"British Expeditionary Corp - Quality?" Topic

After reading Balck I am not any longer confirmed that artillery did such a lot – compared to infantry fire.

Anyway, has anybody an idea how the Brits would have fought, still in line formations as for the Yanks and Rebs in 1862 – or a more sophisticated system of formed units with skirmishers??

It was more sophisticated.

A ten company battalion would be organised into three parts:

3 companies as a skirmish line
3 companies as a support line in separate company lines
4 companies in reserve in column, or line if under artillery fire.

The three parts would rotate as needed. So for example crossing a bridge the three skirmish companies would occupy the line of the river and cover the crossing. The supports would push over the bridge and extend into a skirmish line, and the reserve would form lines as the new supports (minus one company, the manuals were clear that the reserve was larger). The original skirmish line then contracts to column as the new reserve.

The plate from the manual is online here, with a link to the manual: link

thank you – interesting

It is fascinating how different nations follow the same lines of development.

The British three tier line is very much line that implimented by the Prussians at the same time and demonstrated by the French in the 1859 War.

And the Americans during the ACW were throwing out two companies as skirmishers as a SOP. As Sherman noted, because of the terrain, a lot of ACW fighting was skirmishing in nature and unlike the European practices because of it.

Most don't realize how often large numbers of skirmishers were used in the ACW. For instance, in Dec of 1862, Rosencrans had an entire brigade deployed as skirmishers in preparations for his left flank attack at Stone's River until the Confederates attacked first on the right.

Wunnerfull Wunnerfull

You're all straining at the gnats of piddlin little infantry weapon statistics and small cheese infantry formations. This is the nirvahna of gamers who dwell on such irrelevancies. It's good until the Artillery reserve of the Army of the Potomac shows up and turns it into a Somme 50 years earlier.

The Brits could bring over and worse, SUPPORT nothing like that.

John the OFM had it right on page 1. The Union Army would have shredded the English at the first battle. Further, once Grant got in charge in the East, where such intervention would have had to have come from, the days of a battle followed by six months of inaction were gone. It was going to be battle, battle, battle, every day and the North had the men to go through that grind, England and the South did not. The north had the supplies and organization and the railroads to move them, and the British did not. The British would have simply added to the numbers of soldiers starving in the South. Further, remember that by 1862 the British Navy had about FOUR ironclad ships. The Union had dozens. The British fleet, or whatever part of it cared to show its nose this side of the Atlantic would have been sent to the bottom.

Yes, the British could have come in through Mexico and the West. In which case they would have faced Sherman and Thomas. Hmmm.. Grant and Meade in the East or Thomas and Sherman in the west….

I also doubt if the South would have WANTED British troops. Remember what they wanted was European recognition AND mediation, not armies they would have to support.

"Confederate infantry and Federal artillery, side
by side on the same field, need fear no foe on earth"

- Daniel Harvey Hill

Looking at a lot of ACW battles, especially in the West – it seems that the battles go back and forward, lines being pushed back, recover, counter attack etc., etc., the results incunclusive – no brake throughs (Missionary ridge an exception)

Would the British fight a similar jigsaw tactics?

I just read the occational books about the ACW of authors like Cozzens (who gives a lot of tactical detail) and such authors of Griffith and Haughton : Training, Tactics and Leadership in the Confederate Army of Tenesse.

Brake throughs seem to be rare and it was more a battle of attrition – I cannot see any tactics like those described by the source of 67thtigers

Well, the artillery of both sides were always hampered by the terrain. Those instances were either got a clear line-of-sight made for serious damage on infantry formations. However, that is why the Confederates often chose to fight in the woods, the Wilderness etc. To counter Union artillery superiority.

Then again, the British seem to have had a preference for wide open terrain, whether India, the Crimea, the Sudan, or South Africa, so maybe they would have chosen to carry out their attacks in the open.

Oscmidt nailed it. The Confederacy would have to supply ammunition, food and other supplies to the British when they could barley supply its own army.

But that is all irrelevant as it is highly doubtful the RN could defeat the US Navy. But I would grant you that the blockade would be interrupted just long enough so the USN could sink the RN. Whether you believe it or not, it is a real question if the British could hang onto Canada.

Southern leaders were never expecting military intervention their goal was diplomatic recognition. Which would lead to mediation by the major European powers lead by Britain. The Lincoln Administration would refuse. So just maybe an effort would be made to break the blockade which may lead to war. That is probably the best the Confederacy could hope for.

Of course after Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation there was no way the British would recognize the CSA let alone attempt to send a huge army to America. It simply wasn't in Britain's interest to involve itself in our civil war.

If Lee had not invaded Maryland and just stayed on the defensive then there was a brief chance of British recognition. But Antietam changed everything that is why it was the greatest turning point of the ACW.

I doubt that the Union Navy could have effectively prevented the RN from blockading the US Atlantic coast or from raising the Union blockade of Southern ports if Great Britain seriously committed to do so. Monitors were certainly dangerous opponents, but they sorely lacked the necessary endurance, sea-keeping and physical numbers.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

"It's good until the Artillery reserve of the Army of the Potomac shows up and turns it into a Somme 50 years earlier."

- Wow! I didn't know they had Lyddite in the ACW. Care to show me a reference?

"The Brits could bring over and worse, SUPPORT nothing like that. "

- Yes, we're underrating British abilities quite seriously. They in fact fielded larger forces 1776-81 and 1812-15.

"The Union Army would have shredded the English at the first battle."

- Good thing the British have the Scots, Irish, Welsh, Canadians etc. on their side isn't it then?

" Further, once Grant got in charge in the East, where such intervention would have had to have come from, the days of a battle followed by six months of inaction were gone."

- Grant, the man who went 13 months without commanding a single action?

" The north had the supplies and organization and the railroads to move them, and the British did not."

- Indeed, the British had ships and an economy about 6 times the size of the US. Care to show me the trans-Atlantic railroad?

" Further, remember that by 1862 the British Navy had about FOUR ironclad ships. The Union had dozens. The British fleet, or whatever part of it cared to show its nose this side of the Atlantic would have been sent to the bottom."

- Ummm, the British had considerably more ironclads than that. In January 1862 there is one ironclad in American waters, she was called HMS Terror. Note the lack of "USS" in the name.

On 31st December 1862 the Union had in Commission:

USS Monitor (for part of that day at least until she sank)
USS Galena
USS New Ironsides
USS Passaic
USS Nahant
USS Montauk

So, six. Hardly dozens is it? None of these is capable of taking on a British ironclad. One ends the day as a new reef, one is underarmoured, one can't even steer and three can't aim their main armament because the barrel is bigger than the gunport.

The "standard" massive overestimation of the power of the USN at that time without reference to facts.

wow the 'my country's better than your country ….even 150 years ago' debate rumbles on hahaha ….much longer and it'll run longer than the war did!

"Ummm, the British had considerably more ironclads than that. In January 1862 there is one ironclad in American waters, she was called HMS Terror. Note the lack of "USS" in the name."

Really??? And just what were these 'considerably more ironclads'? Never mine, I'll save you the trouble.

HMS Warrior- completed 24 Oct 1861
HMS Black Prince- completed 12 Sept 1862
HMS Defence- completed 2 Dec 1861
HMS Resistance- completed 2 July 1862

The next ship added was HMS Royal Oak (completed April 1863). The rest came in 1864 and beyond.

And as for HMS Terror? There is no such ship in ANY RN list of the period.

As for the USN. The list you gave is correct (although I'd leave out Galena; she was a dog of a ship). BUT, by February 1863 4 more of the Passaic class commissioned with 1 more added in April 1863.

"None of these is capable of taking on a British ironclad."

Well, considering that the armor of the RN ironclads only covered approximately 50% of their length, I would say that there is reason for a US captain to be cautiously optimistic. And with 4.5" of armor (which the fully proofed 11" SB could pierce, to say nothing of the 15" SB or 8" RML), things may not be all that happy for your RN ironclads.

Your comments re: the naval situation (in this thread and others) are so wrong as to border on the absurd. You may want to confine yourself to those issues you actually know something about.

No such ship as HMS Terror on the Navy List? Fascinating, you read the navy list then? Did you skip over this page?

link

The status of the 27 ironclads listed on the Navy List (20th December 1862) are:

Achilles (building at Chatham, reserve from December 1863, Commissioned into the Channel Fleet September 1864)
Agincourt (building at Birkenhead, reserve on 26th May 1864, Commissioned 1867)
Black Prince (in Commission with the Channel Fleet)
Caledonia (in reserve at Woolwich from 2nd February 1863, Commissioned into the Med. Fleet July 1865)
Defence (in Commission with the Channel Fleet)
Enterprise (building at Deptford, Commissioned into the Med. Fleet May 1864)
Erebus (in deep reserve a Portsmouth)
Favourite (building at Deptford, Commissioned into the American Fleet 1866)
Glatton (in deep reserve at Portsmouth)
Hector (building at Glasgow, reserve from October 1862, Commissioned into Channel Fleet 1864)
Minotaur (building at Blackwell, reserve on 15 December 1863, Commissioned into the Channel Fleet 1867)
Northumberland (building at Millwall, reserve in 1866, Commissioned into the Channel Fleet 1868)
Ocean (building at Devonport, in reserve from 23rd March 1863, Commissioned into the Channel Fleet 1866)
Prince Albert (building at Millwall, reserve from 20th May 1864, Commissioned almost immediately into the Channel Fleet to test the turrets)
Prince Consort (building at Pembroke, reserve from 14th January 1863, Commissioned into the Channel Fleet 1864)
Research (building at Pembroke, reserve from March 1864, and Commissioned next month into the Channel Fleet)
Resistance (in Commission with the Channel Fleet)
Royal Alfred (building at Portsmouth, in reserve October 1864, Commissioned into the American Fleet Jan. 1867)
Royal Oak (building at Chatham, in reserve 13th September 1862, Commissioned into 27th April 1863 into the Channel Fleet)
Royal Sovereign (building at Portsmouth, complete as turret ship 20th August 1864 and placed on Harbour Commission in October, but was never fully Commissioned)
Terror (in Commission on the Bermuda station)
Thunder (in deep reserve at Sheerness)
Thunderbolt (in deep reserve on the River Thames)
Trusty (in deep reserve at Woolwich)
Valiant (building at Millwall, reserve from October 1863, Commissioned 1868)
Warrior (in Commission with the Channel Fleet)
Zealous (building at Glasgow, reserve from December 1864, Commissioned into the Pacific Fleet 1866)

Not to divert this thread into a naval discussion, but I'm always amused by the Warrior versus Monitor debates – especially the claim that Warrior was impervious to Monitor's armament by virtue of her 4.5in wrought iron armor. Lost in the hyperbole is that this amidships belt only covered half her waterline length.

To be sure – the Monitor had deficiencies: very slow speed, poor sea-keeping, restricted cruising range. But to altogether dismiss her as no threat whatever to Warrior constitutes whistling past the graveyard IMO.

Later British ironclads featured more extensive armored belts, some providing (to one degree or another) full waterline protection. On the other hand, by late 1864, the USN had developed much improved iron shot and guns of 15in bore.

B

We know that the Monitor's 11" guns would have no effect because the British tested them against a Warrior target. With steel shot and double charges they produced no effect even at less than 100 yards. One should note that the ends of Warrior are still more substancial than a ship of the lines, they are heavily compartmentalised and everything important is below the waterline.

The 15" with steel shot fired at a velocity equivalent to that of 60 lbs American powder (American powder was merely used to calibrate the velocity, then a quantity of standard British powder producing the same velocity was substituted) would just pierce Warrior at 500 yards. With American cast iron shot they did not break the plate until they close to 100 yards.

Theoretical calculations for even higher velocities were made and fighting instructions issued. The Warrior was invulnerable to any fire from an American fort at 700 yards. Later armoured ships were totally invulnerable to the 15" even with 100 lb charges and steel shot.

Warrior vs Monitor? Warrior steams past Monitor at high speed and the wake causes Monitor to capsize.

"No such ship as HMS Terror on the Navy List?"

A floating battery?? Really?? You do understand that NO navy considers a floating battery as part of the SEAGOING fleet? They're strictly considered as part of the defense establishment of whatever port they were towed to (the CSA had several in Charleston).

Interesting list. Discounting the handful of floating batteries, the rest did exist. HOWEVER, a quick check shows the 'in reserve' dates roughly correspond to the LAUNCH dates. And none of these would be ready for service at launch (and wouldn't be for, in some cases, years to come). Doesn't matter how many ships you have under construction; what matters is how many you have IN COMMISSION.

So… COMMISSIONED (ie, ready for combat) RN ironclads in Dec 1862 numbered _4_.

And my source is Oscar Parkes. And that is about as definitive as you're going to get…

You do know HMS Terror cruised throughout the area? You do know USS Dacotah almost opened fire on Terror off Havana:

link

Vessel "in reserve" are exactly that. There were four categories of steam reserve:

1st – ships fully equipped and stored, needing only crewing an issuing gunpowder. Can take to sea in anger within hours of the crew taking her over.

2nd – ships not stored. Can take to sea in anger about a week after the crew take her over.

3rd – ships needing repair or refit for service. Ready in about a month.

4th – ships needing great repairs.

In the RN "Commission" meas assigned to a squadron. Most ironclads spent a period of time, in some cases years, fully combat capable but in the reserve. There was simply no need for them.

However, lets remove the "floating batteries" from the US Navy List of 1864. Here is a comprehensive list of the non-"battery" ironclads with the USN:

Moving on…….

Here you go lads.. My alternate history done up as a game.
PDF link

"The 15" with steel shot fired at a velocity equivalent to that of 60 lbs American powder (American powder was merely used to calibrate the velocity, then a quantity of standard British powder producing the same velocity was substituted) would just pierce Warrior at 500 yards. With American cast iron shot they did not break the plate until they close to 100 yards."

Strange. A 15" shot shattered and penetrated Tennessee's casemate (and that was considerably thicker than Warrior's 4.5").

And I have period reports of tests (by the USN) that show otherwise.

But that would be moot if any shot hits the 50% of the hull that is UNARMORED, wouldn't it now.

Bottomline: Warrior and her sisters should prevail in a straight up, one-on-one fight with any of the monitors. But it wouldn't be a push over (and, with a little luck, could even come out in favor of the monitors).

"In the RN "Commission" meas assigned to a squadron. Most ironclads spent a period of time, in some cases years, fully combat capable but in the reserve. There was simply no need for them."

Well…. According to Oscar Parkes (and every other author I know of), those 'in reserve' ships of yours WERE NOT COMPLETED, NOT READY FOR SERVICE, etc, etc. Those aren't my words, those are the words of authorities on the subject. But you, evidently, know better… Right….

Indeed, 5 inches of laminated armour at an incline. What was the resistance?

Very roughly when I plug Tennessee's armour, accounting for the lamination, inclination and assuming the plate quality is equal to French then the Tennessee has about a quarter of the Warriors resistance to shot.

The 15 inch Dahlgren at 200 feet with a 60 lb charge failed to pierce Tennessee. The plate it struck was smashed and the backing spalled, but no part of the ball entered the ship.

Period report? The Nashua plate one assume, which proves the US couldn't make effect iron plates, since the Nashua plate failed at 41 ft-tons per inch, whereas the Warrior's plates in the UK tests failed at 67 ft-tons per inch. Or was it the very skewed test where the US put 4 1 inch plates and a 0.5 inch plate in a row and declared it the same as Warrior? i.e. a good simulation of a Monitors sides, but not Warrior.

Anyway, an 11 (or 15) inch hole in the superstructure and the rearrangement of some sleeping quarters. How does this decrease fighting power? These aren't 20th century APC rounds filled with lyddite or TNT.

Fine… So shots in the unarmored waterline would not affect the combat power of Warrior (might have an impact on its ability to float, but nevermind… These are Brits and they can walk on water, afterall).

Obviously, you know better (on ALL the above issues, no matter how contrary to accepted evidence). So be happy with your uber Supermen Brits…..

Whatever…..

….. Let's put the whole heavy US smoothbore performance story out on the table for discussion -

1863 test: 15in Rodman smoothbore; 400lb spherical shot, 40 lb charge; range 200 yards; target 4.5in plate + 5 x 1.1in plates + 20in oak backing. Result: disk broken out of the 4.5in plate; 1.1 plates bent but not broken; oak backing slightly crushed; nearly all mounting bolts sheared or dislodged.

1865 test: 15in Rodman smoothbore; 400lb spherical shot, 60 lb charge; range 50 yards; target 6in solid plate of French manufacture (Petin, Gaudet & Co) 30in oak backing. Result: plate cracked, smashed and completely penetrated.

These were the results with 40lb or 60lb charges of ordinary cannon powder. The 15in Rodman was shortly thereafter proofed for a 100lb charge.

B

"Fine… So shots in the unarmored waterline would not affect the combat power of Warrior (might have an impact on its ability to float, but nevermind… These are Brits and they can walk on water, afterall).

Obviously, you know better (on ALL the above issues, no matter how contrary to accepted evidence). So be happy with your uber Supermen Brits…..

Whatever….."

Lets imagine an absolute worst case scenario. Every single compartment outside of the citadel is open to the sea and flooded and all the pumps have stopped working. Effect – Warrior is shipping 1,040 tons of water and is riding 26 inches lower, but she is stable. All her guns are still fightable, and her propulsion still works (it's inside the citadel).

In reality opening a compartment to the sea would be dealt with by the damage control teams hammering large pieces of cork into the breach (as indeed we still do, at least when I went to HMS Havoc), or nailing tarp across them whilst the pumps did their business. You know, sailing warships had been subjected to holing at the waterline for centuries and it was a well understood hazard of combat, and solutions were well known.

"….. Let's put the whole heavy US smoothbore performance story out on the table for discussion -"

The Rodman used 100 lbs of a slower burning powder (Mammoth), developing the same velocity as 60 lbs of Naval Cannon Powder. Being slower burning it placed less strain on the gun, but of course also developed less velocity and created more smoke, since the expelled powder was still burning a hundred yards downrange.

As I've said, the British understood the power of the 15" gun, and issued appropriate fighting instructions. Stay well beyond it's maximum effective range and blow the hell out of any US floating cupola batteries with a massive weight of fire. Remember, by the time Monitor had reloaded for her third pair of shots Warrior would have expended 8,000 rounds into her and have to haul off for rearming.

The US solution to piercing armour ultimately failed. It failed because as early as 1862 flat faced Pallisier shell was reliably piercing experimental armour setups with a bursting charge that functioned. The smoothbore gave way to the much more lethal rifled gun with armoured piercing (chilled iron or steel tipped) shells that could inflict much more damage than a mere hole.

"Lets imagine an absolute worst case scenario…."

Let's not…. I'm done with this 'discussion'….

Some of the Monitors had Parrott rifles, did they not?

Your HMS Warrior apparently exists in a quaint alternate universe, where her entire hull volume outside the "citadel" can be opened to the sea by racking hits, but her propeller and steering continue to function perfectly, where progressive or asymmetrical flooding is unknown to exist and there is no possibility of the remotest kind that her main belt could be compromised.

Re 15in Rodman – "With charges of his hexagonal powder, Rodman's 15-inch gun, with its abnormally long bore, length-diameter ratio, fired its 330-pound shell at a muzzle velocity of 1,735 feet a second, much faster than the velocity achieved with any other gun, including many with bore length-diameter ratios as high as 20 to 1. With a 50-pound charge of hexagonal powder (two-fifths of the later standard 125-pound charge) the 15-inch gun at 25 degrees elevation had a maximum range of 4,680 yards."

For purposes of comparison, the 13-inch British Horsfall smoothbore, firing a 279 pound cast iron shot with an initial velocity of 1653 ft/sec completely penetrated the Warrior target, making a 24 x 28in hole in the armor and a 3ft x 3ft hole in the interior metal skin at 200 yards. With a 15in 400 lb shot with superior ballistics, what is the safe stand off range versus the Rodman when a single waterline hit in the machinery space amidships could cripple or sink the ship? 500 yds? 800 yds? 1000 yds?

Standing off beyond the effective range of the 15in Rodman means that the hitting rate will be miniscule against a cylindrical turret profile of < 100 sq ft (allowing for projectile deflection at angles of incidence >/= 30degs). The likelihood of otherwise penetrating 8 inches of even laminated turret armor at long range will be quite small. Meanwhile, the Warrior presents a waterline target alone more than 10x that size. And the 15in Rodman was a very accurate gun.

Say hello to Harry Turtledove for us.

B

No point in discussing with 67thtigers. if it is British it is better faster morepowerful and just teh coolest. if it is american it is worthless and weak and really crappy. And he already knows it, so dont try to confuse the issue with alternate "facts". If he didnt bring them in, they are not real facts.

What I have never understood, considering his loathing of all things american why he comes to this particular list? After all, it being american and it it should not be wortth his time.

owen

Hi Badger –
Mr 67thtigers shares his unique views and findings among many military history web forums. I'm not sure why either.

Re the "nationality" of the Miniature Pages????? It may be based in the US, but we seem to have a very internationally cosmopolitan crowd posting here – which I think is a great thing.

B

"Your HMS Warrior apparently exists in a quaint alternate universe, where her entire hull volume outside the "citadel" can be opened to the sea by racking hits, but her propeller and steering continue to function perfectly, where progressive or asymmetrical flooding is unknown to exist and there is no possibility of the remotest kind that her main belt could be compromised."

DK Brown has examined the effects of her ends being completely opened in "Before the Ironclad". As I said, with the ends completely opened she'd ride 26 inches deeper but would still be stable. She had a very large amount of reserve bouyancy. Brown is of course critical of a few things, but the vision of plucky little Monitor putting an 11 inch hole in Warriors ends every 15-20 minutes resulting in her sinking is far fetched indeed.

Worst case scenario – Warrior is hit whilst heeling away from Monitor several feet below the waterline. The hole will admit 10-20 tons of water per minute until that section is flooded to sea-level.

The propeller will keep turning, because the shaft runs through the bilge, and the steering gear likewise, although you could always get a lucky hit on the rudder. See the cutaway here:

link

"Re 15in Rodman – "With charges of his hexagonal powder, Rodman's 15-inch gun, with its abnormally long bore, length-diameter ratio, fired its 330-pound shell at a muzzle velocity of 1,735 feet a second, much faster than the velocity achieved with any other gun, including many with bore length-diameter ratios as high as 20 to 1. With a 50-pound charge of hexagonal powder (two-fifths of the later standard 125-pound charge) the 15-inch gun at 25 degrees elevation had a maximum range of 4,680 yards.""

No Rodman fired hexagonal powder – they used Mammoth. Mammoth was the same physical powder as NCP or No. 7 powder but not broken up into as small pieces with the grains being between 0.6" and 0.9" (i.e. the mesh size used).

The Russians adopted a prismatic powder based on Rodman in the early 1870's, but Wischnegradsky had solved the problems associated with it somewhat. The US jumped from Mammoth to a sphero-conical brown powder (ca. 1883) without ever using Rodman's prismatic powder.

The maximum charge of the 15" Rodman was 100 lbs Mammoth powder (developing ca. 1,500 fps), and later 130 lbs brown powder (developing ca. 1,700 fps). However the Dahlgren used on US floating batteries used 60 lbs NCP, and the navy completely rejected the slower burning powders.

No 125 lb charge was ever authorised of any nature of powder in the US. I understand the Russians may have used 125 lbs of altered prismatic in the 1870's.

The 15 inch Rodman is 11 calibres, not 20. 165 inch bore, 15 inches wide by the ordnance manual.

"For purposes of comparison, the 13-inch British Horsfall smoothbore, firing a 279 pound cast iron shot with an initial velocity of 1653 ft/sec completely penetrated the Warrior target, making a 24 x 28in hole in the armor and a 3ft x 3ft hole in the interior metal skin at 200 yards. With a 15in 400 lb shot with superior ballistics, what is the safe stand off range versus the Rodman when a single waterline hit in the machinery space amidships could cripple or sink the ship? 500 yds? 800 yds? 1000 yds?"

All machinery is inside the citadel section.

Also if piercing the thinner section of the hull the hole will be smaller. The reason thicker armour resisted in a non-linear fashion is that the sheered area radiates. Against a thin plate an 15 shot will make a 15 inch hole. If it successful sheered an 4.5" plate the backside of the hole would be about 3 feet in diameter, but the front side still 15 inches. Effectively the thicker armour resists like a greater area has been struck. Hence armour resisted roughly as the square of thickness, and laminated plates were roughly additive.

Hence if we take a 4.5" solid piece of iron (4.5^2 = 20.25) it would resist roughly the same as 5 layers of 2 inch iron of the same quality (5x 2^2). In fact Warrior's thinner belt offers greater resistance to shot than Monitors turret.

In reality about 40% of the Warrior's resistance to shot came from the 18" of hard wood and the 5/8th inch wrought iron skin. The "unarmoured" ends resist at about 30 ft-tons per inch.

Hence I can calculate roughly the navy ballistic limit for the 11 inch and 15 inch against the unarmoured ends thus:

11 inch: 970 fps
15 inch: 675 fps

The 15 inch can pierce the unarmoured ends at any range it can reasonably hit the target. The same is not true for the 11 inch, which from Noble's experiments would drop below the NBL somewhere between 200 and 500 yards. That is at 800 yards fighting range the 11 inch would not pierce the "unarmoured" ends, whereas the 15 inch would.

Against Warrior the original Monitor has no hope at all. Later Monitors with 15 inch guns, American shot and the heaviest powder loads (60 lbs) can pierce Warriors citadel at ca. 100 yards, and can smash holes in the unarmoured section with impunity at battle ranges.

However, the probability of a waterline hit, or one below the waterline is extremely small, and the only real chance is when Warrior is heeling away. Matters are made worse because the bulk of 15 inch armed floating batteries are the Passaic, and then couldn't aim their 15 inch guns, because they weren't built for them, and there is essentially no chance of hitting except at close range. At hit Warrior at 800 yards you'd need to do to Dictator or a Monadnock, and by the time they are fielded the RN is fielding rifled guns with chilled iron shells as standard issue and will mince an US battery.

"Standing off beyond the effective range of the 15in Rodman means that the hitting rate will be miniscule against a cylindrical turret profile of < 100 sq ft (allowing for projectile deflection at angles of incidence >/= 30degs). The likelihood of otherwise penetrating 8 inches of even laminated turret armor at long range will be quite small. Meanwhile, the Warrior presents a waterline target alone more than 10x that size. And the 15in Rodman was a very accurate gun."

Remember Charleston? The Confederate shore batteries achieved a 20% hit rates at much longer ranges, albeit from a more stable firing platform and with range markers. The US batteries that got into action (remembering New Ironsides failed in the simple task of pointing the right way) were very roughly handled and even non-penetrating hits easily knocked out the turrets by breaking the spindle.

If we take battle practice against targets this size the Warrior would strike a Monitor at ca. 1,000 yards with about 10% of shots, or twice a minute. In the 15-20 minutes it would take Monitor to reload after the first shots she would have been hit as much as Catskill at Charleston (and if Catskill had been in a seaway rather than a harnour she'd have sunk), by her second or third volley she'd have no fighting value.

Speaking of Charleston, the New Ironsides (a vessel much weaker than Warrior) was hit at least 95 times and her unarmoured ends were riddled. Yet she didn't sink. Hell, Galena was riddled fighting in the James river and didn't sink. Ships in this age rarely sunk from gunfire admitting water.

Thank you for your contribution, 67thtigers. It's always fun to hear from you.

Please review the experience of Alabama in her engagement with Kearsarge – principally fought between 700 and 400 yards – as a guide for the incidence of waterline hits.

As for the other material which you so energetically dispute, it all came from contemporary professional documents, Ordnance Magazine and the Coast Artillery Society.

Have a nice day – Rule Britannia!

B

The sinking of an armed civilian schooner with barely 8 inches of wood in her sidewalls? A ship with no internal subdivision?

Well, since Kearsarge expended 173 rounds to achieve this then a Monitor would do such damage in a mere 22-29 hours of continuous firing. Against 8 inches of wood, providing ca. a quarter of the resistance to shot of Warriors "unarmoured" ends.

Warrior of course is a different proposition. The 11 inch guns of Kearsarge (or Monitor) would not pierce the unarmoured ends at battle ranges, especially with shell. If Warrior did take a major hit at the waterline it would not proceed to flood the whole ship, but once that section.

I will concede that given 24 hours of shooting, Monitor would have sunk Alabama.

67thtigers- Once again, you miss the point. Waterline hits are always possible in the period (especially given the close ranges involved). And given the consequences involved, certainly not to be ignored. In any case, the RN seemed sufficiently alarmed by the prospect that future ironclads included a full waterline armor belt (thanks to Blutarski for that). Of course, they didn't have the benefit of your 'wisdom' on the subject, otherwise they would have forgone that addition.

As for '11 inch guns would not pierce the unarmoured ends at battle ranges'; that's just silly (and you know it). A 12pdr shot should probably pierce the simple iron shell of the hull at those points. So your point is, well, pointless….

And, as Blutarski said, do give Harry Turtledove our best regards…

"67thtigers- Once again, you miss the point. Waterline hits are always possible in the period (especially given the close ranges involved). And given the consequences involved, certainly not to be ignored. In any case, the RN seemed sufficiently alarmed by the prospect that future ironclads included a full waterline armor belt (thanks to Blutarski for that). Of course, they didn't have the benefit of your 'wisdom' on the subject, otherwise they would have forgone that addition."

Waterline hits are of course possible. Exactly as possible as with earlier steam battleships and sail battleships. That is possible but quite unlikely. Hits at the waterline comprised about 1-2% of hit received in action, and exactly 2/3rds of Warriors waterline was covered by the citadel.

So, say we taken Kearsarges performance is normal, hitting the waterline 2 times in 173 shots, and multiple through. 1hit in every 260 would be at the waterline in the unarmoured (in reality "less armoured") section.

So what if Warrior takes one hit to the waterline? That section will flood, pumps will be engaged and damage control teams will try and stem the flow – exactly like with the wooden ships.

Now, assuming averages the chances of opening two sections? 1/260^2 = 1/67,600. A third? 1 in 1.75 million. A fourth? 1 in 4.6 billion.

That the thing. Warrior allowed for a very high degree of subdivision by dint of using iron.

Now, lets by generous and assume our 15 inch armed battery will hit 10% of the time, and fires once every 20 mins with 2 rounds.

After one volley there is a 1 in 1,300 chance they've opened up one section. After 2 it is 2 in 1,300. After 3 it is 3 in 1,300.

Between volley 1 and volley 2, assuming they opened fire simultaneously Warrior has fired at the battery 400 times and hit with 10-20% of those shots. The battery has been seriously knocked about, and assuming averages is holed twice in the deck and the turret is jammed.

Not much of a fight is it? The battery seems to be relying on a magic ball that will do as much damage as an iceberg.

"As for '11 inch guns would not pierce the unarmoured ends at battle ranges'; that's just silly (and you know it). A 12pdr shot should probably pierce the simple iron shell of the hull at those points. So your point is, well, pointless…."

The ends give about the same protection as 36 inches of white oak. Note Dahlgren's table here:

link

The only weapon that could pierce that much white oak are long 32's and the high velocity 42's and 64's. Even the 10 inch shell gun would not, and the 11 inch is little better.

Remember that navies divested themselves of their 12's, and even their 24's settling on 32's as the minimum effective size against even wooden ships. A 12 pdr would have no effect on a modern sloop.

B, did not mean TMP is American, only that the ACW is pretty much American in nature.

I am pretty sure I am on his stifle or ignore list so no point in Discussing things with him, not that anybody else is making a dent. I wonder, should gamers have an Armor belt rating?

My goodness.

[ 1 ] Are you actually presenting the case of a 10in 86cwt Model 1841 shell gun fired with a <<< 10 POUND >>> charge as evidence to support your argument about the efficacy of oak as shot protection? Do you believe this is the gun that would be used to arm any monitor?

[ 2 ] Re Kearsarge vs Alabama, I refer you to the account written by the good H W Wilson ("Ironclads in Action"), who cites the "numerous" shot holes on Alabama's waterline (as opposed to the 1 or 2 such hits asserted in your alternate universe version), as well as Captain Semmes' desperate but unsuccessful attempts to heel Alabama over to keep said shot holes from flooding the ship. Permit me also to point out that the intent of the Kearsarge-Alabama reference was not to highlight the vulnerability of an unarmored warship to heavy caliber gunfire, but to demonstrate the ability of big smoothbore guns to hit the waterline of a target ship at ranges of 500+ yards. If we assume that the ballistics of the 11-inch smoothbores of Kearsarge were no better than the smaller caliber guns carried aboard at ranges of 400-800 yards and just go by the relative numbers of rounds fired versus the approximately 40 hits estimated by Wilson as having been made against the Alabama, the 11-inch smoothbores can arguably be credited with about 12 hits (about 20+ pct). It is also worth noting that fire distribution orders aboard Kearsarge that day were for the 11-inch guns to concentrate upon Alabama's waterline and the other guns against her upperworks. Interesting.

[ 3 ] Kearsarge fired 55 rounds from her two 11-inch smoothbores in an action whose gunnery portion lasted approximately 90 minutes. Assuming that both guns fired an approximately equal number of rounds, my admittedly primitive colonial math suggests that the overall rate of fire of about one aimed round per gun every 3.25 minutes. These 11-inch smoothbores are, of course, the same model of gun fitted to Monitor's turret in her action with Virginia. Now, I will absolutely concede to you that loading and aiming this gun in action within the confines of an enclosed turret would have been a much clumsier task than serving them when mounted as individual deck-mounted pivot guns. Let's say it took twice as long (6.5 minutes per round), maybe even three times as long (9.75 minutes per round). But your claim that it took SIX times longer requires me to ask exactly how you came upon this figure. Did you just divide the overall duration of the Monitor fight by the number of rounds per gun fired, without taking into account the several lengthy lulls in the action? I am also forced to ask how you determined that the same very lengthy firing interval would apply to the 15-inch gun as well.

I am now flicking the switch to transmit this through the Harry Turtledove time-tunnel.

B

An 11" Dahlgren has a guncrew requirement of 25, so it operate the guns properly requires 50 men in the turret. There were 14 men manning the guns (plus a wheelman for the turret, the gun captain and powdermen etc. which are in excess of above) , and this was as many as they could physically squeeze in. Thus the guns are extremely undercrewed.

Then you have to take account of the fact that in the cramped space you need to use special, slower to use tools (i.e. the rammer etc.). Then account for the fact that ammunition stowage isn't available in the turret, another 11 men and an officer have to winch the heavy rounds and charges up to the turret.

In practice the crew would man the guns sequentially. It would take a fresh guncrew 6-7 minutes to load a single gun, then they'd do the other (and shoot both together). This was fast, in practice it slowed to 10 minutes per gun after a few rounds.

An 11-inch Dahlgren had a standard gun crew of 25 men only when mounted as a pivot gun. 16 men were detailed when it was mounted as a broadside gun. When turret-mounted, men were not required on the side-tackles to train the gun, nor were handspike men required to assist in training the gun and setting the elevation quoin.

Monitor's turret crew was 19-21 men: 8 men per gun + 3 officers (+ 2 gun captains, depending upon how the relevant text is interpreted).

Both gun ports could not be simultaneously open according to my understanding of the turret design: one or the other only. Hence the guns were not salvoed together unless the turret crew found a way to bypass the interlock.

B

"The ends give about the same protection as 36 inches of white oak. Note Dahlgren's table here:"

A) Nice document; I think I first read it 20 years ago. Published in 1856, so it has NOTHING to do with penetration of iron (armor backed by wood or hull plating).

B) Warrior's unbacked 1" iron shell equivalent to 36" of oak? Nothing in Dahlgren's book to support that (and I doubt anywhere else). Obviously someone doesn't understand metallurgy and armor performance (hint: why do you think wrought iron armor was backed with wood).

C) "exactly 2/3rds of Warriors waterline was covered by the citadel." My bad. I just pulled out a scale drawing of Warrior and measured the armor belt and waterline. Armor covers 55% (I was off by 5%). YOU, on the other hand, were off by 11%. For someone SO adamant and exact, you might tighten up that…

D) Flooding: you do know that problems of asymmetrical flooding were unknown when Warrior was built. So how can you so blithely state that flooding would have no effect when any modern marine architect would say otherwise. Oh I know, asymmetrical flooding didn't exist in the 1860's, so it wouldn't have any impact…. Yeah, right…..

I could go on, but why bother. You're blind and deaf to anything that is counter to your hidebound beliefs, no matter how counter they may be to what is known as accepted fact. Case in point: I showed your list of active ironclads to a friend who is a real, working historian (he actually gets paid for doing history, lucky bastard). And his specialty is naval. His response was: "This guy can read, can't he?". Basically, he reamed your interpretation of the data, pointing out that a ship tied up to a dockyard pier is NOT combat ready, in many cases, not even close. And that that information can be had in just about any bog standard book on the subject. So, even a professional thinks you're wrong….

And finally, your methodology shows the earmarks of a bad historian. One who forms a thesis (in your case, US very bad, UK very good) and then goes digging for information that supports your thesis to the exclusion (and rejection) of anything that may counter it. As my thesis advisor told me many years ago, that's not lazy history, that's dishonest history…

Respond if you like. Rest assured, I will not read it….

"I wonder, should gamers have an Armor belt rating?"

Hey Badger, is that old timey wrought iron backed by wood or newfangled face hardened steel? LOL!

And too true. About as productive as debating a wall…

LOL, it is face-hardened seasoned ENGLISH white oak.

BTW, if you really want to have your brain explode through your cranium, ask 67t about Michael Wittmann @ Villers-Bocage.

B

Let me guess, he didnt knock out any brit tanks, it is all made up right?

I wonder why it took the brits so long to fight the crimean war, with those tremendous hit rates, and the awesome logiostical system that was available for the British to come and invade america, they should have just strolled along shooting down russians as they went, it is not like the russians could have done anything about it.

Just a question for my British intervention force:

Since the Brits are 10' tall (according to some folks…), should I use 10mm Brits with my 6mm CSA and USA troops?

Just asking…

"A) Nice document; I think I first read it 20 years ago. Published in 1856, so it has NOTHING to do with penetration of iron (armor backed by wood or hull plating).

B) Warrior's unbacked 1" iron shell equivalent to 36" of oak? Nothing in Dahlgren's book to support that (and I doubt anywhere else). Obviously someone doesn't understand metallurgy and armor performance (hint: why do you think wrought iron armor was backed with wood). "

Actually it does. Wood is still armour, and a significant part of an ironclads defences was the wood. Of course ductile wrought iron is a denser material, but as I'm sure you know (having read, one assumes, DK Brown's Before the Ironclad or similar) wood and thin iron resists directly in proportion to their specific gravity. However when one supports the other you get additive effects.

BTW: The Indian Teak that was used in Warrior is denser than American White Oak and offers significantly more resistance to shot (10 or 20%, it's been a while since I looked).

The "unarmoured" ends of Warrior are only as well armoured as a heavy frigate or maybe a steam battleship.

"D) Flooding: you do know that problems of asymmetrical flooding were unknown when Warrior was built. So how can you so blithely state that flooding would have no effect when any modern marine architect would say otherwise. Oh I know, asymmetrical flooding didn't exist in the 1860's, so it wouldn't have any impact…. Yeah, right….."

Warrior was the first warship in the world to be divided into watertight compartments. I really think you don't get this at all. With the wooden ships of course large holes could eventually flood the whole ship if left unchecked. With Warrior you flood one compartment with a hole, and then it stops. There is no progressive flooding.

Of course, a flooded department does change the centre of gravity etc., but not that significantly. The question of whether Warrior would have a problem if all the front compartments were flooded due to the propeller and rudder being raised out of the water seems to be negative.

"I could go on, but why bother. You're blind and deaf to anything that is counter to your hidebound beliefs, no matter how counter they may be to what is known as accepted fact. Case in point: I showed your list of active ironclads to a friend who is a real, working historian (he actually gets paid for doing history, lucky bastard). And his specialty is naval. His response was: "This guy can read, can't he?". Basically, he reamed your interpretation of the data, pointing out that a ship tied up to a dockyard pier is NOT combat ready, in many cases, not even close. And that that information can be had in just about any bog standard book on the subject. So, even a professional thinks you're wrong…."

Fascinating. Specialist in the Victorian British Navy? (in which case one assumes it is the only wargamer I've ever come across that turned a wargame into a PhD thesis – Fuller).

Case in point, in February 1862 the entire 1st class gunboat reserve was taken from sheds to mounting a sortie at two hours notice. The half completed HMS Defence was taken from 3rd class Reserve, Commissioned while they were still plating her, a crew assigned and she took to sea in anger 27 days later. Her constructor signed her off six weeks later, hence the fact that her completion date is after her commissioning date (and of course so is Black Prince).

Basically, once in the reserve with working engines any British armoured frigate can be at sea in anger from a day (if 1st class, transfer a crew and issue gunpowder) upto a month if not plated.

Hence we get the plans to build a number of improved "floating batteries" for American service in the event of war, said ships to be Commissioned 90 days after the contracts issued at a fixed cost of L60,000 each. It's in box WO33/11 at Kew. I assume you've read that?

"And finally, your methodology shows the earmarks of a bad historian. One who forms a thesis (in your case, US very bad, UK very good) and then goes digging for information that supports your thesis to the exclusion (and rejection) of anything that may counter it. As my thesis advisor told me many years ago, that's not lazy history, that's dishonest history…

Respond if you like. Rest assured, I will not read it…."

Fascinating? So what about an individual who insists a hole in one watertight section will cause a ship to sink, despite all the studies (in particular DK Browns) showing it won't?

If you don't read this then that's fine. Thanks for the "discussion" such as it's been. I came to this thread entirely to try an share some knowledge I had about the period, but the only thing I've found out is who bought the second and third books in Harrison's "Stars and Stripes" trilogy. We all bought the first, but most I think were put off by the pile of Ameriwank/ Britscrew. However I can now see the market….

"I came to this thread entirely to try an share some knowledge I had about the period,"

No, you came here to push your peculiar agenda (as you have numerous times before) of 'UK very, very good' and 'US very, very bad'. In your words 'Britwank/ Ameriscrew'. And your continual cherrypicking and blatant misrepresentation of data to support your views is something I find particularly disgusting.

"but the only thing I've found out is who bought the second and third books in Harrison's "Stars and Stripes" trilogy. We all bought the first, but most I think were put off by the pile of Ameriwank/ Britscrew. However I can now see the market…."

Sorry, never read Harrison (or Turtledove). I have zero interest in the contrafactual genre. Most are badly researched and badly written often with a thinly veiled agenda at work. And if you're conflating Harrison's fiction with history, well, that's just sad…

"No, you came here to push your peculiar agenda (as you have numerous times before) of 'UK very, very good' and 'US very, very bad'. In your words 'Britwank/ Ameriscrew'. And your continual cherrypicking and blatant misrepresentation of data to support your views is something I find particularly disgusting. "

I thought you weren't going to respond?

Anyway, you came in taking a ridiculous position that I was claiming the "Brits" could "walk on water" and "always hit" (actual position – no, don't be stupid, hence the pontoon train in each corps and a figure of less than 5% of shots hitting).

Then you gave us the great nugget that if Russia declared war on Britain then Britain should refrain from attacking "neutral" Russian shipping (or maybe you just failed to comprehend.

Then you advanced the theory that HMS Terror did not exist, and failed to understand the meaning of "completed" – it meant signed off by the constructor as needing no further alterations. You then misunderstood the meaning of "Commissioned" – which meant assigned to a duty station or squadron. I guess the fact that Black Prince and Defence were Commissioned before completed must blow your mind!

You profered that a "fully proofed" 11 inch could pierce 4.5", despite the fact you claim to have Parkes, which says it can't.

Then you effectively suggest that a single 11" hole in Warrior will progressively flood her, ignoring the compartmentalisation etc.

Frankly, if you think this is a Ameriscrew then you've led a very sheltered life.

"I thought you weren't going to respond?"

Its a Holiday and I got bored…

"Anyway, you came in taking a ridiculous position that I was claiming the "Brits" could "walk on water" and "always hit" (actual position – no, don't be stupid, hence the pontoon train in each corps and a figure of less than 5% of shots hitting)."

Sarcasm, laddy. Or are you incapable of discerning that..

"Then you gave us the great nugget that if Russia declared war on Britain then Britain should refrain from attacking "neutral" Russian shipping (or maybe you just failed to comprehend."

Ok, got me there. Of course, if Britain is at war with with Russia, then why would she go to war with the US? Or.. If she's at war with the US, then why would she go to war with Russia? Doesn't make sense, does it now?

"Then you advanced the theory that HMS Terror did not exist, and failed to understand the meaning of "completed" – it meant signed off by the constructor as needing no further alterations. You then misunderstood the meaning of "Commissioned" – which meant assigned to a duty station or squadron. I guess the fact that Black Prince and Defence were Commissioned before completed must blow your mind!"

Most navies worry about SEAGOING assets (including the RN). A floating battery does not a SEAGOING asset make. And you are the only one who can't see the difference. You're not seriously suggesting Terror would take up a position in a battleline with Warrior, Defence, et al? If yes, then you know even less about naval warfare than you've already shown.

A for the 'commissioning' issue. Well, you can push a ship out before its completed (its been done many times). Not generally a good idea, though. As for Defence being 'commissioned': So what? She got her assignment. Whoopee. Doesn't change the fact that she was still under dockyard hands getting fitted out. And I doubt the Admiralty would have been very happy sending her out that way.

"You profered that a "fully proofed" 11 inch could pierce 4.5", despite the fact you claim to have Parkes, which says it can't."

Parkes isn't my only source. Unlike you, I don't cherrypick sources.

"Then you effectively suggest that a single 11" hole in Warrior will progressively flood her, ignoring the compartmentalisation etc."

Never said a single hole. But multiple hits, even hits in the citadel waterline (which could open seams through shock) could.

Anyway, this has been fun (in a warped sort of way). Enjoy your fantasy (I read your blog; you really should look into writing fantasy. You're quite good at it…).

Give my regards to Harry (Turtledove and Harrison)….

Ran across this in one of the academic papers I had saved. This was based upon experience of the later monitors in the attack upon Charleston IIRC -

"The monitors' 15-inch guns, with 440-pound cannon balls, took seven minutes to fire. Furthermore, the 11-inch
gun could not be loaded or fired at the same time as the larger gun further slowing down the process."

B

"The monitors' 15-inch guns, with 440-pound cannon balls, took seven minutes to fire. Furthermore, the 11-inch
gun could not be loaded or fired at the same time as the larger gun further slowing down the process."

See? Seven minutes to load a gun. One volley of two guns roughly every quarter hour. 8 rounds per hour (4 from each gun).