Greatest Ironclad Warship

[Kitschum]

Your great ironclad doesnt seem that great

Primarily I salute the vision and bravery of the Monitor which was ahead of its time and came to name an entire ship type

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_%28warship%29

The guy who mentioned a "straight up fight" in "blue water" (why not brown?) is an idiot for comparing apples to oranges. First of all the Warrior is twice as long, weighs five times as much, and sits 15ft deeper in the water than the Monitor. The only innovation consisted of bigger of everything and then encase the whole shebang in armor. Perhaps it had potential to be a great combat ship but we will never know seeing as it never saw battle once!

The Monitor was a completely new design and had limitations which were not fully figured out yet during the Ame civil war. It had a rotating turret and due to its light weight and low profile its strengths were riverine and coastal warfare. And tell me it's not the most modern look of the ships in this thread. It looks like a freakin submarine!

During her famous battle her weapon was ineffectual

That was a problem with all early ironclads because the armor was too effective for the guns at the time. See Lissa.

She retreated after taking damage

She retreated after her captain "damaged" his eyes. Maybe it was a fault of the ship or just a freak accident. The Monitor itself was just a prototype for the Passaic, which, wait for it, ironed out many of the early flaws.

[BlackCat]

[QUOTE=ColdWizard;5871135]HMS Monarch

HMS Monarch was the first sea-going warship to carry her guns in turrets

Lies !!! It was Rolf Krake

[ColdWizard]

A fine Scottish ship but not the best.

[BeBMan]

Can't we have some new topic, like Airbus vs. Boeing or something? Why does it always have to be "what's the best ironclad?"

[BlackCat]

A fine Scottish ship but not the best.

Didn't say it was that - just the first with turrets and if we hadn't ordered it, it wouldn't have been build.

[BlackCat]

Can't we have some new topic, like Airbus vs. Boeing or something? Why does it always have to be "what's the best ironclad?"

Guess it's a bit embarrasing that you had to hide behind british skirts at Helgoland

[Proteus_MST]

http://www.milhist.dk/vaaben/vands/r...f_krake_uk.htm

The Rolf Krake truely showed the capabilities of ironclads in war.
One can assume that a wooden warship wouldn´t have survived even a fraction of the number of prussian shells shot at her

[BlackCat]

The Rolf Krake truely showed the capabilities of ironclads in war.
One can assume that a wooden warship wouldn´t have survived even a fraction of the number of prussian shells shot at her

Sure, it did well, and then it didn't. It was so new that it didn't have rifled guns, so distance and precision wasn't good.

About wether wooden ships could have managed, well they would probably be heavily bruised, but they could have been effective. As the link says, the ground arty of the preussians was small caliber wich even woody ships can handle for a while.

[David Floyd]

Seriously, no one has actually called out the US ironclad defenders??? Seriously??? Yes, these ships were pretty decent for inland river defense and perhaps even coastal defense. Sadly, they got their **** ruined during minor things like poor weather conditions. If you really want to talk about this subject, and you have a problem comparing a blue water fight between HMS Warrior and USS Monitor/CSS Virginia, then you don't know what you are talking about.

Had war actually come between the US and UK in the 1860s, the number of US ironclad warships would have been irrelevant, because the UK could have blockaded the US Eastern coastline, landed troops anywhere, won any naval battle imaginable, and generally ruined our ****. Sorry, but that's the way it was.

[Al B. Sure!]

Had war actually come between the US and UK in the 1860s, the number of US ironclad warships would have been irrelevant, because the UK could have blockaded the US Eastern coastline, landed troops anywhere, won any naval battle imaginable, and generally ruined our ****. Sorry, but that's the way it was.

You mean if they sided with the Confederacy or if they fought a united America? I call bull**** on the latter.

[bc1871]

The Royal Navy's First Turret Ship

HMS Royal Sovereign:

Type 1st rate
Launched 25 April 1857
Hull Wooden
Propulsion Screw
Builders measure 3765 tons
Displacement 6071 tons
Guns 131
Fate 1885
Class
Ships book ADM 135/409
Type Three-decker
Converted to screw on the stocks
Length 241 feet
Men 1100

Last in commission -
Class (as screw) Duke of Wellington

[MOBIUS]

The guy who mentioned a "straight up fight" in "blue water" (why not brown?) is an idiot for comparing apples to oranges. First of all the Warrior is twice as long, weighs five times as much, and sits 15ft deeper in the water than the Monitor.

Nope, definitely comparing apples with apples as both ships were in existence at exactly the time. If the Monitor ever left her river, she would be toast. End of story.

[Proteus_MST]

What a pitty that no part of the Civ series includes an ocean going ironclad
(or maybe at least a pre dreadnaught battleship)

[Al B. Sure!]

What a pitty that no part of the Civ series includes an ocean going ironclad
(or maybe at least a pre dreadnaught battleship)

Oh wait... they couldn't go on ocean tiles.

[BeBMan]

Guess it's a bit embarrasing that you had to hide behind british skirts at Helgoland

Do you mean the 1864 thing? I blame Austria.