"Were the Confederates Wrong About Ironclads?" Topic

When the Confederacy decided to convert the Merrimack into an ironclad, they forced the Union to develop its own ironclads.

Would it have been wiser for the Confederate Navy to avoid ironclad development?

Would it have been wiser for the Confederate Navy to avoid ironclad development?

That's just another variation on "we give up"; and if they can't break the blockade … well, they didn't and look how well that worked for them.

Maybe spend the money in England for more blockade runners/raiders? One of the most fun cases in my international law class was about the Alabama--sure beat tariff cases.

Ultimately it was going to happen anyway. Both England and France were actively developing ironclad ships with the French leading the way with and ocean going version in 1860 and England following suit a year later. So it may have hastened the inevitable by a year or so.

Would it have been wiser for the Confederate Navy to avoid ironclad development?

I don't think so. Even though the North was able to outproduce ironclad vessels, the South was determined to edge the North in terms of quality. The Albemarle (an Ironclad Ram) was a case in point. It took a specially-designed steam launch with a torpedo to destroy it

Also, what would they have developed in lieu of ironclads? Had they still developed torpedo/mine technology, they could have produced torpedo launch craft.

They also could have (had they enough gold coin) bought several warships from Europe. Historically, the CSA was slated to buy some vessels from the Netherlands, but they did not have enough gold.

The Confederacy's development of ironclads isn't what
stimulated the Federal government to build them.

'Virginia' was ordered in July, 1861, commissioned in
February, 1862, and completed (yes, backwards, isn't it)
in March, 1862.

Monitor was ordered in October, 1861, launched in
January, 1862, and completed in February, 1862.

HMS Warrior (iron-hulled armoured frigate) was ordered
in 1859, launched in 1860 and completed in August,
1861.

The French Ironclad 'Gloire' preceded HMS Warrior by
about a year, in all respects.

The stimulus for these vessels was the appearance during
the Crimean War of iron-sheathed floating batteries
which were used to bombard Russian artillery emplacements

So, wooden warships would ultimately be obsolete.

If you can't break the blockade you slowly starve and run out of supplies (this is exactly what happened), and breaking the blockade requires ships that are robust and powerful. In this light the Confederates didn't really have another choice, it was Ironclads or accept the blockade. In the event the Confederates were not able to build ships numerous or powerful enough to do the job, but it wasn't through lack of effort.

The Confederates were casting about for purchasing Ironclads from Europe. They had paid for two in England that were seized after the US ambassador complained and one in France (IIRC) that actually got underway but did not make it in time.

-Will

I would have to say that the South (and Mallory) made the best choice it could using a limited set of financial and industrial resources to fight a naval war.

I don't think so. They didn't have the industrial or technical base to compete fully with the North, but to avoid development would have been a bigger mistake.

I would have to say that the South (and Mallory) made the best choice it could using a limited set of financial and industrial resources to fight a naval war.

Well put.

Besides, if they hadn't, it would negate a whole category of naval wargaming. Can't have that!

Just read something that the British (?) had them at the Crimean War….?

Wrong? The Confederacy wrong? Impossible. They were not always right, but never, ever wrong.

In the West, the Federals developed ironclad vessels to allow them to reduce the Southern fortifications blocking the Mississippi River by pounding them at close range, not as a counter to Confederate ironclad development.

I once read a description of the war that stated that Lee's tactical opponent was the Army of the Potomac, but his strategic opponent was the US Navy. Given enough time, the US Navy would strangle the Confederacy.

That seems an apt description.

The Confederacy couldn't possibly put a sufficient navy at sea to defeat the US Navy and lift the blockade. Thus, any possibility of local superiority would have to be tried, to get a breathing space.

There must have been a bit of nervousness on other wooden US Navy ships when the stories of what happened in Hampton Roads got around.

Like tanks, the weakest point in a ship is the minds of the men inside it.

When the Confederacy decided to convert the Merrimack into an ironclad, they forced the Union to develop its own ironclads.
Would it have been wiser for the Confederate Navy to avoid ironclad development?

I don't think it was ever part of the conversion as to how far ironclad development would go, just we need this ship now.
if the Confederacy had ever thought anything through They would not have rebelled in the first place.

As I recall Ericsson had developed the design for the Monitor in response to the British military's aforementioned need for an armored gun platform in the Crimean War. British opted for the armored floating batteries instead (cost saving/speed of production(?) don't recall).

Ericsson then sold the idea to Lincoln when the Civil War started which is why the Monitor was available to counter the Merrimac/Virginia so quickly (see timeline above). As I recall, her maiden sea voyage was the trip to Hampton Roads.

The Confederate 'development' of ironclads essentially just gave the Monitor the chance to show the effectiveness of ships with turret mounted guns.

if the Confederacy had ever thought anything through They would not have rebelled in the first place.

Not so!

They did all the appropriate math:

One Southern Gentleman > Ten Northern hirelings

Things got fuzzy after that.

The ironclad advancement in naval warfare was already coming. If the Confederates had not developed their warships into casemates, the Federals would have had a much easier time taking Southern ports.

With casemates and shore batteries, things become much more dangerous for the Federal navy.

I was recently in Charleston, SC and while looking out over the harbor I was trying to imagine the battles that took place. Inspired me to break out my 1/600 ships again.

Ironclad development was the smartest way for the Confederate Navy to go. The technology was brand new and so both sides had to start from scratch. The Union made design mistakes with some of their ironclads. Several classes of monitors were failures. Eads ironclads were poorly armored.
The problem the Confederacy faced was the same as everything else, lack of coordination. There were ironclad projects all over the south, but there was no overall strategy of how to combine these efforts to break the blockade.
While the Confederate Army netted almost half of the trained army officers, the Confederate Navy got a much smaller percentage of trained officers. The Confederates couldn't hang on to New Orleans (their only shipyard), and the makeshift yards they built were often inadequate, or got overrun before the ships were finished.
Technologically speaking, the Confederate casemate ships were almost as good as the monitors (and simple to build), but if something went wrong with the monitor (like a jammed turret) they were better. The Confederates used more rifled guns which could have done more damage with proper ammunition. The main weakness of the Confederate designs usually had to do with inferior power plant technology. They used whatever boilers and engines they could get their hands on, usually leaving them underpowered and slow. An excellent opportunity for the South would have been the importation of modern boilers and engines early in the war. It was usually the much more energetic and talented Union Navy men who beat them to the punch.
The Albermarle example above is a perfect illustration. The C.S.S. Albemarle was a well designed shallow draught ironclad that defeated the entire union squadron on the Roanoake River. It was sunk by William Cushing, a young energetic and brilliant Union naval officer who used a small steam launch with a specially designed, hinged spar torpedo.

Southern ironclads consumed resources that far exceeded the return on the investment. Short of armor, short of machinery, building and maintaining the scattering of ironclads hither and thither throughout the Confederacy was more than the weak industrial and railroad infrastructure of the south was capable of.

What were they really for? Breaking the blockade? How many times did Confederate ironclads challenge the blockade? The Merrimac. The Chicora and Palmetto State off Charleston. The Albermarle never made it to sea. Too few to risk in a general action, the southern ironclads became like the High Seas Fleet in WWI. A matter of pride and not much more.

Were they intended to defend ports? Worked for a while, until they were overwhelmed by superior (in design and numbers) Union vessels. The Tennessee at Mobile Bay, the Arkansas at Vicksburg, the James River flotilla at Trent's Reach.

Most died an ignominious death. The Virginia (Merrimac) was destroyed to prevent capture. The North Carolina, too weak to challenge the blockade, became worm eaten and foundered at anchor. The James River squadron, chastised at Trent's Reach, was scuttled when Grant took Richmond. Perhaps no comment on the effectiveness of the ironclads exceeds the saucy observation made by Maggie Howell, Jefferson Davis' sister-in-law. When after a tour of the James River Squadron, Howell was asked if she had seen everything, she replied "The place where you blow them up."

The Confederates would have been much better off focusing their efforts on mine warfare and the use of torpedo boats. Ironclads did relatively little damage to Union vessels, while mines and torpedoes sank dozens of ships including monitors Osage, Milwaukee, Patapsco, and Tecumseh. Ironclads could make no such claim

If you've never read the Infernal Machines by Milton Perry on the Confederate mine warfare program, don't miss out.

No. They just went the wrong way: LAND Ironclads:

OD…way to go
ironclads were what were needed, but most of the confederate ones didn`t last long

going to war at all might have been a bigger mistake..

Gray Ghost and Cardinal Hawkwook have the right of it IMO.

yep..history would suggest the confederates were wrong about most everything..

"Would it have been wiser for the Confederate Navy to avoid ironclad development?"

What was the alternative? They couldn't produce quality wooden ships. They didn't have the skilled wood workers or the rope production to produce a single steam sloop. Britain and France would never sell enough warships for them. While technically innovative, southern ironclads were easier to build than a real wooden fleet. The problem issue came down to the fact they never produced a steam engine. In this period, wooden ships need those as well. In addition, the geographic nature of the war meant it was hard for the south to mass their few available ships. In opposition, as the war progressed, the north had the initiative and could choose the place of battle. Therefore, gaining overwhelming odds at any and all points.

It would have broken the blockade if they had pursued the program earlier. But having the read the New Vanguard book on the Confederate Ironclads, I would not have wanted to serve on one.

Would not the Confederacy have been better off getting more commerce raiders, the damage that they did to Northern martime trade was considerable with only a handful of ships?

Could they? They could not produce such a ship at home and the Brits and French were unreliable in delivering the few they did get.

In any case, the "Monitor" was building before the USN even saw the "Virginia".

I do not think so. I agree with Chouan. But they did the best with what they had.

I think that the South knew they couldn't develop Ironclads fast enough to deal with the blockade. This is why they went on to seeking ideas for Submarines. The south led the way in the sub development.

The individual who was the historical adviser on the movie Hunley, wrote several articles based on records and documents in the national archives, that the south could have had more subs in operations than what we presently think.

Also, I will agree that part of the South's problem with their Ironclads was the power plant. The Albermarle by the time it made Vicksburg, the power plant was off it's footings and done in.

The other problem with the casemate Ironclad was the splintering wood on the inside. Just read the descriptions of what the Albermarle looked like on the inside after making to Vicksburg, the death and destruction from running the Union Flotilla was beyond belief.