WI No USS Monitor?

John Fredrick Parker · Aug 21, 2014

Those of you knowledgeable of the ACW know about the USS Monitor; what you may not know, is that the revolutionary ship might not have been built, had it not been for a late decision by its designer, John Ericsson, to submit it to the US Naval Department. (Apparently, he was miffed at the department for some reason or another at the time.)

So supposing Ericsson doesn't submit his design. Would a lesser ship have stood a chance against the CSS Virginia? And if the Virginia had sunk this alternate ironside, what impact would that have on the course of the war?

David S Poepoe · Aug 22, 2014

The USS New Ironsides is practically forgotten as opposed to the monitors, and it was one of the best ironclads built by the Union. The monitor was a technological deadend, but it served its purpose in allowing the quick creation of an ironclad fleet.

The CSS Virginia may be able to punch a whole in the Union blockade, but the North could just withdraw its forces off shore and she won't be able to follow.

Always a bit favourable to the USS Keokuk.

However, without Ericsson's monitor the Union still has an ace up its sleeve, with James Eads. Eads design may innovative riverine ironclads and built he own version of a turret that was more advanced than Ericsson's. I would consider that eventually Eads would be called to Washington and asked to apply himself to seagoing ironclads.

John Fredrick Parker · Aug 22, 2014

So, all told, how much more time does this give the Virginia to push the US Navy around? Does this weaken the blockade during this time, and how much? And what does the CSA do with this time?

usertron2020 · Aug 22, 2014

John Fredrick Parker said:
So, all told, how much more time does this give the Virginia to push the US Navy around? Does this weaken the blockade during this time, and how much? And what does the CSA do with this time?

She could, and did (for one day), shatter the blockade of Norfolk and by extension Virginia. But she was not a true blue water ship in her ironclad state. Had she tried to say sail off to break the blockade of North Carolina (or worse, head up the Potomac), she would have come to grief.

John Fredrick Parker · Aug 22, 2014

usertron2020 said:
She could, and did (for one day), shatter the blockade of Norfolk and by extension Virginia. But she was not a true blue water ship in her ironclad state. Had she tried to say sail off to break the blockade of North Carolina (or worse, head up the Potomac), she would have come to grief.

Ah, so the blockade is pretty much unaffected?

elkarlo · Aug 22, 2014

John Fredrick Parker said:
Ah, so the blockade is pretty much unaffected?

What would this do to union Chesapeake traffic?

usertron2020 · Aug 22, 2014

John Fredrick Parker said:
Ah, so the blockade is pretty much unaffected?

No, as a threat, the Merrimac could deter a lot of traffic. The civilian populace didn't know about her stability and draft issues.

elkarlo said:
What would this do to union Chesapeake traffic?

Stay away from Norfolk, which was still Confederate occupied at this time. But the currents in the Chesapeake are very nasty. The Merrimac would risk running aground. If that happened, even temporarily, a Union wooden warship could close in with a spar torpedo, and if they're lucky, blow the whole stern end of the ship off.

Driftless · Aug 22, 2014

USS Cairo (City Class Ironclads)

It's comparing apples and walnuts to be sure, but the US had the City Class Ironclads (i.e. USS Cairo, Cinncinati, etc) under construction on the Mississippi in 1861

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-class_ironclad

They were ironclad river gunboats, never intended for the sea. Their design more resembled the Virginia than the Monitor. Their virtue in this discussion is that James Eads had both innovative ideas and some experience in building ironclads at an early point.

No Ericsson & the Monitor, then Eads maybe gets called east to fill the gap.

David S Poepoe · Aug 22, 2014

John Fredrick Parker said:
Ah, so the blockade is pretty much unaffected?

No, the blockade is affected - yet only briefly in one place. The Virginia can't be everywhere and any holes are usually plugged up quickly.

Driftless · Aug 22, 2014

Also, many of the monitor & casemate Ironclads used by both sides were shallow-draft ships. They were effective as long as they stayed in rivers, estuaries and other protected water.

Case in point: the loss of the Monitor in a gale

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/monitr-l.htm

If pressed by local ironclads, the more conventional blockading ships draw back to deeper water. That means they cover a larger area, leaving more wiggle room for blockade runners, but it still keeps some pressure.

Locke01 · Aug 22, 2014

David S Poepoe said:
The USS New Ironsides is practically forgotten as opposed to the monitors, and it was one of the best ironclads built by the Union. The monitor was a technological deadend, but it served its purpose in allowing the quick creation of an ironclad fleet.

The New ironsides doesn't get nearly enough attention. It was a far from perfect design to be sure and suffered from the usual limitations of hasty, wartime construction, but it served the Union well during its career.

Driftless · Aug 22, 2014

The level of naval innovation going on during the ACW is remarkable. All of these were developed and put into use, with some level of success.

Turret ironclads (USS Monitor, Keokuk, et al)
Casemate ironclads (CSS Virginia, CSS Albemarle, USS Cairo)
River/Estuary ironclads (USS Cairo, USS Carondelet)
Seagoing ironclads (USS New Ironsides)
Submarines (CSS Hunley)
Spar Torpedo boats (CSS David)
Semi-submersibles (USS Spuyten Duyvil/Stromboli)

Dathi THorfinnsson · Aug 22, 2014

As others have pointed out, the US (Union) had multiple lines of ironclad development in progress. They can use a different ship and the Virginia/Merimack is neutralized after a couple of weeks or maybe a month longer than OTL.

So. Little effect on the war, really.

frlmerrin · Aug 22, 2014

The USN was justifiably terrified of the Merrimac. The fall back plan if Monitor failed was to use a large fast supply ship, fill her bow with concrete, arm her with several large forward facing guns and send her at Merrimac at full speed. It had a good chance of working.

Locke01 · Aug 22, 2014

Anyone here familiar with the USS Dunderberg? Now there is a ship not many people talk about.

TFSmith121 · Aug 22, 2014

Actually, the plan to deal with Virginia absent Monitor

frlmerrin said:
The USN was justifiably terrified of the Merrimac. The fall back plan if Monitor failed was to use a large fast supply ship, fill her bow with concrete, arm her with several large forward facing guns and send her at Merrimac at full speed. It had a good chance of working.

Actually, the plan to deal with Virginia absent Monitor was to draw Virginia into deep water and - since she was a singleton - overwhelm her with fire from multiple warships firing from multiple bearings. There's a reason Minnesota, Roanoke, Congress, and Cumberland were all waiting for her off Hampton Roads.

The problem, of course, in littoral warfare is there is not a lot of deep water, as both the USN and Virginia's commanders learned. Preusmably anyone else sending an ironclad to US waters in the same period might have learned that painful lesson as well...

The concept of using Vanderbilt as a ram came later.

As it was, William B. Cushing, with two steam launches, a dozen or so men, and the sort of daring young naval officers were known for, put down Albemarle absent an ironclad in sight - other than the one that was sunk, of course.

Best,

frlmerrin · Aug 22, 2014

Largely because it (Dunderberg) was even longer than Mersey and Orlando, far far too long for a wooden framed ship especially one that was iron cased. The frame flexed and twisted in even moderate seas and it leaked like a sieve as it's planking opened. There is a good chance that had it ever fired its large battery of heavy guns in anger it would have torn itself apart.

TFSmith121 · Aug 22, 2014

Interesting design; she and the two armoured frigates

Locke01 said:
Anyone heere familiar with the USS Dunderberg? Now there is a ship not many people talk about.

Interesting design; she and the two armoured frigates built for Italy are about at the top end of the spectrum in terms of size for what the US could build in the 1860s, as City of Tokio and City of Peking were in the 1870s...

Best,

Locke01 · Aug 22, 2014

frlmerrin said:
Largely because it (Dunderberg) was even longer than Mersey and Orlando, far far too long for a wooden framed ship especially one that was iron cased. The frame flexed and twisted in even moderate seas and it leaked like a sieve as it's planking opened. There is a good chance that had it ever fired its large battery of heavy guns in anger it would have torn itself apart.

I think one of the issues with the planking was the use of unseasoned green wood. That's an error many navies were prone to in the age of sail when fleets had to be improvised in a hurry. The entire design does strike me as a bit unsound, but naval construction is not exactly my primary area of interest, so I have to defer to the opinions of others more knowledgeable about the subject.

frlmerrin · Aug 22, 2014

TFSmith121 said:
Actually, the plan to deal with Virginia absent Monitor was to draw Virginia into deep water and - since she was a singleton - overwhelm her with fire from multiple warships firing from multiple bearings. There's a reason Minnesota, Roanoke, Congress, and Cumberland were all waiting for her off Hampton Roads.

The problem, of course, in littoral warfare is there is not a lot of deep water, as both the USN and Virginia's commanders learned. Preusmably anyone else sending an ironclad to US waters in the same period might have learned that painful lesson as well...

The concept of using Vanderbilt as a ram came later.

As it was, William B. Cushing, with two steam launches, a dozen or so men, and the sort of daring young naval officers were known for, put down Albemarle absent an ironclad in sight - other than the one that was sunk, of course.

Best,

The Hampton Roads are not deep water. The idea that the USN which had been using this haven since the creation of the USA would not realise this simple fact is absurd. The plan was as I explained.

I am beginning to suspect from the similarity of your writing style and the lack of coherence to many of your arguments that you are P Tsouras the writer of Britainnia's Fist. Would you care to comment?