River monitors?

The naval warfare on Earth clearly demonstrated, that monitors (low-freeboard turret armoured ships) are perfect units for river warfare. In the confined space of the river, were the maneuvrability is strictly limited, the advantages of free arc of fire, provided by turrets, and the minimal weight of armour, clearly demonstrated their superiority. There was a lot of river monitors, build up until 1930th; on the other hand, the casemated river ironclads like "City"-class and USS "Essex" never was re-created (with the possible exclusion of brazilian river ironclads of Paraguaian War, but they were almost in the same time).

So... what about of river monitors for Charis? The current river and coastal ironclads are good as improvisation and in therms of "quicker and easier", but they are clearly inferior to the turret monitor designs. The river monitor need much less armor than casemate ironclad (it simply didn't need so many guns at all to do the job), have a less draft, and able to operate more effective.

Dilandu wrote:The naval warfare on Earth clearly demonstrated, that monitors (low-freeboard turret armoured ships) are perfect units for river warfare. In the confined space of the river, were the maneuvrability is strictly limited, the advantages of free arc of fire, provided by turrets, and the minimal weight of armour, clearly demonstrated their superiority. There was a lot of river monitors, build up until 1930th; on the other hand, the casemated river ironclads like "City"-class and USS "Essex" never was re-created (with the possible exclusion of brazilian river ironclads of Paraguaian War, but they were almost in the same time).

So... what about of river monitors for Charis? The current river and coastal ironclads are good as improvisation and in therms of "quicker and easier", but they are clearly inferior to the turret monitor designs. The river monitor need much less armor than casemate ironclad (it simply didn't need so many guns at all to do the job), have a less draft, and able to operate more effective.

I was going to go with a pun:
Merry Mac is sad that you know so much about the Monitor.
But, I've been warned.
Anyway, someone will point out that the Monitor never engaged the Merrimack. It was the USS Monitor vs. the CSS Virginia.
Anyone designing a Steam Powered Charisian Monitor has the advantages of correcting known faults.

Dilandu wrote:The naval warfare on Earth clearly demonstrated, that monitors (low-freeboard turret armoured ships) are perfect units for river warfare. In the confined space of the river, were the maneuvrability is strictly limited, the advantages of free arc of fire, provided by turrets, and the minimal weight of armour, clearly demonstrated their superiority. There was a lot of river monitors, build up until 1930th; on the other hand, the casemated river ironclads like "City"-class and USS "Essex" never was re-created (with the possible exclusion of brazilian river ironclads of Paraguaian War, but they were almost in the same time).

So... what about of river monitors for Charis? The current river and coastal ironclads are good as improvisation and in therms of "quicker and easier", but they are clearly inferior to the turret monitor designs. The river monitor need much less armor than casemate ironclad (it simply didn't need so many guns at all to do the job), have a less draft, and able to operate more effective.

These are good points. I suspect that the level of tech required to build the turreted monitors was a little higher that that required for the casemate ones. In addition, there is the problem of getting them from Charis where they are built to Siddermark, where they will be employed. The turreted monitors tended to not be very seaworthy, so sailing them from Charis to Siddermark could prove to be very dicey. I suspect until the tech level of Siddermark improves to the point that they can construct (or at least assemble) the turreted monitors, we are not going to see them.

TN4994 wrote:Anyway, someone will point out that the Monitor never engaged the Merrimack. It was the USS Monitor vs. the CSS Virginia.

Er, i knew it perfectly. And i mean something more like Missisippi-type river monitors, Eads designed

(In fact, I always felt sorry for James Eads. He invented the best turret up until 1880th - and Ericsson and Coles with their much less effective designs got all favour!)

These are good points. I suspect that the level of tech required to build the turreted monitors was a little higher that that required for the casemate ones.

Insignificanly. Of course, if you have industry like Confederacy (i.e. worse than even contemporary Ottoman Empire) it would be a problem. But slightly above that - there is no fundamental difficulty. The Union build more than forty monitors in 1862-1865.

The turreted monitors tended to not be very seaworthy,

Well, no river ironclad seaworthy at all. But the monitors have at least some chances; the river casemate ships... let just say, they could be either river, either seaworthy.

In addition, there is the problem of getting them from Charis where they are built to Siddermark, where they will be employed.

Well, "Onondaga" - perfectly river desing - crossed Atlantic in 1869, when she was sold to France. And "Atahulpa" and "Manco Capac" made way across South America to Peru.

And after all, we could always just disassemble them, transport as cargo, and reasssemble in Siddarmark. Not really a great problem. After all, we definitely need SOME sort of repair base created here!

The optimal, IMHO, is to divide the production.

The Siddarmarkian would build the wooden hulls of monitors. Then, the charisian-build machines, armor and turrets would be transported and installed. It wasn't too hard to build the 1860th style ironclad, if you have machines and armor: even the Confederacy was able to do it (well, their ironclads was generally bad ships, but it looks like that Charisian should be at least more technologicaly competent than secessionists!)

Why don't just make everything in Charis, put it onto military transport, ship it into Siddamark and there finish building of it?

Dilandu wrote:The optimal, IMHO, is to divide the production.

The Siddarmarkian would build the wooden hulls of monitors. Then, the charisian-build machines, armor and turrets would be transported and installed. It wasn't too hard to build the 1860th style ironclad, if you have machines and armor: even the Confederacy was able to do it (well, their ironclads was generally bad ships, but it looks like that Charisian should be at least more technologicaly competent than secessionists!)

Just a couple of random remarks here... The Confederacy specialized in plantations and other forms of agriculture and had comparatively little industry. The industrial plant was in the North. So what they accomplished with what they had given the improvising they had to do is to be admired.

Hummm... I wonder if RFC's choice of ironclad designs had anything to do with him living in the deep south... Nah, he wouldn't do that, not our noble author...

Don

Draken wrote:Why don't just make everything in Charis, put it onto military transport, ship it into Siddamark and there finish building of it?

Isn't time to give some celery stalks to Tarot and Emerald?
Are they building anything, supplying food, clothing, What?
Other than the naval base at Thol Bay in Tarot, what's happening?

Dilandu is probably right about the superiority of the monitor design. However, given the superiority of the current riverclads to any potential opposition they might be facing, there is really no need for a new design. This is simply not something anybody on the other sife is going to be able to match, at least for the current war.

Don

The series takes place in a time of such rapid tech growth, simlar to 1906 when the HMS Dreadnought was lanched and just a few years later when it was already outdated that I think that it might be a good idea to design these for a longer lifespan. After all the leaders have the history of Earth to study and use in order to avoid blind allys and obtain a working life close to the fifty years of some ships today.