Hypothetical Encounter

[kevikens]

There have been several discussions on what would have been the result of an encounter between US Monitors and British or French ironclads such as the Warrior or Gloire. I have read that the most powerful ironclad in the Civil War was the USN New Ironsides. How was she equipped compared to Warrior or Gloire and how would she have fared against contemporary British and French ironclads?

 

[Waterloo50]

There have been several discussions on what would have been the result of an encounter between US Monitors and British or French ironclads such as the Warrior or Gloire. I have read that the most powerful ironclad in the Civil War was the USN New Ironsides. How was she equipped compared to Warrior or Gloire and how would she have fared against contemporary British and French ironclads?

I'm going to offer the Minotaur Class as a relatively good example of British Ironclads, HMS Minotaur launched 1863, 5 Masted with a speed of 14 knots, she had a range of 1500 nautical miles, under sail (when not using its engines) it could only make about 9 knots but that was due to the fact that the massive propeller couldn't be raised and it caused a considerable amount of drag. It was intended to carry 40 rifled 110 pounder breech loading guns on the main deck and 10 more on the upper deck on pivot mounts. I'm pretty sure that these guns failed sea tests. HMS Minotaur was actually put to sea with 7 inch and 9 inch guns. It had 20 7inch guns on the main deck and four 9 inch guns on the upper deck . On the main deck, the gun portals were 30 inches wide and this enabled the guns to fire 30 degrees fore and aft.
So far the Brits have the Monitor beat on speed, armaments and range I'm going to be slightly bias and say the RN were better crewed, I'm basing that on hundreds of years of naval combat experience.
The sides of the ship were protected with wrought iron with a thickness of 4.5 inches through to 5.5 inches, this armour went from the side of the ship to below the waterline by about five feet, so it had some pretty solid protection.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The monitor was best suited for operation in shallow coastal waters... and would never be able to cross the Atlantic.
The warrior was a proper Blue water warship. and as such would not be suited for operations is coastal waters.

This make it hard to compare them.

 

[Waterloo50]

The monitor was best suited for operation in shallow coastal waters... and would never be able to cross the Atlantic.
The warrior was a proper Blue water warship. and as such would not be suited for operations is coastal waters.

This make it hard to compare them.

I realise that but this was a hypothetical what if. Maybe its best to judge on armaments, speed and manoeuvrability.

 

[kevikens]

Uh, the New Ironsides was an ironclad built to a very different design and configuration than the monitor class. What I was wondering was how she would have stood up to the European designs.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The most directly comparable vessel to New Ironsides would have been Gloire, all things considered. IIRC, the basic idea that N.I.'s designer had was a Gloire with a flatter bottom/shallower draft to meet the specifications published by the Navy for the initial ironclad submissions.

I think Ironsides was more heavily armed than Gloire, though.

(Warrior was a more advanced design than either.)

 

[Waterloo50]

The most directly comparable vessel to New Ironsides would have been Gloire, all things considered. IIRC, the basic idea that N.I.'s designer had was a Gloire with a flatter bottom/shallower draft to meet the specifications published by the Navy for the initial ironclad submissions.

I think Ironsides was more heavily armed than Gloire, though.

(Warrior was a more advanced design than either.)

Hi Mark.
I suggested Minotaur Class, would that not be a very good comparison to US Ironclads of the same period. I'm more an age of sail chap.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Hi Mark.
I suggested Minotaur Class, would that not be a very good comparison to US Ironclads of the same period. I'm more an age of sail chap.

Weren't the Minotaurs follow-ons to Warrior and Black Prince, though?

 

[Waterloo50]

Weren't the Minotaurs follow-ons to Warrior and Black Prince, though?

They were but the improvements on the Minotaur class weren't that vast, same speed, same armour although the armour on the Minotaur was half an inch thicker in places. The warrior was slightly quicker under sail than the Minotaur class by a couple of knots. It depends what you want from an IronClad, range v speed, armour v guns. all three had advantages and disadvantages. It seems to me that ship builders of the period would improve one area of performance only to see a problem occur with something else, a bigger propeller great for moving under steam but causing real problems when under sail, more masts to compensate for the drag caused problems in other areas and so on. I would have thought that the Minotaur class would see vast improvements but its not so, Black Prince/Warrior were better in some areas of performance. What ever Ironclad you use in the hypothetical scenario seems to have its good and bad.
Its a bit like the game Trumps, whatever ship you offer I would be able to show you another which was better in specific areas of its performance. You can out gun me but I can turn quicker, you may be able to chase me but my range is greater and faster etc.