Ironclad Monitors 1863-1865

[Rhea Cole]

2. Why were no monitors sent to deal with CSS Albemarle?.

Draft?

3. Why was a lone monitor sent to California? Did San Francisco really need that extra deterrent against Confederate raiders?

Political reasons? Warning to the Brits?

Spitballing,
USS ALASKA

The existing squadron that was equipped with the vessels adapted to the navigational challenges of Albemarle Sound were up to the challenge. At low tide there it looks like somebody pulled the plug on the ocean. Monitors were shallow draft, however, picking a way through ever changing mud flats & sand bars was not what they were designed for.

In the case of the California Monitor, it was a case of follow the money, gold in this case. The Golden Gate received its title because that was exactly what it was. The gold that was the life blood of the Union treasury was transported out through there.

It was also a golden bottleneck. A hostile warship of modest weigh of metal could have easily blockaded the entrance to the bay. By the same token, the fearsome reputation of the Monitor meant that one was all that was needed to seal that narrow passage. All it had to do was be there. No warship in the Pacific could challenge a Monitor. No piratical raider would even contemplate a daring dash.

 

[Saphroneth]

No warship in the Pacific could challenge a Monitor.

Hmm... I'd not be so sure about that, at least depending on the time. Camanche was a Passaic but she had two 15" guns, and the reason why the other Passaics had a 15" gun and something else was that the 15" gun blocked the entire gun port - so you couldn't aim a 15" gun.

I'd say that Sutlej or Bacchante or Leander could probably challenge the Camanche, not least because the rate of fire of a Passaic turret 15" is so poor that one of those ships could (at ca. ten knots, i.e. 330 yards per minute) close about three miles in the time it takes to reload one gun. And at that point it's a boarding action!

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Camanche coming out to the Golden Gate to fight off blockaders is exposing her to significant risk of water over the deck, which might well sink her. Monitors were for calm water only.

Of course, if we continue to look at the situation after the Civil War then Camanche and Monadnock might well be thoroughly outclassed by whatever's on the Pacific Station in 1880...

 

[Saphroneth]

Supplemental to the above, I should note that HMS Zealous (an ironclad) was sent by the British to the Pacific Station in 1866, arriving there in 1867. With twenty RML 7" 6.5-ton guns and a 4.5" belt, battery and bulkheads of the Warrior type (but with a lighter armour belt on the ends, because Zealous was wooden hulled) she'd certainly be able to fight one of the Pacific Monitors - her guns can pierce their turrets with shell at quite long range and are rifles, while their fire can't pierce her main belt except at very close range with shot, and she gets many more shots than them.

 

[67th Tigers]

No warship in the Pacific could challenge a Monitor.

Maybe not (ahem) but maybe they could just run past at high speed and allow the wave to sink her...

 

[DoctorKingSchultz]

Politics, Technology and Policy-Making, 1859-1865: Palmerston, Gladstone and the Management of the Ironclad Naval Race
Andrew Lambert

Civil War Naval Papers | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

JOURNAL ARTICLE Blue Water, Brown Water, and Confederate Disloyalty: The Peculiar and Personal Naval Conflict in South Florida during the Civil War Irvin D. S. Winsboro and William B. Mack The Florida Historical Quarterly Vol. 90, No. 1 (Summer 2011), pp. 34-60 (27 pages) Florida Historical...

civilwartalk.com

"Seagoing purposes indispensable to the defence of this country:" Policy Pitfalls of Great Britain's Early Ironclads
Howard J. Fuller

Civil War Naval Papers | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

A lot of the manpower shortages existed due to the armament industry, Trafalgar being one that drew on the available resource pool. Lubliner. I never realized that the Battle of Trafalgar had such far-reaching impacts. Lord Nelson would have been proud. :wink: Cheers, USS ALASKA

civilwartalk.com

Clad in Iron: Assessing the Comparative Strategic and Tactical Strengths of British and Union Ironclad Programs of the Civil War Era 1861-1862
Howard J. Fuller

Civil War Naval Papers | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

Journal Article "The Clangor of That Blacksmith's Fray": Technology, War, and Experience Aboard the USS Monitor David A. Mindell Technology and Culture Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1995), pp. 242-270 The Johns Hopkins University Press https://www.jstor.org/stable/3106372 Full article at above link...

civilwartalk.com

The Great Race: Innovation and Counter-Innovation at Sea, 1840-1890
Jan S. Breemer

Civil War Naval Papers | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

A paper to go with the author of posts #78, 129, and 156... International Journal of Naval History The Warrior's Influence Abroad: The American Civil War October 10, 2013 Howard J. Fuller University of Wolverhampton Quite simply, the Warrior altered the course of the American Civil War. This...

civilwartalk.com

The above should get you started...

HTHs,
USS ALASKA

Much appreciated. I have several books on the HMS Warrior and other ironclads of the 1860s, not so much on particular ones I have any great interest in or could find much on though, like the Prince Albert and Royal Sovereign.

 

[USS ALASKA]

I have several books on the HMS Warrior and other ironclads of the 1860s, not so much on particular ones I have any great interest in or could find much on though, like the Prince Albert and Royal Sovereign.

Sir, if you have deep pockets and enjoy this era of warship history...

Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development, 1860-1905 by David K. Brown

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1860-1905 by Roger Chesneau

Before the Battlecruiser: The Big Cruiser in the World's Navies, 1865-1910 by Aidan Dobson

Battleships in Transition: The Creation of the Steam Battlefleet 1815-1860 by Andrew Lambert

Warships from the Golden Age of Steam: An Illustrated Guide to Great Warships from 1860 to 1945 by David Ross

Steam, Steel and Shellfire: The Steam Warship, 1815-1905 by Robert Gardiner and Andrew Lambert

British Ironclads 1860–75: HMS Warrior and the Royal Navy's 'Black Battlefleet' by Angus Konstam

British Battleships: Warrior, 1860 to Vanguard, 1950. A History of Design, Construction and Armament by Oscar Parkes

British Battleships of the Victorian Era by Norman Friedman

British Cruisers of the Victorian Era by Norman Friedman

Building the Steam Navy: Dockyards, Technology and the Creation of the Victorian Battle Fleet, 1830-1906 by David Evans

The Late Victorian Navy: The Pre-Dreadnought Era and the Origins of the First World Warby Roger Parkinson

Rule Britannia: The Victorian and Edwardian Navy by Peter Padfield

The U.S. Navy and the Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex, 1847-1883 by Kurt Hackemer

The Navy from Wood to Steel, 1860-1890 by Daniel J Carrison

The Old Steam Navy: The Ironclads, 1842-1885 by Donald L. Canney

Gray steel and blue water Navy: The formative years of America's military-industrial complex, 1881-1917 by B. Franklin Cooling

U.S. Armored Cruisers: A Design and Operational History by Ivan Musicant

The Development of a Modern Navy: French Naval Policy, 1871-1904 by Theodore Ropp and Stephens S. Roberts

German Naval Strategy, 1856-1888: Forerunners to Tirpitz by David H. Olivier

By Order of the Kaiser: Otto von Diederichs and the Rise of the Imperial German Navy, 1865-1902 by Terrell D. Gottschall

The Kaiser's Battlefleet: German Capital Ships 1871–1918 by Aidan Dodson

'Luxury' Fleet: The Imperial German Navy 1888-1918 by Holger H. Herwig

Building the Kaiser's Navy: The Imperial Navy Office and German Industry in the Tirpitz Era, 1890-1919 by Gary E. Weir

Cheers and good luck!
USS ALASKA

List edited to add @67th Tigers' suggestion of Before the Ironclad: Warship Design and Development, 1815-1860 by D.K. Brown. Kinda cheap right now on Amazon at $12.50...

 

[edgeworthy]

You are correct. The steering gear in the stern was unarmed as was the vulnerable bow. A Monitor could have circled round & round raking her from stem & stern. Why this obvious vulnerability was not addressed is obscure. Everyone knew about it. Punch magazine lampooned by stating that no gentleman would be so rude as to do so.

I'm getting a bit dizzy reading this thread. I could swear the whole conversation about the unarmored areas around the bow and stern of the Warrior have been discussed, debated and explained between the same people at least twice!

I know I've mentioned that Warrior's Steering Gear actually is inside its Armoured Citadel.
There is a Wheel visible on the Quarterdeck, however there is also one below-deck. And that the Rudder Chains run through the bilges, 20 feet under the waterline.

Also that Monitor could manage 6 knots, and Warrior 14 knots*.

(*She did once hit 17 knots)

 

[DoctorKingSchultz]

Sir, if you have deep pockets and enjoy this era of warship history...

Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development, 1860-1905 by David K. Brown

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1860-1905 by Roger Chesneau

Before the Battlecruiser: The Big Cruiser in the World's Navies, 1865-1910 by Aidan Dobson

Battleships in Transition: The Creation of the Steam Battlefleet 1815-1860 by Andrew Lambert

Warships from the Golden Age of Steam: An Illustrated Guide to Great Warships from 1860 to 1945 by David Ross

Steam, Steel and Shellfire: The Steam Warship, 1815-1905 by Robert Gardiner and Andrew Lambert

British Ironclads 1860–75: HMS Warrior and the Royal Navy's 'Black Battlefleet' by Angus Konstam

British Battleships: Warrior, 1860 to Vanguard, 1950. A History of Design, Construction and Armament by Oscar Parkes

British Battleships of the Victorian Era by Norman Friedman

British Cruisers of the Victorian Era by Norman Friedman

Building the Steam Navy: Dockyards, Technology and the Creation of the Victorian Battle Fleet, 1830-1906 by David Evans

The Late Victorian Navy: The Pre-Dreadnought Era and the Origins of the First World Warby Roger Parkinson

Rule Britannia: The Victorian and Edwardian Navy by Peter Padfield

The U.S. Navy and the Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex, 1847-1883 by Kurt Hackemer

The Navy from Wood to Steel, 1860-1890 by Daniel J Carrison

The Old Steam Navy: The Ironclads, 1842-1885 by Donald L. Canney

Gray steel and blue water Navy: The formative years of America's military-industrial complex, 1881-1917 by B. Franklin Cooling

U.S. Armored Cruisers: A Design and Operational History by Ivan Musicant

The Development of a Modern Navy: French Naval Policy, 1871-1904 by Theodore Ropp and Stephens S. Roberts

German Naval Strategy, 1856-1888: Forerunners to Tirpitz by David H. Olivier

By Order of the Kaiser: Otto von Diederichs and the Rise of the Imperial German Navy, 1865-1902 by Terrell D. Gottschall

The Kaiser's Battlefleet: German Capital Ships 1871–1918 by Aidan Dodson

'Luxury' Fleet: The Imperial German Navy 1888-1918 by Holger H. Herwig

Building the Kaiser's Navy: The Imperial Navy Office and German Industry in the Tirpitz Era, 1890-1919 by Gary E. Weir

Cheers and good luck!
USS ALASKA

I hadn't even asked for it, and yet you send me this gold mine of a list! Much appreciated, thank you!

 

[67th Tigers]

Sir, if you have deep pockets and enjoy this era of warship history...

Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development, 1860-1905 by David K. Brown

The development of Warrior is actually covered in his "Before the Ironclad." Of the unarmoured ends, he writes:

"The unarmoured ends were well subdivided, with four transverse bulkheads ahead of the armour and two abaft. Flooding of the two ends would have admitted 1,070 tons of water and increased the draught by 26in (a later calculation says 43in, with a remaining metacentric height of 2.6ft).8 Such flooding would not have seriously reduced her fighting capability, though the lack of protection to the steering gear was a weak feature. The armour covered the two boiler rooms, shell room and engine room, and the two magazines at each end of the machinery were further protected by water tanks."

Brown, David K. Before the Ironclad: Warship Design and Development, 1815–1860 (p. 531). Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition.

The steering gear runs through the unarmoured section, but is well below the waterline. However, when hydraulic steering was retrofitted it was above the waterline in the aft section. There is a small chance of knocking that out and having to use the manual steering.

 

[Saphroneth]

I know I've mentioned that Warrior's Steering Gear actually is inside its Armoured Citadel.

The thing that I've always found rather amusing is that it was never a serious tactic to try and disable a wooden ship by knocking out her steering. It was almost impossible - as I've noted in the past, it took doing so much damage to the stern that sometimes the stern would literally fall off first.


But for some reason, as soon as Warrior comes up, it's treated like the cannonballs are magnetized to the steering gear. I've even seen it suggested (in print) that ships of that design are vulnerable to the rudder being shot away - as if a rudder isn't, by its very nature, underwater...


Of course, it's significantly easier to disable the steering of a ship by hitting the stern with a sizeable ramming action, because that way you actually can carry away the entire rudder. This is what happened to the Re d'Italia at Lissa, the rudder was torn off by a ramming attack from an Austrian ship (probably over two thousand tons travelling at 9+ knots), but note that even this is rare and that it's an impact that would suffice to sink the ship if it hit amidships.

 

[rebelatsea]

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.

HMS Terror was a fully rigged floating battery which sailed across the Atlantic (escorted) to Bermuda and became part of the North Atlantic and West indies Squadron. Mounting 18 - 68pdrs SB behind 4.5" of low moor iron, which was proof against her own ordnance in the trials of 1865. Her steam speed of 5.5 knots was actually exceeded in service, being recorded at 7.5 knots at sea with the fleet off Bermuda. She drew 7.2 ft maximum. She would have made an interesting match for any US monitor and even New Ironsides would have found her a hard opponent. The gun batteries on each side were "slaved" to the centre gun in the same manner as HMS Warrior, you can see the offset marking on the inside of each of her gunports, which enabled concentrated broadsides to be fired.

Hindsight suggests that similar vessels would have been a better choice for the CSN, armed with Brooke Rifles, but not rigged.

 

[rebelatsea]

To me the question is, did the resources expended for each of the navies produce ships which were capable combatants for the war.

The USN did this. The monitors, though limited to coastal operations, were capable of making adequate speed, had an effective armament, and were adequately armored against Confederate artillery.*

The CSN mostly did not do this. Most of its ironclads had woefully underpowered second-hand engines which in service quickly wore down to produce even less power. Even if they had been adequately armed and armored (which was less and less the case once 15-inch guns and large Parrott rifles came into US service), without engines powerful enough to move them they were of little use. In general, I think the guns would have been more effective mounted ashore.


*The most powerful guns USN monitors generally had to face were 10-Inch Columbiads and 7-Inch Brooke Rifles. It was those guns that left the dents on USS Lehigh and the others. The few more powerful guns (heavy Brooke smoothbores, the triple banded 7-Inch Brookes, the 12-Inch Columbiads being produced by Tredegar at the end of the war, and assorted imported heavy British rifles) were generally too little, too late. Had the Confederacy been able to produce or acquire more powerful artillery in numbers by 1863, I wonder if the armor of the monitors would have been sufficient.

At Charleston there were three guns the monitors were afraid of, one was a triple banded 7" Brooke MLR, the other two were Conversions at General Beauregard's request by Easons of Bomford 1844 10" Columbiads, rifled to an English patent and banded. Three were put into service, how many more were converted is unkown, but Easons also converted 32pdr and 42pdrs in the same manner.

 

[rebelatsea]

I have an important question. I don't really understand the warrior and it sister ships. I read somewhere that the vessel had an inner casement that protected the engines and the guns. It was like a second bulwork inside the outer Bulwork of the vessel itself. The weakness, I have read, was, the fore and aft ends of the vessel which were not protected viable work. Can somebody please addresses

Better still, come and have a look at the real thing if you can. There is a book "The Immortal Warrior" by John wells, available from Amazon, which explains and details with picture and plans better than can be done here.

 

[rebelatsea]

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.

Punch made fun of everything and everybody - wish we had the same publication around today. Warrior and Black Prince WERE MOT COAST DEFENCE VESSELS nor were any British ironclads exiled anywhere ! RUBBISH. Get a copy of "British Battleships" and or "The Black Battlefleet" by Admiral Ballard via your library service.

 

[rebelatsea]

The navy list puts her as "S.Ship. Iron." (S designates screw, P would be paddle,

The Terror is listed as "Iron. S. Floating Battery."

Royal Oak, a wooden-hulled ironclad, is listed as "S. iron-cased ship".

The Prince Albert, a turret ship, is labelled as "S. Iron-cased cupola ship".


It would seem that at this point the RN didn't yet have a concept of designating armoured vessels unambiguously, since the few unarmoured iron-hulled ships are listed similarly to the Terror (with "Iron" before their ship type).

Get yourself a copy of "British Battleships" by Oscar Parkes, and or "The Black Battlefleet" by Admiral Ballard through you library service.

 

[rebelatsea]

Much appreciated. I have several books on the HMS Warrior and other ironclads of the 1860s, not so much on particular ones I have any great interest in or could find much on though, like the Prince Albert and Royal Sovereign.

Try "British Battleships" by Oscar Parks, and "The Black Battlefleet" by Admiral Ballard through your library service, They are both still in print but bloody expensive. Even used copies are pricey.

 

[rebelatsea]

I have read the entries on the Albemarle . Here is an extract from my book on the CSN Iron Navy. There were others in the class but this is the relevant information for the Albemarle.

Name: Albemarle
Type: Ironclad Ram.
Engines: 2 single cylinder horizontal, direct acting. Screw(s): two, 6ft diameter Speed: 9 knots,
Crew; 150
Dimensions: 152ft OA x 34ft EX x 9ft D, 665 tons,
Guns : 2 - 6.4" Brooke MLR
Armour: 4" iron over 22" wood, 35degree slope,
Design: J. L. Porter, Builder: G. F. Elliott & W. F. Martin

History: Laid Down: March 1863. Launched: 01 December 1863. Completed: April 1864
Torpedoed by Lt. Cushing 27 October 1864, raised and taken by USN. Main Actions: Plymouth 19 April 1864, ditto 05 May 1864. Sold out of USN October1867.Built to simplified "diamond" hull form, featured short casemate, heavy armour.

CSS Albemarle, from an original plan by Robert Holcombe.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Punch made fun of everything and everybody - wish we had the same publication around today. Warrior and Black Prince WERE MOT COAST DEFENCE VESSELS nor were any British ironclads exiled anywhere ! RUBBISH.

The Royal Navy will be surprised at your assertion about coastal defense designations.

HMS Warrior Time Line:

"In 1871, Superseded by faster ships, downgraded to Coastguard & reserve service."

"In 1904, Converted to floating school for the Navy, renamed Vernon lll."

"In 1929, Converted to floating oil pontoon & renamed Oil Fuel Hulk C 77."

RE: National Historic Ships UK

Perhaps instead of exile, "glorious reincarnations" would be more acceptable.

The reference to Punch was commonly made contemporaneously. The point being, that absolutely everybody knew that the ship was vulnerable to a classic raking attack. At a time when timed delay fused shells had made wooden line of battle ships relics of the past, not armoring the bow & stern was subject to ridicule. Allegedly, it was the desire for ample officer's luxurious accommodations that drove the decision. At Jutland, some German battleships had stern galleries, so there might have been something to that.

Cheers.

 

[Saphroneth]

The Royal Navy will be surprised at your assertion about coastal defense designations. In 1871, "Superseded by faster ships, downgraded to Coastguard & reserve service."

...so what you mean is that ten years after being completed she was downgraded to Coastguard and reserve service - which is to say, she was moved to the auxiliary naval service of the United Kingdom, and generally not expected to fight modern enemy battleships.

Because... ten years after she was finished, modern ships were newer and more powerful than her.

This says nothing about the design being a failure. If she was still able to fight and sail on par with modern ships ten years after being completed in a time of rapid naval design innovation, that is when there would be something wrong!

The reference to Punch was commonly made contemporaneously. The point being, that absolutely everybody knew that the ship was vulnerable to a classic raking attack.

They were wrong. She was not - her battery was sealed off by a bulkhead equivalent in protective value to the main belt.

At a time when timed delay fused shells had made wooden line of battle ships relics of the past, not armoring the bow & stern was subject to ridicule.

Time delay fuzed shells hadn't made wooden battleships relics of the past, though?

 

[Saphroneth]

Perhaps instead of exile, "glorious reincarnations" would be more acceptable.

...okay, this is even stranger. Your original claim was that Warrior was "exiled to a faraway island colony" and you now seem to be asserting that by that she was turned into a floating school 43 years after completion and into an oil pontoon 68 years after completion.

If that's a failing, what words do we have left for USS Monadnock, turned into scrap metal ten years after completion?