WI CSA builds Virginia as a broadside ironclad?

IOTL the confederacy built the CSS Virginia to break the Union blockade of southern ports. In this way the ship was deficient as she was horribly unseaworthy. But what if they remade the former USS Merimac into a broadside ship along the lines of HMS Warrior or the USS New Ironies.
What role would this new design play in the Confederate navy? Could she have had a use breaking the blockade? And what would happen to the Monitor if the two ships met in a Hampton rodeos style of combat.
 
IOTL the confederacy built the CSS Virginia to break the Union blockade of southern ports. In this way the ship was deficient as she was horribly unseaworthy. But what if they remade the former USS Merimac into a broadside ship along the lines of HMS Warrior or the USS New Ironies.
What role would this new design play in the Confederate navy? Could she have had a use breaking the blockade? And what would happen to the Monitor if the two ships met in a Hampton rodeos style of combat.

I think Virginia as a broadside ironclad would be a more capable design, but that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing as the Confederacy could be tempted to misuse her. For example, if the alt-Virginia gets used as a commerce raider, or they try to go shell some point on the Union's Atlantic coast that could get the ship sunk or cut-off from returning to port. That said, the alt-Virginia would be more effective in combating the bloackading squadron at Hampton Roads, so perhaps there's a stretch when the Union squadron is driven off before they can bring sufficient forces to bear. I can't say what impact the different design would have on the engagement with Monitor.

There's also the question of the impact the design wold have on Virginia's completetion date. Merrimack was burned to the waterline by the Union, so the construction was basically just building the armoured casemate on top of the remnants. A broadside design would require a more substantial rebuild as they'd have to essentially construct a sailing ship's structure and then put the armor on. That would presumably delay Virginia's completion, but not substantially as I don't believe there was a shortage of lumber, just metal for the armor.

Hampton rodeos style of combat.

I assume this was unintentional, but it made me laugh.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
It wouldn't have been seaworthy even if it had been rebuilt as a broadside ironclad, since its engines would have still been too underpowered to propel it at any reasonable speed, given the weight of the armor.

As I've said elsewhere, one of the principle disadvantages of the Confederacy was its inability to manufacture steam engines.
 
Agree with Anaxagoras. One of the problems with early broadside ironclads was their very limited coal stowage and the need for a full set of sails for much of their cruising. Coal bunkerage was more limited in warships than comparable size merchants due to the need for cannon, powder and shot, and a much larger crew. Of course the extra weight of armor put more strain on engines, and limited speed when sailing. Given the poor engines in the Merrimac/Virginia the amount of time a broadside Virginia could actually steam effectively would be limited. Finally, the CSA would have difficulty refueling the Virginia, given the limited number of ports that were open in the CSA, and issues with coaling in neutral ports.
 
I think the Monitor could probably still take it on, im assuming if its based of the HMS Warrior it may have the same weakness of the stern armor? And definitely if Monitor was given its heavier shot.
Also keep in mind that there was quite a bit of difference between the Warrior and New Ironsides
 
Would still need to figure how to make the ship not have such a deep draft. It had a draft of 17 feet (18 in the aft) and the added weight after the battle with the Monitor only made it worse. Having better engines is one thing that would be desperately needed but the more you try to put on the ship the more it will be stuck doing some coastal and deeper water assignments. Could it have allowed her to break the blockade? Unlikely, She was badly ventilated, very uncomfortable, and very unhealthy. There was an average of fifty or sixty men at the hospital, in addition to the sick list on board. Plus if her engines ever die out (which would be likely to happen) then you have a ship stuck in the middle and eventually something with crack on it.
 
Why do you think a broadside armoured ship is better than a casemate one?

My thinking is that it would have been more familiar to the crew and officers, potentially a less unhealthy environment to work in, and the sails would have added a little bit to it's motive ability, though as pointed out above that probably wouldn't compensate for the increased weight. Still, it would have given it some mode of propulsion other than coal fueled engines. Essentially, I was thinking that building it to an alternate design might get you something like a (slow) ar armoured frigate rather than a glorified deep draft coastal ironclad.
 
A more 'classical' broadside design implies something close to vertical armour rather than the fairly heavily sloped layout employed on the Virginia in OTL. IIRC industrial capacity limited the thickness of iron available to the CSA... the use of vertical armour will imply poorer protection than OTL...
 

Spengler

Banned
Even if we ignore the gaping problem anax has pointed out, how long would it have taken to even try to turn her into a proper ironclad battleship? Plus the Union would probably find out and just end up building like three or four Re d"Italia type ships.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Plus the Union would probably find out and just end up building like three or four Re d"Italia type ships.
Not so easy, actually, as the Union at the very least needs guns for them - the Re d'Italia type ships were not armed with US guns. (They also took until 1864 to complete, so that's not going to solve the problem in anything like a timely fashion.)

The thing is, the depth of the Virginia is actually quite respectable - she's much shallower than most US heavy ships of the time (the Merrimack she was built atop the skeleton of was 24 feet) and able to defeat just about anything that's not ironclad itself. Part of the reason for this was an innovative use of the boiler for hot shot - something that as far as I'm aware no Union ship had - and overall she's quite a powerful ship given the constraints of her construction.

That said, I think that you could have Virginia do better than in OTL. If nothing else have her try to break out at the time that she OTL was scuttled, and she could potentially have made it to Charleston (her freeboard and draft both make her a better sailor for the East Coast than most monitors). But a more interesting PoD would be for her to be armed with iron shot - OTL at Hampton Roads she mostly carried shell, and that was doing some damage to Monitor, but if she's got wrought iron bolts she'd render Monitor hors d'combat really quite quickly. (A single penetration of the hull would sink Monitor, she had very little reserve bouyancy.)

Another possible change would be to not use the ram when it was used OTL - save it for the Monitor.
 
Another possible change would be to not use the ram when it was used OTL - save it for the Monitor.
But her whole point of being in Hampton Roads was to sink the wooden Union warships, her ram being very good for that job, but i see your point just they wouldnt save it for the monitor. they didnt even know what to expect from the monitor
but now that i think about it did the crew know they lost the ram when raming the Cumberland or was that unknown?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
But her whole point of being in Hampton Roads was to sink the wooden Union warships, her ram being very good for that job, but i see your point just they wouldnt save it for the monitor. they didnt even know what to expect from the monitor
but now that i think about it did the crew know they lost the ram when raming the Cumberland or was that unknown?
The hot shot was more effective IIRC.
I know why they did what they did OTL, but in an ATL it should be plausible to have a different use of the same weapons... say, if they knew Monitor was due soon.
 
The crew did indeed know they had lost the ram; the Virginia's ram actually became stuck in the Cumberland and the weight of the sinking ship nearly dragged the Virginia's bow under with it before the ram broke off. In retrospect the ram was merely an afterthought and, given the substandard engines on the Virginia, should have been omitted; it lacked the speed to make effective use of a ram.

Rebuilding it as a casemate ironclad rather than a broadside ironclad was certainly the correct choice; the angled armor used less iron and offered better protection than a similarly sized broadside design (over the course of two days the Virginia was hit numerous times without a single penetration). The number of cannon mounted was better suited to the size of the ship and mounting more would have increased the already deep draft, lowered the freeboard, and increased the strain on the engines, all of which would have unduly restricted the area in which she could operate.

EDIT: Regarding the ammunition, the Virginia carried both shell and solid shot; the latter, heated in a furnace, were used to destroy the Congress. The latter were also used against the Monitor, with very little effect; only the shot which struck the pilot house and wounded Captain Worden had any real effect. The turret was too heavily armored to penetrate, any shot which struck the deck would come in at a very shallow angle and simple bounce off, and the hull, being completely under water, was effectively impenetrable.
 
Last edited:
Top