' war aim to re-establish ( impose) the Union ?
--
Brian
Peter Skelton
<dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>>
>> Except under perfect conditions, Monitor would have to fight with
>> the turret down which is why I made the origina comment.
>>
> After the trip from New York to Hampton Roads during which Monitor
>came near to sinking in a spot of bad weather, her skipper would have
>been very sensitive to weather conditions. He doesn't want to loose his
>valuable, perhaps invaluable, vessel to a storm. So, Monitor will go
>out just as far, and no farther, than Lt Worden thinks his ship can
>survive. If an enemy is in sight, survival means raising the turret
>enough to rotate her, at least for a short period of time. The skipper
>will decide if the pumps can handle the extra water coming in under the
>turret ring.
> As far as the turret rotation, Monitor need only rotate it once or
>twice during a battle.
Exactly. Aim by steering.
Set the guns to port, or to starboard, or dead
>ahead or dead astern. Steer along side the enemy, toward the enemy or
>away from the enemy. Serve the guns as fast as you can. With full
>powder charges the 11 inch ought to pierce Warror's armor. Warrior's
>skipper can then use his superior speed to withdraw before Monitor blows
>him out of the water.
>
>David Starr
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
Try reading what one of the participants said....
David Starr
>>> Would not the British war aim been to break up the Union?
>
> Hmm; unless I've misinterpreted a galaxy of books and films ... wasn't the
> Union already broken up? had the Confederated States not broken away from
> the Union?
Sure. But to make it stick, the Confederacy has to beat the Union, to
the point of getting Lincoln to sign a peace treaty with Richmond that
guarantees the Confederacy's right to exist. Or at least hurt the Union
badly enough to get them to back off. The Confederacy made a mighty
effort to do just that, but the Union proved stronger, so Lee surrenders
to Grant, not vice versa. From London's viewpoint in 1862, aiding the
Confederates might be enough to make the southern succession stick.
David Starr
David Starr
> In article <cfudnU_PJdx8qJzb...@adelphia.com>,
> David Starr <dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>> Would not the British war aim been to break up the Union? America
>> was already big enough and strong enough to give the English pause.
>
> No: from the 1850s onwards - if not earlier - British policy was to foster
> a stable relationship with the USA, allowing a non-militrised border with
> Canada, though not interfereing with British commercial interests in South
> America.
>
>> Think 1812. Surely a rump Union and an independant Confederacy, with a
>> significant ideological difference (slavery) between them would be
>> easier for Britain to play balance of power politics with. Everyone
>> understands "Divide and Conquer".
>
> Overt support for the South would have been nigh-on political sucide
> in Britain by that time - at least anything which fostered the
> continuation of slavery would have been.
This is true. Lots of Englishmen were anti-slavery at the time.
Prince Albert was strongly anti war and intervened to tone down a
diplomatic nasty gram at the height of the Trent affair. Lincoln was no
fool, and understood that he didn't need any more trouble than he
already had, so Mason and Slidell were released and permitted to finish
their journey to London.
>
>> But Virginia has shown that unarmored ships don't stand a chance
>> against ironclads. How long could RN wooden two deckers or big steam
>> frigates survive Monitor's fire? Would the RN guns deter Monitor any
>> more than Congress and Cumberland's guns deterred Virginia?
>
> Wooden ships could engage ironclads with considerable success - consider
> the example of SMS _Kaiser_ (91-gun steam battleship) at Lissa. She
> engaged several ironclads in succession, succeeded in ramming one, took
> numerous heavy hits (including several 300lb rounds) and (IIRC) played a
> significant role in the destruction of the ironclad _Palestro_.
> She was a mess after the action, but was capable of making her way to
> dockyard without assistance.
> Several other Austrian steam battleships played active roles at Lissa,
> engaging ironclads. None were lost. Wooden battleships were remarkably
> tough propositions - much more so than frigates - and early shells
> notoriously unreliable.
I'm familiar with this battle, and yes the Austrian battleships did
amazingly well. On the other hand, the description of the action I read
long ago was full of "They were incredibly lucky", and "Nobody could
believe this really happened" statements.
>
>>> and at least two (IIRC, again) armoured floating batteries.
>> Monitor gets critized for low speed, low freeboard, and general
>> unseaworthiness. But is she not superior to engineless floating
>> batteries in both speed and seaworthiness? Even a big Union steam
>
> The armoured batteries were engined, and if not exactly fast were equal to
> _Monitor_ in speed (and considerably better than _Virginia_)
>
>> frigate like Hartford ought to be fast enough to circle around floating
>> batteries, find a position where her guns bear and the battery's guns do
>> not, and just keep pounding til the battery sinks. Monitor, although
>> slower than Hartford, is still faster than anything without engines.
>
> Except the batteries had engines... (and could turn faster than
> _Hartford_).
>
If they have engines why do you refer to them as "floating
batteries"? Surely in 1862 anything with guns, armor and engines is an
"ironclad"?
David Starr
Peter Skelton
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<s>
This excellent sea-boat sank under tow not very long later.
There's a lot in print about monitors, very little complimentary
about their sea-keeping or habitability at sea. David's
suggestions are pretty much in line with what I've read on the
subject.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
This is the part I wanted all to see:
"Captain Worden stationed himself at the pilot house, Greene fired the
guns, and I turned the turret until the captain was disabled and was
relieved by Greene, when I managed the turret myself, Master Stodder
having been one of the two stunned men. "
If the Monitor was steered towards the target why turn the turret? The
Monitor book says to reload and then fire as the turret passed the
direction of fire. Not turning the ship.
Ray O'Hara
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1174471858.9...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 20, 11:42 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1174426007.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > I have seen this "trains the guns by steering the ship" quote a couple
> > > of times. This sounds dubious as the communications between the pilot
> > > station where the captain was and the turret were lost when the
> > > speaking tube broke and they were forced to use runners.
> >
they
> > they just aim the ship. the guns keep the same aspect to broadside the
whole
> > fight. do you imagine the monitor fired and then they spun the turret to
a
> > random direction just to spice it up.
> > the guns are aimed 90% to the side
> >
> > > Quote from the book, the Monitor by James Tertius de Kay 'In contrast
> > > to the (Virginia) the positioning of the Monitor was almost irrelevant
> > > to the aiming of the guns.' The Virginia was aimed by the steersman
> > > not the Monitor.
> >
civil
> > war.{bruce congdon} there is an account by a naval officer on the
monitor
> > who mentioned that when the turned th turret the men found it
disorienting
> > and they just aimed it to one side and aimed the ship.
> >
> > > My copy of the Monitor by James Tertius de Kay says they had trouble
> > > stopping the turret at a line so they set up a schedule of loading
> > > with the turret turned away from the target, then rotating the turret
> > > to bear on the target, running out the guns and firing, continuing the
> > > rotation to reload. While the guns were run in the holes were covered
> > > with heavy pendulums that require the whole gun crew to open. They
> > > learned to leave them open.
> >
> > > pilot station, nor astern for fear of rupturing the boilers.
>
> Which is the better source? The turret turns, why not use that
> feature? The description seems valid for a learning situation, turn
> the gun ports away from the target to load turn back to the target to
> fire.
>
they found turning the turret wasn't such a wonderful feature. it was found
to be dis-orienting to the gun crews.
Peter Skelton
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Sure, this was under very calm conditions. What happened in that
fight is not at issue, you're preaching to the choir.
Peter Skelton
Wesley Taylor
wrote:
>>> This excellent sea-boat sank under tow not very long later.
>>> There's a lot in print about monitors, very little complimentary
>>> about their sea-keeping or habitability at sea. David's
>>> suggestions are pretty much in line with what I've read on the
>>> subject.
>>>
>>> Peter Skelton
The Monitor was a prototype. The production model, the Passaic class,
had several modfications, including a turret collar ring to stop the
action that seems to have been critical in sinking Monitor. The Navy
did not trust the brass ring system that Ericsson used to seal the
turret and caulked the join with oakum. That combined with alterations
to the stacks stopped any other monitor type from sinking or having
any problems like those that killed Monitor. The others that were sunk
either went down due to a mine or sank due to crew negligence (hatch
left open in a storm).
Ray O'Hara
Feeble response...
Dunderberg
Puritan
supposedly dahlgren only produced one 20 inch.
rodman produced two 20 inch guns {one of which is in john paul jones park in
new york city under the verrazano narrows bridge}
it took half an hour to load.
Ray O'Hara
"David Starr" <dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote in message
news:dZydnRzUKLoOCpzb...@adelphia.com...
where they were recieved rather tepidly.
Ray O'Hara
> On 21 Mar, 03:47, "Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "guy" <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1174428902.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On 20 Mar, 22:22, "Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > "guy" <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > As Andy pointed out the fast pass would probably be extremely
> > > > > effective, witness the Chilean capture of the Huascar.
> >
> > > > > guy
> >
> > > > huascar had serious problems with its crew. a fast pass on monitor
would
> > > > nehighly inefective.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> >
> > because fiting at that speed at a small target like monitor would be
> > difficult.
> > ships did not fight at those speeds. it ruins the accuracy.
> > its easy to hit a moving target than for a moving target to hit you
back.
>
> Ok, some facts. Shah and Amethyst vs Huascar
>
> Average range 1500-2000 yds, closest range 400yds
> Amethyst 190 rounds fired (all 64pdrs) 30-40 hits
> Shah 241 rounds fired ( 9" and 7") 30 hits including 6 hull hits
>
> Shah mounted 13 guns on the broadside, Warrior 19 guns.
>
> When Huascar was captured the Chilean ships came in fast and opened
> fire at 700 yards obtaining a hull hit that jammed the turret, then
> closed, the extra damage then inflicted forcing surrender.
> My account of Monitor vs Virginia has the cast iron 11"balls
> shattering on impact. Was her ammunition improved?
> Also the firing interval of Monitors guns is given as 7 minutes.
>
> In addition after 1867 Warrior mounted 2 - 8"MLR and 14 - 7"MLR on
> each broadside - more than enough to penetrate Monitor.
>
> guy
>
the 7inch mlrs on the merrimac made little dents. the 11inch did fine
considering the short charges and i've never read of her ammo breaking up.
in fact the impact caused nasty concussion inside the merrimac and one man
who made the mistake of leaning againt the hull was pureed by the impact of
a round.
in 1867 the warrior would have encountered a ship with 15 inch guns.
Ray O'Hara
"Wesley Taylor" <wesley....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o2k303t44lf8ntajm...@4ax.com...
also the pilot house was moved to on top of the turret clearing the forward
field of fire.
guy
> "David Starr" <dstarrbos...@adelpha.net> wrote in message
>
> news:dZydnRzUKLoOCpzb...@adelphia.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
> > > David Starr <dstarrbos...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Would not the British war aim been to break up the Union? America
> > >> was already big enough and strong enough to give the English pause.
>
> > > No: from the 1850s onwards - if not earlier - British policy was to
> foster
> > > a stable relationship with the USA, allowing a non-militrised border
> with
> > > Canada, though not interfereing with British commercial interests in
> South
> > > America.
>
> > >> Think 1812. Surely a rump Union and an independant Confederacy, with a
> > >> significant ideological difference (slavery) between them would be
> > >> easier for Britain to play balance of power politics with. Everyone
> > >> understands "Divide and Conquer".
>
> > > Overt support for the South would have been nigh-on political sucide
> > > in Britain by that time - at least anything which fostered the
> > > continuation of slavery would have been.
>
> > This is true. Lots of Englishmen were anti-slavery at the time.
> > Prince Albert was strongly anti war and intervened to tone down a
> > diplomatic nasty gram at the height of the Trent affair. Lincoln was no
> > fool, and understood that he didn't need any more trouble than he
> > already had, so Mason and Slidell were released and permitted to finish
> > their journey to London.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are good at saying 'feeble response' unfortunatley that is all you
are good at. Give me ***one*** example of a monitor actually achieving
15 kts at sea ***in real life***
guy
Andrew Robert Breen
David Starr <dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>> In article <cfudnU_PJdx8qJzb...@adelphia.com>,
>> David Starr <dstarr...@adelpha.net> wrote:
>>> But Virginia has shown that unarmored ships don't stand a chance
>>> against ironclads. How long could RN wooden two deckers or big steam
>>> frigates survive Monitor's fire? Would the RN guns deter Monitor any
>>> more than Congress and Cumberland's guns deterred Virginia?
>>
>> Wooden ships could engage ironclads with considerable success - consider
>> the example of SMS _Kaiser_ (91-gun steam battleship) at Lissa. She
>> engaged several ironclads in succession, succeeded in ramming one, took
>> numerous heavy hits (including several 300lb rounds) and (IIRC) played a
>> significant role in the destruction of the ironclad _Palestro_.
>> She was a mess after the action, but was capable of making her way to
>> dockyard without assistance.
>I'm familiar with this battle, and yes the Austrian battleships did
>amazingly well. On the other hand, the description of the action I read
>long ago was full of "They were incredibly lucky", and "Nobody could
>believe this really happened" statements.
But add in the Heligoland action a few years before when Austrian and
Danish frigates hammered eachother enthusastically with shellfire from
close range and all ships survived (the Austrian flagship was driven off
on fire, but the fires were extinguished in quite a short time) or the
actions between British and Franch unarmoured paddle-steamers and forts up
a river in the 1840s to see that unarmoured wooden ships (and,
indeed, iron ships) could survive shellfire[1] quite well.
>>
>> Except the batteries had engines... (and could turn faster than
>> _Hartford_).
>>
> If they have engines why do you refer to them as "floating
>batteries"? Surely in 1862 anything with guns, armor and engines is an
>"ironclad"?
The RN called them "floating batteries", so I'm sticking with their
designation. It's a bit like calling the first steam battleships
"blockships" (a designation they retained through their long and effective
service lives...).
[1] Red-hot shot was much more effective - hence the issue of Martin shell
to RN steamships (including _Warrior_).
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Andrew Robert Breen
Still coastal offence ships and not blue-water combat units. In the 1860s
or 1870s a ship with four big guns - only - was manifestly not designed
for ship-to-ship combat. Its intended opponents were large, stationary and
made of stone.
Andrew Robert Breen
She was - but realistically there was no chance of them being sent out
from the channel until (at the very least) _Achilles_ and the four
diminutives were completed and more likely until the _Minotaur_ class were
ready as well. No admiralty board would be willing to leave Napoleon III
with a clear superiority of forces in the channel.
Ditto the mediterranian - so until the 2nd class ironclads start coming
into service the big steam 3-deckers stay in the med. That leaves a lot of
modern steam 2-deckers available. In OTL's _Trent_ incident 3 big steam
two-deckers went out to Bermuda, plus a gaggle of big frigates. From a
glance at ships and stations int eh early 1860s I reckon that could have
been stretched to 7-8 big two-deckers plus up to 10 large frigates (more
if the big paddle frigates like _Terrible_ or _Sidon_ were included). Add
up to 5 floating batteries (the rest stay to pose a threat to Cherbourg)
and up to 20-40 gunboats and gunvessels (variation depends on degree of
mobilisation and what condition some of the gunboats turned out to be in).
That's a force which could - at the very least - seriously inconvenience
the Federal blockage, and which could also so some annoying raiding up and
down the eastern seaboard, should that be deemed politically desirable.
Jack Linthicum
Sorry, unlike many others who would try to dazzle you with footwork
about some project that didn't make the papers, all I can do is say I
read a statement of specs and didn't read the "however" below. ***
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jackli...@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
> The
> later versions, 5000 tons and seaworthy, were "listed" at 15 knots,
Not according to Conways' Dictator had a design speed of 11 knots the
highest of any "Old Navy" monitor and it is doubtful that could be kept
up for any length of time. You seem to be thinking of the "New Navy"
monitors. Dictator was the only 5000 ton monitor completed during the
Civil War by the way and was actually designed for less than that
displacement.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dstarr...@adelpha.net (David Starr) wrote:
> If they have engines why do you refer to them as "floating
> batteries"? Surely in 1862 anything with guns, armor and engines is
> an "ironclad"?
Because they were designed before the Ironclad as armoured gun boats.
The design was inspired by the French batteries used during the Crimean
War. They were not considered suitable for much more than coastal use.
In addition to these the RN still had fair numbers of "Crimean Gunboats"
and IIRC some mortar vessels.
Ken Young
Peter Skelton
The oakum was an unmitigated disaster. Could I ask for a
reference?
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:45:17 -0700, Wesley Taylor
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:35:30 -0400, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca>
> >wrote:
> >>>> This excellent sea-boat sank under tow not very long later.
> >>>> There's a lot in print about monitors, very little complimentary
> >>>> about their sea-keeping or habitability at sea. David's
> >>>> suggestions are pretty much in line with what I've read on the
> >>>> subject.
>
> >>>> Peter Skelton
>
> >The Monitor was a prototype. The production model, the Passaic class,
> >had several modfications, including a turret collar ring to stop the
> >action that seems to have been critical in sinking Monitor. The Navy
> >did not trust the brass ring system that Ericsson used to seal the
> >turret and caulked the join with oakum. That combined with alterations
> >to the stacks stopped any other monitor type from sinking or having
> >any problems like those that killed Monitor. The others that were sunk
> >either went down due to a mine or sank due to crew negligence (hatch
> >left open in a storm).
>
> The oakum was an unmitigated disaster. Could I ask for a
> reference?
>
> Peter Skelton
Monitor by de Kay says the "navy yard officials had ignored his
(Ericsson's) instructions to let the great weight of the turret serve
as its own seal and had deliberately jacked up the turret on wedges
and stuffed a gasket of oakum--bits of old rope--around the entire
base.The impact of the waves had dislodged the oakum, creating a
circular opening 63 feet in circumference, into which the sea, now
raging in the midst of a full-scale storm, poured in from all sides."
p. 142
Andrew Robert Breen
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <dZydnRzUKLoOCpzb...@adelphia.com>,
>dstarr...@adelpha.net (David Starr) wrote:
>
>> If they have engines why do you refer to them as "floating
>> batteries"? Surely in 1862 anything with guns, armor and engines is
>> an "ironclad"?
>
> Because they were designed before the Ironclad as armoured gun boats.
>The design was inspired by the French batteries used during the Crimean
The genesis of the floating batteries is slightly more complex than that -
the armour scheme (and, IIRC, some of the design) of the French batteries
was worked out with the close involvement of RN constructors, so it might
be fair to describe both the British and French designs as the results of
collaboration between the two nations (with the exception of the
iron-hulled _Terror_, which seems to have been an entirely RN concept -
and introduced sloped armour for the first time in modern history).
>War. They were not considered suitable for much more than coastal use.
Though _Terror_, at least, was with Milne at Bermuda during the _Trent_
crisis. I imagine she was escorted over.
>In addition to these the RN still had fair numbers of "Crimean Gunboats"
>and IIRC some mortar vessels.
Certainly the Mortar Floats (which were unpowered) were still in service.
I //think// the Mortar Frigates were gone by 1861, but I'd need to check
Lyon and Wifgift to be sure.
guy
> In article <1174490109.785492.263...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jacklinthi...@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
> > The
> > later versions, 5000 tons and seaworthy, were "listed" at 15 knots,
>
> Not according to Conways' Dictator had a design speed of 11 knots the
> highest of any "Old Navy" monitor and it is doubtful that could be kept
> up for any length of time. You seem to be thinking of the "New Navy"
> monitors. Dictator was the only 5000 ton monitor completed during the
> Civil War by the way and was actually designed for less than that
> displacement.
>
> Ken Young
Exactly my point Ken
Conway gives 14.5 (how did they measure so accurately?) for the New
Navy Monadnock. Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that these
ships were, nominally, rebuilds?
guy
Keith Willshaw
"Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:McudnffSwOHgYpzb...@comcast.com...
>
>
> the 7inch mlrs on the merrimac made little dents. the 11inch did fine
> considering the short charges and i've never read of her ammo breaking up.
> in fact the impact caused nasty concussion inside the merrimac and one man
> who made the mistake of leaning againt the hull was pureed by the impact
> of
> a round.
>
> in 1867 the warrior would have encountered a ship with 15 inch guns.
>
>
But not USS Monitor however which sank 5 years before that date
and by that time the RN had built the twin turret ship Monarch
Keith
guy
and in 1867 Warrior had 8" and 7" MLR
guy
scott s.
>
> Monitor by de Kay says the "navy yard officials had ignored his
> (Ericsson's) instructions to let the great weight of the turret serve
> as its own seal and had deliberately jacked up the turret on wedges
> and stuffed a gasket of oakum--bits of old rope--around the entire
> base.The impact of the waves had dislodged the oakum, creating a
> circular opening 63 feet in circumference, into which the sea, now
> raging in the midst of a full-scale storm, poured in from all sides."
> p. 142
I don't believe "navy yard officials" ignored Ericsson's instructions.
Ericssson and Stimers worked together to correct the failure of the
monitors at Charleston under DuPont. The problem was the jamming
of the turret after being hit near the base (in addition to various
other battle damage problems). My source (William Roberts, "Civil War
Ironclads") provides more design details. a channel was cut into the
deck to accept the hemp, which was then covered with a flat iron ring.
The concept being that turret misalignment would allow the iron ring
to compress the hemp, preventing the jamming. In addition, and iron
ring was wrapped around the base of the turret, in an effort to
prevent deformation of the turret base. It is true that Ericsson
was invested in his engineering design for his turret, and wasn't
particularily open to criticism of it.
scott s.
.
Andrew Robert Breen
guy <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 22 Mar, 21:15, "Keith Willshaw"
><nospamforke...@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> But not USS Monitor however which sank 5 years before that date
>> and by that time the RN had built the twin turret ship Monarch
>
More to the point, after 1866 the RN's contender in littoral waters
were _Royal Sovereign_ and _Prince Albert_, neither of which were going to
be pushovers. _Royal Sovereign_ had 5x10.5" SB in four turrets (Coles
turrets, a much better bet than the Ericsson turret, sad to say). RS
comissioned as a turret ship in 1864. PA had four 9" MLRs in four turrets
(the 9" was a formidable weapon for its time - capable of penetrating over
11" of solid wrought iron at muzzle distance). These two were formidable
ships. Not pretty, but formidable:
http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/vicnavy/ros.jpg
http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/vicnavy/pal.jpg
There were also some less desirable permutations on the theme of "ram"
joining the fleet. These would have been buggrall use in a serious
engagement, but could have given any monitor some very nasty moments.
guy
> In article <1174600325.712694.273...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On 22 Mar, 21:15, "Keith Willshaw"
> ><nospamforke...@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Ray O'Hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >> > in 1867 the warrior would have encountered a ship with 15 inch guns.
>
> >> But not USS Monitor however which sank 5 years before that date
> >> and by that time the RN had built the twin turret ship Monarch
>
> >and in 1867 Warrior had 8" and 7" MLR
>
> More to the point, after 1866 the RN's contender in littoral waters
> were _Royal Sovereign_ and _Prince Albert_, neither of which were going to
> be pushovers. _Royal Sovereign_ had 5x10.5" SB in four turrets (Coles
> turrets, a much better bet than the Ericsson turret, sad to say). RS
> comissioned as a turret ship in 1864. PA had four 9" MLRs in four turrets
> (the 9" was a formidable weapon for its time - capable of penetrating over
> 11" of solid wrought iron at muzzle distance). These two were formidable
> ships. Not pretty, but formidable:
>
>
> There were also some less desirable permutations on the theme of "ram"
> joining the fleet. These would have been buggrall use in a serious
> engagement, but could have given any monitor some very nasty moments.
>
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
> Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
> money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Was there a ship uglier than that R.S. ?
actually i can thin of a few (but not many)
guy
Jack Linthicum
Somebody didn't believe Ericsson, I certainly doubt that Ericsson ever
doubted Ericsson. The weight of the turret was 143 tons, again I doubt
if the oakum did anything besides mess up a nice fit.