Warrior vs monitor
- Thread starter rob2001
- Start date
The biggest question is - where?
The HMS Warrior is a proper blue-water warship, whereas the USS Monitor was designed for riverine work only - her low deck clearance and shallow draft made her very bad in any kind of weather, and in fact many Monitor-class vessels were lost due to "high" seas.
Now, if the meeting is in a river, I'd tend towards the Monitor, which would presumably steam around to stay in the Warrior's "blind spot" at the bow or stern, while the Warrior would struggle to maneuver in the tight confines of even the Mississippi.
If they meet on the open water and the seas are somehow calm enough that the Monitor can function...I dunno. The Warrior is much faster, and in open water may be able to get enough distance to turn and give some broadsides...but the Monitor is still very low and small, with thick armor. Maximum range for all guns involved is 3000+ yards. I'd probably give it to the Warrior, though, if only because it's probably better able to absorb and inflict damage - 20 guns a broadside is going to add up compared to 2 in a turret.
Ultimately, I'm not sure how "appropriate" the question is, as the two ships serve such vastly different purposes. It's kind of like asking how a grenadier shapes up compared to a cuirassier.
The HMS Warrior is a proper blue-water warship, whereas the USS Monitor was designed for riverine work only - her low deck clearance and shallow draft made her very bad in any kind of weather, and in fact many Monitor-class vessels were lost due to "high" seas.
Now, if the meeting is in a river, I'd tend towards the Monitor, which would presumably steam around to stay in the Warrior's "blind spot" at the bow or stern, while the Warrior would struggle to maneuver in the tight confines of even the Mississippi.
If they meet on the open water and the seas are somehow calm enough that the Monitor can function...I dunno. The Warrior is much faster, and in open water may be able to get enough distance to turn and give some broadsides...but the Monitor is still very low and small, with thick armor. Maximum range for all guns involved is 3000+ yards. I'd probably give it to the Warrior, though, if only because it's probably better able to absorb and inflict damage - 20 guns a broadside is going to add up compared to 2 in a turret.
Ultimately, I'm not sure how "appropriate" the question is, as the two ships serve such vastly different purposes. It's kind of like asking how a grenadier shapes up compared to a cuirassier.
Saphroneth
Banned
I've seen an analysis of this which comes down to "in the time it takes the Monitor to close through the Warrior's range, she takes dozens of hits which will not necessarily penetrate but which will do considerable battering damage".
That was followed up by pointing out that the Royal Marines would probably try to board.
I think it comes down to -
In a river, if the Warrior's pointing in the right direction, she can keep Monitor under fire for a long time before Monitor can circle her faster than she can turn.
In the open sea, the Warrior's superior speed lets her pick the engagement range.
http://www.wargames.co.uk/RandomS/Library/Warrior.htm
A comparison of interest.
That was followed up by pointing out that the Royal Marines would probably try to board.
I think it comes down to -
In a river, if the Warrior's pointing in the right direction, she can keep Monitor under fire for a long time before Monitor can circle her faster than she can turn.
In the open sea, the Warrior's superior speed lets her pick the engagement range.
http://www.wargames.co.uk/RandomS/Library/Warrior.htm
A comparison of interest.
Why would Warrior be getting distance rather than closing it? The Monitor is low, small... and barely seaworthy. When a 9,100-ton 14-knot ship collides with a 987-ton 6-knot one, the smaller one doesn't tend to come off well.
Saphroneth
Banned
Because that was the planned tactic of Warrior against Gloire, and because the Monitor's preferred tactic was to close.
If both vessels are trying to close, it becomes the Warrior (fast but not maneuverable) trying to ram the Monitor (slow but maneuverable) though I suppose the Warrior could give the Monitor a nice close-range broadside at penetration range if Monitor dodged.
RodentRevolution
Banned
A point to consider is that a collision is not a good thing, it was not actually healthy for warships with ram bows and less so for those without. Given the Warrior could most likely do all she needed to with her guns why would she choose to compromise her mission by smashing in her bow unnecessarily?
Even in Harry Harrison's scenario, which would not have worked as early morning is the worst time to surprise the Royal Navy as they greet the dawn stood to and cleared for action, all the Warriors needs to do is disable the rest of the Monitor's supporting squadron and the cheese box on a raft is in trouble.
As has frequently pointed out, the Monitor has all the independent sea going capacity of...well a fully laden cheese box balanced on a raft.
fred1451
Banned
The problem I see is that to penetrate the armor of the Warrior the Monitor would have to get within 90 feet, something I can't see the Warrior allowing.
Also, I can't see the Warrior trying to ram the Monitor at all, she was the first ship to use a Citadel Armor Scheme, her bow and stern were unarmored.
Also, I can't see the Warrior trying to ram the Monitor at all, she was the first ship to use a Citadel Armor Scheme, her bow and stern were unarmored.
I had another thought, maybe I should have phrased the title differently, by saying instead warrior vs a monitor type ironclad. So WIthe Warrior had come up against one of the later types of Monitors, like one of the ocean going monitors. Either one of the dubbed turret monitors, or the U.S.S. Dictator.
I hate to correct you, but the fight between the Warrior and the Monitor in Harry Harrison's Book took place in the late afternoon not earlyet morning. The attack by the army against the British army was at dawn. The senior captain of the British wasted half the day before evacuating the Royal marines from the shore.
TFSmith121
Banned
Depends vastly on how the squadrons meet, and where,
Depends vastly on where the squadrons meet, and when, and where.
Single ship to single ship actions pretty much went out in the Napoleonic era, after all, other than commerce raiders and trade protection cruisers, and I doubt any 1860s-era ironclad would find itself in either role, for obvious reasons. They tended to be slow, have limited endurance, and couldn't pretend to be merchantmen or neutrals very easily...
It is worth considering what actually happened in the 1860s and 1870s in squadron actions - Lissa (Vis) only occurred because the Italians were attempting an amphibious operation, the Austrians took advantage of that and won the battle - of course, the Austrians won the naval campaign but lost the war, so take that as you will...
The squadron actions in South American waters including ironclads in the 1860s and 1870s also tended to have mixed results; for one thing, taking ocean-going ironclads into littoral waters was extremely hazardous, as Independencia learned.
And marine casualties, even in peacetime, were hardly infrequent, as more than a few steamer captains learned; in the 1860s and 1870s, charts of littoral waters are hardly perfected, and the locals have a habit of putting out the lights and pulling up the bouys in wartime.
And even the RN had trouble, as the captains of Conqueror, Orpheus, and Lord Clyde/Lord Warden learned...even manuevering ironclads steamers in squadrons in peacetime was dangerous, as Camperdown and Victoria learned.
Comes down to the lot more than ship to ship comparisons. Otherwise, its like asking if a Fletcher and take on a Yamato. Or a Maile or MAS boat a dreadnought or superdreadnought...
Best,
Depends vastly on where the squadrons meet, and when, and where.
Single ship to single ship actions pretty much went out in the Napoleonic era, after all, other than commerce raiders and trade protection cruisers, and I doubt any 1860s-era ironclad would find itself in either role, for obvious reasons. They tended to be slow, have limited endurance, and couldn't pretend to be merchantmen or neutrals very easily...
It is worth considering what actually happened in the 1860s and 1870s in squadron actions - Lissa (Vis) only occurred because the Italians were attempting an amphibious operation, the Austrians took advantage of that and won the battle - of course, the Austrians won the naval campaign but lost the war, so take that as you will...
The squadron actions in South American waters including ironclads in the 1860s and 1870s also tended to have mixed results; for one thing, taking ocean-going ironclads into littoral waters was extremely hazardous, as Independencia learned.
And marine casualties, even in peacetime, were hardly infrequent, as more than a few steamer captains learned; in the 1860s and 1870s, charts of littoral waters are hardly perfected, and the locals have a habit of putting out the lights and pulling up the bouys in wartime.
And even the RN had trouble, as the captains of Conqueror, Orpheus, and Lord Clyde/Lord Warden learned...even manuevering ironclads steamers in squadrons in peacetime was dangerous, as Camperdown and Victoria learned.
Comes down to the lot more than ship to ship comparisons. Otherwise, its like asking if a Fletcher and take on a Yamato. Or a Maile or MAS boat a dreadnought or superdreadnought...
Best,
Last edited:
RodentRevolution
Banned
So I misremember a bad book, I do apologise. Still the result is the British see the Americans coming and deal...the Monitor has a bad day.
The Monitor is not entirely a bad design, she is good in the kind of waters she is designed for but the HMS Warrior was not designed to go poking her nose into those waters and that was not her doctrinal niche anyway. In the kind of coastal waters where the two might meet the Warrior has distinct advantages.
Of course it is worth remember that the two were hugely experimental designs and as technologies matured both would be left looking somewhat poorly by their descendants.
Your right. But I wasn't defending the book. I do believe the author was a little anti British, when he wrote this book. I think the Monitor would have had a rougher time than the book said, but also remember the British squadron also had to protect the transports from the American fleet. Even though the trilogy may be more fantasy and ASB, I myself liked it.
Saphroneth
Banned
A little anti British?
That's an underestimation. I don't think even Ovaron would have had the British accidentally attack and declare war on France just because they got lost.
(I believe in the third book they liberate England...)
Harry Harrison is a silly author. (Ni!)
Harry Harrison is never boring... but yes, as someone who is not entirely unsympathetic to the US side in the Civil War, and slightly less than fully convinced by the South's romantic myth-making, I think Harrison puts his thumb a little much on the US side in that one.
Saphroneth
Banned
I actually have the suspicion it's his Irish sensibilities involved - he's not even pro Union instead of pro CSA, he's pro Union, pro Confederacy, pro Irish and basically pro everyone-who's-not-britain. Don't forget the USA and CSA rather promptly ditched their differences and allied against Britain!
Saphroneth
Banned
It is, I believe, the original source document that lead to coining the term "alternate history wank".
If it's not too deraily, I'll just call upon a certain pair of reviews of the first two books (they're funny) - and, then, to redress the balance, a thread including the same reviewer's view of the Monitor-Warrior-Gloire-New Ironsides comparison.
http://www.reocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/sasf.htm
http://www.reocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/ssp.htm
(You can hear the sighs...)
http://warships1discussionboards.yu...des-versus-Warrior-Gloire?page=1#.VYwRK8m73Ds
(Abandon hope all ye who enter there, it's huge)
Last edited:
I shouldn't have said "ramming" but "running down", literally ploughing over the Monitor and either sending it to the bottom or swamping her and watching her sink slowly. Though ramming tended to be as dangerous to the instigator as the victim, that was generally between ships of more or less equal size and stressed the instigator's hull by bringing the ship to a complete stop, then requiring it to withdraw the ram. I can't see running down the Monitor causing as much damage as grounding on a sandbank, for instance. It's a shame Shipbucket doesn't have a picture of the Monitor to illustrate the point.
Heading towards the Monitor exposes the bow, which contains only the cable bitts; heading away exposes the stern, which contains the steering gear. As such, from the point of view of pure damage, ramming would probably be a safer tactic than trying to maintain distance.
From another thread:
USS Narragansett, with 50 men, grapples and boards HMS Warrior, with 705. The eight-knot Monitor catches the eighteen-knot Warrior napping by Deer Island, blows its rudder away, dismounts most of its guns and fells all but one of its masts- at which point the captain of the Narraganasset makes his daring assault. This remarkable feat of arms is presumably assisted by the Monitor's guns firing once every two minutes rather than once every fourteen as they did historically. This is a solo effort, by the way, as the rest of the American fleet is busy destroying the rest of the British. Just to put it into context: the Redoutable, an unarmoured French 74-gun ship-of-the-line, fought the Victory (104 guns) for about an hour and the Victory and Temeraire (98 guns) combined for half an hour. She emerged from that maelstrom with enough men unwounded to crew the Narraganasset twice over, starting with about 60 fewer men than Warrior.
Though if we're picking the Dictator (launched 26 December 1863), surely we should pick a properly contemporary Royal Navy ship? For instance, HMS Minotaur (launched 12 December 1863)- 10,800 tons, 14 knots, armed with 4 9in (250lb) RML and 24 7in (115lb) RML and armoured with 5.5in of iron backed by 10in of teak. Or, if we insist on turrets, HMS Royal Sovereign (converted August 1864)- 5,200 tons, 11 knots, with 4 turrets mounting 5 9in RML and a 5in belt backed by 36in of oak. The 9in RML, incidentally, was more powerful than the 15in Dahlgren even when the latter had 60lbs powder and a cast steel shot.
Trolling aside, the result probably ends up much the same as Warrior vs Monitor. Warrior has the speed to choose where and how to engage, and the 15in Dahlgren won't penetrate her at over 500 yards. Incidentally, did you read the Warrior/Gloire duel in David van Lennep's Ironclad?
Definitely anti-British. He turns Queen Victoria into a grief-stricken harpy, Palmerston into a gouty old idiot, the Duke of Cambridge into a pampered moron...
I think we've all seen threads that make us feel like that, though fortunately this doesn't seem to be one of them.
Last edited: