Ironclad warfare without the American Civil War

Thande

Donor
How would ironclad warfare develop in a timeline without the American Civil War (or with a much shorter war in which the alt-CSA never gets hold of ironclads, so there's no ironclad warfare in it, it comes to the same thing) ?

IIRC, before the ACW, the biggest example of ironclad warfare was the Austro-Italian War, which still focused on ramming as the main means of attack. But those members who know more about this topic can say more...how would naval strategies develop in such a TL?
 
How would ironclad warfare develop in a timeline without the American Civil War (or with a much shorter war in which the alt-CSA never gets hold of ironclads, so there's no ironclad warfare in it, it comes to the same thing) ?

IIRC, before the ACW, the biggest example of ironclad warfare was the Austro-Italian War, which still focused on ramming as the main means of attack. But those members who know more about this topic can say more...how would naval strategies develop in such a TL?

Battle of Lissa

I'm not expert in these things (for that you need 9.5 Loft Tigers) but I'm not sure how much of an impact American ironclads had outside of the ACW.

IIRC weren't most of them costal and riverine craft unsuitable for blue water operations?
 
Ironclads...

Ironclads were an idea who's time had come...La Gloire ws the first, and Britian quickly laid down Warrior and Black Prince. What the Civil War did was demonstrate clearly and unambiguously that the ironclad could defeat wooden ships...usually. IMVHO, this hastened the widespread adaptation, as military minds are often slow to adapt new innovations, for reasons both good and bad. But the ironclads were already being built, so they would have shown the advantage soon enough.
 
Battle of Lissa

I'm not expert in these things (for that you need 9.5 Loft Tigers) but I'm not sure how much of an impact American ironclads had outside of the ACW.

IIRC weren't most of them costal and riverine craft unsuitable for blue water operations?

If that is the battle he is talking about it is AFTER the ACW. A year after it ended in fact.
 
Battle of Lissa

I'm not expert in these things (for that you need 9.5 Loft Tigers) but I'm not sure how much of an impact American ironclads had outside of the ACW.

IIRC weren't most of them costal and riverine craft unsuitable for blue water operations?

I think that about every major navy in the world was considering them, but the ACW just brought it to public attention... without the Monitor/Merrimack battle, iironclads would have come along anyway, just more quietly...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I think that about every major navy in the world was considering them, but the ACW just brought it to public attention... without the Monitor/Merrimack battle, iironclads would have come along anyway, just more quietly...

Over 50 ironclads had been ordered by European nations before the Union ordered their first. A look at Lissa (I wrote that wikipedia article BTW) and you'll see the bulk of the ironclads that fought it were ordered before Hampton Roads.....
 
Monitor/Merrimack battle, iironclads would have come along anyway, just more quietly...

(My apologies for the anger that follows. This is just one of those things that annoys me hugely.)

:mad:







The Merrimack was burned and sunk in 1861!!!! It was NEVER an ironclad and most certainly did NOT engage the Monitor!!!!! The Virginia was built using parts from the Merrimack, but it wasn't the Merrimack!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:
 
(My apologies for the anger that follows. This is just one of those things that annoys me hugely.)

:mad:







The Merrimack was burned and sunk in 1861!!!! It was NEVER an ironclad and most certainly did NOT engage the Monitor!!!!! The Virginia was built using parts from the Merrimack, but it wasn't the Merrimack!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

:) I actually knew that... but it's commonly known as "Monitor vs. Merrimack", so that's what I used. Partly because I wanted to see if anyone would throw a fit.
 
Over 50 ironclads had been ordered by European nations before the Union ordered their first. A look at Lissa (I wrote that wikipedia article BTW) and you'll see the bulk of the ironclads that fought it were ordered before Hampton Roads.....

Ah. I knew that work had been done on them before the ACW. So, as I said, they were coming into use anyway, just quietly. Nothing like actual use in war to bring a new weapon to public attention....
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I think that about every major navy in the world was considering them, but the ACW just brought it to public attention... without the Monitor/Merrimack battle, iironclads would have come along anyway, just more quietly...

The advantages of iron warships over wood were obvious, but Lambert has (successfully IMHO) argued it was improvements in ammunition that drove it, specifically the Martin Molten Iron Shell, a very powerful incendiary.

euio's right, the Ironclad Virginia was built from had been struck off USN Commission, it was not the Merrimac.
 
The advantages of iron warships over wood were obvious, but Lambert has (successfully IMHO) argued it was improvements in ammunition that drove it, specifically the Martin Molten Iron Shell, a very powerful incendiary.

true, but only people in naval circles were really noticing it. Hampton Roads brought it all out to the public eye. Without the ACW to focus attention on it, I'd imagine that most navies would have quietly converted to ironclads (as they were doing already), and some other battle somewhere else would have been the 'first ironclad' battle to bring them out in the open...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
true, but only people in naval circles were really noticing it. Hampton Roads brought it all out to the public eye. Without the ACW to focus attention on it, I'd imagine that most navies would have quietly converted to ironclads (as they were doing already), and some other battle somewhere else would have been the 'first ironclad' battle to bring them out in the open...

True to a point, there was a great deal of hyperbole in the press, but I don't think it got a single ship ordered.

The old "we now only have 2 warships" quote attributed to the Times and repeated ah nauseum seems to be non-existent BTW. I spent an afternoon looking through the Times Digital Archive online...
 
I don't believe that this is true.

(My apologies for the anger that follows. This is just one of those things that annoys me hugely.)

:mad:







The Merrimack was burned and sunk in 1861!!!! It was NEVER an ironclad and most certainly did NOT engage the Monitor!!!!! The Virginia was built using parts from the Merrimack, but it wasn't the Merrimack!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:
 
Without the ACW, ironclads might not have developed along the lines of the turret system, which was an American thing, and various variations of broadside ironclads would likely have predominated longer.

Maybe turrets would never have happened and we would have gone directly to barbettes, and from there to the modern turret (which developed from the barbette, not the actual turret).
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Without the ACW, ironclads might not have developed along the lines of the turret system, which was an American thing, and various variations of broadside ironclads would likely have predominated longer.

Maybe turrets would never have happened and we would have gone directly to barbettes, and from there to the modern turret (which developed from the barbette, not the actual turret).

No, the Ericcson turret was a dead end, and only built in the Union, Sweden and Russia (the latter two built knock offs of the Passiac). Everyone else built Coles turrets, which evolved into Barbettes and modern Turrets.


I don't believe that this is true.

It is.
 
I was TRYING to get a rise out of euio but you ruined it.

Coles turrets did not evolve into barbettes - they too were a dead end, and not different in basic concept from Ericsson's.

With the turret, the entire gunhouse revolves, and the weight of this, the armored base, and the much greater machinery required to turn it were way heavy mandated very low-freeboard ships.

With the barbette you have an stationary armored tower with a revolving plate in it on which the guns sit, greatly reducing weight and allowing higher siting. Once turrets fell out of use and guns in barbettes received armored hoods, the term turret got transferred to them.

While Coles had some Crimean War success, his turrets were really only considered useful for fortress attack. Without the ACW I'm not sure that there would have been as strong an impetus to create sea-going turret ships, and it would only take a few years delay for them to be skipped entirely in favor of barbette ships.

No, the Ericcson turret was a dead end, and only built in the Union, Sweden and Russia (the latter two built knock offs of the Passiac). Everyone else built Coles turrets, which evolved into Barbettes and modern Turrets.




It is.
 
Top