Iron Clads

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Point of interest, the monitor Tecumseh, which was sunk in the battle of Mobile, still rest on the bottom there. My brother has dove on it, saying only the top of the turret is visible. However, since that time hurricane Ivan visited and now I understand that it is completely buried. There is quite a controversy considering how it sank. Tradition says it was a mine. If it was it was the only one that was working in Mobile bay. Confederate mines tended to leak. I am surprised that there has been no effort to raise her. Monitors are significant vessels since they were the first to use turrets and none exist, except part of the original Monitor. I guess cost is the reason.

Also, somewhere in Mobile bay a Civil War submarine, a sister ship of the Hunley, is suppose to be on the bottom. It sank while being towed for a test. It has never been found. It was probably destroyed by dredges.
 
trackend said:
HMS Warrior (1860) 9210 tonnes that is on display at Portsmouth was the UK's first Ship clad in wrought iron although powered by steam she retained masts and sails and in her day was impervious to the most powerful guns available including her own 110lb breech loaders.
This site gives all the details HMS Warrior 1860 - Welcome on Board - Page 1 of 2


Ive been to her. I need to find my pics, whereever they are.
 
davparlr said:
Point of interest, the monitor Tecumseh, which was sunk in the battle of Mobile, still rest on the bottom there. My brother has dove on it, saying only the top of the turret is visible. However, since that time hurricane Ivan visited and now I understand that it is completely buried. There is quite a controversy considering how it sank. Tradition says it was a mine. If it was it was the only one that was working in Mobile bay. Confederate mines tended to leak. I am surprised that there has been no effort to raise her. Monitors are significant vessels since they were the first to use turrets and none exist, except part of the original Monitor. I guess cost is the reason.

Also, somewhere in Mobile bay a Civil War submarine, a sister ship of the Hunley, is suppose to be on the bottom. It sank while being towed for a test. It has never been found. It was probably destroyed by dredges.

Not only cost but the effect such as damge it would have on the ship.
 
trackend said:
HMS Warrior (1860) 9210 tonnes that is on display at Portsmouth was the UK's first Ship clad in wrought iron although powered by steam she retained masts and sails and in her day was impervious to the most powerful guns available including her own 110lb breech loaders.
This site gives all the details HMS Warrior 1860 - Welcome on Board - Page 1 of 2
HMS Warrior isn't an ironclad, she's more advanced than that, she is in fact, an iron hulled warship.
 
Found a little book that was pretty straight on with the developement and battle between monitor and Merrimac.

"Monitor" by James Fertius deKay

Nice afternoon reading.
 
Found a little book that was pretty straight on with the developement and battle between monitor and Merrimac.

"Monitor" by James Fertius deKay

Nice afternoon reading.

The Merrimac was the name of the Union ship that was scuttled and sank. The ship was raised and rebuilt and christened C.S.S. Virginia. This is the proper name for the ship.
 
:oops: I knew that. Just had a senior moment.

If you can get the book its pretty well objective about the evnts bringing about the Monitor. good read.


No problem, I am sure I that I have done that and will again.

I just saw a TV show about Civil War weapons. They actually walked around in the recovered Monitor turret, it was upside down because it rested on the bottom that way. They showed that one of the Virginia's shot almost penetrated the turret. They also said that the Virginia was hit only 20 times and the Monitor only 24, I believe. Not much rate of fire and/or accuracy there.
 
There is a pic i that book I mentioned that shows some serious prangs on the Monitor. could've been one of those.

Must a been a hell'ava fight at that range with those cannons. I'll have to find the book but I think they were using the latest Krupp cannons.
 
The guns used in the battle were all of American design and manufacture, U.S. (Dahlgrens) and C.S. (Brooke).

USS Monitor mounted two 11-inch Dahlgren smooth-bores.

CSS Virginia had two pivot mounted 7-inch Brooke rifled guns fore and aft. Broadside guns consisted of two 6.4-inch Brooke rifled guns and six 9-inch Dahlgren smooth bores.

The rifled guns designed by John Mercer Brooke used bands of wrought iron shrunk around the breech area for reinforcement similar to the Parrott rifles. The first seven 7-inch rifles manufactured were Dahlgren 9-inch gun blocks bored out to 7-inch, rifled and banded.

The Dahlgren 11-inch smoothbore could fire shells needed to destroy wooden ships but was also robust enough to fire 168-lb solid shot to pierce armor. The guns on the USS Monitor did not use the recommended 20 or even 30 lb for gun powder propellent out of caution. As a result, the shots failed to pierce the Virginia's armor.

In the Mobile Bay battle against the ironclad C.S.S. Tennessee with 6-inch iron plate armor (compared to 4-inch in the Virginia), 20 and 25lb powder charge were used in the Dahlgren 11-inch smoothbores firing steel and iron shots.

Twin turret monitor USS Winnebago fired two 11-shots using 25lb powder charges.

Twin turret monitor USS Chickasaw positioned herself astern of the Tennessee and proceeded to pound her with 52 11-inch shots (48 iron and 4 steel) fired using 20lb charge. Many were fired at the ridiculously short range of 10 to 50 yd. The smoke stack of the Tennessee was shot away which reduced her speed. The shot that severed the steering chains probably came from the Chickasaw also. Much of the external fittings on the Tennessee were shot away. Most important were the chains opening the gun ports which, once shot away, left the heavy armored gun port doors shut under gravity preventing the guns from being fired. The armor casement at the stern of the Tennessee was severely weakened by the pounding. However, none of the 11-inch shot fire with 20lb of powder managed to pierce the 6-inch iron plate.

How that combination would have fared against the thinner 4-inch iron plate on the C.S.S. Virginia is open to speculation. But the Tennessee's armor was decisively penetrated in the battle. This was achieved by the portside 15-inch Dahlgren smoothbore on U.S.S. Manhattan.

USS Manhattan was a large single turret monitor. One of her two guns (starboard) fouled in the vent and could not be fired during the action. Her remaining gun fired six projectiles at the Tennessee, one shell, two solid shot and three steel core shots. Of these, four were claimed as hits, one shell, three 15-inch solid shots with 60lb of powder and four 15-inch steel cored shot fired with 50lb of powder. One shot on the port beam penetrated the iron plate and smashed the wood backing, going clean through the ship.

With no steering and the prospect of more penetrations of her armor, the C.S.S. Tennessee finally surrendered.
 
there was a monitor boat the yanks designed to use optional sails for emergency. i don't know if they ever built it. it was probably a pipe dream.

i think the great development was mostly the revolving turret!

engine power seems to have been the main confederate problem. the css arkansas was a mighty fierce creature. it's story is well told in the book 'iron clads'.

the 80's tv-movie 'ironclads' is fun to watch.

dj
 
virginia madsen is marvelous to view in (or out) of anything!!!! :)

rebs yanks fighting it out, a slimy villain, gun boats blazing, madsen to look at...what the heck is there of import not to like?

dj
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back