the best test of the durability (and weaknesses) of the US monitors and other Ironclads is the naval attack on Charleston in 1863. There is enormous information on who had what in terms of weapons and what damage was inflicted on each ship and at what ranges. That battle proved that ironclads are tough, but it also proved that steaming into a cul de sac (and essentially a cross fire) was a high risk option as within 3 hours Du Pont had to order a withdrawal.
Is that especially relevant to the post you quoted? That was all about closing velocities and rate of fire, and for what it's worth the monitors at Charleston took their damage from weapons which could not at that range harm
Warrior. Sumter was the closest, and engaged with 2 7" Brooke RML (with wrought iron bolts), 4 8" and 4 10" Columbiads, 6 42pdr rifles, 2 9" Dahlgrens, 8 32 pounders, 4 8" shell guns and 3 10" coastal mortars - the range of the fire was in most cases over 1,000 yards, which is a range the 15" Dahlgren cannot penetrate Warrior.
Most of these weapons are less powerful than the 68-lber smoothbore - only the 10" and perhaps 7" guns are using more powder and they're spreading it over a wider area.
Certainly the Monitors had serious weaknesses regarding speed and rate of fire, but they were not the only ships carrying Dahlgrens nor are ships the only platform to have them.
Well, yes, but my point was to highlight the issue that your assertion that battles were at close range, while true in the Civil War period, is an artefact of
ship design and capability not a fundamental rule. Broadside ships have so many more potentially effective guns that it changes the calculus - for reference, the range from "where the ironclads at Charleston took their damage" to "the test penetration with the Dahlgren rifle and special shell" is 800-1000 yards which is about three minutes at eight knots - three full broadsides from the 68-lber, or with Warrior about forty potentially effective shots.
Remember that to fire forty potentially effective shots a monitor would have to fire continuously for five hours and you see the problem.
But if you think that I've not shown the non-monitor Dahlgren-armed side of the US navy, go back and look at the battles. Where
specifically have I missed something critical out?
But I posted a historical source from the period citing an actual test, which if you are serious about history and are hoping to be taken more seriously than a "British wank" I would encourage you to examine.
The actual test is also irrelevant to this TL as it's later, and also describes an experimental weapon. It's roughly equivalent to saying that - as the Germans first built an Elektroboote OTL in 1943-4 - they should have been able to use them to stop ANVIL or SHINGLE... or that a TL has to include German jet fighters by 1942 or it's an Allied-wank.
Of course, if a story contradicting actual tests from the period renders something a wank, then you should be aware that no fictional treatment of
Warrior and
Monitor fighting one another (that I know of) is
less of a wank than mine - I cite specific tests to support my position on their relative armour penetration, remember that the gun deck is closed off by a bulkhead, specifically note the effects of both projectile spall and misfires, mention iron quality, and of course stick to actual historical rate of fire. I've corrected mistakes that show up in
Rainbow of Blood and
Stars and Stripes forever relating to the matchup, and so far as I know I have not included any new ones.
If your contention is that my story is a Britwank
unless I include this weapon, then OTL is also a Britwank as this weapon was never adopted for service and when test fired by
New Ironsides proved to be nearly unusable.
so as it is one of two threads currently active, I posted it here on the assumption that there are people who might find it interesting
I've never claimed British ironclads are invincible in the late Civil War, just that the US had no guns able to penetrate the battery of
Warrior or
Terror as of Trent. Once the 15" gun is in use they have to tread a little more carefully anyway as that can penetrate at close range (historically they decided to stay out past 800 yards), but it has the same rate of fire problems as other large ML guns.
To post a weapon from 1863 in a Trent thread is fine - but the way you did it is as if to ask for a fight, by attacking "those who believe in invincible British ironclads"
And a final point.
If I had had
Monitor as it was at Hampton Roads face
Warrior of the same date, that would not have been a Britwank as I would have been taking the real ships at the same OTL time period and facing them off against one another. And
Monitor would have been unable to penetrate
Warrior's battery.
Instead, I had
Monitor considerably upgraded with a gun that
I guessed was able to penetrate
Warrior - without evidence either way.
And for that I'm labelled Britwanking.
Whenever I've put a thumb on the scales TTL, it has to my knowledge been to allow the Union to do better. For example, I deliberately made it so the Confederates were stopped at Rock Creek (otherwise they'd have captured Washington); I let the Union crash-build ironclads
far faster than historically possible; I had Union naval guns invented (the sleeved Dahlgrens) with greater penetrating power than OTL Union guns of the same time period and assumed they would generally not explode; I had the British simply not mount any land offensives until well into the early summer.