Poll: Which Confederate Ironclad was the best?

fortfisher64

Private
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Location
North Carolina
1. CSS Virginia

2. CSS Abermarle

3. CSS Tennessee II

4. CSS Arkansas

Which of these ironclads were the best of the Confederacy's warships? Which one would you have in your fleet to destroy the Union blockade?
You chose.
 
The Arkansas? Couldn't get back upriver after a rather spectacular run downriver.
 
My vote is #4

ole she was built by in experienced men in no time, she ran the gauntlet at Vicksburg, and one of her officers was one of the best seamen that the US has ever seen (my opinion)
 
None of them were what I'd call tremendous successes. Their purpose was either to break the blockade or defend a Confederate city and every one of them failed at that.
 
I'd have to go with Tennessee of that group. (The "II" isn't really necessary. It's often used to distinguish her from the never-launched sister ship of Arkansas, but since she never saw action, it's rather moot.)

Albemarle was primarily formidable because she could operate where no Union ironclads could get at her-- big fish in a little pond.

Arkansas had a good run given her challenges, but she had major issues.

Virginia was a big bruiser, but was anything but maneuverable, and had some weak points that Monitor fortunately did not figure out.
 
Tennessee.jpg

I think Tennessee also. The casemate ironclad was a dead end technologically, but Tennessee was the best of that lot.

Edit: Adjusted the light/dark levels of the image.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention, that within a few days she was back in action again, on the Union side, helping bombard Fort Morgan, and then served for a time on the lower Mississippi!
 
You knew I wouldn't resist this one ,didn't you Mark?

Technically, the Tennessee was superior, apart from the repeated mistake leading the steering chains across open deck, and lacked blowers to the machinery spaces.
She was battleworthy and survived tremendous punishment. The USN thought she was a good vessel, was obviously seaworthy. So my vote goes to Tennessee.

Incidentally none of the Union ironclads on the Mississippi could stem the current either.

Andy, look at the internal armour profile of later BBs and tell me the casemate shape was a dead end !
 
Andy,
That is a neat painting but don't think those vents and davits would be on the stern when cleared for action do you?

Likely not, and I think we've discussed somewhere else that the shape of the casemate isn't quite right... the slope is too steep. (There are a couple of other issues, too, like the pilothouses on the turrets of the monitor to the right...) But it's a marvelous painting-- have one in my front room. The digital image doesn't quite do justice to some of the subtleties of color in the clouds and water, etc.
 
They were all floating disasters. Underpowered. Unreliable. Un-maneuverable. Not at all seaworthy. They were in every respect the inferior of every Union ironclad by a wide margin. And not a single one achieved their purpose of either breaking the blockade or defending a seaport.
 
Dunno 'bout that... the Union had a fair number of duds!

Context, as usual, is important... not all ironclads were designed for the same mission. For instance, Carondelet and her sisters were primarily designed with a view to bows-on fighting, and were visualized as floating gun platforms for fighting enemy shore batteries; they had some weaknesses against other vessels that become important when discussing Plum Point Bend and the duel with Arkansas. Arkansas, on the other hand, was conceived primarily to combat other ships.

By contrast, Union monitors were in their element against enemy ships-- with their low profile and ultra-heavy armament they were intended to survive until they could deliver a limited number of telling blows to a protected enemy. But they were lousy at shore bombardment, where the targets are less heavily protected and also won't simply sink or explode with one or two shots in vital locations-- that's when you need a higher rate of fire from smaller weapons.*

Considering the technological and industrial base the Confederacy had to work with, casemate ironclads like Tennessee were a realistic and achievable response... though a strong argument can be made that the Confederacy should have deployed its resources more into mines and torpedo boats, and saved the iron to try to buttress the railroad network.

_________________
* ETA I like to bring up in this context the experiences of the monitor Montauk at Fort McAllister. She could withstand the fire of the fort for a considerable length of time (though not indefinitely), but there was no single target in the fort that she could take out in one or two shots. But she did just fine destroying the Rattlesnake (ex-Nashville) in exactly the same circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Though the iron ore that went into the Tennessee's armor was dug within a short distance of my home, my personal favorite was the Arkansas-ugly as a mud duck, made by house builders and with everything about her screaming "underdog" she accomplished things that were completely not expected of her and of which her crew could always be proud.
 
Last edited:
They were all floating disasters. Underpowered. Unreliable. Un-maneuverable. Not at all seaworthy. They were in every respect the inferior of every Union ironclad by a wide margin. And not a single one achieved their purpose of either breaking the blockade or defending a seaport.
Agreed. I'm just getting into the naval side of things, but all the ironclads on both sides seemed to have been troubled ideas with good intentions. I do wonder if what the Confederate navy gave up in speed and maneuverability by building ironclads instead of wooden ships wasn't akin to shooting themselves in the foot with regard to river defense.
 
Back
Top