Warrior's Armor

The below link goes to a Charleston Mercury article of 2/21/61. Page 4, left column, "A Big Thing" gives really detailed info on the Warrior, especially her armor.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=vG0dlTq9_mQC&dat=18610221&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
We will never know for sure because of the fire which destroyed the CSN HQ ,but Secretary Mallory is believed to have obtained plans and specifications for HMS Warrior, certainly La Gloire, and the British floating batteries of the Erebus class, which were sea going, among others from Europe.
How many times have I cursed the --------------- who set fire to that building!
 
Well, again, we have the issue about whether a vessel can cross the ocean vs. being able to operate on the ocean... principal example being Miantonomoh, which crossed the Atlantic for a European visit, but if she had been attacked mid-voyage would have been dependent on her escort to fight for her. I don't know the oceanic capability of Terror, though I'd imagine it was better than Miantonomoh but worse than Warrior.
 
Well, again, we have the issue about whether a vessel can cross the ocean vs. being able to operate on the ocean... principal example being Miantonomoh, which crossed the Atlantic for a European visit, but if she had been attacked mid-voyage would have been dependent on her escort to fight for her. I don't know the oceanic capability of Terror, though I'd imagine it was better than Miantonomoh but worse than Warrior.
The Volcano class, unlike their predecessors and the French boats, were intend to proceed independantly , ie , not being towed, to their destinations, Like Warrior ,they had iron hulls. The gundecks were no lower than most sailing warships at the time, and higher than others. Being broad beamed they were steady gun platforms, with only a slow roll. Holding up well to the sailing rig in most conditions, they like most broad beam short length ship before and after were prone to being slowed by a head sea, but because of the high freeboard to the top of the bulwarks remained remarkably dry.
When the search was on for a seagoing ironclad design in 1858 ,one of the plans considered was this, although to be constructed in Timber.
ADMIRALTY 2.jpg
 
Their profile looks a lot like New Ironsides. Probably just solving similar problems in similar ways, but I'll now want to check William H. Roberts' book on NI to see if there was any direct influence (i.e., that NI's design was influenced by them)...

Wait, I just re-read your post; that's not Terror itself... It's early and I'm not through my first cup of coffee yet... :coffee:
 
Their profile looks a lot like New Ironsides. Probably just solving similar problems in similar ways, but I'll now want to check William H. Roberts' book on NI to see if there was any direct influence (i.e., that NI's design was influenced by them)...

Wait, I just re-read your post; that's not Terror itself... It's early and I'm not through my first cup of coffee yet... :coffee:
LOl. That last was one of 12 designs submitted from constructors all over the country, in fact that is the Admiralty Constuctors draft. When it came to making the choice for what became Warrior class, the board had already decided it was to be built of iron, and to be fast enough to both out steam and out sail La Gloire.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top