Blue water navy

[Rhea Cole]

How far out were the proposed ironclad schooners to steam.

The answer is that the Laird Rams were not going to venture into deep water at all. In any kind of a swell they entered into an alarming roll that threatened to capsize them. Seeing as how they drew 15 to 17 feet exactly what stretch of East Coast littoral waters were they supposed to inhabit? Monitors drew 9 to 12 feet, note the fate of the Nashville.

"The mission for these two leviathans was to be simple yet daring. Operating as a pair with the support of smaller vessels, they were to sail up and down the Southern coastline using their almost impenetrable armour and heavy weapons to hold off attackers while they targeted individual ships with their massive rams. Quite literally, providing they did not stray into deep water they were set to become the most powerful battle squadron as yet seen on any ocean. Understandably, Federal observers in Birkenhead became more than a little unsettled at the prospect."

Note: Apparently the thing hanging off the bow of this Ancient Greek warship is what the author believes was going to terrorize the USN… in shallow water. The CSS Virginia successfully rammed ship stranded at low tide & attempted to ram the USS Monitor, which was designed to frustrate just such an attack. Numerous other CSSN rams had only limited success with such a maneuver. Had the Laird Rams managed to survive an Atlantic crossing, problematical in the extreme according to the Royal Navy, there is no reason to believe that they would have had any luck finding a victim in shallow water slow & unhandy enough to poke with their 7 foot wonder weapon.

"Following their seizure, the British Government tried to placate the Confederates, (just in case the now seemingly inevitable outcome of the war proved to be wrong) by compensating them to the tune of £180,000. Both vessels were turned over to the Royal Navy, but were never used in the role for which they had been designed, and proved to be poor ocean going vessels."

Link:

Laird Rams For The Confederacy

acws.co.uk

The probable capsize of the Laird Rams was not just theoretical. H.M.S. Captain, a turreted sea going ship did exactly that, taking 500 men down with her.

Link:

HMS Captain: Britain's forgotten maritime disaster

The historian leading the search for HMS Captain questions why the sinking of 'one of the finest ships in the world' is not better known today.

www.rmg.co.uk

Littoral commerce raiders had some success. This is a particularly well presented post. Read more here

Link:

Thread 'SS Atalanta / CSS Tallahassee / CSS Olustee / CSS Chameleon.'

Oct 30, 2025

29 Oct 1864

North Carolina. CSS Olustee, formerly the successful commerce raider CSS Tallahassee, eluded the blockade at Wilmington and began a brief commerce raiding cruise under the command of Lieutenant William H Ward CSN. The ship suffered some damage from Union gunfire during the escape run out of Wilmington. She proceeded to capture and destroy six ships off the Cape of Delaware before having to return for coal.

1864 October 29th

October 29 1864 Saturday Siege of Petersburg Sheridan’s Shenandoah Valley Campaign Hood’s Operations in Northern Alabama Price’s Missouri Raid Go to October 30 1864 Alabama. Siege of Decatur …

americancivilwarhighcommand.com

CSS Tallahassee
(ScStr: t. 500dw.; l. 220'; b...

• USS ALASKA
• Replies: 1
• Forum: Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

• 

It is obvious that I already know all this stuff. It is great fun to look into. You should try it sometime.

 

[Old Soldier]

The answer is that the Laird Rams were not going to venture into deep water at all. In any kind of a swell they entered into an alarming roll that threatened to capsize them. Seeing as how they drew 15 to 17 feet exactly what stretch of East Coast littoral waters were they supposed to inhabit? Monitors drew 9 to 12 feet, note the fate of the Nashville.

How were they going to get to the East Coast across the Atlantic?

 

[rebelatsea]

And these plans resulted in what?

John Ericsson made plans & launched the USS Monitor in 100 - 118 days. Rather than the typical man-o-war's compliment of hundreds of highly qualified crewmen, his brilliant design only required 49 men. Ten Monitors had roughly the same crew as two screw-sloop-men-of-war. That is the dictionary definition of a force multiplier. Monitors defeated every single one of the Confederate fort on a raft ironclads they engaged in part because they were always deployed in squadrons.

The squadrons of Monitors are an example of planning, execution & action that the hapless Confederates could only dream of.

Read about the USS Monitor's career & conservation here.

Link:

Monitor National Marine Sanctuary

Monitor National Marine Sanctuary is the first national marine sanctuary ever designated in the United States. It protects the wreck of the famed Civil War ironclad USS Monitor.

monitor.noaa.gov

I do wish you would stop trying to teach you grandmother to suck eggs.

Ericson's concept was never intended to combat other warships - the whole point was to get past and destroy sea fortresses, the fact they they did end up in battle with CSN ironclads was purely coincidental, and always in conditions where numbers negated their slow firing guns, thin laminated armour and poor handling characteristics.
Even then Du Pont's attack on Charleston was nearly a disaster with the monitors being badly knocked about by Easons 10" rifled columbiads and Brooke's 7" rifles.

Hindsight says that the CSN should have created squadrons of updated RN Crimean floating batteries similar to HMS Terror able to overwhelm the monitors and pursue them into shallow waters.

 

[rebelatsea]

The answer is that the Laird Rams were not going to venture into deep water at all. In any kind of a swell they entered into an alarming roll that threatened to capsize them. Seeing as how they drew 15 to 17 feet exactly what stretch of East Coast littoral waters were they supposed to inhabit? Monitors drew 9 to 12 feet, note the fate of the Nashville.

"The mission for these two leviathans was to be simple yet daring. Operating as a pair with the support of smaller vessels, they were to sail up and down the Southern coastline using their almost impenetrable armour and heavy weapons to hold off attackers while they targeted individual ships with their massive rams. Quite literally, providing they did not stray into deep water they were set to become the most powerful battle squadron as yet seen on any ocean. Understandably, Federal observers in Birkenhead became more than a little unsettled at the prospect."

View attachment 579175

Note: Apparently the thing hanging off the bow of this Ancient Greek warship is what the author believes was going to terrorize the USN… in shallow water. The CSS Virginia successfully rammed ship stranded at low tide & attempted to ram the USS Monitor, which was designed to frustrate just such an attack. Numerous other CSSN rams had only limited success with such a maneuver. Had the Laird Rams managed to survive an Atlantic crossing, problematical in the extreme according to the Royal Navy, there is no reason to believe that they would have had any luck finding a victim in shallow water slow & unhandy enough to poke with their 7 foot wonder weapon.

"Following their seizure, the British Government tried to placate the Confederates, (just in case the now seemingly inevitable outcome of the war proved to be wrong) by compensating them to the tune of £180,000. Both vessels were turned over to the Royal Navy, but were never used in the role for which they had been designed, and proved to be poor ocean going vessels."

Link:

Laird Rams For The Confederacy

acws.co.uk

View attachment 579176
The probable capsize of the Laird Rams was not just theoretical. H.M.S. Captain, a turreted sea going ship did exactly that, taking 500 men down with her.

Link:

HMS Captain: Britain's forgotten maritime disaster

The historian leading the search for HMS Captain questions why the sinking of 'one of the finest ships in the world' is not better known today.

www.rmg.co.uk

Littoral commerce raiders had some success. This is a particularly well presented post. Read more here

Link:

Thread 'SS Atalanta / CSS Tallahassee / CSS Olustee / CSS Chameleon.'

Oct 30, 2025

29 Oct 1864

North Carolina. CSS Olustee, formerly the successful commerce raider CSS Tallahassee, eluded the blockade at Wilmington and began a brief commerce raiding cruise under the command of Lieutenant William H Ward CSN. The ship suffered some damage from Union gunfire during the escape run out of Wilmington. She proceeded to capture and destroy six ships off the Cape of Delaware before having to return for coal.

1864 October 29th

October 29 1864 Saturday Siege of Petersburg Sheridan’s Shenandoah Valley Campaign Hood’s Operations in Northern Alabama Price’s Missouri Raid Go to October 30 1864 Alabama. Siege of Decatur …

americancivilwarhighcommand.com

CSS Tallahassee
(ScStr: t. 500dw.; l. 220'; b...

• USS ALASKA
• Replies: 1
• Forum: Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

• 

It is obvious that I already know all this stuff. It is great fun to look into. You should try it sometime.

There is absolutely no comparison between the Laird turretships, which had multiple near copies constructed for several navies, and HMS Captain.

I suggest Oscar Parkes "British Battleships" for enlightenment.

Don't be misled by their RN ordnance, which they were never intended to carry and was almost certainly too heavy for them. The CSN ordnance was intended to be 7" Whitworth MLR.

 

[Piedone]

There is absolutely no comparison between the Laird turretships, which had multiple near copies constructed for several navies, and HMS Captain.

I suggest Oscar Parkes "British Battleships" for enlightenment.

Don't be misled by their RN ordnance, which they were never intended to carry and was almost certainly too heavy for them. The CSN ordnance was intended to be 7" Whitworth MLR.

I explicitly do thank you for your last two posts.

 

[Rhea Cole]

There is absolutely no comparison between the Laird turretships, which had multiple near copies constructed for several navies, and HMS Captain.

I suggest Oscar Parkes "British Battleships" for enlightenment.

Don't be misled by their RN ordnance, which they were never intended to carry and was almost certainly too heavy for them. The CSN ordnance was intended to be 7" Whitworth MLR.

I simply noted that HMS Captain was an unseaworthy design. Capsizing was a real possibility, not just some theoretical possibility. That is all.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I do wish you would stop trying to teach you grandmother to suck eggs.

Ericson's concept was never intended to combat other warships - the whole point was to get past and destroy sea fortresses, the fact they they did end up in battle with CSN ironclads was purely coincidental, and always in conditions where numbers negated their slow firing guns, thin laminated armour and poor handling characteristics.
Even then Du Pont's attack on Charleston was nearly a disaster with the monitors being badly knocked about by Easons 10" rifled columbiads and Brooke's 7" rifles.

Hindsight says that the CSN should have created squadrons of updated RN Crimean floating batteries similar to HMS Terror able to overwhelm the monitors and pursue them into shallow waters.

I included the link to the exploits of successful CSA commerce raiders up thread because this sentence is included in each. '… returned to port when ran out of coal…" or something to that effect. Due to their draft, there weren't many places on the Atlantic Coast the rams could have put or even have approached the shoreline. Sailors take such things very seriously.

As my mentor Captain Gorman was fond of saying, " If it was a fair fight, you didn't do it right."

Criticizing the highly successful combat record of the Monitor class because the opponents were overwhelmed & outclassed is, I must say, an eccentric point of view.

The Monitor was created because of the threat posed by the CSS Virginia. Cherry picking DuPont's operation as if it was end all & be all of Monitor & turreted vessel's actions is a look down a soda straw. We can do better than that.

Rather than tit for tat citations, here is the entire list of Civil War Monitors from the Navsource Battleship Index. In it are the service records of the entire Monitor class. It includes the bizarre loss of a seagoing design that foundered at anchor when swept by a wave while hatches were open.

You can read for yourself how actions between Monitors & various floating batteries worked out. You can present citations to support your assertions.

The largely unknown participation by Civil War Monitors in the Spanish American War in 1898 & in service of other countries is included. Read it here,

Link:

NavSource Online: Battleship Photo Archive

Note:
As you can see, my Grannie liked her eggs sunny side up, along with buttermilk biscuits, country ham, red eye gravy & stone ground grits. Her homemade jellies & preserves were, of course, on the table. There was nothing about eggs that needed instruction from me.

Sidebar:

The ram bow was a feature of battleships into the turn of the 20th Century. History shows that rams rarely if ever poked a hole in an enemy ship. They did, however, turn even minor collisions in port into emergencies.

The most infamous & tragic onside ramming was that of the HMS Victoria during a fleet exercise in 1893. Ironically, the only vessel sunk by HMS Dreadnaught was a U Boat she rammed. Read more here.

Link:

HMS Victoria - A Tragic Catastrophe -

HMS Victoria, launched in 1887, was a prominent battleship in the British Royal Navy. She served in the Mediterranean Fleet until a 1893 collision near

navalhistoria.com

 

[Old Soldier]

I simply noted that HMS Captain was an unseaworthy design. Capsizing was a real possibility, not just some theoretical possibility. That is all.

So were all the monitors AND the rebel Rams. All four rebel rams ended up as harbor guardships. They were NOT fleetworthy. They were designed for inshore bombardment at best. BTW - HMS Captain sank in 1859 - 9 months after being commissioned. Lessons were learned and turret ships were not in favor for the RN until much later.

 

[Piedone]

I simply noted that HMS Captain was an unseaworthy design. Capsizing was a real possibility, not just some theoretical possibility. That is all.

No, you used HMS "Captain" to show that the Laird-Rams were prone to capsizing.

Those were different ships.

The Laird-Rams were also unstable -

but they could manage a swell - and could have crossed the Atlantic.

But - as always - all of this is just for the record and to establish the facts
for other readers
(before everything gets clouded again….).

 

[Old Soldier]

I included the link to the exploits of successful CSA commerce raiders up thread because this sentence is included in each. '… returned to port when ran out of coal…" or something to that effect. Due to their draft, there weren't many places on the Atlantic Coast the rams could have put or even have approached the shoreline. Sailors take such things very seriously.

As my mentor Captain Gorman was fond of saying, " If it was a fair fight, you didn't do it right."

Criticizing the highly successful combat record of the Monitor class because the opponents were overwhelmed & outclassed is, I must say, an eccentric point of view.

The Monitor was created because of the threat posed by the CSS Virginia. Cherry picking DuPont's operation as if it was end all & be all of Monitor & turreted vessel's actions is a look down a soda straw. We can do better than that.

Rather than tit for tat citations, here is the entire list of Civil War Monitors from the Navsource Battleship Index. In it are the service records of the entire Monitor class. It includes the bizarre loss of a seagoing design that foundered at anchor when swept by a wave while hatches were open.

You can read for yourself how actions between Monitors & various floating batteries worked out. You can present citations to support your assertions.

The largely unknown participation by Civil War Monitors in the Spanish American War in 1898 & in service of other countries is included. Read it here,

Link:

NavSource Online: Battleship Photo Archive

Old/Civil War Monitors: Several older ironclad monitors were reactivated for coast defense, although they were mainly used to pacify coastal cities worried about Spanish attacks.

Several names of active service monitors are the same as civil war monitors, but are given to 'New Navy' vessels.

USS Ajax - Returned to the Navy and recommissioned for Spanish American War service 9 July 1898, but decommissioned 1 September 1898, before necessary repairs and overhaul had been completed. Fate: Sold for scrapping 10 October 1899.
USS Wyandotte - Returned to the Navy and recommissioned for Spanish American War service 30 April 1898; decommissioned 20 September 1898.
USS Passaic - Recommissioned for Spanish American War service 16 May 1898; decommissioned 11 September 1898. Sold for scrapping 10 October 1899.
USS Nahant - Recommissioned for Spanish American War service 12 April 1898; decommissioned postwar, probably September 1898. Sold for scrapping 6 April 1904.
USS Sangamon - Recommissioned for Spanish American War service 13 May 1898; decommissioned 1899.
USS Catskill - Recommissioned for Spanish American War service 26 April 1898; decommissioned 22 September 1898.
USS Lehigh - Recommissioned for Spanish American War service 18 April 1898; decommissioned 8 September 1898.

Just 7 out of 34. Most civil war monitors were scrapped around 1875, if they survived the war. Most of the above had been in inactive reserve or as militia ships since 1875.

 

[Old Soldier]

I simply noted that HMS Captain was an unseaworthy design. Capsizing was a real possibility, not just some theoretical possibility. That is all.

So were all the monitors AND the rebel Rams. All four rebel rams ended up as harbor guardships. They were NOT fleetworthy. They were designed for inshore bombardment at best. BTW - HMS Captain sank in 1859 - 9 months after being commissioned. Lessons were learned and turret ships were not in favor for the RN until much later.

 

[Old Soldier]

No, you used HMS "Captain" to show that the Laird-Rams were prone to capsizing.

Those were different ships.

The Laird-Rams were also unstable -

but they could manage a swell - and could have crossed the Atlantic.

But - as always - all of this is just for the record and to establish the facts
for other readers
(before everything gets clouded again….).

They not only could but DID cross the Atlantic. Ex-CSS Stonewall ( former Sphinx/Staerkoddar) managed it. After a difficult voyage across the Atlantic, she reached Havana, Cuba, in May 1865, just after the war had ended. She was later turned over to U.S. authorities and subsequently sold to Japan, where she was renamed Kōtetsu (later Azuma). So she must have managed a crossing of the Pacific too!

 

[Rhea Cole]

Isn't it curious that these two designs about a thousand years apart in time share almost identical profiles even to the anchors hanging from the cat head. Makes me wonder if steam power was entirely necessary?

 

[RodentRevolution]

So were all the monitors AND the rebel Rams. All four rebel rams ended up as harbor guardships. They were NOT fleetworthy. They were designed for inshore bombardment at best. BTW - HMS Captain sank in 1859 - 9 months after being commissioned. Lessons were learned and turret ships were not in favor for the RN until much later.

HMS Monarch which was the Royal Navy designed turret ship, which Cole's HMS Captain pointedly was not, did fine. She was a noted sailor and she crossed the Atlantic in company with a US warship, she would serve until after the Boer War following a modernisation in the 1890s.

 

[Old Soldier]

HMS Monarch which was the Royal Navy designed turret ship, which Cole's HMS Captain pointedly was not, did fine. She was a noted sailor and she crossed the Atlantic in company with a US warship, she would serve until after the Boer War following a modernisation in the 1890s.

Yes, She was an early cidadel turret ship - all the weight in the center and much more hull to support the weight and thus more seaworthy. The turrets were still mounted on the centerline and the Admiraly's insistance of a fo'c'sle meant she could not fire fore or aft. The later citadel ships solved this problem by offset turrets.

 

[Piedone]

Isn't it curious that these two designs about a thousand years apart in time share almost identical profiles even to the anchors hanging from the cat head. Makes me wonder if steam power was entirely necessary?

Ever heard of the naval battle of Lissa (1866)?

 

[rebelatsea]

So were all the monitors AND the rebel Rams. All four rebel rams ended up as harbor guardships. They were NOT fleetworthy. They were designed for inshore bombardment at best. BTW - HMS Captain sank in 1859 - 9 months after being commissioned. Lessons were learned and turret ships were not in favor for the RN until much later.

Please stop using the tired, hackneyed and out dated "rebel rams".

Not all CSN ironclads were unseaworthy - CSS Palmetto State and Chicora went to sea successfully, although they were not happy in short choppy waters in the harbour itself, for reasons not fully explained, I suspect a partial cause was water density and that both vessels may have had extra protection over the casemates changing the distribution of weights to be different to that intended.

CSS Columbia was steamed out of Charleston and towed to Brooklyn Navy yard by USS Vanderbilt, The USN were more than happy with her to the point that Admiral Dahlgren wanted to re arm her with his latest 10" SB.

CSS Atlanta was taken from Savannah to the James River and thence to Brooklyn Navy yard without problems. As HNS Triumpho she disappeared in the same place as the Monitor sank, more or less we don't know how she behaved at sea and I'm not prepared to start speculation or guessing games.

CSS Raleigh spent a night at sea cruising off the bar quite comfortably and there is no reason to suppose that CSS Savannah couldn't have done likewise.

CSS Tennessee and Nashville were taken from Mobile to New Orleans, and again the USN were sufficiently happy with the former, but had no use for the Nashville.

CSS Texas was steamed down the James River after capture to Gosport Navy yard and from there given sea trials during which she achieved 10.25 knots. The USN wanted to recommission her but the immediate reduction in ships at the wars end put paid to that as the with the Columbia.

 

[rebelatsea]

Yes, She was an early cidadel turret ship - all the weight in the center and much more hull to support the weight and thus more seaworthy. The turrets were still mounted on the centerline and the Admiraly's insistance of a fo'c'sle meant she could not fire fore or aft. The later citadel ships solved this problem by offset turrets.
View attachment 579222

Sorry she wasn't a citadel ship, they had an armoured enclosed central section with the ends protected by an armour deck and no belt. Monarch had a complete belt with what in other ships was a central battery, the difference being her Coles turrets within the top of the battery, only showing the top five feet.
A very successful ship, the Prussian Navy ordered and put into service three copies.

 

[rebelatsea]

I included the link to the exploits of successful CSA commerce raiders up thread because this sentence is included in each. '… returned to port when ran out of coal…" or something to that effect. Due to their draft, there weren't many places on the Atlantic Coast the rams could have put or even have approached the shoreline. Sailors take such things very seriously.

As my mentor Captain Gorman was fond of saying, " If it was a fair fight, you didn't do it right."

Criticizing the highly successful combat record of the Monitor class because the opponents were overwhelmed & outclassed is, I must say, an eccentric point of view.

The Monitor was created because of the threat posed by the CSS Virginia. Cherry picking DuPont's operation as if it was end all & be all of Monitor & turreted vessel's actions is a look down a soda straw. We can do better than that.

Rather than tit for tat citations, here is the entire list of Civil War Monitors from the Navsource Battleship Index. In it are the service records of the entire Monitor class. It includes the bizarre loss of a seagoing design that foundered at anchor when swept by a wave while hatches were open.

You can read for yourself how actions between Monitors & various floating batteries worked out. You can present citations to support your assertions.

The largely unknown participation by Civil War Monitors in the Spanish American War in 1898 & in service of other countries is included. Read it here,

Link:

NavSource Online: Battleship Photo Archive

Note:
As you can see, my Grannie liked her eggs sunny side up, along with buttermilk biscuits, country ham, red eye gravy & stone ground grits. Her homemade jellies & preserves were, of course, on the table. There was nothing about eggs that needed instruction from me.

Sidebar:

The ram bow was a feature of battleships into the turn of the 20th Century. History shows that rams rarely if ever poked a hole in an enemy ship. They did, however, turn even minor collisions in port into emergencies.

The most infamous & tragic onside ramming was that of the HMS Victoria during a fleet exercise in 1893. Ironically, the only vessel sunk by HMS Dreadnaught was a U Boat she rammed. Read more here.

Link:

HMS Victoria - A Tragic Catastrophe -

HMS Victoria, launched in 1887, was a prominent battleship in the British Royal Navy. She served in the Mediterranean Fleet until a 1893 collision near

navalhistoria.com

Please name one action where USN monitors actually fought another vessel under way and in clear unobstructed waters and won?
CSS Atlanta had gone aground, CSS Tennessee was surrounded, and The James River Squadron at Trent's reach had the CSS Virginia (II) also aground. CSS Richmond and Fredericksburg were in clear water, through the obstructions and ready to charge when Semmes recalled them. The Onondaga was actually running down stream - away from the fight when Virginia (II) went aground.
As the French found out her hull armour was back to front so a waterline hit would probably have sunk her.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Please name one action where USN monitors actually fought another vessel under way and in clear unobstructed waters and won?
CSS Atlanta had gone aground, CSS Tennessee was surrounded, and The James River Squadron at Trent's reach had the CSS Virginia (II) also aground. CSS Richmond and Fredericksburg were in clear water, through the obstructions and ready to charge when Semmes recalled them. The Onondaga was actually running down stream - away from the fight when Virginia (II) went aground.
As the French found out her hull armour was back to front so a waterline hit would probably have sunk her.

I have provided you with the histories of every single Civil War Monitor. Since I literally do not understand the point you are trying to make ( My old coach said that a win is marked with a "W" period. ) I await the posting of your citations.

In the meantime…

DELUDED PEOPLE CAVE IN

Call sign of the USS WOODEN DUMMY.

Before you dig into the your inductive search for the particular engagement that fits your criteria, perhaps considering the psychological impact the Monitors had would be useful.

Just the rumor that a Monitor was coming could create a panic. CWT Member J P K Huston has posted a fine narrative you can add to your list of unworthy Monitor victories. In this case one vs one over a formidable ironclad. Too numerous to mention, the contemporary accounts are replete with references to the threat of a Monitor coming down stream. Read more here.

Link:

Thread 'Admiral Porter's Ironclad Hoax'

Jan 28, 2013

I had a chance to spend some time browsing, this time had a GREAT time with a few things! Pretty sure folks who frequent this part of the forum knew this, but it was the first I'd heard anything about Porter's hoax, his 'Quaker Ironclad'. Some accounts have the Confederates a little annoyed with the whole thing, albeit baffled. One account had this massive thing knocked together in only 12 hours, which would seem extreme if you hadn't read about some of the other massive undertakings the Engineers had turned out. Small potatoes compared to a pontoon bridge consisting of ships nailed...

• JPK Huson 1863
• Replies: 18
• Forum: Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

•