Russian navy

[Dilandu]

Your points are well taken. The German High Seas Fleet was a "fleet in being" after Jutland. I don't see any Russian or American equivalent force in the 19th century, in terms of being a plausible threat to engage and defeat a British battle fleet in waters near Britain.

But the American Navy don't need to be such threat. What the Union Navy need, is to be able to defeat Royal Navy near the American ports - i.e. break attempted blockade and allow raiders to get out (or blockade runners to get in), and protect coastal shipping. And that Union Navy could do perfectly. Monitors guaranteed that; in coastal waters, they were far superior to RN sea-capable ironclads.

 

[TFSmith121]

The Kaiser's fleet failed to stop the British blockade, failed in contesting British control of the seas around Europe. The surface raider threat was minor. Its hard to see what the Germans accomplished with their surface fleet in WWI.

The real threat was submarines, but since that brought the US into the World War I, and didn't prove decisive anyway, since the early U Boats weren't able to blockade Britain or prevent the transportation of the AEF.

Turkish entry into the war seems pretty significant...

Best,

 

[67th Tigers]

But the American Navy don't need to be such threat. What the Union Navy need, is to be able to defeat Royal Navy near the American ports - i.e. break attempted blockade and allow raiders to get out (or blockade runners to get in), and protect coastal shipping. And that Union Navy could do perfectly. Monitors guaranteed that; in coastal waters, they were far superior to RN sea-capable ironclads.

Not really. The monitors were too deep for the littoral zone, being typically 12 ft in draft. Their slow speed and lack of agility, combined with being a much more reasonable target than you'd think is an issue.

If a force of monitors wishes to come out of a harbour and into the teeth of a blockading squadron it they will be under effective fire for several thousand yards. The turret of a later monitor (Passaic etc.) is almost as high as the sidewalls of a conventional ship, and solving the target for line is trivial, it was elevation that was the issue. Given the Confederates had an overall hit rate of 19% against the monitors and New Ironsides at Charleston with ranges 1,000-2,500 yds it doesn't seem likely the RN will hit less than 10% of the time at 1,000 yds (especially as the battery was under a single director and could converge). Monitors went around 150 yds/min, and hence would receive a salvo for every 150 yds they advanced. They've receive half a dozen salvos just to get to effective range of their own guns.

Effective range is important, as with the Passaic class the fact they'd put a 15" gun in a turret designed for a 13" meant they couldn't aim or elevate the 15". The 15" was placed in a smokebox and the gunner aimed down the 11" and they fired the 15" simultaneously. The inability to elevate the 15" meant it was literally useless against an ironclad at more than 300 yds (roughly first graze) and can't hit a wooden ship with an effective shell (the shortest fuse available would overpenetrate at a few hundred yds*). With the Onondaga and Canonicus classes appearing in 1864 the US finally has a ship that can aim and elevate a 15" gun, but this is simultaneous with the rolling out of armour-piercing rifled guns in the RN fleet.

There weren't even that many of them - around ten when the Russians were in the US in 63-4, none of which was capable of mixing it up with an European ironclad:

The turrets were prettymuch death traps. They jammed incredibly easily because the gearing was keyed up with a simple wooden wedge. The shock of any heavy hit to the turret almost always jammed the mechanism, and sometimes it couldn't be fixed (4 of the 7 monitors at Charleston had their turrets knocked out and weren't able to fight). It had a major issue that there was a gap between the deck and the turret when the turret was jacked up to fight meaning that water would rush in in any seaway - hence the joke that Warrior wouldn't need to fire to sink Monitor, because if she just steamed past her then her bow wave would inundate the Monitor via the massive hole in the deck for the turret. Without any backing and with loads of exposed bolt heads on the inside of the turret any heavy hits will create a huge number of projectiles inside the turrets even without a penetration. With a laminate of 5x 2" wrought iron layers that are not properly quenched (they were bent into shape cold and not annealed afterwards) they gave a surprisingly low resistance to shot.

* Unlike the RN the USN had no percussion fused shells for their smoothbore guns. The Moorsom fuse was considered a state secret, and the US probably didn't know of its existence even.

 

[Dilandu]

Turkish entry into the war seems pretty significant...

Exactly. This action blocked the Straits, basically severing the communications between Britain&France and Russian Empire. The only ports that remained open were Vladivostok (on the other end of the world, basically) and Murmansk&Archangelsk - which were logistically dead ends, because the railroad system around them were not prepared for such ammount of cargo.

In long therms, this mean that the Russian Empire were unable to obtain much-needed supplies from the West soon enough, and the rest of Entente could not use Russia great natural resources. This led to the whole situation of 1915, when pre-war supplies of ammunition were already exausted by Russian Army, and the industry were still mobilized.

That's why Gallipoli operation was considered so important. If the Straits could be opened, the logistic link could be established through numerous Black Sea ports, and the Russian Army, supplied with western ammunition, could stop German advance - or at least make it much more costly, exausting the Central Powers resources on much larger scale.

 

[galveston bay]

Your points are well taken. The German High Seas Fleet was a "fleet in being" after Jutland. I don't see any Russian or American equivalent force in the 19th century, in terms of being a plausible threat to engage and defeat a British battle fleet in waters near Britain.

near Britain, no definitely not. However, both could threaten a blockading force near their waters, which is why they would be practicing sea denial instead of the sea control mission

 

[Dilandu]

near Britain, no definitely not. However, both could threaten a blockading force near their waters, which is why they would be practicing sea denial instead of the sea control mission

Exactly my point. Near the coastline, the US Navy could bring too much ironclads & support units in action to make it easy for Royal Navy. Especially considering doubtful value of early Armstrong rifled guns and "excellent" design of first RN ironclads (with their unarmored ends).

P.S. It is quite possible, that in case of war with Britain, the US Navy would put more resources in large, at least partially sea-capable ironclads, than monitors. They initially have "New Ironsides", "Roanok"; they might quickly add to this numbers two export-build ironclads (ordered by Italian Navy), and - I think - they could take over Steven's battery and make something sensible out of her on naval yards. Also, they have "Franklin" hull in good condition; large and sufficient for ironclad conversion.

So, IMHO, it was possible for Union to obtain 5-6 large, sea-capable ironclads by early 1864. Of course, they wouldn't be able to bring the war on Britain's territory, but as coastal "fleet in being" and operational reserve, capable of quickly reinforcing the endangered points, they would mess Britain's plans pretty effectively.

 

[67th Tigers]

Exactly my point. Near the coastline, the US Navy could bring too much ironclads & support units in action to make it easy for Royal Navy. Especially considering doubtful value of early Armstrong rifled guns and "excellent" design of first RN ironclads (with their unarmored ends).

When? How many ironclads? With what level of capability?

You do know nothing vital was outside the armour of the early box-battery ships?

So, IMHO, it was possible for Union to obtain 5-6 large, sea-capable ironclads by early 1864. Of course, they wouldn't be able to bring the war on Britain's territory, but as coastal "fleet in being" and operational reserve, capable of quickly reinforcing the endangered points, they would mess Britain's plans pretty effectively.

Sadly that's essentially a fantasy. The two Webb ironclad frigates were still incomplete and unplated in the autumn of 1864. The Italian government tired of Webb's inability to finish them and so took them off the builders hands and sailed them to La Seyne Naval Yard in France, carrying the plates as cargo. The French yard then had to completely rebuild her engines and fit the plates, but couldn't fix the fact that Webb had build her out of unseasoned green wood, and had the steering gear above the waterline and in the unarmoured ends.

In 1862 the US government dropped the half-built Stevens Battery as useless as a warship. With a heavy effort it would still take 2 years to finish her, and since she was still in frame you might as well start a new ship.

The New Ironsides is a sad tale. Like some early ironclads the ends were "unarmoured" but she initially had no bulkheads and hence was useless as a warship. The USN placed bulkheads across the battery (but only 2.5") so she stood some chance of surviving in a fight. When they took her to Charleston it was found out that she didn't answer the helm at all except at very low revs in very deep water. The builders didn't understand the hydrodynamic flows of the hull and managed to build a ship where the water flowing round the hull missed the rudder, unless going slow in deep water. With no water flowing over the rudder of course no impulse is generated. After Charleston the New Ironsides was used as a true "floating battery" and tugged into bombardment positions where she anchored. She was incapable of fighting under her own power.

The Roanoke was a very stressed and overloaded conversion that no-one dared to take outside of New York Harbour, because one good wave and she might split in half and sink.

Franklin? Several years to do a conversion, with the major issue being the need to bend plates to fit an existing hull. Essentially you'd have to make a whole new hull in parts from scratch and bend the plates on these full size models. Easier to build a whole new ship.

 

[Dilandu]

You do know nothing vital was outside the armour of the early box-battery ships?

Sigh. Rudder.

The Roanoke was a very stressed and overloaded conversion that no-one dared to take outside of New York Harbour, because one good wave and she might split in half and sink.

It seems that you live in some sort of parallel reality, because in our reality she went from New York to Hampton Roads in 1863. And somehow she doesn't split in half, decpite really being very stressed.

67th Tiger, I really tired of trying to discuss your numerous mistakes, unbased assumption and outright fantasy. Please don't discuss with me anymore. We all already knew, that in your version of reality the Royal Navy was the awesomest power since the Mesozoic era and will be till the heat death of the Universe (while according to modern calculations, it would still probably be next Big Bang). Fine. Personally, I tired of pointless discussions, where anything that you don't like you dismissed as "N's propaganda", and from now, I would just ignore your posts. I would really appreciate, if you do the same with mine.

 

[67th Tigers]

Sigh. Rudder.

Which is obviously underwater, or how would it work?

This is a picture of Warrior as delivered taken by the builders:

Where is the exposed rudder?

In fact the rudder, screw (and box), tiller and all the controls were below the waterline, with the control chains running through the bilge. No contemporary photos or lithographs show the rudder poking out above the waterline, although the builders original plans had this. One suspects this was changed whilst building and the restoration of Warrior in the 1980's followed the original plans.

Contemporary lithograph, no rudder visible above waterline:

It seems that you live in some sort of parallel reality, because in our reality she went from New York to Hampton Roads in 1863. And somehow she doesn't split in half, decpite really being very stressed.

Ah yes, they steamed her down there and vowed not to take her out again because of the damage sustained from New York to the James. Mea culpa. Swiftly added to the end of an overly long post.

Edit: I forgot to add that the number of incidences of warships knocked out by direct fire to their rudder(s) is negligible. Whilst perhaps sometimes technically possible with a ship running very light it is an extremely unlikely shot. Yet somehow whenever Warrior is involved all projectiles fired at her seem to have an unerring ability to home in on this largely (or completely) small underwater part of the ship. Strange.

 

[galveston bay]

When? How many ironclads? With what level of capability?

You do know nothing vital was outside the armour of the early box-battery ships?



Sadly that's essentially a fantasy. The two Webb ironclad frigates were still incomplete and unplated in the autumn of 1864. The Italian government tired of Webb's inability to finish them and so took them off the builders hands and sailed them to La Seyne Naval Yard in France, carrying the plates as cargo. The French yard then had to completely rebuild her engines and fit the plates, but couldn't fix the fact that Webb had build her out of unseasoned green wood, and had the steering gear above the waterline and in the unarmoured ends.

In 1862 the US government dropped the half-built Stevens Battery as useless as a warship. With a heavy effort it would still take 2 years to finish her, and since she was still in frame you might as well start a new ship.

The New Ironsides is a sad tale. Like some early ironclads the ends were "unarmoured" but she initially had no bulkheads and hence was useless as a warship. The USN placed bulkheads across the battery (but only 2.5") so she stood some chance of surviving in a fight. When they took her to Charleston it was found out that she didn't answer the helm at all except at very low revs in very deep water. The builders didn't understand the hydrodynamic flows of the hull and managed to build a ship where the water flowing round the hull missed the rudder, unless going slow in deep water. With no water flowing over the rudder of course no impulse is generated. After Charleston the New Ironsides was used as a true "floating battery" and tugged into bombardment positions where she anchored. She was incapable of fighting under her own power.

The Roanoke was a very stressed and overloaded conversion that no-one dared to take outside of New York Harbour, because one good wave and she might split in half and sink.

Franklin? Several years to do a conversion, with the major issue being the need to bend plates to fit an existing hull. Essentially you'd have to make a whole new hull in parts from scratch and bend the plates on these full size models. Easier to build a whole new ship.

the problem with the Roanoke was her high center of gravity and deep draft, which made both useless in the open sea and useless in shallow water. She spent her carrier as a guardship off Fort Monroe.

It should be noted that the Miantonomoh class monitors (4 ships, 1863) were sufficiently sea worthy that one, the Monadnock, steamed through the Straits of Magellen to San Francisco post war with only some extra measures taken while in the heaviest seas.

As this is an 1864 situation, most of the ironclads built are available and most can handle shallow water very well, far better inshore where they would be supported by fortifications (which would be urgently completed if some reason war broke out with the British) than the comparative deep draft British ironclads, and American gunboats supported by shore defenses would be a serious threat to any British wooden ships (which make up the overwhelming majority of British ships).

In other words, while the British can pull off a blockade, it will find anything more than that inshore very high risk.

As to a commerce war, the Americans have numerous steam sloops and some of the larger gunboats could also be used as as commerce raiders, with the heavier monitors and remaining steam frigates used to open up holes in the blockade for them to sortie.

It would be a very challenging and interesting naval war, and claiming either side has a decisive advantage without actually gaming it out is frankly speculation.

Good luck with that, it would be a challenge simply to design and run and would require teams of players for accuracy and realism

But simply handwaving that the RN or USN/Russian forces are going to win 'because of X" says more about the poster rather than accuracy.

 

[TFSmith121]

Not really. The monitors were too deep for the littoral zone, being typically 12 ft in draft. Their slow speed and lack of agility, combined with being a much more reasonable target than you'd think is an issue.

If a force of monitors wishes to come out of a harbour and into the teeth of a blockading squadron it they will be under effective fire for several thousand yards. The turret of a later monitor (Passaic etc.) is almost as high as the sidewalls of a conventional ship, and solving the target for line is trivial, it was elevation that was the issue. Given the Confederates had an overall hit rate of 19% against the monitors and New Ironsides at Charleston with ranges 1,000-2,500 yds it doesn't seem likely the RN will hit less than 10% of the time at 1,000 yds (especially as the battery was under a single director and could converge). Monitors went around 150 yds/min, and hence would receive a salvo for every 150 yds they advanced. They've receive half a dozen salvos just to get to effective range of their own guns.

Effective range is important, as with the Passaic class the fact they'd put a 15" gun in a turret designed for a 13" meant they couldn't aim or elevate the 15". The 15" was placed in a smokebox and the gunner aimed down the 11" and they fired the 15" simultaneously. The inability to elevate the 15" meant it was literally useless against an ironclad at more than 300 yds (roughly first graze) and can't hit a wooden ship with an effective shell (the shortest fuse available would overpenetrate at a few hundred yds*). With the Onondaga and Canonicus classes appearing in 1864 the US finally has a ship that can aim and elevate a 15" gun, but this is simultaneous with the rolling out of armour-piercing rifled guns in the RN fleet.

There weren't even that many of them - around ten when the Russians were in the US in 63-4, none of which was capable of mixing it up with an European ironclad:

The turrets were prettymuch death traps. They jammed incredibly easily because the gearing was keyed up with a simple wooden wedge. The shock of any heavy hit to the turret almost always jammed the mechanism, and sometimes it couldn't be fixed (4 of the 7 monitors at Charleston had their turrets knocked out and weren't able to fight). It had a major issue that there was a gap between the deck and the turret when the turret was jacked up to fight meaning that water would rush in in any seaway - hence the joke that Warrior wouldn't need to fire to sink Monitor, because if she just steamed past her then her bow wave would inundate the Monitor via the massive hole in the deck for the turret. Without any backing and with loads of exposed bolt heads on the inside of the turret any heavy hits will create a huge number of projectiles inside the turrets even without a penetration. With a laminate of 5x 2" wrought iron layers that are not properly quenched (they were bent into shape cold and not annealed afterwards) they gave a surprisingly low resistance to shot.

* Unlike the RN the USN had no percussion fused shells for their smoothbore guns. The Moorsom fuse was considered a state secret, and the US probably didn't know of its existence even.

Unarmored bows and sterns built out of wood tend to flood when shelled; funnels, masts and yards (necessary for an ocean-going warship in this era) could be targeted and would lead to lack of maneuverability, command casualties, and mission kills; and the obvious tactic of swarming a larger vessel with multiple small ones armed and armored comes to mind, as does ramming.

Given that the grand total of seagoing ironclads in commission in the Western Hemisphere in the spring of 1862 was three (one USN, one CSN, and one RN) and the RN one was assigned as guard ship at Bermuda, the starting line isn't vastly different.

The four new RN ships were all undergoing trials or still under construction; of the seven older RN ships, only three were really suited for trans--Atlantic service and they had to be recommissioned, stored, crewed, etc. The older smaller ships were in poor material shape, one had already be stricken, and their service assignments were as guard ships in various British ports.

By 1863, the four British broadside ironclads were all operational, as were an increasing number of French and other Continental navies' ironclads, as were increasing numbers of sea-going monitors and ironclads in the Western Hemisphere (none of which had HMS in front of their names).

One can imagine various turns of events, but based on the actual history of what happened when the RN went up against a Western enemy in the steam era from 1855-1915, the evidence is the RN is no more going to sweep all before in an imaginary conflict in the 1860s it than it did in the actual conflicts it faced in the same period.

Ask the crews of Tiger, Jasper, Cormorant, Lee, Plover, Audacious, Good Hope, Monmouth, Aboukir, Cressy, Hogue, Irresistible, Ocean, and their consorts; one could also consider the command failures that lead to the peacetime losses of Conqueror, Orpheus, Captain, Vanguard, and Victoria as real world tests of the myth of the RN in this period.

Then there's the minor historical example that the one European navy that incontrovertibly WON a fleet action at sea in the ironclad era actually lost its war... And that the European navy with the second greatest ironclad fleet in this era lost its at as well in this era, without ever seeing an enemy squadron.

So much for ironclads as war winners.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

the problem with the Roanoke was her high center of gravity and deep draft, which made both useless in the open sea and useless in shallow water. She spent her carrier as a guardship off Fort Monroe.

It should be noted that the Miantonomoh class monitors (4 ships, 1863) were sufficiently sea worthy that one, the Monadnock, steamed through the Straits of Magellen to San Francisco post war with only some extra measures taken while in the heaviest seas.

As this is an 1864 situation, most of the ironclads built are available and most can handle shallow water very well, far better inshore where they would be supported by fortifications (which would be urgently completed if some reason war broke out with the British) than the comparative deep draft British ironclads, and American gunboats supported by shore defenses would be a serious threat to any British wooden ships (which make up the overwhelming majority of British ships).

In other words, while the British can pull off a blockade, it will find anything more than that inshore very high risk.

As to a commerce war, the Americans have numerous steam sloops and some of the larger gunboats could also be used as as commerce raiders, with the heavier monitors and remaining steam frigates used to open up holes in the blockade for them to sortie.

It would be a very challenging and interesting naval war, and claiming either side has a decisive advantage without actually gaming it out is frankly speculation.

Good luck with that, it would be a challenge simply to design and run and would require teams of players for accuracy and realism

But simply handwaving that the RN or USN/Russian forces are going to win 'because of X" says more about the poster rather than accuracy.

True.

Best,

 

[galveston bay]

True.

Best,

I forgot to mention several USN sailing sloops, which would be ideal for exterminating the British whaling fleet in the Pacific for example (just as the Shenandoah inflicted massive damage to the US whaling fleet). The North Pacific is a very long way from anywhere and even 1 sloop could do, as in our history, massive damage, while being very hard to locate and destroy. They could also range the Roaring 40s, where only a clipper would have a reasonable chance of evading them and again are a long way from the primary theaters where presumably the bulk of British modern ships would be located.

It would be a fascinating simulation. Perhaps someone will figure out a way to make it happen

 

[TFSmith121]

I forgot to mention several USN sailing sloops, which would be ideal for exterminating the British whaling fleet in the Pacific for example (just as the Shenandoah inflicted massive damage to the US whaling fleet). The North Pacific is a very long way from anywhere and even 1 sloop could do, as in our history, massive damage, while being very hard to locate and destroy. They could also range the Roaring 40s, where only a clipper would have a reasonable chance of evading them and again are a long way from the primary theaters where presumably the bulk of British modern ships would be located.

It would be a fascinating simulation. Perhaps someone will figure out a way to make it happen

True.

It's basically a blend of 1812-15 and 1914-15, in terms of the strategic situations all sides find themselves in; the RN, of course, never faced anything remotely as challenging as this scenario until 1914-15, and even a steam navy as geographically limited as the Imperial German won significant victories over the RN in the first 24 months of the conflict.

The idea the RN would sweep all before it in the ironclad era is so much bilge, based on both the actual history and the Achill Exercises, where an RN opfor playmg the part of the French routinely ran ragged the RN playing the part of the RN blockaders...

Equally on point is the experience of Austria after Lissa; only naval squadron action under steam in European waters worth the name before 1914, total Austrian victory, and the Austrians lost the war. Pretty conclusive proof that ironclads were not a war winner, one would think...

Same holds true for the impact of the French fleet in 1870-71; they may have used all the guns, men, and material ashore for all the difference the French navy made...

Best,

 

[Dilandu]

//and the obvious tactic of swarming a larger vessel with multiple small ones armed and armored comes to mind, as does ramming.//

Must also point out, that the "Warrior" was not very agile ship even at the best conditions. In shallow coastal waters, she would be forced to crawl on less than 7-8 knots to avoid grounding. And even in more or less open sea, it would be really hard for her to have imitative in combat with large monitor, like "Miantonomoh".

The equation is simple:

- If "Warrior" mantain high speed, her range of circulation would made almost impossible to close with monitor enough to punch through the latter armor. Simply speaking, monitor would always be able to avoid close pass.

- If "Warrior" slow down...she would lost the speed advantage. Yes, she would gain some agility, but problem is, she still would be too clumsy to maneuvre on pair with monitors. Thus the imitative would be given up; the monitor would be able to chose the position for attack.

 

[Dilandu]

//They could also range the Roaring 40s, where only a clipper would have a reasonable chance of evading them and again are a long way from the primary theaters where presumably the bulk of British modern ships would be located.//

And Russian Navy have quite a lot of fast corvettes & clippers on Pacific - each superior to "Shenandoah" in terms of weaponry and trainigs. It would clearly took A LOT of time and resources for Royal Navy to chase then down - and the damage in terms of cargo ships destroyed would be innumerable.

 

[Tielhard]

But the American Navy don't need to be such threat. What the Union Navy need, is to be able to defeat Royal Navy near the American ports - i.e. break attempted blockade and allow raiders to get out (or blockade runners to get in), and protect coastal shipping. And that Union Navy could do perfectly. Monitors guaranteed that; in coastal waters, they were far superior to RN sea-capable ironclads.

Dilandu,

You are saying that the Union Navy could 'perfectly' defeat the Royal Navy and protect 'American' [i.e. Union ports]. The obvious question is how? Let me emphasise once again that the Union Monitors are unseaworthy rafts with primitive large guns. At the time of a Trent war the Union had no ironclads at all, by the 63/4 winter they had the Passaics and a few others. None of these rafts was a match for a Crimean era floating battery and in any case the Royal Navy would be unlikely to deploy armoured ships against monitors, it would have been over kill.-Three gunboats with 68lbers should have been adequate, the monitors can be rammed by anything bigger than a steam frigate, the older side wheel steamers with the massive forward firing batteries and high speeds should make short work of any monitor and from the front provide a little bigger silhouette, boarding parties are an option but the South American experience suggests this may not be an option - although to be fair it was a proper British Built breast work ironclad that was attacked that way, last anything bigger than a steam sloop should be able to stand off beyond the accurate range of the monitor's guns and blaze away until the thing sinks or falls apart. Of the rest of the Union Navy they have no capital ships, a few steam frigates and some steam sloops along with lots and lots of small vessels that are effectively targets. In conclusion I find your assertion questionable at best.

 

[Tielhard]

//They could also range the Roaring 40s, where only a clipper would have a reasonable chance of evading them and again are a long way from the primary theaters where presumably the bulk of British modern ships would be located.//

And Russian Navy have quite a lot of fast corvettes & clippers on Pacific - each superior to "Shenandoah" in terms of weaponry and trainigs. It would clearly took A LOT of time and resources for Royal Navy to chase then down - and the damage in terms of cargo ships destroyed would be innumerable.

Dilandu,

The Russian Imperial Navy had a few (1 or 2 ISTR) combat clippers in the Pacific, these were powerful raiders but there were not nearly enough of them. The Pacific Ocean is huge and the shipping routes were not that busy, mostly around the rim - not that good a hunting ground. The Boyarins (Sp.?) were not what I would call fast or indeed a corvette, well built well designed screw sloops but not particularly good raiders. Almost anything the British had that could catch them could destroy them.

 

[rebelatsea]

Not really. The monitors were too deep for the littoral zone, being typically 12 ft in draft. Their slow speed and lack of agility, combined with being a much more reasonable target than you'd think is an issue.

If a force of monitors wishes to come out of a harbour and into the teeth of a blockading squadron it they will be under effective fire for several thousand yards. The turret of a later monitor (Passaic etc.) is almost as high as the sidewalls of a conventional ship, and solving the target for line is trivial, it was elevation that was the issue. Given the Confederates had an overall hit rate of 19% against the monitors and New Ironsides at Charleston with ranges 1,000-2,500 yds it doesn't seem likely the RN will hit less than 10% of the time at 1,000 yds (especially as the battery was under a single director and could converge). Monitors went around 150 yds/min, and hence would receive a salvo for every 150 yds they advanced. They've receive half a dozen salvos just to get to effective range of their own guns.

Effective range is important, as with the Passaic class the fact they'd put a 15" gun in a turret designed for a 13" meant they couldn't aim or elevate the 15". The 15" was placed in a smokebox and the gunner aimed down the 11" and they fired the 15" simultaneously. The inability to elevate the 15" meant it was literally useless against an ironclad at more than 300 yds (roughly first graze) and can't hit a wooden ship with an effective shell (the shortest fuse available would overpenetrate at a few hundred yds*). With the Onondaga and Canonicus classes appearing in 1864 the US finally has a ship that can aim and elevate a 15" gun, but this is simultaneous with the rolling out of armour-piercing rifled guns in the RN fleet.

There weren't even that many of them - around ten when the Russians were in the US in 63-4, none of which was capable of mixing it up with an European ironclad:

The turrets were prettymuch death traps. They jammed incredibly easily because the gearing was keyed up with a simple wooden wedge. The shock of any heavy hit to the turret almost always jammed the mechanism, and sometimes it couldn't be fixed (4 of the 7 monitors at Charleston had their turrets knocked out and weren't able to fight). It had a major issue that there was a gap between the deck and the turret when the turret was jacked up to fight meaning that water would rush in in any seaway - hence the joke that Warrior wouldn't need to fire to sink Monitor, because if she just steamed past her then her bow wave would inundate the Monitor via the massive hole in the deck for the turret. Without any backing and with loads of exposed bolt heads on the inside of the turret any heavy hits will create a huge number of projectiles inside the turrets even without a penetration. With a laminate of 5x 2" wrought iron layers that are not properly quenched (they were bent into shape cold and not annealed afterwards) they gave a surprisingly low resistance to shot.

* Unlike the RN the USN had no percussion fused shells for their smoothbore guns. The Moorsom fuse was considered a state secret, and the US probably didn't know of its existence even.

That is very interesting, apart from historical interest in means that virtually every set of wargame rules that includes the ACW, including my own, has serious errors.

 

[Dilandu]

//The Russian Imperial Navy had a few (1 or 2 ISTR) combat clippers in the Pacific, these were powerful raiders but there were not nearly enough of them.//

Actually, we have three of them on Pacific) Plus three corvettes and frigate - all modern, all screw. So, we could send seven fast, heavy-armed raiders, each much more dangerous than "Shenandoah" on the loose against British Empire communications.

//Almost anything the British had that could catch them could destroy them. //

But the point is to catch them) And this is a problem, real problem, before radio appeared. The disperced raiders are very hard to find. Yes, you could destroy them quite easily - but to catch them you would need several times more ships to even have a good chance. To catch seven Russian warships, Royal Navy would be forced to detach about 20 of their own - nearly half of all avaliable fleet of screw frigates and corvettes! And what would remain for other theatres?