"Civil War Ironclads lost at sea" Topic

Doing some research and looking for some input. It appears that the Union was the only side that moved ironclads on the open sea during the war to support the blockade.
It appears that there was a danger to doing this and that a couple ironclads were lost at sea this way. Is this correct? Also did the south attempt to move any ironclads into the open sea for any distance from one port to another?? Thanks.

The USS Monitor was lost at sea in a storm off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in 1863. The ship was discovered in 11973, and some parts of it, like the turret, have been salvaged.

The Union force that attacked Mobile in 1864 had four ironclad monitors. One of these had served with the James River squadron, and two had served with the Mississippi squadron prior to the attack on Mobile. So, not all attempts to move the ships across the open sea ended unfortunately.

I don't know if any Southern ships were moved about. The Union blockade would have made this difficult.

Grelber

Union ironclads lost "at sea" (besides the USS Monitor) were USS Weehawken link , USS Patapsco link , USS Milwaukee link , USS Osage link , and USS Tecumseh link . All except the USS Weehawken were sunk by Confederate mines.

As Grelber stated, I don't think any Confederate ironclads were "sunk at sea." They were all lost either on rivers or defending harbors.

Jim

I don't think any of the Union Ironclads lost to Confederate mines would be considered to be lost 'at sea' in the sense that the original poser was asking, e.g. away from the coast in transit between ports. The Weehawken was anchored off Morris Island outside Charleston and lost to heavy seas so not sure how that should be countered

The CSS/USS Atlanta was lost at sea in 1869 after being bought by the Haitian government.

That's why I put the phrase lost "at sea" in quotation marks.

Jim

Thanks, guys, for the input. Sounds like for the Union at least moving the ironclads around was not to risky in regard to natural problems like weather, engine failure, etc. As was mentioned I feel it would be pretty risky for the CSA to try and move ironclads to different ports by sea because of Union intervention and the fact that their engines were "famous" for poor performance and breakdowns.
I'm thinking in game terms that the CSA has the option (for the fun of it) but there is a 30% chance the ship will be "lost at sea" even without interception by Union ships.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong:) Happy gaming all!!

The United States Navy were generally successful at moving ironclads around the coast. They could undertake longer voyages. With Monitor type voyages, this can't have been an easy trip for the crews.

The double turret monitor Monadnock deployed to California in 1864. She did go through the Magellan Straits rather rounding the Horn.

After the war both Miantonomoh and Onondaga crossed the Atlantic.

BTW, Onondaga was a very bad bargan for the French, they found out that the hull armour was put on the wrong way around. The plating was next to the hull, then the wood backing and finally on the outside the light metal skin.

As to you suggested rule from Gamer1 for "lost at sea" I feel 30% is way too high. Lost on 1-2% would be high. Mechanical breakdown was still something that was still plaquing navies in the period 1890-1905, not just the 2nd & #rd Pacific Squadrons but also the Royal Navy. That comes for reading the accounts of maneuvers in Brassey's Naval Annual.

138SquadronRAF, thanks for the input. Keep in mind the 30% was only for the CSA ironclads, I think the historical record for the Union is good enough to not make it a factor in the game. If that clarifies things any???

CSS ironclads were not sea worthy. They were designed for brown water operations only. This was due to their engines being of inferior quality and generally under-powered.

The US had several classes of ocean-going ironclads of the Monitor turret type.

The CSS Stonewall was purchased in France and sailed from Spain to Cuba, (I believe), where she was sold because the war had ended. She ended up in the Japanese navy.

CSS ironclads were not sea worthy. They were designed for brown water operations only. This was due to their engines being of inferior quality and generally under-powered.

Well CSS Mississippi II, and CSS North Carolina were certainly were seaworthy. Unfortunately, for the Confederate States Navy they were never commissioned because the Royal Navy acquired them as HMS Scorpion and HMS Wyvern.