How viable are naval rams?

frlmerrin

Banned
True, neither would any other form of torpedo besides mines (called torpedoes at the time), and spar torpedoes, certainly not the solid AP torpedo the OP mentioned

Not so.

In 1877 the Royal Navy used a Whitehead torpedo against Huáscar. The Torpedo Ram HMS Polyphemus (supposedly the model for Wells' HMS Thunderchild) was launched in 1881.
 
Not so.

In 1877 the Royal Navy used a Whitehead torpedo against Huáscar. The Torpedo Ram HMS Polyphemus (supposedly the model for Wells' HMS Thunderchild) was launched in 1881.
And the armored ram as a viable weapon in combat was done by that period, though the designers knew it not

Guns had improved enough that rams were not the only way to penetrate armor

The armored ram period is usually considered to have ended in 1870 or so, by that time effective battleship designs with good heavy guns started appearing and the need to ram was gone, though designers kept putting them on just in case

While the Whitehead was around in 1870 it did not become a viable weapon until an improved version later in the decade

There is a reason only one vessel of Polyphemus's type was built and it was not part of the armored ram period but an experiment at reviving the concept after the period was over

In any case I was always talking about modern torpedoes to explain why no one built a solid AP torpedo or has plans to do so
 
Last edited:

frlmerrin

Banned
And the armored ram as a viable weapon in combat was done by that period [1877-81], though the designers knew it not

Guns had improved enough that rams were not the only way to penetrate armor

The armored ram period is usually considered to have ended in 1870 or so, by that time effective battleship designs with good heavy guns started appearing and the need to ram was gone, though designers kept putting them on just in case

Your first statement is somewhat ambiguous and unclear, it is also clearly untrue because at the battle of Iquique in 1879 the then Peruvian armoured turret ram Huáscar sank the Chilean Corvette Esmeralda by ramming. Clearly, ramming was a viable weapon at that point.

In 1870 and 1880 guns had not significantly improved over 1860s Prussian and British guns. In 1880 these guns still used gunpowder and even though some of them were breach loading rifles which meant they were quicker firing and more accurate, the key factor, the muzzle velocity had not significantly risen above American Civil War values. Thus in this period you get a lot of very large, caliber ultimately fairly ineffective ‘battering weapons’. It is not until the very late 1880s/early 1890s and the adoption of cordite and similar compounds that the guns really begin to be a match for the armour.

I also note that your first and third statements are contradictory. If ‘designers new it not’ [that a ram was not a viable weapon] after 1870 as you suggest then how could they possibly ‘kept putting them [rams] on just in case?



While the Whitehead was around in 1870 it did not become a viable weapon until an improved version later in the decade


The Whitehead torpedo which I referred to was fitted onboard HMS Shah and she used it to engaged Huáscar in 1877. She missed but one can hardly make conclusions about viability from a single incident. In what way is 1877 not ‘later in the decade’ of the 1870s? What (if any) point are you trying to make?


There is a reason only one vessel of Polyphemus's type was built and it was not part of the armored ram period but an experiment at reviving the concept after the period was over

HMS Polyphemus may have been the only vessel in her class (I have no idea) but she was far from the only torpedo ram built. Chile had Esmeralda (not the vessel discussed above) and Arturo Pratt for example.

In any case I was always talking about modern torpedoes to explain why no one built a solid AP torpedo or has plans to do so

Indeed, I still don’t see why you started talking about modern torpedoes.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Wells stated as much and "Thunderchild" is a literary pun on "Polyphemus".

I would be most interested to hear how this literary pun works as I cannot work it out for myself.

Polyphemus means according to Wikipedia (I have forgotten all the Ancient Greek I ever learned) 'much spoken of' or 'famous'. So that is not it.

Polyphemus the Cyclops was the son of the god Poseidon a sea god not a thunder god, he can cause earth-quakes but not thunder. So that does not work either.

Help please?
 
Your first statement is somewhat ambiguous and unclear, it is also clearly untrue because at the battle of Iquique in 1879 the then Peruvian armoured turret ram Huáscar sank the Chilean Corvette Esmeralda by ramming. Clearly, ramming was a viable weapon at that point.

In 1870 and 1880 guns had not significantly improved over 1860s Prussian and British guns. In 1880 these guns still used gunpowder and even though some of them were breach loading rifles which meant they were quicker firing and more accurate, the key factor, the muzzle velocity had not significantly risen above American Civil War values. Thus in this period you get a lot of very large, caliber ultimately fairly ineffective ‘battering weapons’. It is not until the very late 1880s/early 1890s and the adoption of cordite and similar compounds that the guns really begin to be a match for the armour.

I also note that your first and third statements are contradictory. If ‘designers new it not’ [that a ram was not a viable weapon] after 1870 as you suggest then how could they possibly ‘kept putting them [rams] on just in case?
No contradictions, Peru and Chile aren't first rank powers, so they are going to be behind the curve on things like weapons, such a thing would not work with Britain, France, Russia or Italy, it does not mean the period lasted until the 1880's, merely that Chile and Peru are behind the curve on naval technology

There were actually pretty standard improvements in guns, though mostly in size and penetration, no gun could reliably penetrate 4" of iron plate in 1860, by 1870 guns could, compare the 11 inch smoothbores on monitor to the 16 inch rifles on Inflexible, or the 17.7 on Diulio, huge difference

If they knew the ram was not a viable weapon then they would not put it on at all, but the gun was still the primary weapon but the ram was on their because they could still see a possible use for it

The Whitehead torpedo which I referred to was fitted onboard HMS Shah and she used it to engaged Huáscar in 1877. She missed but one can hardly make conclusions about viability from a single incident. In what way is 1877 not ‘later in the decade’ of the 1870s? What (if any) point are you trying to make?
that it was later in the decade and thus after the period had ended


HMS Polyphemus may have been the only vessel in her class (I have no idea) but she was far from the only torpedo ram built. Chile had
Esmeralda (not the vessel discussed above) and Arturo Pratt for example.
She was, the British cancelled the others of her class

Again Chile is not a first rate power so is not representative, if France Russia and Italy were still building them it would be different, some nations are just behind the curve

Indeed, I still don’t see why you started talking about modern torpedoes.
Because only modern tech would be able to produce a solid AP torpedo like the OP suggested
 
She was, the British cancelled the others of her class

Again Chile is not a first rate power so is not representative, if France Russia and Italy were still building them it would be different, some nations are just behind the curve

Actually, the UK was not the only high-level naval power to construct a torpedo ram. Ever heard of the USS Intrepid?
 

frlmerrin

Banned
No contradictions, Peru and Chile aren't first rank powers, so they are going to be behind the curve on things like weapons, such a thing would not work with Britain, France, Russia or Italy, it does not mean the period lasted until the 1880's, merely that Chile and Peru are behind the curve on naval technology

You did contradicted yourself and continue to do so. If ‘designers new it not’ [that a ram was not a viable weapon] after 1870 as you suggest then how could they possibly ‘kept putting them [rams] on just in case’? Either they knew or they didn’t if they did the latter might be true if they did the former is true.

This is basic binary logic. Also your dates appear to be moving around a little? Are you claiming the ram era ended in the 1870s or the 1880s?

In the post-Trafalgar 19th Century there is only one first rate naval power, Great Britain. There is one or at most two second rate powers, France and Russia respectively. All other powers are third rate or less. It is often argued, with some justification, that in the 1870s and early 80s Chile had quite a powerful navy, more powerful than that of the contemporary USA in fact. Your suggestion that Chile was behind the curve on naval technology has no merit. Consider for example the appearance of the Almirante Cochrane and her sister shio Blanco Encalada at the naval battle of Angamos in 1879. Both were British built and at the time they were the most advanced warships in the Americas.

There were actually pretty standard improvements in guns, though mostly in size and penetration, no gun could reliably penetrate 4" of iron plate in 1860, by 1870 guns could, compare the 11 inch smoothbores on monitor to the 16 inch rifles on Inflexible, or the 17.7 on Diulio, huge difference

The 16” MLRs on Inflexible were large battering weapons as I discussed in my previous post. They had a muzzle velocity of around 1600 ft/s which is low compared to the ‘far charge’ muzzle velocities of the old 68lb/95cwt smoothbore cannon which (ISTR – no info to hand) was well over 2000 ft/s. They were little different in principle (but much better in construction) than the ACW Dhalgren naval pieces.

If they knew the ram was not a viable weapon then they would not put it on at all, but the gun was still the primary weapon but the ram was on their because they could still see a possible use for it

So in other words rams WERE a viable weapon in the late 19th Century!

The Whitehead torpedo which I referred to was fitted onboard HMS Shah and she used it to engaged Huáscar in 1877. She missed but one can hardly make conclusions about viability from a single incident. In what way is 1877 not ‘later in the decade’ of the 1870s? What (if any) point are you trying to make?


that it was later in the decade and thus after the period had ended

Only if we agree with your suggested dates (I'm not even clear what they are at the moment they seem to be changing) for the ironclad ram period and clearly I don’t. I have also demonstrated that your (original) suggested dates are wrong. I have pointed out both that ramming was used as a successful tactic long after your suggested decline of the ironclad ram period and that the first class naval power was still building rams long after this date.

HMS Polyphemus may have been the only vessel in her class (I have no idea) but she was far from the only torpedo ram built. Chile had …

Esmeralda (not the vessel discussed above) and Arturo Pratt for example. She was, the British cancelled the others of her class


Again Chile is not a first rate power so is not representative, if France Russia and Italy were still building them it would be different, some nations are just behind the curve

As I said above of the third rate naval powers (everyone but the British, French and Russians) Chile in this period was towards the front.

The French built torpedo rams.

The Americans built the USS Katahdinin in 1896 and that wasn’t even a torpedo ram just a ram! Are you really suggesting that the USA was almost 40 years behind the naval technology curve?

Indeed, I still don’t see why you started talking about modern torpedoes.
Because only modern tech would be able to produce a solid AP torpedo like the OP suggested

To the best of my knowledge no one has built solid AP torpedoes in either the 19th or 20th century but as the British, French and probably the Russians and USA could all build chilled iron penetrator bolts before the end of the 1860s there is no reason to suppose modern technology would be needed to build what is frankly a useless weapon. A torpedo travelling through water cannot get up enough speed to give the weapon the kinetic energy it would need to pierce armour. Unless of course you want to consider super cavitating torpedoes but they are 1960s/70s Soviet technology and probably have a nuclear warhead rather than a sharp pointy bit of metal on the prow.
 
Top