Ironclad Monitors 1863-1865

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

While recently reading West Wind, Flood Tide I was surprised to learn one of the delays for Farragut's attack was waiting for monitors to join his fleet. until the summer of 1864 he had none. That left me wondering about just how many monitors the Union Navy had and when, and how they were employed.

This thread will looked only at monitors i.e. turreted ironclads and only during the American Civil War. This is in addition to the armored gunboats on the Mississippi River network, USS New Ironsides, etc.

Setting aside a few where construction started during the war, but they were not completed or at least not commissioned until after hostilities were over, the Navy had 27 monitors, including the namesake original. One was the converted frigate Roanoke, the only triple turret monitor. After conversion it was sent to Hampton Roads, but it had serious roll issues from being too top-heavy. It was considered a failure and never engaged an enemy vessel, and will be omitted from the tallies below. The rest of the monitors were purpose-built. USS Dictator, a unique design, had mechanical issues which impaired its service.

USS Monitor of course dueled CSS Virginia then sunk in a storm at the end of 1862 on its way to Charleston.

That leaves 25 monitors in service at some point during calendar years 1863 and 1864 and the first half of 1865. Most were single turret, but there were six double-turret monitors as well. Four were sunk by mines ("torpedoes") and one during a storm.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

First half of 1863
9 of the 10 Passiac-class monitors were commissioned by mid-1863. Sangamon and Lehigh were assigned to Hampton Roads to keep the Confederate James River Squadron bottled up. The other 7 - Passiac, Montauk, Nahant, Patapsco, Weehawken, Catskill, Nantucket - were sent to Charleston where they served as part of the South Atlantic Blockade Squadron, unsuccessfully attacked the fortifications defending Charleston Harbor (with the aid of New Ironsides), and generally supported coastal operations against Charleston.

Other than operations against Charleston, there were some operations near Savannah. Montauk, Patapsco, Passaic, and Nahant bombarded Fort McAllister, with little effect. Weehawken and Nahant fought CSS Atlanta in Wassaw Sound, capturing the Confederate ironclad after it accidentally ran aground.

Latter half of 1863
The 7 monitors at Charleston remained there.

Lehigh was sent from Hampton Roads to Charleston. Weehawken sank in a storm while anchored off Charleston.

The 10th Passiac-class monitor, Camanche, was shipped to California for assembly and service there, which seems to me like a complete waste.

By the end of the year, Neosho and Osage, both single-turret monitors, had entered service on the Mississippi River.

EOY 1863 Totals
North Atlantic: 1
South Atlantic: 7
East Gulf: 0
West Gulf: 0
Mississippi: 2

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Early 1864
The Canonincus-class single-turret monitors began entering service in the Atlantic, and the double-turret Milwaukee-class on the Mississippi River.

Sangamon moved from the James River to Charleston, resulting in all 8 active Passiac-class monitors being deployed there.

Osage, Neosho, and newcomer Ozark participated in the Red River Campaign. Winnebago (Milwaukee-class) was also added to the Mississippi Flotilla. By summer the first three Canonincus-class monitors (Canonicus, Saugus, and Tecumseh) plus the unique Onondaga (2 turrets) had entered service at Hampton Roads. The Hampton Roads monitors supported operations on the James River against Petersburg.

Mid-1864 Totals
Hampton Roads: 4
Charleston (South Atlantic): 8
Gulf: 0
Mississippi River: 4

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Late 1864
Onondaga, Canonicus, and Saugus continued to operator on the James River. They were joined by Mahopac (Canonicus-class) and Monadnock, the only Miantonomoh-class (two-turret) monitor to be commissioned during the war. Tecumseh was sent to the Gulf for Farragut's operations against Mobile Bay, where it led the attack and was sunk by a mine.

USS Dictator finally entered service near the end of the year, but was troubled with mechanical issues and faults in her unique design. It was the first seagoing monitor.

Seven of the Passiac monitors remained off Charleston with the South Atlantic Blockade Squadron. The exception was Sangamon, which returned to Hampton Roads and the James River.

Manhattan, the fifth and final Canonicus-class monitor, entered service and was almost immediately sent to Farragut at Mobile Bay.

The other three Milwaukee-class monitors entered service, initially on the Mississippi River. Chickasaw and Milwaukee were sent to Farragut and participated in the Mobile Bay attack. Kickapoo was sent later in the year as well.

Neosho went up the Cumberland River and participated in the Battle of Nashville.

Near-End of Year Stats
James River: 6
North Atlantic: 1
Charleston: 7
Mobile Bay: 5
Mississippi River: 3

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

1865
Canonicus, Saugus, Mahopac, and Monadnock (all from the James River Flotilla) participated in the attacks on Fort Fisher.

Montauk shifted from Charleston to the Cape Fear River after the fall of Fort Fisher.

Patapsco was sunk at Charleston by a mine in January. Passiac, Nahant, Catskill, and Nantucket remained off Charleston until after its fall. They were joined by Canonicus, presumably as a replacement for Patapsco.

Milwaukee, Winnebago, Chickasaw, and Kickapoo blockaded Mobile and supported Canby's operations against it. They were joined by Osage. Milwaukee and Osage both fell victim to mines.

Neosho and Ozark remained on the Mississippi River or its tributaries.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Questions I Am Left With

1. Why were so many monitors kept blockading Charleston in 1864-1865 despite there being no real further active operations to take the city or its fortifications? Why weren't at least some of them used as part of the attacks against Fort Fisher?

It seems to me like these warships were largely wasted during the last year of the war.

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

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

4. Were Neosho, Osage, and Ozark of any real use on the Mississippi River by the time they entered service? Were there any Confederate threats, real or imagined, that the rest of the brown water tinclad gunboat fleet couldn't handle?

General Discussion Question

In hindsight, do you see anywhere the monitors could have been more usefully employed than they were? (Assume no changes as to when they entered service.)

 

[Santee1821]

Thank you for bringing this information together!

As for why the USN kept as many monitors off of Charleston as it did, I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with CSS Columbia and the rest of the CSN squadron at Charleston. I forget the status of the engines of Chicora, Palmetto State, and Charleston late war, but if the monitors were withdrawn, there was at least the possibility of a sortie by the Confederate ironclads as there had been in January of 1863. Surely five or even four monitors would be more than enough to counter that threat - except the monitors had to rotate down to Port Royal for maintenance. The USN had to keep enough on station to counter the threat.

Also, I can't imagine that Rear Admiral Dahlgren would have been too happy to see his command stripped of all of its armored ships.

Photo below: the 10-Inch Brooke smoothbore at the Washington Navy Yard (possibly) carried aboard CSS Columbia

 

[Rhea Cole]

The Navsource Battleship Photo Index contains photos, technical data, commanders & service records of every USN Monitor.

THE " Old Navy Steam & Sail Index" is a listing of every commissioned vessel in both the U.S. & CSA navies.

Link:

NavSource Online: Battleship Photo Archive

 

[G Low]

The civil war navy museum at port Columbus Ga on the Chattahoochee river has some good information. With replicas of the monitor and Merrimack. Do you think the CSS Shenandoah had something to do with the monitor sent to California. That must've been a long ride. Those cannons at the naval yard look pretty cool. Also did the USN send any boats/ships to Columbus Ga.

 

[67th Tigers]

Long ago I plotted ironclads in service by month:

 

[USS ALASKA]

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

 

[MAJOR DUNDEE]

How did a "Monitor" crossed the country at that time ? In spare parts ? Please don't tell me he did it's way through Cape Horn.

 

[USS ALASKA]

How did a "Monitor" crossed the country at that time ? In spare parts ? Please don't tell me he did it's way through Cape Horn.

"Camanche, The Snakebit Monitor"

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

HTHs,
USS ALASKA

 

[G Low]

How did a "Monitor" crossed the country at that time ? In spare parts ? Please don't tell me he did it's way through Cape Horn.

That's what I was wondering.

 

[Saphroneth]

How did a "Monitor" crossed the country at that time ? In spare parts ? Please don't tell me he did it's way through Cape Horn.

As a kit, in cargo. Interestingly it sank before being built, which might be unique for a ship!

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

Probably for political reasons and because San Francisco wasn't all that well defended otherwise. It's a good way to quell potential secessionist feelings, which regardless of reality was something of a perceived threat.

1. Why were so many monitors kept blockading Charleston in 1864-1865 despite there being no real further active operations to take the city or its fortifications? Why weren't at least some of them used as part of the attacks against Fort Fisher?

Monitors were used against Fort Fisher. The Monitors were not very mobile or seaworthy though.

The utility of having them blockading Charleston is basically "what else are you going to do with them", plus they mean that the CS ironclads can't easily chase off the blockade force.

 

[G Low]

I wish someone would find tjeCSS/USS Atalanta and raise it up.!!

 

[Saphroneth]

A point I actually want to make is that the US basically... I think I would say overcommitted to the monitor concept. That is, the low-freeboard turret ship.

A monitor is a good way of getting an armoured vessel on the "cheap", in industrial terms. But they're not very effective ships at this time compared to a broadside ironclad, and their design is more exacting. The Casco class of twenty was an extremely expensive failure for that very reason (inches of freeboard really matter on a monitor class, and errors in the Casco procurement process ate up the tiny safety margin.)

 

[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

CSS Albermerle had a draft of 8'. There was no reason to detach a Monitor to deal with the Albermerle because the assigned blockaders torpedoed it. If she had ventured forth, it might have been different.

USS Monitor draft: 10' 6"

Link:

Old Navy Photo Index

A single Monitor was sufficient to deter an attack San Francisco.

Map of San Francisco Bay

Map of San Francisco Bay

www.usgs.gov

The only entrance to the bay is via the Golden Gate channel was ideal for a Monitor to defend. It was exactly the kind of choke point for a vessel designed for littoral operations. No CSA raider or any other warship in the Pacific posed any kind of a threat to a Monitor. By the same token, it posed no threat to any Pacific nation. It was a case the ideal economy of force v
point defense pure & simple.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

As for why the USN kept as many monitors off of Charleston as it did, I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with CSS Columbia and the rest of the CSN squadron at Charleston. I forget the status of the engines of Chicora, Palmetto State, and Charleston late war, but if the monitors were withdrawn, there was at least the possibility of a sortie by the Confederate ironclads as there had been in January of 1863.

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

Monitors were used against Fort Fisher.

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

CSS Albermerle had a draft of 8'. There was no reason to detach a Monitor to deal with the Albermerle because the assigned blockaders torpedoed it.

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

 

[Saphroneth]

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

Moving monitors is a big deal - they had to have the turret sealed and a tow. The James River squadron's closer and had less opposition (their enemies were penned up behind river batteries) so removing the monitors from the James River squadron for an extended period of time was probably significantly less of a risk.