What If USS Monitor and CSS Virginia alternate outcome

lordroel

Private
Joined
Jul 28, 2017
I always have wondered while history records the encounter between the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia at Hampton Roads as a tactical draw, could either of the two ironclad ships have sunk the other? Anticipating action against wooden Union ships, the Virginia carried only explosive shells, which lacked the penetrating power against the Monitor’s 8” inch turret armor. The Virginia struck the Monitor 22 times, including 9 against her turret. Shots fired from her four rifled Brooke guns made in some instances 4” indentations in the Monitor but failed to penetrate. The Monitor fired 43 times, striking the Virginia 20 times, but none at or below the Confederate’s vulnerable wooden waterline.

More telling perhaps was the fact that the Monitor was restricted by the Navy Department to using 15 pound explosive charges with her twin 11” Dahlgren guns, rather than the 30 pound double-charges later authorized. Lt. Greene of the Monitor later commented that had 30 pound charges been used, it was probable that the shots would have penetrated the Virginia’s casemate, this was latter conformed in a test conducted after the battle which showed that if the Monitor had used 25lb or 30lb gunpowder charges that its 11-inch guns would have punctured the Virginia’s hull with relative ease at close ranges.
 
With two very determined Captains . Virginia's rate of fire with the 7" and 6.4"MLR was faster than monitor's 11" SB, theoretically she should have been able to knock Monitor out first, however I suspect in reality both would have hurt each other and withdrawn as neither navy could afford to risk losing the vessels.
The alternative would be a slugging match which I think would lead to the loss of both ships.
 
With two very determined Captains . Virginia's rate of fire with the 7" and 6.4"MLR was faster than monitor's 11" SB, theoretically she should have been able to knock Monitor out first, however I suspect in reality both would have hurt each other and withdrawn as neither navy could afford to risk losing the vessels.
The alternative would be a slugging match which I think would lead to the loss of both ships.
So no clear winner in this fight, only losers.
 
So no clear winner in this fight, only losers.
In the event that neither Captain would give in and they both sank, I think the nay sayers on both sides would have said I told you so, and the US / CS naval history or at least in ironclads might have been very different.
 
In the event that neither Captain would give in and they both sank, I think the nay sayers on both sides would have said I told you so, and the US / CS naval history or at least in ironclads might have been very different.
Would construction of new ironclads stop if both of them had sunk in battle.
 
I don't think so, there would have been a pause while arguments for and against were settled but there were other designs put forward on both sides.
But despite, if both USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia where sunk during the Battle of Hampton Roads, it shows that ironclads have a future as CSS Virginia did wreak havoc on wooden Union warships.
 
No. It's an American conceit that we invented the ironclad warship. Other navies were actively building ironclads before the conflict of 1861-65.
So sinking both of them in the battle ore one sinking another in the battle would not change the naval part of the Civil War much as the Union can still outproduce the Confederacy.
 
So sinking both of them in the battle ore one sinking another in the battle would not change the naval part of the Civil War much as the Union can still outproduce the Confederacy.

Ericsson's monitor design was highly controversial, so if Virginia sank Monitor, the concept would likely have been scrapped. That would leave the Galena and New Ironsides designs. Galena's armor scheme proved deficient in action at Drewry's Bluff, though it might have worked better against a sea level opponent. NI was powerful, but the largest and most expensive type, challenging to produce in significant numbers. She was not very handy, and her broadside had narrow arcs of fire, so she might have had trouble operating in confined waters. Of course the followup might have been a smaller, handier broadside ironclad. Or the Union might in time have evolved something entirely different.

With the monitors, the Union was able to rapidly produce a fleet of ironclads suitable for the operations they were needed to undertake. This would not have been accomplished as expeditiously with the alternative designs or if they had to go back to the drawing board.
 
Would construction of new ironclads stop if both of them had sunk in battle.
Keep in mind that the CSS Virginia had already sunk two wooden warships the day before. Even if she had gone down she had already demonstrated what an ironclad could do to what the USN mostly consisted of, wooden vessels.
 
Keep in mind that the CSS Virginia had already sunk two wooden warships the day before. Even if she had gone down she had already demonstrated what an ironclad could do to what the USN mostly consisted of, wooden vessels.
So instead of being destroyed by here own crew here sinking in battle not change much compared to our history.
 
So instead of being destroyed by here own crew here sinking in battle not change much compared to our history.

One thing that would change is that McClellan would have full use of the James River for transports, supplies, and gunboat support from the outset of the Peninsula campaign.

Conversely, if Monitor were sunk and Virginia still operational, landing the army at Fortress Monroe would be problematical. Historically that movement did not get underway until after the Hampton Roads battle.
 
More telling perhaps was the fact that the Monitor was restricted by the Navy Department to using 15 pound explosive charges with her twin 11” Dahlgren guns, rather than the 30 pound double-charges later authorized. Lt. Greene of the Monitor later commented that had 30 pound charges been used, it was probable that the shots would have penetrated the Virginia’s casemate, this was latter conformed in a test conducted after the battle which showed that if the Monitor had used 25lb or 30lb gunpowder charges that its 11-inch guns would have punctured the Virginia’s hull with relative ease at close ranges.

No 11" was ever fired in action with 30 lbs powder. They were only proofed to 25 lbs of common powder. The proofing of a 11" Dahlgren was 10 fires with 15 lb charges and a shell, and a single fire with a 25 lb charge and a shot.

In 1862 there was only one issue charge, the 15 lb charge. Later (1864) a 20 lb charge was authorised for far or battering. It does seem that at this time most ships were issued the slow burning DuPont No. 7 powder instead of the faster burning and more stressful Common.

The heaviest charge used in action was a 25 lb charge, and it was used twice, which brings me onto another story.

At Hampton Roads the Monitor had aboard 10 wrought iron balls which had been especially made. In the hurry they had not been gauged and so it was not known whether it was safe to fire them. If any one of them had been 0.1" too wide then they would have burst the gun. They were not fired and were offloaded after Hampton Roads.

Now, in 1864 Admiral Farragut read an article in "Scientific American" about recent Prussian experiments with steel shot. He asked for some steel shot for his guns, but the US had none and no capability to produce them. What they had was six of the 11" wrought iron shot made in 1862 and they sent them down to him. He issued them to USS Winnebago (2 rounds) and Chickasaw (4 rounds). They were used in action against the Tennessee.

The Winnebago reports firing 52x 15 lb charges (for cast iron shot, shell, shrapnel and even grape!) and 2x 25 lb proof charges (with the wrought iron shot) during Mobile Bay in August '64, but doesn't break them down to those fired against Tennessee and those fired at the batteries. However of these only 14 are common shot, and we can assume she didn't try and fire shell at the Tennessee.

The Chickasaw breaks down what she fired at what - she fired 52 times against Tennessee, all with 20 lb charges (the maximum authorised). Of these 48 were common shot and 4 wrought iron shot.

None of the 11" were effective, even the wrought iron shot with proof charges.

Now this is Tennessee, and she was armoured a bit differently. It appears the Shelby iron was of lower quality than Tredegar, but the Tennessee had an extra 1" layer on her side armour. Virginia I had 2x 2" layers, Tennessee 2x 2" layers plus an extra 1" layer on the sides and 2" forward, but in places had only 1x 2" and 1x 1" due to a lack of iron.

I strongly doubt that even at proof the 11" of the Monitor could have made a penetration.
 
Back
Top