|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSmyth writes: |
They weren't as effective as, say mines/torpedoes. But I do think they were a potential threat to Union naval forces, especially soft targets like supply ships and blockaders. Without a comparable wooden navy, why not? |
Back to the Homepage
676 hits since 2 Apr 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?
If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?
| VOTING RESULTS | |||
| Answer | Votes | % | Chart |
other (explain) | 2 | 2% |  |
|---|---|---|---|
none of these/no opinion | 8 | 8% | |
they should have avoided ironclad development | 14 | 14% | |
they were right to develop ironclads | 75 | 76% | |
| POLL IS CLOSED |
| POLL DESCRIPTION | |
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? Poll set up by |
, based on