"ACW Ironclads at Sea??" Topic

Hello all. I am a little confused. I have noticed in some ACW games the union is allowed to have "ocean ironclads". I know that some ironclads were involved in port battles far from where they were built, like Mobile Bay and probably some others. But it is also my understanding that several ironclads sank at sea??
I would imagine it was dangerous for ironclads and monitors to move very far on the open ocean, even if trying to stay close to shore. I would think it would be even worse for CSA ironclads considering their general poor engine quality? It is also my understanding that during the ACW there were no true ironclads built for the deep oceans, or atleast not any that could do the job??
Am I correct that moving ironclads around on the ocean during the ACW was risky and if being represented in a game it would be justifiable that there is a small chance they could be lost at sea?? Opinions??? Thanks!!!

In 1866, the US double turrented ironclad monitor Miantonomoh visited England, demonstrating the ship's firepower at Spithead, outside Portsmouth, for members of the press, Parliament, and the Lords of the Admiralty

Sounds sort of like Tiger tanks. Getting from the depot to the battle, there was a high probability of them breaking down.
However, once they got there, they were good to go. 👍

Using Hazegray.org as my reference source. Of 24 monitors used in a seagoing role, only two were lost in whole or part to weather conditions – Monitor and Weehawken. Three others were lost to mines.

The design had too little freeboard and was quick to flood and sink. Moving a ship with a flaw like this in gale or hurricane conditions is would certainly be risky.

Of note,

1. Weehawken survived the storm that sank Monitor.

2. It sank in a gale while anchored off Morris Island, Charleston, 6 December 1863. A court of inquiry found that Weehawken had recently taken on a considerable amount of heavy ammunition in her forward compartments, reducing her forward freeboard and allowing water to rush down an open hawsepipe and hatch during the storm.

3. Lehigh survived a Force 10 gale off Cape Hatteras, perhaps the worst conditions survived by any ship of this general type.

4. Monitor was under tow, not its own power, when it was lost.

Miamtonomoh was lucky in that the westher for their crossing was fairly benign. Even so the shipneeded quite a bit of preparation for the trip and would have been disadvantaged in combat. The Confederates home made ironclads would have been as badly off, those that they purchased from Europe were far more seaworthy (although they weren't d2livered)

There were several ocean going ironclads built during the war. From memory there were: USS New Ironsides, Roanoke, Puritan, Dictator, and CSS Stonewall. Although Roanoke, Dictator, and Puritan were too late for combat and, I believe, Dictator(?) was never finished.

Okay so it sounds like the chance of them sinking at sea is to small to be worth bothering players with in a rule set. I do however feel that CSA ironclads need to have a small chance to be lost if put to sea because of several factors like poor engines, quality of construction, problems finding trained crews, having enough/quality coal, etc. This may also help support the historical fact that the CSA ironclads mainly just operated on rivers or in ports they were built to defend, not move around the open ocean/
Sound fair enough??? Thanks for all the input guys!!!!

Hey, the CSS "Texas" sailed all the way to Africa, up a river and shot down a helicopter. It must be true 'cause I seen it in a movie, although she was never finished.

notes on the Roanoke from Wikipedia

Captain Benjamin F. Sands reported that the ship's roll was so great that it would "preclude the possibility of fighting her guns at sea, and I was obliged to secure them with pieces of timber to prevent them fetching away".[10] Roanoke was assigned as harbor defense ship at Hampton Roads where she remained through the end of the war.[5] On 14 July, Sands test-fired his guns for the first time and both of the 15-inch Dahlgrens and one 150-pounder Parrott rifle dismounted themselves by their violent recoil.[15] Her rear turret required nearly 5 minutes to make a full rotation.[16]

CSA ironclad engines were so unreliable I'd hesitate to move them between ports in the south, much less ocean crossings. When built they usually defended the port they were at.

Murvihill I agree. Thats why I am thinking of a rule that will discourage the CSA from moving from port to port unless really needed. Thanks.

I have a memory of reading that when the USS Miantonomoh got to England her crew were so ill, due to the roll of the vessel, they were unfit to fight the ship. sadly i can't find the reference to back this up, but the raft design of monitors makes a lot fo roll very likely.