[Album] HMS Warrior, the first battleship

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 haven't seen much about range/penetration tables for Civil War artillery but this webpage gives a pause for thought:
http://www.navalhistory.org/2016/01/11/ ... shell-guns
Just under the diagram of the Monitor type turret is the following passage:
The IX-inch gun was the most common broadside carriage-mounted gun in the Union Navy, and the XI-incher was the most widely used pivot-mounted gun. The latter’s shell could pierce 4.5 inches of plate iron backed by 20 inches of solid oak. The XV-inch guns, which weighed 43,000 pounds and debuted in 1862, were even more powerful and were mounted in the larger Union monitors.

Early on, the Dahlgren guns could have been even more powerful. The explosion of the large “Peacemaker” wrought-iron gun on board the steam sloop PRINCETON in February 1844 had led the Navy to issue a regulation imposing sharply reduced allowable powder charges. This regulation was still in effect when the Union MONITOR engaged the CSS VIRGINIA in Hampton Roads on 9 March 1862. There is considerable truth to MONITOR designer John Ericsson’s claim that had the MONITOR’s two XI-inch Dahlgrens been firing full powder charges with the guns aimed at the Virginia’s waterline, the Confederate warship would have been sent to the bottom.

CSS Virginia had 4" iron armor backed by 20" of oak at a roughly 45 degree incline. HMS Warrior had 4.5" of iron, backed by 18" of teak on the hull plating, BUT WAS VERTICAL.

doug941 wrote:

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 haven't seen much about range/penetration tables for Civil War artillery but this webpage gives a pause for thought:
http://www.navalhistory.org/2016/01/11/ ... shell-guns
Just under the diagram of the Monitor type turret is the following passage:
The IX-inch gun was the most common broadside carriage-mounted gun in the Union Navy, and the XI-incher was the most widely used pivot-mounted gun. The latter’s shell could pierce 4.5 inches of plate iron backed by 20 inches of solid oak. The XV-inch guns, which weighed 43,000 pounds and debuted in 1862, were even more powerful and were mounted in the larger Union monitors.

Early on, the Dahlgren guns could have been even more powerful. The explosion of the large “Peacemaker” wrought-iron gun on board the steam sloop PRINCETON in February 1844 had led the Navy to issue a regulation imposing sharply reduced allowable powder charges. This regulation was still in effect when the Union MONITOR engaged the CSS VIRGINIA in Hampton Roads on 9 March 1862. There is considerable truth to MONITOR designer John Ericsson’s claim that had the MONITOR’s two XI-inch Dahlgrens been firing full powder charges with the guns aimed at the Virginia’s waterline, the Confederate warship would have been sent to the bottom.

CSS Virginia had 4" iron armor backed by 20" of oak at a roughly 45 degree incline. HMS Warrior had 4.5" of iron, backed by 18" of teak on the hull plating, BUT WAS VERTICAL.

The big issue is that all US armour was laminated layers of no more than 2 inches in each layer, the British armour was both full depth 4.5 solid. It was but also a naturally more resistant material as at that time they had a notable metalurgy lead. I have seen quotes of 20% stronger suggested as the level of difference in base material which is then doubled to close to 50% stronger than Union or Confederate armour by being solid plates rather than laminates.

Silverwall wrote:The big issue is that all US armour was laminated layers of no more than 2 inches in each layer, the British armour was both full depth 4.5 solid. It was but also a naturally more resistant material as at that time they had a notable metalurgy lead. I have seen quotes of 20% stronger suggested as the level of difference in base material which is then doubled to close to 50% stronger than Union or Confederate armour by being solid plates rather than laminates.

Firstly, this isn't right. The laminated armore were used only for coastal and river monitors, to make them cheaper and quicker to build. The large Union ironclads - "New Ironsides", "Roanok", "Dictator" - used solid plates (exept on their turrets, where the laminated plates were easier to bend)

Secondly, it would be pretty hard for "Warrior" to hit the "Monitor" on anything like optimal angle. Any hits in the deck or sides would be glancing. And the turret have the round forms, which helped to deflect the shells.

One thing most don't realize is that Great Britain had a large fleet of gunboats designed for shore bombardment. I think a group of them might be the best thing to use against a monitor. But still the monitors did provide the Union with formidable harbour defence vessels.
But the union only had one ironclad that was effective on the open ocean. The New Ironsides was well armed and armoured but much slower than British ironclads. The British had several.
The Union had far fewer steam powered wooden ships than the British. They had no steam powered ships of the line and fewer frigates and sloops. They were slower than their British counterparts because of inferior engines. The British could release most of their ships of the line to join the frigates in raider hunting. They were fast enough to catch American frigates. Union commerce raiders would have been a major danger but would have suffered heavy losses.
I Harrison's book the American forces win at sea by author fiat. On land the Union Army later in the war probably did outmatch those of European powers though again the author probably gives them more advantages than they had.

JustCurious wrote:One thing most don't realize is that Great Britain had a large fleet of gunboats designed for shore bombardment. I think a group of them might be the best thing to use against a monitor.

There is at least three problems.

1) The Britain FORMALLY have a large fleet of gunboats, buuild during the Crimean War. But ten year passed, and this gunboats, and this gunboats - build from unseasoned wood - generally were left to decay. In 1860, on Haslar gunboat yard, of 47 stored gunboat only 22 were fit for service.

2) This gunboats were small and weakly armed by the 1860s standards. The average crimean war-type gunboat was about 200-250 tons in displacement, have a speed around 7-8 knots and was armed with one 68-pdr and one 32-pdr gun.

For example, the Civil War Era "Unadilla"-class gunboat of Union Navy have a displacement about 690 tons, could achieve 10 knot and was armed with one 11-inch Dahlgren, two 20-pdr guns and two 20-pdr rifled Parrots - more than twice as heavy. Even the smaller, sidewheeled Union gunboats usually was much better armed than old britain.

3) The Royal Navy simply didn't have enough crews to comission any number of gunboats fast. Each of them required 36-40 sailors and officers - and the XIX-century Royal Navy, of course, never have standing reserve really large.

But the union only had one ironclad that was effective on the open ocean. The New Ironsides was well armed and armoured but much slower than British ironclads.

Well, they didn't have much ocean-capable ironclads just because they didn't need them. They fight against the Confederacy ships in coastal waters, where the ocean-capable ships weren't effective.

But, actually they could easily have two more ironclads. There were two large ironclads that were build in New York for Italian Navy. If the Union Navy needed them, they could easily comission them.

The Union had far fewer steam powered wooden ships than the British. They had no steam powered ships of the line and fewer frigates and sloops.

Basically the RN's ship-of-the-line were of almost no value. They weren't much more powerfull than large steam frigates, but they need much more crews (to man almost useless 32-pdr non-shell guns)

About the sloops and small ships... Well, the average situation was that Union Navy have about 2/3 of Royal Navy units in this classes during the Civil War.

The British could release most of their ships of the line to join the frigates in raider hunting.

This would be a completely ineffective waste of manpower and money. The Union navy would probqably use their sloops and armed steamers, not the frigates for raiding. The british ship-of-the-lines wouldn't be able to even chase them. They could only use them as a sort-of convoy protection (and the large Union rifles generally make this too dangerous for ship-of-the-lines)

I Harrison's book the American forces win at sea by author fiat. On land the Union Army later in the war probably did outmatch those of European powers though again the author probably gives them more advantages than they had.

I agree that the situation was more complicated, but frankly, it wasn't one-sided "Royal navy rule!" situation. The Royal Navy in 1862-1864 was pretty weak; they have less ironclads than France, their coastal forces simply did not exist, and their artillery was unworkable. If they would enter the civil war, they wouldn't be able to do a lot; they could probably force the Union to lift the blockade of several Confederacy ports, but they would be clearly unable to attack Union ports or even blockade them.

Silverwall wrote:

doug941 wrote:I haven't seen much about range/penetration tables for Civil War artillery but this webpage gives a pause for thought:
http://www.navalhistory.org/2016/01/11/ ... shell-guns
Just under the diagram of the Monitor type turret is the following passage:
The IX-inch gun was the most common broadside carriage-mounted gun in the Union Navy, and the XI-incher was the most widely used pivot-mounted gun. The latter’s shell could pierce 4.5 inches of plate iron backed by 20 inches of solid oak. The XV-inch guns, which weighed 43,000 pounds and debuted in 1862, were even more powerful and were mounted in the larger Union monitors.

Early on, the Dahlgren guns could have been even more powerful. The explosion of the large “Peacemaker” wrought-iron gun on board the steam sloop PRINCETON in February 1844 had led the Navy to issue a regulation imposing sharply reduced allowable powder charges. This regulation was still in effect when the Union MONITOR engaged the CSS VIRGINIA in Hampton Roads on 9 March 1862. There is considerable truth to MONITOR designer John Ericsson’s claim that had the MONITOR’s two XI-inch Dahlgrens been firing full powder charges with the guns aimed at the Virginia’s waterline, the Confederate warship would have been sent to the bottom.

CSS Virginia had 4" iron armor backed by 20" of oak at a roughly 45 degree incline. HMS Warrior had 4.5" of iron, backed by 18" of teak on the hull plating, BUT WAS VERTICAL.

The big issue is that all US armour was laminated layers of no more than 2 inches in each layer, the British armour was both full depth 4.5 solid. It was but also a naturally more resistant material as at that time they had a notable metalurgy lead. I have seen quotes of 20% stronger suggested as the level of difference in base material which is then doubled to close to 50% stronger than Union or Confederate armour by being solid plates rather than laminates.

You're missing the very important piece that inclined plate plays here. A 45 degree angled belt made up of 4" iron actually equals approx 5 2/3" in regards to horizontal fire, remember A^2 + B^2=C^2? And the 20" oak backing becomes equivalent to 28 1/4". A second point is inclined armor causes ricochets in the same manner as a billiard pool bouncing off of the side of a pool table as long as the shell is a sphere or a very blunt shell. This means even with inferior plates, the protection can be better.

When the British surrendered at Yorktown they had less than 5000 troops, Grant had over 100,000 and Sherman had 60,000 when he left Alanta. I believe Sherman's army at that time was the most awesome army on Earth, the results of the British entering the war would be the loss of Canada. "Trump would not be able to complain about Cruze's birthplace"

Getting back to the original tone of the post one of the little remembered features of the original Warrior was how much thought was given to the liveability of the ship. It had well laid out spaces and even a dedicated laundry with actual washing machines (Hand powered) and a generally high quality of internal fittings. Many of these features did not become standard in naval design until after 1900.

In any endurance situation Warriors crew would perform notably better than an opponents because of this attention to morale and comfort. She was also designed explicitly for power projection and was expected to land a naval brigade of up to ~250 marines and sailors to project power inland and had a large armoury of muskets and sabres to support this.

Silverwall wrote:Getting back to the original tone of the post one of the little remembered features of the original Warrior was how much thought was given to the liveability of the ship. It had well laid out spaces and even a dedicated laundry with actual washing machines (Hand powered) and a generally high quality of internal fittings. Many of these features did not become standard in naval design until after 1900.

In any endurance situation Warriors crew would perform notably better than an opponents because of this attention to morale and comfort. She was also designed explicitly for power projection and was expected to land a naval brigade of up to ~250 marines and sailors to project power inland and had a large armoury of muskets and sabres to support this.

In other therms - Royal Navy have troubles with understanding for what reason they need ironclads, and build the ship that was more effective in frigate duties than in ship-of-the-line.