Greatest Ironclad Warship

[bc1871]

Since many members of ‘Poly often accuse me of being stuck in the 19th Century, I felt that this thread was appropriate:



HMS Warrior:

Ordered: 11th May 1859
Launched:
Blackwall, London 29th Dec. 1860
Commissioned:
London 1st Aug. 1861
End of First Line service: 15. Sept. 1871
Reserve fleet: 1st Apr. 1875
End of active service: 31st May 1883
Restoration begins: 3rd Sept. 1979
Returns to Portsmouth 16th June 1987

Design specifications
Length overall: 420 feet (128m)
Deck length: 380 feet (116m)
Beam (Width): 58 feet (18m)
Displacement: 9,210 Tons
Draught: 26 feet (8m)
Maximum speed: 13 knots (Sail)
14.3 knots (Steam)
17.5 knots (Sail and Steam)
Armament: 26 muzzle loading 68 pdrs (31kg)
10 breech loading 110 pdrs (50kg)
4 40 pdrs (18kg)
Cost: £377,000

Ships Complement: HMS Warrior
Officers: 42
Warrant officers: 3
Seamen and Boys: 455
Royal Marine officers: 3
Royal Marine NCOs: 6
Royal Marines: 118
Chief Engineers: 2
Engineers: 10
Stokers and trimmers: 66
Total ships complement: 705 men and boys

[Al B. Sure!]

Why does it have sails?

Real ironclads:

[MOBIUS]

I've been on it, HMS Warrior is based at Portsmouth Harbour in the UK. You can also visit HMS Victory and the Mary Rose there, it's well worth the trip!

[BlackCat]

Not ironclad, but maybe of interest :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jylland_%28ship%29

[Kitschum]

Well obviously the Monitor since I am a singleminded nationalist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Monitor

http://monitor.noaa.gov/

[Asher]

[David Floyd]

AS, if you think the Monitor was a superior ironclad warship to HMS Warrior, you are a ****ing idiot. HMS Warrior and her sisters - notably HMS Black Prince - would have swept the seas clean of Union shipping had the US and England gone to war. Holy ****balls, idiot, the Monitor couldn't even sink CSS Virginia.

[David Floyd]

Oh, yes, Kitschum, if you were serious, you're also an uneducated idiot.

[NoodleNaught]

That dick go straight from your ass to your brain?

[David Floyd]

No, it's just that no serious student of naval history can possible compare USS Monitor or CSS Virginia to HMS Warrior, and expect the North American design to come out on top in a straight up fight in blue water. It's idiotic.

[NoodleNaught]

They obviously wouldn't fight in blue water, **** they can bearly go into deep waters let alone fight in them.

[Al B. Sure!]

Well obviously the Monitor since I am a singleminded nationalist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Monitor

http://monitor.noaa.gov/

Thanks for the cool ship, Sweden

[Snotty]

Your great ironclad doesnt seem that great

During her famous battle her weapon was ineffectual

The ironclads fought at close range for about four hours, neither one sinking or seriously damaging the other

She retreated after taking damage

Virginia was able to hit Monitor's pilothouse. Lt. Worden, blinded by shell fragments and gunpowder residue from the explosion, ordered Monitor to sheer off into shallow water

Her guns could not bombard a defensive fortification

the ironclad and four other gunboats steamed up the James River and engaged Confederate batteries at Drewry's Bluff. Monitor's guns, however, could not elevate sufficiently to engage the batteries at close range

She capsized the same year she was built, during a storm

This feature probably led to the early loss of the original Monitor, which foundered during a heavy storm

While the moniter may have been an impressive feat of engineering, as a combat vessel her effectiveness seems somewhat lacking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Monitor

[BlackCat]

http://www.milhist.dk/vaaben/vands/rolf_krake/rolf_krake_uk.htm

[ColdWizard]

HMS Monarch