[Album] HMS Warrior, the first battleship

6L6 wrote:So I would think that the Monitor could easily follow behind the Warrior shooting straight through her.

In coastal waters - yes. The "Warrior", fighting in coastal waters of Hampton Roads (or Riga Gulf) would have a lot of problems with maneuvering. The "Monitor" would be able to easily use shallow waters to came close and either break the armor on point-blanc range, or devastate the unarmored ends of british ironclad.

Dilandu wrote:

6L6 wrote:So I would think that the Monitor could easily follow behind the Warrior shooting straight through her.

In coastal waters - yes. The "Warrior", fighting in coastal waters of Hampton Roads (or Riga Gulf) would have a lot of problems with maneuvering. The "Monitor" would be able to easily use shallow waters to came close and either break the armor on point-blanc range, or devastate the unarmored ends of british ironclad.

It is well understood by naval historians (and a lot of dilettantes) that Monitor and her early successors had lousy sea keeping abilities (and limited range). Monitor had 1Ft of freeboard with an armored deck, and has been argued that it should be classed as a submarine. There is a very good reason RFC put Keelboards on Charis' Ironclads.

The Monitor was a death trap in open ocean but I think we were talking about the Warrior coming over here if the British became involved in the war. The Warrior had 26 8 inch guns and a number of smaller ones but the Monitor's two 11 inchers could have gutted the Warrior.

6L6 wrote:The Monitor was a death trap in open ocean but I think we were talking about the Warrior coming over here if the British became involved in the war. The Warrior had 26 8 inch guns and a number of smaller ones but the Monitor's two 11 inchers could have gutted the Warrior.

On the other hand the SS Great Eastern, while only a passenger liner, was faster (at 14 knots top speed) than any ship the Union had and probably could have run over the Monitor without any risk of sinking.

She actually did sail passengers to New York during the Civil War. But lost money at it; eventually ending up as a cable laying ship due to her vast (for the time) size and range, and the maneuverability from the paddle wheels supplementing her propeller probably didn't hurt when fishing for a broken cable.


On a slightly more serious note I think the Crimean War screw batteries were in many ways comparable to the early Union and Confederate coastal ironclads; and the British and French had built a number of them in the 1850's to duel with Russian shore batteries. If they could have gotten those across the Atlantic they were probably a better design for coastal combat than trying to make HMS Warrior fight a screw powered ironclad in confined waters.

I hate to be a partypoop guys but we have to assume the Brits,and especially W's captain, would have some awareness of her limitations. So doesn't it seem a tad bit unrealistic to think she'd be going into shallow, narrow coastal waters where Monitor could get at her?

During the War of 1812 the British Fleet spent a lot of time in the Chesapeake Bay from where they burnt Washington. I believe they would have to come in close to do a lot of damage. Also the North soon had more Monitors.

In confined waters Monitor can outmanouver warrior and may - may eventually score a crippling hit on the rudder the one true weak spot on Warrior. Reported tests suggest that even at full power the 15" Dhalgren was Iffy penetration vs the superior British armour. Monitor only had the 11"

http://www.amazon.com/Oscar-Parkes/e/B0 ... ont_book_1

In open water Monitor is dead meat as it is painfully slow, easy to swamp and if the warrior can depress enough to get a downward hit on the deck will wreck the monitor, the pitiful rate of fire cause be the terrifying overcrowding turret of monitor will not scare warrior in the open ocean. 1 shot per 10 minutes is not scary.

a not completely jingoistic discussion of this theoretical fight was held on an alt histroy forum a few years ago based on Harry Harrisons rediculous civil war alt history.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discuss ... p=10944924

Lets be nice to Harry and say that in terms of naval knowledge he would not be worthy of cleaning mud off RFCs boots.

I also suggest http://www.wargames.co.uk/RandomS/Library/Warrior.htm on the topics of W v M

Silverwall wrote:In confined waters Monitor can outmanouver warrior and may - may eventually score a crippling hit on the rudder the one true weak spot on Warrior. Reported tests suggest that even at full power the 15" Dhalgren was Iffy penetration vs the superior British armour. Monitor only had the 11"

http://www.amazon.com/Oscar-Parkes/e/B0 ... ont_book_1

In open water Monitor is dead meat as it is painfully slow, easy to swamp and if the warrior can depress enough to get a downward hit on the deck will wreck the monitor, the pitiful rate of fire cause be the terrifying overcrowding turret of monitor will not scare warrior in the open ocean. 1 shot per 10 minutes is not scary.

a not completely jingoistic discussion of this theoretical fight was held on an alt histroy forum a few years ago based on Harry Harrisons rediculous civil war alt history.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discuss ... p=10944924

Lets be nice to Harry and say that in terms of naval knowledge he would not be worthy of cleaning mud off RFCs boots.

I also suggest http://www.wargames.co.uk/RandomS/Library/Warrior.htm on the topics of W v M

I am SOOOOOO glad I am not the only person of that opinion about Harry Harrison's tall tale. (Or Harry Turtledove's Civil War to WWII series as well)

Silverwall wrote:In confined waters Monitor can outmanouver warrior and may - may eventually score a crippling hit on the rudder the one true weak spot on Warrior. Reported tests suggest that even at full power the 15" Dhalgren was Iffy penetration vs the superior British armour. Monitor only had the 11"

http://www.amazon.com/Oscar-Parkes/e/B0 ... ont_book_1

In open water Monitor is dead meat as it is painfully slow, easy to swamp and if the warrior can depress enough to get a downward hit on the deck will wreck the monitor, the pitiful rate of fire cause be the terrifying overcrowding turret of monitor will not scare warrior in the open ocean. 1 shot per 10 minutes is not scary.

a not completely jingoistic discussion of this theoretical fight was held on an alt histroy forum a few years ago based on Harry Harrisons rediculous civil war alt history.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discuss ... p=10944924

Lets be nice to Harry and say that in terms of naval knowledge he would not be worthy of cleaning mud off RFCs boots.

I also suggest http://www.wargames.co.uk/RandomS/Library/Warrior.htm on the topics of W v M

I am SOOOOOO glad I am not the only person of that opinion about Harry Harrison's tall tale. (Or Harry Turtledove's Civil War to WWII series as well)

I am SOOOOOO glad I am not the only person of that opinion about Harry Harrison's tall tale. (Or Harry Turtledove's Civil War to WWII series as well)

Count me in also.