Naval Development: No Crimean War


It’s been stated by most naval experts, that the Crimean War demonstrated the value of the armored hull over that of the wooden hull. If the Crimean War had not been fought, how long would wooden hulled vessels have remained a staple of naval warfare?
 
Probably until the American Civil War, though the inspiration for rebuilding the Merrimack might not be there, or be different.

Can't think of any iron vs. wood conflicts between the two, but that may be my ignorance.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Probably until the American Civil War, though the inspiration for rebuilding the Merrimack might not be there, or be different.

Can't think of any iron vs. wood conflicts between the two, but that may be my ignorance.

The French operated riverine ironclads in their war against Austria in 1859, but the Austrians didn't have much to fight them.

However, the wooden hulls' days had ended, and it was the Martin (Incendiary) Shell that doomed it.
 
Considering that most of the world’s admiralties still regarded sail power as essential up until the 1890’s, it wouldn’t surprise me if armor plating would have been just as slow to implement (even with explosive shells).
 
I would be surprised, since the reason sails were valued had nothing to do with the reason iron hulls may have taken longer to develop.
 
I was moreover trying to reinforce the stagnation that can occur among senior officers and naval policy makers, than the practical reasons for retaining sail power. Mind you, by the mid 1880’s, the sail for all intensive purposes had for warships become obsolete, with the sole exception of sailing vessels being profitable for long distance trade from Europe to Australia.
 
I was moreover trying to reinforce the stagnation that can occur among senior officers and naval policy makers, than the practical reasons for retaining sail power. Mind you, by the mid 1880’s, the sail for all intensive purposes had for warships become obsolete, with the sole exception of sailing vessels being profitable for long distance trade from Europe to Australia.

The problem is that while its out of date, its also something where - barring good coaling facilities being reliably available - steam is not all its cracked up to be.

It may well be that stagnation would have played a role, but this is probably not a good example of it.
 
It’s been stated by most naval experts, that the Crimean War demonstrated the value of the armored hull over that of the wooden hull. If the Crimean War had not been fought, how long would wooden hulled vessels have remained a staple of naval warfare?

The Crimean War was not the driving force behind ironclads. That would be the French introduction of the Paixhans guns, and when the Russians destroyed a Turkish fleet with it at the Battle of Sinop in 1853, every European navy took notice. By the Crimea, many RN ships had a thin layer of armor added. They were already showing up for the war dressed for success. At most we can say the Crimean War accelerated ironclad development.
 
The Crimean War was not the driving force behind ironclads. That would be the French introduction of the Paixhans guns, and when the Russians destroyed a Turkish fleet with it at the Battle of Sinop in 1853, every European navy took notice. By the Crimea, many RN ships had a thin layer of armor added. They were already showing up for the war dressed for success. At most we can say the Crimean War accelerated ironclad development.

Though it’s fully possible to believe that due to the treasury often times being the greatest force behind poor procurement policies and military technological stagnation, that there would be less incentive to actually build a true ironclad.
Instead I could see of the great powers experimenting with warships such as France’s “Gloire” whose hull was wooden, covered in iron plating, but I still believe that ships such as HMS Warrior would still have been quite a ways away, rather than becoming the direct response.
 
Though it’s fully possible to believe that due to the treasury often times being the greatest force behind poor procurement policies and military technological stagnation, that there would be less incentive to actually build a true ironclad.
Instead I could see of the great powers experimenting with warships such as France’s “Gloire” whose hull was wooden, covered in iron plating, but I still believe that ships such as HMS Warrior would still have been quite a ways away, rather than becoming the direct response.

They would be experimenting until a war came along. Then someone would be smart enough to realize that an all-iron construction would be better. Although it would happen later, the Monitor was only made because of the Merrimack/Virginia and the Union was scared. Seeing as there were no major naval conflicts from then until the Spanish-American war it might be a very different world of naval development.
 
Though it’s fully possible to believe that due to the treasury often times being the greatest force behind poor procurement policies and military technological stagnation, that there would be less incentive to actually build a true ironclad.
Instead I could see of the great powers experimenting with warships such as France’s “Gloire” whose hull was wooden, covered in iron plating, but I still believe that ships such as HMS Warrior would still have been quite a ways away, rather than becoming the direct response.

Wooden hulls with iron armor is by definition ironclad, neither is it's protection level inferior to iron ships. In fact the armor of the HMS Warrior was actually iron backed with teak, with teak making up most of the armor. For a very long time warship armor was some sort of iron/wood composite bolted to iron hull.

Starting from all iron hull had nothing to do with protection. Iron hulled civilian vessels had been built for decades before HMS Warrior already. But seasoned oak was not easy to come by and the price of iron was falling, and shipyards for wooden ships were busy with growing world trade while the new iron shipyards had excess capacity.

Iron hulls did have an important advantage. It allowed extra structural strength to build a longer ship. This was important because ironclads can only have a single deck of guns to maintain a low center of gravity. The only way to get more guns on a ship is to make it longer. So inexorably, the ironclad race must lead to longer ships with iron hulls.
 
They would be experimenting until a war came along. Then someone would be smart enough to realize that an all-iron construction would be better. Although it would happen later, the Monitor was only made because of the Merrimack/Virginia and the Union was scared. Seeing as there were no major naval conflicts from then until the Spanish-American war it might be a very different world of naval development.

Actually the First Sino-Japanese War had considerable naval action, but even here we are in the pre-Dreadnaught age. Ironclads never really got a chance to be tested in action.

Going off on a little tangent here. It's a pet WI of mine that in between the age of wood and iron ships someone could have experimented with ferro-cement ship construction. What this means is layering multiple iron "chicken wire" into the shape of a hull and then plastering it with cement.

This was a lot cheaper and technologically demanding than either wood or ironships. Armoring ferro-cement hulls would be both obvious and simple - just use a thicker layer of double reinforced concrete at the waterline.

This kind of low cost and effective warship could be built long before iron hulls were feasible. Naval guns of the period would be useless against such hulls. Ships of concrete would rule the waves! :D

ferrohull.jpg


Condesa.jpg
 
Wooden hulls with iron armor is by definition ironclad, neither is it's protection level inferior to iron ships. In fact the armor of the HMS Warrior was actually iron backed with teak, with teak making up most of the armor. For a very long time warship armor was some sort of iron/wood composite bolted to iron hull.

Starting from all iron hull had nothing to do with protection. Iron hulled civilian vessels had been built for decades before HMS Warrior already. But seasoned oak was not easy to come by and the price of iron was falling, and shipyards for wooden ships were busy with growing world trade while the new iron shipyards had excess capacity.

Iron hulls did have an important advantage. It allowed extra structural strength to build a longer ship. This was important because ironclads can only have a single deck of guns to maintain a low center of gravity. The only way to get more guns on a ship is to make it longer. So inexorably, the ironclad race must lead to longer ships with iron hulls.

All very good points and nicely covered. By the 1850s the wooden line of battle ship was reaching its end, because (among other things) they had reached the largest they could structurally go.
 
Top