Ironclad Monitors 1863-1865

[Bryce]

This thread illustrates the same problems that the land war had - no one had really taken into account the changes in technology and had sufficient trained men to man them all. The Union had most of the 'big ship' shipyards and were making large seaworthy frigates. The Confederacy's few shipyards were still making seaworthy merchant vessels and used them for blockade running - but they still had to buy from abroad. The other shipyards were for river traffic - very important considering the lack of a railroad network like the North - relatively small vessels and more easily converted to counter the monitors.

The term 'ironclad' in Europe was associated with a seagoing vessel, usually made with a wooden hull, and clad in iron plate, but not unlike earlier wooden warships. Indeed, the Royal Navy had HMS Warrior, the first iron-hulled, armored warship in service in 1861 Yes, it was steam powered with screws, but it looked like any other full-rigged warship of the time. It was basically a broadside warship 26 x 64pdr SBML on the gundeck with 10 x 110pdr RBL top deck mounted - no reliance on barbettes and turrets.

View attachment 523088
The nearest to the monitor-type was the French (and British) floating battery used to hit shore fortifications and used in the Baltic and Crimea. These were basically ironclad broadside vessels, generally towed any distance, unlike the original bomb ketches, however, compare freeboard of the French Lave with the USS Mahopac:
View attachment 523089View attachment 523090
Both did a similar job, but different designs for different environments.

 

[Bryce]

I have an important question about the designs of the British ironclad warrior and her sister ships.

I have read series of books by Peter Tsouras that inside these ironclad vessels was an iron casemate that protected in the batteries and the steam engine. Is that true?

I have also read that the stern and the bow of the ships were not armored. Is that true?

 

[Bryce]

it seems to me that monitors were only useful when it came to combating rebel iron clouds like the Virginia. As you know, the Navy sent where Admiral Dupont into Charleston harbor with his fleet, and the rate of fire from the monitors was terribly slow and not effective.

Perhaps the new Ironsides was a better ship for shore bombardment? on the western rivers, were the vessels made by Eads, basically broadside ironclads? Were they effective against your batteries?

 

[Old Soldier]

I have an important question about the designs of the British ironclad warrior and her sister ships.

I have read series of books by Peter Tsouras that inside these ironclad vessels was an iron casemate that protected in the batteries and the steam engine. Is that true?

I have also read that the stern and the bow of the ships were not armored. Is that true?

Yes. The Warrior was iron hulled, but the stern and bow were not armored as such. The gun deck was enclosed in a box of armor which extended below the waterline but no armor to top or bottom. The steam engine was below the waterline and less likely to be hit by solid shot. These were broadside ironclads.

 

[Saphroneth]

Perhaps the new Ironsides was a better ship for shore bombardment? on the western rivers, were the vessels made by Eads, basically broadside ironclads? Were they effective against your batteries?

Yes, the New Ironsides was better for shore bombardment. It had a much stronger broadside and the guns could be worked faster, as there wasn't such an extreme space crunch.
They were also able to aim the guns, unlike the Passaic class's heavy gun!

I have read series of books by Peter Tsouras that inside these ironclad vessels was an iron casemate that protected in the batteries and the steam engine. Is that true?

Yes, though I should note that Tsouras is not very accurate about some other matters relating to naval combat. He generally presents British ironclads as significantly weaker than is the truth, for example.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Fun fact. HMS Warrior had the first shipboard flush toilet in the captain's cabin. I've been aboard the Warrior but didn't think to check out the water closet. The USS Monitor had the first underwater flush toilet (I'm not a plumber/engineer so don't ask me how they figured that worked) in its captain cabin. Most sailors slung their hinnies overboard and there's a photo of a monitor with a framed canvas thingy to which offered backside privacy when one discharged.

I have an important question about the designs of the British ironclad warrior and her sister ships.

I have read series of books by Peter Tsouras that inside these ironclad vessels was an iron casemate that protected in the batteries and the steam engine. Is that true?

I have also read that the stern and the bow of the ships were not armored. Is that true?

Even Punch made fun of the unarmored bow & stem. The stern had to have an admiral's suite of cabins & sweep of windows. Same was true of the wardroom. The bow was equally vulnerable. Officially designated a coastal defense vessel it was exiled to a faraway island colony. The vast majority of the RN of the tie were relatively small wooden coastal defense vessels.

 

[Rhea Cole]

That the Confederates had any warships, much less ironclads, at Charleston is easy to overlook. That may be the answer.



Yes, but my question was why not more. All 4 came from the James Rivet Squadron; none from the Charleston blockade.



Albemarle first attacked in April 1864, but was not sunk by Cushing until late October.

… operative phrase being was sunk…

 

[Piedone]

Even Punch made fun of the unarmored bow & stem. The stern had to have an admiral's suite of cabins & sweep of windows. Same was true of the wardroom. The bow was equally vulnerable. Officially designated a coastal defense vessel it was exiled to a faraway island colony. The vast majority of the RN of the tie were relatively small wooden coastal defense vessels.

Oh my goodness… I nearly refrained from replying and will do it just for the protocol:
the combat effectiveness of HMS "Warrior" was also already discussed in several other threads in CWT with you - my dear @Rhea Cole - vividly contributing.

The commonly accepted conclusion of those debates was then that "Warrior" was a quite capable war ship intended to project force overseas - and never designated a coastal vessel.
I don't know if you were convinced then but you stopped replying hence everybody else accepted the question as settled.

I must say I deem it indeed a bit unsporty
- to just ignore the result of an intellectual exchange when being a participiant
- to wait ´til the grass has grown
- and as soon as somebody else is bringing up the very same question again to just give the same old answers ad nauseam - as if there never had been any debate on that matter at all.

And no… this is everything but a "argumentatio ad personam" -
it is just a sober description (if you shouldn't be able to find them I will gladly send you links to all those former threads.

You are better than that - I applauded to your impressive knowledge on more than one occasion!

 

[Saphroneth]

Even Punch made fun of the unarmored bow & stem. The stern had to have an admiral's suite of cabins & sweep of windows. Same was true of the wardroom. The bow was equally vulnerable. Officially designated a coastal defense vessel it was exiled to a faraway island colony. The vast majority of the RN of the tie were relatively small wooden coastal defense vessels.

I'm really not sure what metric you use to decide that the Royal Navy was mostly made up of "wooden coastal defence vessels" at the same time as considering Warrior a "coastal defence vessel".

As opposed to what?

 

[Piedone]

I'm really not sure what metric you use to decide that the Royal Navy was mostly made up of "wooden coastal defence vessels" at the same time as considering Warrior a "coastal defence vessel".

As opposed to what?

Maybe this could help to make matters a bit more clear....: Royal Navy 1870

 

[Old Soldier]

Even Punch made fun of the unarmored bow & stem. The stern had to have an admiral's suite of cabins & sweep of windows. Same was true of the wardroom. The bow was equally vulnerable. Officially designated a coastal defense vessel it was exiled to a faraway island colony. The vast majority of the RN of the tie were relatively small wooden coastal defense vessels.

The Warrior Class were designed by Watts as 40-gun armoured frigates, not intended to stand in the line of battle, as the Admiralty was uncertain about their ability to withstand concentrated fire from wooden two- and three-deck ships of the line. They were full rigged for worldwide cruising range and planned to be fast enough to force battle on a fleeing enemy and to control to their own advantage the range at which a battle was fought. She was attached to the Home Fleet and was not stuck off until 1900.

BTW - Also launched in 1860 was HMS Prince of Wales, one of six 121-gun screw-propelled first-rate three-decker line-of-battle ships of the Royal Navy. She was to complement the existing screw-fitted ships of the line, as France was still regarded as a potential enemy and had earlier introduced the Napoleon Class of 90-gun steam ships of the line.

 

[Saphroneth]

Maybe this could help to make matters a bit more clear....: Royal Navy 1870

Oh, I know a great deal about the mid-Victorian navy, having read (among others) Before the Ironclad and Warrior to Dreadnought. I'm curious what metric Rhea is using.

The Warrior Class were designed by Watts as 40-gun armoured frigates, not intended to stand in the line of battle, as the Admiralty was uncertain about their ability to withstand concentrated fire from wooden two- and three-deck ships of the line.

Is that the concern? I'd have thought the concern was that they were faster than the wooden screw liners and would be better served as a fast wing, since the Warrior class had armour capable of defeating all guns then in service with normal charges at the time of her design.
It would seem odd to be concerned about the ability of the single best protected ship on the planet to resist fire.

 

[Old Soldier]

Is that the concern? I'd have thought the concern was that they were faster than the wooden screw liners and would be better served as a fast wing, since the Warrior class had armour capable of defeating all guns then in service with normal charges at the time of her design.
It would seem odd to be concerned about the ability of the single best protected ship on the planet to resist fire.

I think the answer to that would be CONCENTRATED fire. This was still a time of experimentation and innovation and she was a first. No one really knew. Sure, the three-deck ship of the line was on it's way out, but France still had plenty and seemed to be prompting these upgrades and new designs. (Warrior beats Gloire any day!)
The armor had been tested but likely just one gun at a time on a sample of plate on a range, not a broadside at sea. In addition, the upper gundecks on a three-decker would be able to fire plunging shots too - over the top of the plated sides. I suspect the term 'frigate' would have been given due to her relatively small armament as well as her role. Frigates were fast and lightly armed for that role - like Warrior.

 

[67th Tigers]

Yes, the New Ironsides was better for shore bombardment. It had a much stronger broadside and the guns could be worked faster, as there wasn't such an extreme space crunch.
They were also able to aim the guns, unlike the Passaic class's heavy gun!

However, she could not steer in shallow water. The flat bottomed hull form meant that in shallower waters the water did not flow over the rudder, and so it had no effect.

Yes, though I should note that Tsouras is not very accurate about some other matters relating to naval combat. He generally presents British ironclads as significantly weaker than is the truth, for example.

Indeed.

As to Warrior's "unarmoured" ends - so what? What is there of fighting value in these areas? As designed nothing, although the retrofitted hydraullic steering is in the bread room aft. The vessel is stable, even with the waterline in these areas totally riddled.

Warrior was never a "coast defence vessel." Her career in the 1860's was as a principle component of the Channel Fleet along with her sister.

Picking autumn 1864 at random, the Channel Fleet was:

1. Aurora (steam frigate, 35)
2. Black Prince (armoured frigate, 41)
3. Defence (armoured frigate, 16)
4. Edgar (steam battleship, 71, flag)
5. Enterprise (armoured corvette, 4)
6. Hector (armoured frigate, 24)
7. Prince Consort (armoured frigate, 35)
8. Warrior (armoured frigate, 40)
9. Wolverine (steam corvette, 24)

Warrior was a line unit of the main battlefleet until 1875, when she was made a coast guard ship.

 

[67th Tigers]

I think the answer to that would be CONCENTRATED fire. This was still a time of experimentation and innovation and she was a first. No one really knew. Sure, the three-deck ship of the line was on it's way out, but France still had plenty and seemed to be prompting these upgrades and new designs. (Warrior beats Gloire any day!)
The armor had been tested but likely just one gun at a time on a sample of plate on a range, not a broadside at sea. In addition, the upper gundecks on a three-decker would be able to fire plunging shots too - over the top of the plated sides. I suspect the term 'frigate' would have been given due to her relatively small armament as well as her role. Frigates were fast and lightly armed for that role - like Warrior.

Frigate means she had one gundeck. However, with 68 pdrs and 110 pdr rifles in her broadside, she had a huge throw weight approximately that of an 1850's 91 gun battleship. ALL armoured battleships of the period were termed frigate, for that reason.

Warrior's armour was deliberately subjected to repeated hit in the same location during testing. In the tests, 2x 49.5 lb shells, 3x 100 lb shells, 3x 100 lb shot, 3x 200 pdr shot and a 109 lb steel shot were placed in the same spot on the target. It was not penetrated.

 

[Old Soldier]

Frigate means she had one gundeck. However, with 68 pdrs and 110 pdr rifles in her broadside, she had a huge throw weight approximately that of an 1850's 91 gun battleship. ALL armoured battleships of the period were termed frigate, for that reason.

Warrior's armour was deliberately subjected to repeated hit in the same location during testing. In the tests, 2x 49.5 lb shells, 3x 100 lb shells, 3x 100 lb shot, 3x 200 pdr shot and a 109 lb steel shot were placed in the same spot on the target. It was not penetrated.

But not all at once. As I said, it was new technology.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

… operative phrase being was sunk…

What did the Union Navy do to ensure the CSS Albemarle would stay bottled up between the Battle of Albemarle Sound in early May (where the Union warships were unable to do any damage) and Cushing successfully sinking the Albemarle in late October, near six months later?

 

[Saphroneth]

The armor had been tested but likely just one gun at a time on a sample of plate on a range, not a broadside at sea.

Not at all. They specifically fired multiple round broadsides of the heaviest guns they could get their hands on, including two salvos from three guns impacting very close together, and with a substantial amount of fire (a dozen hits, some successive and some simultaneous) all concentrated in a space about 3 feet by 18 inches.

The tests were very comprehensive.

But not all at once. As I said, it was new technology.

What kind of requirement do you think would be sufficient? The Admiralty were clearly willing to let a wooden-hulled ship of the line take the fire of a wooden-hulled ship of the line, why would an ironclad immune to the typical 32 pounders carried as the main guns of most ships of the line be something they'd shy away from?

More importantly - from where does the idea come that they'd do this? They very much recognized that a wooden hull needed to be armoured across the whole length but an iron hull did not, that was in the original design specs.


Warrior was an armoured frigate, yes - a term relating to her number of guns and single gun deck. But this is a reflection of the commencing trend away from lots of 32 pounder guns to fewer and more individually powerful guns, as reflected in Prince Consort and Royal Oak (ironclad conversions of wooden battleship hulls). They went from 91 guns in their original wooden design to 31 (Prince Consort) and 35 (Royal Oak) but the trade-off is that the new guns are on average more powerful and/or accurate.

 

[Rhea Cole]

The USN did not have to do anything to limit the range of the Albermerle . The engines & fuel capacity of the vessel lowered the limiting factors. She needed 10' of water at least, which prescribed the channels it could operate in. Roses on the sound only run between .33' & .66' so that was not a major obstacle.

Today in the sound winds are at 15-20 mph & waves at 24". I don't know if you are familiar with navigating a houseboat, but slab sided craft can be a handful in a blow. Like all of her kind, the no freeboard, weak engine, & sail area of the casement would have made for very awkward handling at best. It would have been in constant danger of being driven aground or foundering,

For good reason the USN assets in the sound were light shallow draft vessels appropriate to the existing conditions. As events show, they were able to neutralize the Albermerle.

 

[gary]

Warrior was built in response to the French Gloire class (1858) ironclads. She was the RN's introduction to ironclads and IMO, was not meant to be a coastal defense vessel. She did patrol the channel b/c of the closest threat to Great Britain: France.

Naval Institute Press

It was a start of a naval arms race with very many interesting designs (Barbette ships, casemate ships, offset turret configurations) that ultimately lead to the HMS Dreadnought. For a while though and throughout the American Civil War, the USN was the most powerful navy in the world. It had monitors and quite a # of them. Post war the USN was reduced drastically.