Hello All!
I've been going through lots of books lately on Hampton Roads, I should've taken notes from some of the books though. It seems the more I read, the more questions I had pop up in my mind.
For the Monitor, the US gun crews were just using regular charges for their 11-inch guns, right? Per Navy regulations on that date, they were not allowed to use double charges? The guns were better built but the brass thought there was an excessive chance of them bursting, causing ship damage and killing gun crews.
IF, just saying IF, the Monitor crews were able to use larger charges could they have penetrated the Merrimack's armor faster, possibly winning the combat for the Union?
For the Merrimack, their gun crews used shells versus the wooden hulled vessels they faced the first day of battle. Very effective! But did they neglect having any wrought iron solid shot for use against other ironclads? Was that type of ammunition available at all in Gosport, or were they just stuck with shells?
Going with the above Monitor note, double-charging one of their Brooke's rifles or one of the 9" smoothbores, using sold shot, could they have penetrated the turret armor of the Monitor?
Lastly, the ramming attacks. In several books the ram of the Merrimack was said to have not been installed securely, mounting plates were flawed and not replaced so the ram was not "perfectly" secure. Also Buchanan did not use full speed for his first ramming attack, he called for his ship to start backing to avoid being caught in the hull of the Cumberland.
If he had gone full speed with a secure ram, could the attack have been more devastating? Maybe not lose his ram at all? Or would he have issues with his less than reliable engines and gotten pulled down as the Cumberland sank? Apparently he did the same thing in his ramming attack on the Monitor, slowing at the last minute so that attack also was not delivered at full force. Plus the Monitor having rudder problems with her ram attack on the stern of the Merrimack.
It seems like both ships could have "won" over the other, in several scenarios, if construction, shot and gun charges had been different.
Thoughts? Or am I way off base?