Uss monitor sinks before the battle of hampton roads

[cjc]

What would happen next? Presumably the galena could be used next, but it is gust as likely to sink as the monitor and has much worse armor to boot, I'm fairly confident the Virginia could win that fight although I'm less sure if she could sink the Galena. Then comes the new ironsides which is a disent ship but very unmanuverable and would also probably face the Richmond as well by this point.

McClellan would likely have to cancel the peninsula campaign, and I don't know about the Urbana plan, if it can be used then thats probably whats going to happen (still means Norfolk stays in Confederate hands intill 63' though) if not then lincoln probably forces McClellan to launch a Overland Campaign.

 

[Virginia Liberal]

The Galena would be next up but it wasn't much of an Ironclad the Virginia would handle her in a battle I believe. New Ironsides would be a challenge but by the time she can make an appearance lets say September ? more likely October of 1862 the CSS Richmond will be their to support the Virginia and the Hampton Roads Blockading squadron will have been forced to with draw either up the bay or out to sea. The Peninsular Campaign is toast now trying to land an army with the Virginia lurking in the Roads is suicide even McClellan could see that. Which triggers an Overland Campaign and a battle around the Bull Run line or maybe west towards Culpeper maybe I'd wager that its a CSA victory. Maybe Johnson avoids getting shot and Lee doesn't take command in his place. Interestingly out side of the civil war Turret ships would probably be delayed with out the monitor seeing combat.

 

[cjc]

The Galena would be next up but it wasn't much of an Ironclad the Virginia would handle her in a battle I believe. New Ironsides would be a challenge but by the time she can make an appearance lets say September ? more likely October of 1862 the CSS Richmond will be their to support the Virginia and the Hampton Roads Blockading squadron will have been forced to with draw either up the bay or out to sea. The Peninsular Campaign is toast now trying to land an army with the Virginia lurking in the Roads is suicide even McClellan could see that. Which triggers an Overland Campaign and a battle around the Bull Run line or maybe west towards Culpeper maybe I'd wager that its a CSA victory. Maybe Johnson avoids getting shot and Lee doesn't take command in his place. Interestingly out side of the civil war Turret ships would probably be delayed with out the monitor seeing combat.

Probably Fredericksburg actually, the a&o rail line dosnt head to Richmond and whithout the yourk and James rivers Mc can't out flank Johnson like Grant did whith Lee, so he has to follow the Fredericksburg-north Anna rail line assuming it can even supply his army (iv read it could only support 40,000 and even thin it Probably not going to be until July befor its repaired enuff for even that)
One thing I am curious about is if fort Monroe and/burnsides expedition are staved out, I don't know how much the Virginia could do to the burnside expedition but fort Monroe only has 60 days of food. And by October that would be out.

 

[BlueFlowwer]

Just for fun's sake I'm gonna tell a little story. I work in a maritime museum where there is a model of the Monitor and the maker, John Ericksson, actually were swedish! On one of the school holidays, the christmas one, I told the story of the monitor to several visitors. It's a very nice model.

 

[Virginia Liberal]

One thing I am curious about is if fort Monroe and/burnsides expedition are staved out, I don't know how much the Virginia could do to the burnside expedition but fort Monroe only has 60 days of food. And by October that would be out.

I think that the Virginia's ability to threaten Burnsides in North Carolina is slim I'm not sure how Seaworthy she was on the open sea more than monitor was but I'm betting not very much more. Now Fort Monroe may be very much out of luck in this scenario.

 

[EWHM]

Yes I don't think that the Virginia would get used far from Norfolk. But breaking the blockade in the Norfolk area and scuttling the the Peninsula campaign would be a huge change.

 

[marathag]

May 1862 the submersible 'Alligator' was tested with the crew using oars. Also around was USS Vanderbilt, rebuilt as a 3300 ton, 14 knot Ram for use against the converted Merrimac.
Merrimac OTL never ventured close to Fort Monroe and the large Rodman cannons(up to 15") emplaced there.

 

[cjc]

May 1862 the submersible 'Alligator' was tested with the crew using oars. Also around was USS Vanderbilt, rebuilt as a 3300 ton, 14 knot Ram for use against the converted Merrimac.
Merrimac OTL never ventured close to Fort Monroe and the large Rodman cannons(up to 15") emplaced there.

A yes the completely experimental gun (singular) that dosnt even have a proper guncarage yet, plus is slow as hell to load. And dosnt do much if its starvation not attack thats the issue here.
And a ram ship, maybe? They dint exactly do well when the Confederates tried that but the Union dint really try in OTL, honestly more likely then not it missis do to the fact that the Chesapeake is a lot wider then the missippi and then get destroyed by the Virginia, but it could get lucky i suppose.

 

[marathag]

A yes the completely experimental gun (singular) that dosnt even have a proper guncarage yet, plus is slow as hell to load.

faster than the Navy's Dahlgren
The Rodman 15" took a 12 man crew 1 minute 53 seconds to load
without a guncarriage, it couldn't be fired, at all.
And there were more than just one large cannon.
Ever notice that Merrimac never got within gunrange of Fort Monroe OTL?

 

[bpbruce]

Even after the Monitor beat the Merrimack in our timeline, the USN still built a bunch of ironclads without turrets. Cheaper, and the Monitor was a great harbor monitor, but unfit for open seas. The Navy refused it once for being unseaworthy, and sure enough it sank at sea in our timeline. So if the Monitor sank before winning, the Navy would cancel or decrease harbor monitor orders and spring for non-turret ironclads. Maybe something like the Merrimack with masts. The Union would still beat Secesh, but Naval design worldwide might just never build turrets on seagoing ships. Two or three big guns pointing forward, one or two pointing aft, maybe short outriggers with independent engines to turn rapidly. Maybe more fairly big guns in barbettes longer than in our timeline. By 1900 the outriggers would double as torpedo launchers, and by WWII we might see detachable outrigger/torpedo-boat/minesweepers on carriers, and by 1960 the outriggers would be atom-powered flying- No! Doctor! Igor still deliver maiden to laboratory! Maybe not virgin maiden, b-

 

[cjc]

Even after the Monitor beat the Merrimack in our timeline, the USN still built a bunch of ironclads without turrets. Cheaper, and the Monitor was a great harbor monitor, but unfit for open seas. The Navy refused it once for being unseaworthy, and sure enough it sank at sea in our timeline. So if the Monitor sank before winning, the Navy would cancel or decrease harbor monitor orders and spring for non-turret ironclads. Maybe something like the Merrimack with masts. The Union would still beat Secesh, but Naval design worldwide might just never build turrets on seagoing ships. Two or three big guns pointing forward, one or two pointing aft, maybe short outriggers with independent engines to turn rapidly. Maybe more fairly big guns in barbettes longer than in our timeline. By 1900 the outriggers would double as torpedo launchers, and by WWII we might see detachable outrigger/torpedo-boat/minesweepers on carriers, and by 1960 the outriggers would be atom-powered flying- No! Doctor! Igor still deliver maiden to laboratory! Maybe not virgin maiden, b-

Well but the problem is is that even by October of 62 the us navy still only had 4 iron clads and in this sanerio 3 have sunk and the last is gust aglorifide mail ship, it really took until early 63 for a ton of the more ocean going monitors to come out. And ironically if the Navy scraps the monitor design that could take longer as the monitors where chipe, esey to build and dint take nearly the guns that a broad sied ship did.

faster than the Navy's Dahlgren
The Rodman 15" took a 12 man crew 1 minute 53 seconds to load
without a guncarriage, it couldn't be fired, at all.
And there were more than just one large cannon.
Ever notice that Merrimac never got within gunrange of Fort Monroe OTL?

Interesting thats faster then I thought, still dosnt help whith the issue that the guncarage had to be made in Washington and moved to the fort which couldn't happen if the vergia was in the way, the fort also had a 11' gun but they destroyed its guncarage to make room for the 15' gun (impeccable timing, lol) and the rest is gust 32 pounders whith some 24 and 40 pounders mixed in. Monroe really dint have vary many guns for a ironclad fight, which makes sense, it was built and armed before iron clads where a threat. And the vergia dint get near because it had more important things to do sense its guns couldn't evect fort Monroe any more then its guns could evect the Virginia. but its presents means that the fort is on a 60 day timer before its food runs out.

 

[EWHM]

The Confederacy I think would realize it couldn't use its few ironclads with their unreliable engines for anything like reducing shore batteries or forts. They would likely reserve them for defending major ports and forts and clearing out very close blockades.

 

[edgeworthy]

Even after the Monitor beat the Merrimack in our timeline, the USN still built a bunch of ironclads without turrets. Cheaper, and the Monitor was a great harbor monitor, but unfit for open seas. The Navy refused it once for being unseaworthy, and sure enough it sank at sea in our timeline. So if the Monitor sank before winning, the Navy would cancel or decrease harbor monitor orders and spring for non-turret ironclads. Maybe something like the Merrimack with masts. The Union would still beat Secesh, but Naval design worldwide might just never build turrets on seagoing ships. Two or three big guns pointing forward, one or two pointing aft, maybe short outriggers with independent engines to turn rapidly. Maybe more fairly big guns in barbettes longer than in our timeline. By 1900 the outriggers would double as torpedo launchers, and by WWII we might see detachable outrigger/torpedo-boat/minesweepers on carriers, and by 1960 the outriggers would be atom-powered flying- No! Doctor! Igor still deliver maiden to laboratory! Maybe not virgin maiden, b-

Afterall its not as if the Royal Navy had already built a prototype Turret-Ship, or had authorised the construction of an iron-hulled multi-turret ironclad 3 months before Hampton Roads?🙄

(And a better design. ALL modern turrets are based on the work of Captain Cowper Coles RN. Ericsson's were a technological dead-end.)

 

[bpbruce]

Afterall its not as if the Royal Navy had already built a prototype Turret-Ship, or had authorised the construction of an iron-hulled multi-turret ironclad 3 months before Hampton Roads?🙄

(And a better design. ALL modern turrets are based on the work of Captain Cowper Coles RN. Ericsson's were a technological dead-end.)

Thanks for the Cowper refence. As an ignorant colonial I'd never heard of him. -Coles died in a maritime accident in 1870 when HMS Captain, an experimental warship built to his designs, capsized and sank with him on board.- per wiki. All those early ironclads were top heavy.

 

[marathag]

Thanks for the Cowper refence. As an ignorant colonial I'd never heard of him. -Coles died in a maritime accident in 1870 when HMS Captain, an experimental warship built to his designs, capsized and sank with him on board.- per wiki. All those early ironclads were top heavy.

Thre three types developed during the early 1860s

James Eads was different, as it was more a barbette system, the gun platform was lowered for reloading
The interesting bit, was Eads used a steam cylinder for recoil, rather than friction slides or solid mounting

and the 'modern' balls in race for rotation
'U' and 'K' in the diagram

 

[Belisarius II]

The Union fleet would shelter under the guns of Ft Monroe, and call for more big ships to reinforce the blockading squadron. McClellan would land a Corps at Virginia Beach, about 20 miles East of Norfolk, and march on the port. After Burnside's victory at the Battle of Elizabeth City in February Norfolk was no longer tenable for the Confederates. That the Union army didn't take Norfolk before the Battle of Hampton Roads was really an oversight, with the Virginia dominating the Roads capturing it would become a major priority.

 

[edgeworthy]

Thanks for the Cowper refence. As an ignorant colonial I'd never heard of him. -Coles died in a maritime accident in 1870 when HMS Captain, an experimental warship built to his designs, capsized and sank with him on board.- per wiki. All those early ironclads were top heavy.

It is notable that HMS Monarch, survived the same experience, and to be absolutely fair the locals refer to Cape Finisterre as the Death Coast.
Coles was surely a better inventor, and promoter, than he was shipwright. Monarch was designed by the Chief Constructor, Sir Edward Reed. Who would later design HMS Devastation.

(Just as a For Everyone's Information, the Captain of HMS Captain was the Grandson of the British General at Saratoga.)

 

[bpbruce]

View attachment 597567
View attachment 597568View attachment 597572
View attachment 597571
Thre three types developed during the early 1860s

James Eads was different, as it was more a barbette system, the gun platform was lowered for reloading
The interesting bit, was Eads used a steam cylinder for recoil, rather than friction slides or solid mounting
View attachment 597573View attachment 597575
and the 'modern' balls in race for rotation
'U' and 'K' in the diagram

Wow, thanks, any books on that?

It is notable that HMS Monarch, survived the same experience, and to be absolutely fair the locals refer to Cape Finisterre as the Death Coast.
Coles was surely a better inventor, and promoter, than he was shipwright. Monarch was designed by the Chief Constructor, Sir Edward Reed. Who would later design HMS Devastation.

(Just as a For Everyone's Information, the Captain of HMS Captain was the Grandson of the British General at Saratoga.)

Thanks, this is good stuff. Have you a book on Coles?

 

[marathag]

Wow, thanks, any books on that

_Warship International_ Vol 42 No.3 pg302 where that info came from

 

[Belisarius II]

It is notable that HMS Monarch, survived the same experience, and to be absolutely fair the locals refer to Cape Finisterre as the Death Coast.
Coles was surely a better inventor, and promoter, than he was shipwright. Monarch was designed by the Chief Constructor, Sir Edward Reed. Who would later design HMS Devastation.

(Just as a For Everyone's Information, the Captain of HMS Captain was the Grandson of the British General at Saratoga.)

Surviving a serious storm can really be a hit or miss thing. The monitor USS Patapsco survived the same force 9 Gale that sank the original Monitor.