Who would win in a sea engagement between HMS Warrior and the USS Monitor? Why?
Here is one excerpt I read already. Please tell me if this sounds right or is it utter hogwash?
"This is an incredible image and it brings up a lot of interesting what-if questions. Ironclad battles at this time were often rather anticlimactic since the abilities of iron armor usually outstripped the destructive capability of cannon technology at the time- they were limited in velocity due to using black powder rather than modern nitrocellulose propellant. The best analogy I can think of would be a land war where everyone is wearing full body armor but carrying a single-shot .22. Virginia and Monitor both survived their first 4-hour engagement with overall relatively minor damage. The Monitor's massive 11-inch guns weren't firing at full charge due to concerns about catastrophic failure since this battle was pretty much it's shakedown cruise, and until a lucky hit on the pilot house's viewing slats the Virginia's 6 and 9 cannons couldn't do much to the Monitor's 9 inch thick turret armor (attempts to ram the Monitor actually only damaged Virginia.)
The Warrior and Black Prince were faster and much more capable of handling rough seas, but from all accounts a river monitor would have had a faster rate of turn due to being much shorter. The Monitor-class ships were also capable of entering waters that the Warrior could never dream of- specifically, shallow, narrow rivers- which gives them a viable escape method from the Warrior's far superior speed. This also gives the monitors somewhat of a logistical advantage in the long run (since I don't think a single battle would decide the fate of these ships) as the larger vessels would be dependent on rarer dedicated harbors to safely resupply and repair whereas a monitor could duck into a river and be tended anywhere that supplies could be moved. In terms of armor Warrior had 4.5 inches of iron armor over 18 inches of teak above the waterline, while Monitor had 9 inches of iron on the turret and a belt that from what I can tell was about 5 inches of dedicated armor over a 6 inch iron stringer. The Monitor's armament was two 11-inch cannon in a traversable turret. Warrior had 26x 4.5 inch cannon, 10x 7-inch cannon, and 4x 8.12 inch cannon in fixed broadside positions which allowed high rates of smaller-caliber fire but only in a rigidly-fixed broadside.
When loaded to full power (as they were after the battle with Virginia when time allowed them to be properly proofed) the Monitor-class ships had cannon far superior to anything on the British ships. With a 360 degree firing arc they could have defeated the 4.5" iron armor on the Warrior, especially at the point-blank ranges for which the monitors were meant to fight (and is depicted here.) However the Warrior was a big ship and barring a hit to the magazines it could have soaked up lots of damage simply by virtue of sheer mass, meaning it would take Monitor lots of time to score a fatal hit with only two guns. If things got too dire the Warrior could have simple dropped sail and, with a good wind, ran at more than twice a monitor's top speed. Conversely since the Warrior had a lot of guns but they were smaller-caliber and mounted high to engage other large, tall ironclads with thinner armor, not low-profile floating fortresses like the monitors. The Monitor's superior armor allowed it to survive dozens of hits from the Virginia's 6 and 9 inch guns and it's low profile let it evade over 100 more but out of the 40 guns the Warrior carried only 14 were comparable in power to the Virginia's. The rest were 4.5" guns designed more to engage wooden tall ships at range, and they probably would have had little effect on the 9" armor of the Monitor. Then there's the question of whether or not the Warrior could even depress it's guns enough to easily hit the monitors at the range depicted here, whereas the monitor's guns are right at the waterline of it's opponent. The US also had numbers on their side- even assuming they would be able to spare both ships in the face of French ambitions, the original reason for both ships- it would have been Warrior and Black Prince vs over 49 Union monitors, many much more advanced than the Monitor-class (15 inch guns, dual turrets, better armor, improved pilothouse, higher speed, etc.) The Monitor itself, the prototype, was laid down in only 119 days and the delivery target time for later ships was 90 days. I can only imagine dozens more would have been built in the face of the threat presented by direct British intervention.
The logical outcome to this particular situation in my mind? The big British capital ships would take severe but repairable damage, having ample time to retreat easily leaving the monitors behind thanks to their high speed and the slow rate of fire afforded by only two cannon per enemy ship. Neither ship here is actually fighting the enemy it was designed to counter so they're both ill-suited for the task. As another poster commented this would probably kick off an arms race with the lesson learned don't get your big ship with thin armor and little guns get close to a little ship with thick armor and big guns. Warrior and Black Prince would come back with heavier cannon (and probably escorted by smaller ships like steam skiffs equipped with spar torpedoes since the monitors lacked the kind of armament needed to deal with multiple small ships) while attempting to use their superior speed and upgraded broadside to kill the monitors at range. In response you'd see more seaworthy Union ironclads like the USS New Ironsides being built to counter, and so on and so forth. "
If the two ships had to fight and could not run, who would win?
Some other questions to consider. This way people can open their minds to more than just one dimension of thinking. Other possibilities should be explored as well.
Who would win between Great Britain and the United States, if the countries went to war, during the Civil War? What were the capabilities of both fleets? Finally, what tactics would they use to destroy each other? What other countries potentially might enter the conflict on either side? What would they bring to the table? I know it is speculation, but I am interested in any feedback. This could have turned into a World War! Thank you!
Here is one excerpt I read already. Please tell me if this sounds right or is it utter hogwash?
"This is an incredible image and it brings up a lot of interesting what-if questions. Ironclad battles at this time were often rather anticlimactic since the abilities of iron armor usually outstripped the destructive capability of cannon technology at the time- they were limited in velocity due to using black powder rather than modern nitrocellulose propellant. The best analogy I can think of would be a land war where everyone is wearing full body armor but carrying a single-shot .22. Virginia and Monitor both survived their first 4-hour engagement with overall relatively minor damage. The Monitor's massive 11-inch guns weren't firing at full charge due to concerns about catastrophic failure since this battle was pretty much it's shakedown cruise, and until a lucky hit on the pilot house's viewing slats the Virginia's 6 and 9 cannons couldn't do much to the Monitor's 9 inch thick turret armor (attempts to ram the Monitor actually only damaged Virginia.)
The Warrior and Black Prince were faster and much more capable of handling rough seas, but from all accounts a river monitor would have had a faster rate of turn due to being much shorter. The Monitor-class ships were also capable of entering waters that the Warrior could never dream of- specifically, shallow, narrow rivers- which gives them a viable escape method from the Warrior's far superior speed. This also gives the monitors somewhat of a logistical advantage in the long run (since I don't think a single battle would decide the fate of these ships) as the larger vessels would be dependent on rarer dedicated harbors to safely resupply and repair whereas a monitor could duck into a river and be tended anywhere that supplies could be moved. In terms of armor Warrior had 4.5 inches of iron armor over 18 inches of teak above the waterline, while Monitor had 9 inches of iron on the turret and a belt that from what I can tell was about 5 inches of dedicated armor over a 6 inch iron stringer. The Monitor's armament was two 11-inch cannon in a traversable turret. Warrior had 26x 4.5 inch cannon, 10x 7-inch cannon, and 4x 8.12 inch cannon in fixed broadside positions which allowed high rates of smaller-caliber fire but only in a rigidly-fixed broadside.
When loaded to full power (as they were after the battle with Virginia when time allowed them to be properly proofed) the Monitor-class ships had cannon far superior to anything on the British ships. With a 360 degree firing arc they could have defeated the 4.5" iron armor on the Warrior, especially at the point-blank ranges for which the monitors were meant to fight (and is depicted here.) However the Warrior was a big ship and barring a hit to the magazines it could have soaked up lots of damage simply by virtue of sheer mass, meaning it would take Monitor lots of time to score a fatal hit with only two guns. If things got too dire the Warrior could have simple dropped sail and, with a good wind, ran at more than twice a monitor's top speed. Conversely since the Warrior had a lot of guns but they were smaller-caliber and mounted high to engage other large, tall ironclads with thinner armor, not low-profile floating fortresses like the monitors. The Monitor's superior armor allowed it to survive dozens of hits from the Virginia's 6 and 9 inch guns and it's low profile let it evade over 100 more but out of the 40 guns the Warrior carried only 14 were comparable in power to the Virginia's. The rest were 4.5" guns designed more to engage wooden tall ships at range, and they probably would have had little effect on the 9" armor of the Monitor. Then there's the question of whether or not the Warrior could even depress it's guns enough to easily hit the monitors at the range depicted here, whereas the monitor's guns are right at the waterline of it's opponent. The US also had numbers on their side- even assuming they would be able to spare both ships in the face of French ambitions, the original reason for both ships- it would have been Warrior and Black Prince vs over 49 Union monitors, many much more advanced than the Monitor-class (15 inch guns, dual turrets, better armor, improved pilothouse, higher speed, etc.) The Monitor itself, the prototype, was laid down in only 119 days and the delivery target time for later ships was 90 days. I can only imagine dozens more would have been built in the face of the threat presented by direct British intervention.
The logical outcome to this particular situation in my mind? The big British capital ships would take severe but repairable damage, having ample time to retreat easily leaving the monitors behind thanks to their high speed and the slow rate of fire afforded by only two cannon per enemy ship. Neither ship here is actually fighting the enemy it was designed to counter so they're both ill-suited for the task. As another poster commented this would probably kick off an arms race with the lesson learned don't get your big ship with thin armor and little guns get close to a little ship with thick armor and big guns. Warrior and Black Prince would come back with heavier cannon (and probably escorted by smaller ships like steam skiffs equipped with spar torpedoes since the monitors lacked the kind of armament needed to deal with multiple small ships) while attempting to use their superior speed and upgraded broadside to kill the monitors at range. In response you'd see more seaworthy Union ironclads like the USS New Ironsides being built to counter, and so on and so forth. "
If the two ships had to fight and could not run, who would win?
Some other questions to consider. This way people can open their minds to more than just one dimension of thinking. Other possibilities should be explored as well.
Who would win between Great Britain and the United States, if the countries went to war, during the Civil War? What were the capabilities of both fleets? Finally, what tactics would they use to destroy each other? What other countries potentially might enter the conflict on either side? What would they bring to the table? I know it is speculation, but I am interested in any feedback. This could have turned into a World War! Thank you!
